Corax and Tisias
Let's start with Corax and Tisias, orators of the 5th century.
BC e. and the founding fathers of rhetoric. In the textbooks that they compiled, the so-called common places, or topoi (from the Greek τόπος - place), which we will talk about below, were collected, and also the structure according to which any speech should be built was outlined: it should have an introduction , or the so-called proemium (Greek προοίμιον), middle and conclusion, or epilogue (ἐπίλογος). The middle, in turn, was divided into two sections - narrative, or diegesis (διήγησις), and argument (ἀγών). The narration sets out events and facts; in a dispute, the opponent’s arguments are refuted and the speaker is proven right. The latter was especially important in the practice of people's courts, which resumed their work after a long break associated with tyranny. Since Greek legal proceedings did not know the institution of the legal profession and the presumption of innocence, invented later by the Romans, then, speaking in a dicastery (Greek δικαστήριον) before judges, a person, firstly, had to defend himself from the plaintiff, and secondly, Having been accused, he was already, as it were, a priori considered in some way guilty. A defensive speech (or apology), if successful, either freed him from this guilt, or, if unsuccessful, only confirmed this guilt after the fact. The purpose of judicial eloquence, therefore, was one simple thing: to convince judges of innocence if you are the defendant, or, conversely, of guilt if you are the plaintiff. A speech in defense was called an apology, an accusatory speech was called a category (Greek κατηγορία - accusation). Another important invention of this Sicilian couple was the concept of rhetorical probability, or verisimilitude (εἰκὸς). This is how eikos is defined a hundred years later, that is, approximately in the middle of the 4th century. BC e., Aristotle in his “Rhetoric ”
(1402 b20):
“Plausibility (εἰκὸς) is something that does not always happen, but for the most part.”
And here is what Plato writes about verisimilitude a couple of decades before Aristotle, who despises the art of rhetoric, and therefore Corax and Tisias, in the dialogue “Phaedrus»
(273s):
“This is the case that Tisias, apparently, cleverly came up with and skillfully described: if a weak but brave man beats a strong but cowardly man, takes away his cloak or something else, then when they are called to court, not one of them You cannot tell the truth: a coward should not admit that he was beaten by one person who happened to be with a brave man. In addition, it is necessary to prove that they met one on one, and press on the following argument: “How could I, like this, attack such a person?” The strong one will not admit his cowardice, but will try to lie something and thereby, perhaps , will give his opponent a reason to incriminate him. And in other cases there are skillful speeches of the same kind.”
Here, as always with Plato, there is not a cartload of irony, but a whole convoy, but the essence of rhetorical verisimilitude is presented absolutely accurately, especially considering that this is the oldest surviving written evidence of Tisias’ activities.
Plausibility is a problematic concept in that, being associated exclusively with rhetoric, it is opposed to truth and the search for truth as integral attributes of philosophy. That is why Plato is ironic, ridiculing Tisias and his disciple Gorgias, about whom he speaks ( Phaedrus,
267 b):
“Let Tisias and Gorgias sleep peacefully: it seemed to them that instead of truth they should respect plausibility more; by the power of their words they make small things seem big, and big things small, they make new things seem ancient, and ancient things new; for any reason they have either condensed or infinitely lengthy speeches ready.”
Topic 2. Rhetoric of Ancient Greece
Sophists
Rhetoric appeared in Ancient Greece in the 5th century. before the new era. Even then, the first textbook on rhetoric, which has not reached us, was compiled. The first theorists of rhetoric were the sophists. In their understanding, oratory was the science of convincing anyone and anything.
It was the sophists who contributed to the development of rhetoric in the V-IV centuries. BC. From ancient Greek the word “sophist” is translated as teacher of wisdom, master. The sophists proceeded from the fact that there is no truth as such, but truth is that subjective thing that is most convincing. This means that what a person is convinced of and convinces others of is the truth. Sophistry considered objective reality to be fundamentally unknowable; a subjective judgment about it could be real, and the more convincing the judgment, the more realistic it is. Therefore, the main task of the sophist rhetoricians was to make an idea strong or weak through expression. The sophists taught their students two arts: the art of reflection (dialectics) and the art of communication (rhetoric).
In Ancient Greece, three philosophical schools of sophists were founded: dialecticians, Eleatics and Pythagoreans.
Dialectics relied on the teaching of Heraclitus of Ephesus about the changeability of the world: everything flows, everything changes. And you can judge the world in different ways. Logic was born in this direction of philosophy.
The Eleatics preferred to demonstrate mental gymnastics and harmonious chains of evidence in speech. They denied the existence of objective truth, and therefore defended everyone’s right to their own opinion.
The Pythagoreans sought the harmony of the universe in man and found it in the art of speech and the beauty of words.
The sophists did a lot for the development of ethics, rhetoric, and the sciences of language. But more than that, they changed the social ideal. To the standard of aristocracy and elitism by birth, they added education and skill.
Moreover, the Sophists did not draw a line between “charm” and persuasion. Thus, the sophists relied on beauty and “charm” to identify special linguistic means (figures) in speech; less attention was paid to logic and persuasiveness. Therefore, the list of rhetorical figures proposed by the sophists, in particular Gorgias, occupies a peripheral position in the theory of rhetoric.
Gorgias
(483 – 375 centuries BC)
One of the outstanding Sicilian orators. The mission of ambassador from the city of Leontini brought him fame. He charmingly beautifully asked for help from the Athenians. Impressed by the speech, the popular assembly immediately decided to immediately send military assistance to the Leontines against Syracuse. Gorgias used two techniques in such diplomatic speeches: charming the soul and deceiving the mind.
Soon, a famous rhetorician founded his own school in Athens. He achieved particular fame as a writer of laudatory holiday speeches. Such works of his as “Praise of Helen” and “Justification of Palamedes” have survived to our times. These speeches were distinguished by masterful games of the mind and all kinds of linguistic techniques.
Experiments with the harmony of the sound of speech are especially valuable for the school of oratory, because, Gorgias believed, you will both charm and convince. In general, the invention of rhetorical figures in ancient Greece is attributed to Gorgias. The figures proposed and described by this speaker serve as decoration for the speech. For example, the Gorgias figure is called isokolon (equality of parts of a statement), which gives rhythm to prosaic speech.
Socrates
Socrates
(469-399 BC)
Socrates firmly adhered to his life principles, which in a certain way influenced his philosophy and rhetoric. Socrates called true eloquence that which cares about the soul of citizens, that which cultivates high moral qualities and is aimed at good and good.
Socrates considered integrity to be the basis of the life of citizens. He included five moral qualities in the concept of integrity: restraint, courage, prudence, justice and piety.
The thinker paid the greatest attention to the development of political polemics and eristics (translated from ancient Greek as “to argue”, “to compete”). Socrates believed that truth is born in disputes; through the collision of opposing opinions, a movement of thought occurs and a new vision of the problem arises. In ancient Greek philosophy, the word “dialectics” meant “the art of thinking in the form of conversation, dialogue.” But if for the sophists dialectics was a tool for admiring the beauty of proof, then for Socrates dialectics was a way of searching for truth and morality.
The most used technique in eristics for Socrates was irony. With a series of ironic but good-natured-sounding questions, he disarmed his opponent and he began to contradict himself. However, the speaker did not allow himself a drop of evil or mockery.
Socrates called logicality an important criterion for correctly constructed speech. He compared speech to a person: it also had to have a torso, arms, head, legs - and all this should be harmoniously combined with each other.
Socrates was the first to appreciate the capabilities of speech as an indicator of a person’s intellectual and psychological portrait. He owns the aphorism: “Speak so that I can see you.”
2. 4. Plato
(427-347 BC)
Plato did not share the philosophical credo of the sophists; for him, the subject of speech required deep understanding. The main thing in the art of rhetoric is the search for truth, which, as you know, is born in a dispute, in a special rhetorical manner - dialectics. However, the search for truth has somewhat pushed into the background one of the central tasks of rhetoric - persuasion.
Plato was one of the first to pay attention to the psychology of the listener. Knowledge of the soul, associated with a logically harmonious structure of speech and a dialectical approach to the subject of speech, makes the oratorical performance perfect.
The great thinker and philosopher experienced the decline of Athenian democracy and foresaw the triumph of totalitarian powers. Therefore, in his later works “State”, “Laws”, “Politics” he spoke categorically on the issue of rhetoric and free thought - in an ideal state, public speeches should be prohibited. They sow confusion in the minds and hearts of loyal citizens.
Having had a hard time surviving the execution of his teacher Socrates, Plato makes attempts in Sicily to implement his ideas about an ideal state. As a result, he ends up sold into slavery and is ransomed by his students. After returning to Athens, Plato founded his own school and named it the Academy after the owner of the garden where the classes were held.
The scientific elite of Ancient Greece successfully and fruitfully trained there. The Academy gave the world another great philosopher - Aristotle.
2. 5. Aristotle
(384-322 BC)
The outstanding ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle balanced beauty and truth and developed theoretical and ethical foundations for rhetoric. He generalized everything created into a single, ordered whole, and on the basis of this he formulated the laws that form the theoretical basis of rhetoric as a science. Aristotle built the principles of speech activity in rhetoric and formulated the requirements for oratorical and poetic activity. According to this philosopher, the main method is dialectics, and the main criterion is truth.
Aristotle described the theory of rhetoric in two works - “Rhetoric” and “On the Art of Rhetoric.” He considered the aesthetic power of speech not the ornate weaving of words, but the cognitive and intellectual richness of speech. As a follower of logic, Aristotle considered the main thing in speech to be logically structured material and correctly drawn conclusions.
Aristotle suggested that speakers focus their attention on the following:
1. The subject of rhetoric.
2. Speaker's posture.
3. Anticipation of emotion.
4. Speech style.
In oratory, Aristotle advocated moderation and warned against excessive embellishment.
Aristotle considered clarity to be the main quality of a successful speech, which is still relevant today. Persuasion is separated from manipulation and suggestion precisely by the criteria of clarity and truth. The work “Rhetoric,” written by Aristotle a thousand years ago, has not lost its significance in the modern world.
Protagoras
Let's move on to Protagoras, who has remained throughout the centuries thanks to his maxim “Man is the measure of all things, existing, that they exist, non-existent, that they do not exist,” about which more than one generation of philosophers broke their teeth. Without going into detail about what this statement may mean - for this is more a matter of philosophy than rhetoric - let us accept the most obvious conclusion that follows from it.
Since man is the measure of everything, then there is nothing outside man, and therefore there is no Truth independent of man, which means there is no absolute knowledge, but only relative knowledge. The latter is not knowledge, but opinion, or, as the Greeks said, doxa (δόξα).
Truth is thus replaced by probability, and knowledge by opinion. Thus, in this statement, rhetorical practice - not only ancient, but also modern - found its theoretical and philosophical justification. However, Protagoras is famous not only for this. Aristotle ( Rhetoric,
1407b 7) reports that Protagoras "divided the genders of names into masculine, feminine and neuter" and therefore laid the foundations for the future of grammar as a science.
In the already mentioned Platonic dialogue “Phaedrus ”
(267c), Socrates says that Protagoras invented the “doctrine of correct speech,” or orthoepy (ὀρϑοέπεια), which is now understood as a branch of linguistics that studies the norms of literary pronunciation, in contrast to orthography - correct writing, and in the time of Protagoras, most likely, a certain use of speech was understood as befitting an educated person. Thus, Aristotle in “Poetics” (XIX, 1093) reports that Protagoras criticized Homer for the fact that at the beginning of the Iliad he addresses the goddess using the imperative mood, namely: “Wrath, goddess, sing, Achilles, son of Peleus " That is, according to Protagoras, it is worthless to command a deity. Unfortunately, Aristotle does not say whether Protagoras proposed any correction to the famous line. One way or another, it would be extremely funny to assume that Protagoras “ennobled” this line something like this: “Would you please, goddess, to sing the wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus?” Diogenes Laertius says that Protagoras “identified four types of speech - wish, question, answer and order, ... calling them the fundamentals of speech,” and also “was the first to use arguments in disputes.” From these arguments a syllogism will subsequently be born, that is, a reasoning that has two premises, a middle term and a conclusion (for example: All liquids are wet, water is liquid, therefore water is wet), and from the syllogism an enthymeme, or rhetorical syllogism, will be born , which we will talk about below in connection with Aristotle. So, as the latter liked to repeat, perhaps enough has been said about this.
Gorgias
Let us turn to Gorgias, whose name already in Antiquity was consecrated with an aura of rhetorical and sophistic holiness. Thus, Flavius Philostratus reports ( Lives of the Sophists
1:9,1), that the art of rhetoricians and sophists goes back to Gorgias “as to a father.” Nevertheless, Gorgias went down in history primarily thanks to the philosophical insight from the Treatise on Non-Being, which says:
"There is nothing. If something exists, it is unknowable. If it exists and is knowable, then it cannot be communicated to others, for we communicate not things, but words, which are different from things.”
For about two and a half thousand years, philosophers struggled with this statement and broke their teeth on it no less than on Protagoras. Some said that Gorgias was simply joking, others that he was mad, and still others that this was simply an exercise in the art of argument, or eristics, in which the Sophists were at the forefront of the ecumene. One way or another, they took all this seriously only in the 20th century, as if “rediscovering” Gorgias anew.
It turned out that Gorgias with this statement laid the theoretical foundation for his - completely performative - rhetoric: he postulated the primacy of the word (logos) over all other types of being.
But since further discussion of this will inevitably lead us into the dark depths of philosophy, it is better to focus on what Gorgias did specifically for rhetoric. In his speech “Praise to Helen” (8) he says that “The Word is a great ruler, who, having a very small and completely invisible body, performs the most wonderful things. For it can drive out fear, destroy sadness, instill joy, and awaken compassion.” But not every speech can be so omnipotent, but only that which is constructed according to strict rules using special rhetorical techniques, which Gorgias himself systematized and put into wide circulation. Here are the most significant of them: 1) tropes, that is, words used in a figurative meaning, to which Gorgias included a) metaphor and b) comparison; 2) antitheses - opposition of objects and concepts; 3) alliteration - repetition of consonant consonants (“V P
and
t e
r
p
i
t
));
4) assonances - repetition of consonant vowels (“...d and
ko, for example
and
mer, we are chickens
and
m d
and
ko, for example
and
mer...”); 5) isokolon - equality of the speech period (period is a long complex sentence with a detailed thought and complete intonation; 6) homeotelevt - rhyming of the endings of the last words in a sentence; 7) anadiplosis - repetition of the last phrase or word of the previous sentence at the beginning of the next one.
All these techniques over time began to be called Gorgian figures,” and their use created not just rhetorical prose, but prose that already bordered on poetry, thereby exerting a powerful impact on the listener. From Gorgias, in addition to the ill-fated “Treatise on Non-existence” (which was preserved only in retellings by later philosophers), three completely preserved speeches have reached us: “Praise of Helen”, which belongs to the genre of epideictic, or praiseworthy, speeches, “Defense of Palamedes” - an apology and a “Funeral homily in honor of the Athenians”—an epitaph.
A significant contribution of Gorgias is also the development of the concept of kairos (καιρός) - this is an appropriate time, opportunity or circumstance for improvised activation of speech during a speech.
In the structure of kairos, it is customary to distinguish three moments: 1) what precedes speech (the speaker’s awareness of a convenient moment for improvisation); 2) what contributes to the achievement of the oratorical goal (the positive reaction of the public when it is possible to convince it); 3) the sum of the first and second, that is, marking time using speech. In this respect, kairos goes far beyond any linguistic instrumentalism and appears as an event
, or pure speech
performance
, when speech is capable of changing the state of existence. It is kairos that allows the speaker to turn non-existence into being, the improbable into the plausible, the possible into the actual or the impossible into the possible; in other words, kairos is a means of overcoming binary oppositions or contradictions, which in themselves are completely mutually exclusive.
Thus, Gorgias anticipated many theoretical constructs of philosophers of the 20th century - from Wittgenstein and Heidegger to Lacan, Deleuze and Derrida. Perhaps this is why the philosophy of so-called postmodernism, or poststructuralism, is sometimes called the third sophistry.
Isocrates
Isocrates took up further development of such an important concept as kairos. However, if Gorgias had kairos and its use was based more on intuition and inspiration, then Isocrates reduces kairos to a completely pragmatic interpretation, turning it into an instrument of speech. In other words, kairos becomes a formal principle of speech organization, that is, the form in which the rhetorical canon (invention, disposition and elocution) is implemented, which will be discussed separately. Isocrates consciously rejects philosophical truth and replaces it with correct opinion, or doxa, because he believes that philosophical truth is not only unattainable, but also unnecessary, and even harmful. Correct opinion, according to Isocrates, is not only the goal of the speaker, but also the practical mode of action of every rational being who prefers a bird in the hand to a pie in the sky.
Aristotle
So let's move on to Aristotle. His three-book work “Rhetoric” formerly consisted of two books, the third being a separate work “On Style.” And even earlier, these were simply notes of Aristotle’s lectures, which, as in the case of Metaphysics and other treatises, were systematized, edited and published by Andronicus of Rhodes in the 1st century. BC e., that is, three hundred years after the death of the great philosopher.
Rhetoric for Aristotle is a purely practical discipline, in contrast to speculative philosophy, mathematics and the physics of that time, which did not know experiments. In this respect, rhetoric is akin to ethics and politics.
And here is how Aristotle defines rhetoric based on its main purpose: “Let rhetoric, then, be the ability to discover the appropriate way of persuasion about every thing (Rhetoric, 1355b25).”
He distinguishes three types of speeches: deliberative, judicial and epideictic (indicative: praise and blasphemy). Aristotle, the greatest analyst and taxonomist of Antiquity, did not invent them, but developed and systematized them in detail. He also introduced three fundamental technical methods of persuasion, different from non-technical ones (witnesses, documents, testimony given under torture), on which the very possibility of rhetoric as discourse is based: 1) ethos (ἦθος - disposition) - that which, with the help of speech, evokes affection audience to the speaker, so that in the end the latter seems to be a good and trustworthy person; 2) logos - rational proof using a syllogism or enthymeme (it should be noted that Aristotle’s rhetoric, unlike other models of eloquence that existed at that time, is very rational, and there is every reason to assume that the philosopher learned this practical rationality after spending a short time as a student Isocrates - or maybe from his father Nicomachus, who was the court physician of the Macedonian king); 3) pathos (πάθος - passion, emotional excitement) - producing in the audience, with the help of speech, certain emotional states in which it can make the decision that the speaker needs. In connection with the latter factor, in the second book of Rhetoric, Aristotle made an attempt, unprecedented in its depth and breadth, to study and classify human emotions.
In comparison with this chapter, modern textbooks on the psychology of emotions with their eternal “frustrations,” “procrastination,” “ambivalences,” and “personal motivations” look like the babble of half-educated schoolchildren.
Also in this chapter, Aristotle examines the concept of enthymeme, or rhetorical syllogism. An enthymeme differs from a syllogism in that the purpose of the former is persuasion, and the purpose of the latter is logical proof. By enthymeme we mean a syllogism in which either one of the premises or the conclusion is omitted, but what is omitted is nevertheless implied. Remember our example with water and feel the difference. Syllogism: 1) all liquids are wet (b o
bigger parcel);
2) water - liquid (smaller parcel); therefore, 3) water is wet (conclusion). major
is missing ), or: “Water, you are wet” (both premises are missing), or: “Water, you are liquid” (the conclusion and the major premise are missing ). Thus, the enthymeme, in contrast to a strict syllogism, provides much greater scope for semantic manipulation. Aristotle also has a canonical definition of such a fundamental - not only for rhetoric, but also for language in general - phenomenon as metaphor:
“Metaphor is the transfer of a word with a changed meaning from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy.”
We will not go into details; the reader himself can turn to the original, where Stagirite gives relevant examples in abundance; we will only add that in the modern theory of metaphor it is customary to distinguish two components: 1) the core (that which is transferred) and 2) the periphery (that which what is transferred to). Example from Brodsky: “ and a raised eyebrow
[core]
like a windshield wiper on a car
[periphery]
.
The process of transition from the core to the periphery is called signification, or signification.
In addition to Rhetoric and Poetics, Aristotle wrote a treatise called Topika, which was the first theoretical systematization of the commonplaces so important to rhetoric.
We already touched on this above when we talked about the textbooks of Corax and Tisias, which provided examples of ready-to-go topoi, but lacked their theoretical justification. Although Topika is directly related to rhetoric, it is included in the Organon, the corpus of Aristotle's logical works. This is due to the fact that the treatise discusses the basic rules of logical thinking, and in addition, “Topic” is a guide to conducting a discussion, and rhetorical speech is most often monological. Rhetorical practice gains a certain semblance of a dialogical dimension when there is an opponent who puts forward counterarguments, which, in turn, must be refuted. Thus, in the topic, rhetorical verisimilitude can meet dialectical truth, rising from rhetorical probabilities
arguments to truths that are apodeictic (evidential) and, therefore,
necessary
(if the latter exist at all).
Let's finally try to figure out what it is - topos. There is no final definition of topos, and, perhaps, there cannot be, since this is a comprehensive mental-speech phenomenon, and squeezing it into one single conceptual form is not only difficult, but, perhaps, not even necessary. We can say that topoi are certain semantic fields or models in which the very possibility of thought and, consequently, its further verbal (written, musical, pictorial, etc.) embodiment arises. We are talking about certain fundamental categories that allow us to think and speak. For example, general - particular, parts - whole, time - space, impact - suffering, good - evil, genus - species, cause - effect, single - many, example, name, authority, quote, etc. Any human statement can be associated with a whole set of topoi that are arranged in sequence, starting with complete abstraction and ending with specifics (space → place → planet → country → city → street, etc.).
Topoi are called commonplaces because they extremely generalize the content of a statement, distributing all its components into places, much like flags on a map. We can say that topica is a kind of cartography of speech, its aerial photography.
Ancient rhetoric
The birthplace of eloquence is Ancient Greece , although oratory has been known since ancient times in Egypt, Assyria, India, and Babylon.
Rhetoric is the spiritual child of democracy. It was the democratic forms of government in Hellas in the 5th century. BC. became the reason for the rapid rise of oratory. The People's Assembly in Ancient Greece, the supreme body of power, brought up for public discussion issues of war and peace, the election of senior officials, and the interpretation of the laws by which the state should live. Court cases were also decided publicly.
The jury trial (helieya) was quite representative (there were about six thousand jurors). Any free citizen of Athens could act as an accuser; There were no prosecutors or defense attorneys; the defendant defended himself, proving to the judges his innocence.
So “justice” ended up on the side of the one who, possessing the gift of speech, knew how to convince judges and juries of his innocence. Oratory in Ancient Greece played an important role, because a politician had to speak at public meetings, a commander - before an army, a private person - before a court, as well as at festivals, friendly meetings, funerals, which were usually crowded. Mastering the word was a vital necessity for every citizen of Hellas.
Various spheres of life have given rise to three main types of eloquence: political (deliberative), epideictic (solemn, ceremonial) and judicial. The founders of eloquence were the sophists, representatives of the Athenian school of philosophers and educators.
oratory existed only in oral form; samples of speeches, even the most interesting ones, were not recorded. In the second half of the 5th century. BC. sophistry introduces written recording of speech. The sophists, “masters of wisdom,” considered it their task to instill in their students the art of speaking well and convincingly on political and moral topics. To do this, they were forced to memorize the texts of speeches, which were considered models of eloquence, standards to follow.
On the basis of practical eloquence, the sophists also developed the theory of oratory - rhetoric. The opening of the first rhetorical schools and the creation of the first textbooks on rhetoric are associated with the names of the sophists Corax and Lysias from Syracuse (mid-5th century BC).
The sophist Gorgias of Leontius (485-380 BC) received recognition and contribution to the theory of eloquence. This rhetorician paid main attention to issues of style. To enhance the psychological impact of speech, he used stylistic means of decoration known as Gorgias figures. Among them are such as antithesis, oxymoron, division of sentences into symmetrical parts, rhymed endings, alliteration, assonance, etc.
Gorgias attached great importance to the word and its effect on listeners, since he believed that “the word is a great ruler who ... can instill fear, and destroy sadness, and instill joy, and awaken compassion.” By the power of his conviction, Gorgias forced the sick to drink such bitter medicines and undergo such operations that even doctors could not force them to do.
Gorgias's contemporaries, the sophists Thrasymachus, Protagoras and others, developed and enriched the theory of eloquence. Thrasymachus developed a period - a complex sentence of significant length, including secondary sentences that in different aspects reveal the meaning of the main one.
Protagoras named situationally determined types of speech (request, question, answer, order) and gave their detailed characteristics. Thanks to the works of the sophists, rhetoric gains greater recognition and is included in the range of sciences required for the education of citizens.
It should be noted that the attitude towards the sophists was ambivalent. At first, their activities did not evoke critical assessments: a sophist was a person who devoted himself to mental activity and was skilled in some wisdom, including scholarship.
The sophists taught methods of proof and refutation, the rules of logical thinking. They introduced students not only to the techniques of political and legal activity, but also taught philosophy. The sophists focused their attention on social issues, on man, and on problems of communication, teaching oratory. However, over time, the sophists changed the direction of their activities.
Their main task is to select and apply logical and psychological tricks with which they can achieve victory in the controversy. Using dialectics as the art of reasoning, the Sophists began to claim that anything could be proven. The main thing is to choose the right means for proof (the end justifies the means).
For example, arguing that making an uneducated person educated means killing him, the sophist reasoned as follows: “Having become educated, he will not be what he was.” If a sophist was caught in a lie, he would turn around like this: “Whoever lies says something that is not there. But what is not there cannot be said, therefore no one can lie.” All sophistic statements are based on a single technique: reducing to the point of absurdity the position of the relativity of all human knowledge. It is no coincidence that the word “sophist” is now understood as a liar, a deceiver.
Assessing the contribution of sophistry to the development of rhetoric, we note that, on the one hand, the Athenian citizens needed sophists, as they taught them the art of speech, the ability to persuade and argue; but, on the other hand, manipulation of consciousness, the use of false, deceptive arguments require objective condemnation. It is no coincidence that these methods in ancient times aroused distrust and sometimes hostility towards the sophists, with which we cannot but agree.
The first challenge to the Sophists was issued by the great ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (c. 470-399 BC). Unlike the sophists, who studied primarily the psychological impact of speech on listeners, Socrates puts logical proof first. Socrates became famous as one of the founders of dialectics: he sought truth through conversations and debates.
Finding out the truth in a dispute was called eristics. The components of Socrates' eristics were irony and maieutics (translated from Greek as the art of the midwife).
Irony was expressed in the philosopher’s ability to lead his opponent into a logical dead end with a witty system of questions and answers. Maieutics contributed to the formation of correct thought. Socrates wittily noted that with his question-and-answer method and logic, he contributed to the birth of the correct thought in a conversation, just as a midwife helps a person to be born.
Socrates' student Plato (427-348 BC) outlined his theory of eloquence in the famous dialogues Phaedrus and Gorgias. The central character of Plato's dialogues is Socrates. True eloquence, based on knowledge of truth, and therefore accessible only to the philosopher, is opposed to the rhetoric of the sophists. In the dialogue "Phaedrus".
In the conversation between the philosopher Socrates and the young man Phaedrus, the ideal of true eloquence is presented. Only having clearly defined a subject can one begin to talk about this subject. Socrates advises Phaedrus: “In any matter, young man, in order to discuss it correctly, it is necessary to begin with the same thing: you need to know what exactly is being discussed, otherwise continuous mistakes are inevitable.” The next task of the speaker is to know the truth, i.e. the essence of the subject: “First of all, you need to know the truth about any subject you speak or write about.” Plato emphasized the importance of composition in oratory.
Order in speech is manifested, according to the author, in its construction: “In my opinion, first, at the very beginning of the speech, there should be an introduction,” says Socrates. - and in second place is the presentation, and behind it is evidence, in third place is evidence, in fourth place is conclusions.” Socrates describes in detail the structure of speech, relying on established rhetorical traditions.
The future speaker should listen to Plato's thoughts on the impact of speech on the soul. It sounds as if uttered by our contemporary: “Since the power of speech lies in its influence on the soul, one who is going to become an orator needs to know how many types the soul has...”.
The speaker needs to correlate the types of speeches and “types of soul”, take into account the human condition, understand which soul and with what speeches can be convinced. The main task of the rhetorician is to find, to find the type of speech that corresponds to each character. Consequently, “construct and arrange your speech this way, i.e. to address a complex soul with complex speeches covering all modes, and to a simple soul with simple speeches.”
According to Plato, true eloquence does not exist without knowledge of truth. After all, truth is both the goal of science, and the goal of art, and the ideal of moral motives. By cognizing the essence of things, a person creates a correct idea of them. The speaker, having learned the nature of human souls, is able to instill his opinion in his listeners. Dialogue, in which participants seek the truth with the help of skillfully posed questions, had a huge influence on the development of rhetoric.
Plato's ideal is not only conviction, but also the search for truth. Without knowing the truth, you cannot master the art of eloquence. This statement of Plato has important practical significance for rhetoric: the listener, together with the speaker, “walks” the path of searching for truth. This is how associations, doubts, reflections are born, i.e. the path from thought to word begins.
The largest theorist of ancient rhetoric is the ancient Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle (384-322 BC). He was a student of the philosopher Plato and during the twenty years he spent at the Teacher's Academy, he acquired the highest authority.
Aristotle's writings cover the entire spectrum of sciences and arts that existed at that time. His treatises on logic, physics, biology, philosophy, ethics and politics are well known. In the field of philology, two works of Aristotle are popular - “Poetics” and “Rhetoric”, which laid the foundations for the European understanding of literary creativity and artistic speech.
In Rhetoric (335 BC), the author sets out in detail his views on the fundamentals of oratory. The work consists of three books. The first book contains general provisions characterizing the subject of rhetoric and types of oratory. According to Aristotle, rhetoric and logic study issues that are to some extent close to every person; in addition, the information obtained by these sciences is interdisciplinary, because it serves as a subject of study not only for logic and rhetoric. Therefore, all people in one way or another turn to both arts, since everyone has to support a certain opinion, accuse, defend themselves.
Rhetoric is defined by Aristotle as the art of persuasion, of finding possible ways of persuasion in each specific case. Next, the types of oratorical speeches are considered: deliberative, judicial and epideictic (solemn). The second book of Rhetoric introduces us to the “ways of persuasion.”
The main thing for Aristotle is the persuasiveness of speech, and the reliability of what the rhetorician is talking about is important. Aristotle divides methods of persuasion into three types: some of them depend on the character of the speaker, others on the mood of the listener, and others on the speech itself. Aristotle highly valued “proof based on the virtues of the speaker” because we trust good people.
Then the author talks about how to persuade listeners. Persuasion, depending on the mood of the listener, consists of the ability to evoke a certain passion in him. Aristotle believed that an orator should be a good psychologist: he should know how and when a person is overcome by various feelings - anger or humility, love or hatred, envy, fear. These passions must be taken into account so as not to provoke unwanted emotions in the audience during the speech. The rhetorician should not forget about the age of the listeners, their origin, social status and psychological state.
The choice of methods of evidence depends on the purpose of the speech. Thus, in political speech examples, facts or parables, fables are appropriate; in the judiciary - syllogisms (inferences), as well as laws, testimony, contracts, etc.; in the solemn - comparisons, exaggerations (“the speaker invests the subject of his speech with greatness and beauty”).
Aristotle assigns a large role to logical evidence, but does not recommend drawing conclusions by borrowing premises from distant history or using very broad or abstract concepts. In the first case, it is difficult for listeners to grasp the meaning without special explanations; in the second, the syllogism turns out to be long.
This is the reason why uneducated people in the eyes of the crowd can deserve more trust than educated ones, since they talk about things that are close to the listeners and understandable to them. Aristotle believed that when speaking in front of a crowd, the speaker should conduct proofs and reasoning in a public way. In the second book of Rhetoric, Aristotle outlined his teaching on the principles of constructing oratory speech, on creating the image of an orator.
The third book of Rhetoric contains the doctrine of style with an analysis of tropes and figures, as well as the composition of speech. Aristotle considered the clarity of his speech to be the most important condition for the success of an orator. He pointed out that speech should not be ordinary, consisting of too simple words; she must be distinguished by beauty and nobility.
The speaker must avoid two extremes: his style cannot be unreasonably high, but the style cannot be allowed to be too low, rudely simple; it must, first of all, correspond to the subject of speech and meet the rule of the golden mean.
The basis of style, Aristotle pointed out, is the ability to speak correctly. And this requires the skill of a speaker. “A style is full of feeling if it appears in the language of an angry person when it comes to insult, and in the language of an indignant and restrained person when it comes to things ungodly and shameful; things that are praiseworthy are spoken of with admiration, and things that excite compassion are spoken of modestly.”
But at the same time, the author of “Rhetoric” warned, one should not give all possible means of language in one go for the sake of “catching the listener.” He saw such restraint as one of the conditions for the nobility of oratory. The attractive power of eloquence is given by the “elegant and successful expressions” created by a skilled rhetorician.
Aristotle considered the obligatory structural parts of a speech to be a preface, an accusation and methods of refuting it, a presentation of facts, evidence, and a conclusion. He supported his reasoning with references to classical orators, Homeric epics, and tragedians. Aristotle's works on rhetoric had a huge influence on the further development of this science.
The most famous political orator during the era of Greek independence was Demosthenes (c. 384-322 BC). He did not become famous immediately. Demosthenes' oratory successes are the result of his enormous work on himself. He had a natural lisp, a weak voice and a nervous twitching shoulder.
Plutarch's Comparative Lives tells how Demosthenes got rid of these shortcomings. To improve his diction and develop the strength of his vocal cords, he went to the seashore, put sea pebbles in his mouth and spoke, trying to shout above the noise of the surf. So that nothing would distract him from mastering the necessary knowledge, Demosthenes voluntarily imprisoned himself for many months in a dungeon, where he studied the works of his predecessors and practiced stage techniques. To deprive himself of the temptation to leave the place of voluntary confinement, he shaved half of his head.
Having made titanic efforts, Demosthenes overcame his natural disadvantages and became an orator, devoting his life to the struggle for the independence of Athens. He began his oratory practice as a lawyer, but became especially famous for his political speeches directed against the Macedonian king Philip II, who pursued a policy of seizing Greece. Demosthenes called these speeches “philippics” (later this became the name for all accusatory speeches). In these speeches, Demosthenes is not just an accuser, he is, first of all, a citizen who dreams of the prosperity of his homeland and his people, he is a wise politician.
Demosthenes' speeches were distinguished by the power of argumentation , passion, and they made a huge impression on the audience. An interesting legend has been preserved: when Philip II received the text of Demosthenes’ speech, he said that if he had heard this speech, he would have voted for war against himself.
Roman oratory was associated, first of all, with the practical aspects of life - with private and public law, with the social and political struggle in Republican Rome.
Appius Claudius Caecus (the Blind Man) is considered the first Roman speaker and writer. He was a censor, and later a consul, and became famous for his speech against the truce of the Romans with the Epirus king Pyrrhus in the 70s BC. Known as an outstanding orator and commander Marcus Porcius Cato (2nd century BC).
The Gracchus brothers, Gaius and Tiberius, were excellent speakers. At the turn of the 2nd and 1st centuries. BC. the role of public speech in Rome especially increases in connection with the intensified political struggle, which leads to civil war. At this time, Mark Antony, Lucinius Crassus, and Quintus Hortensius became famous for their famous political speeches.
The achievements of the Roman theory of eloquence were summarized in the anonymous Rhetoric to Herennius (c. 89 BC). It contained recommendations on the composition of speech, on the “strength” and flexibility of the voice, on adapting the tone of speech to the situation of utterance. Recommendations were given on memorizing the text of the speech and verbal expression of thoughts.
The most striking Roman speaker is Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), an ancient Roman politician, orator, and writer. Cicero entered the political life of Ancient Rome as a new man,” owing everything to his oratorical gift.
His very first speeches brought him great success, but the pinnacle of Cicero’s successes was the discovery of Catiline’s conspiracy and the four speeches made against him in the Senate. Cicero's political ideal was the Roman Republic, the consent of all classes; he was called a “pacifier”, “guardian and trustee” in times of crisis.
From the works of Cicero, 58 political and judicial speeches, 19 treatises on rhetoric, politics and philosophy, over 300 letters have been preserved, which are considered as a psychological document, a monument to the Latin spoken language. The ancient Greek writer Plutarch in his “Biography of Cicero” emphasizes that “it was this man ... who proved to the Romans how much charm eloquence brings to matters of honor and that a truthful matter, once it is correctly stated, is indestructible...”.
Cicero’s rhetorical works “On the Orator”, “Brutus”, “Orator” describe a program for preparing an orator that is also interesting to the modern reader. In his treatise “On the Orator,” Cicero sets out in detail the theory of oratory in the form of a dialogue between Lucinius Crassus and Mark Antony.
Other prominent speakers of Ancient Rome also take part in the discussion. According to Cicero, only someone who is comprehensively educated can become an orator in the true understanding of the word: “Speech should flourish and unfold only on the basis of complete knowledge of the subject.”
The history of Roman eloquence from ancient times to the modern era is outlined by Cicero in his treatise “Brutus”. The ideal for Cicero is the ancient rhetorician Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder, a historian and author of works on medicine, agriculture, military affairs, and jurisprudence; He also wrote the first manual on oratory. Cato's main commandment for young speakers is the formula: Know the matter - the words will come.
The ideal of the orator appears in the treatise “The Orator”. According to Cicero, there are three main purposes of oratory: docere - to teach, delectare - to delight and movere - to motivate. The ideal speaker will be the one who in his speeches teaches his listeners, gives them pleasure, and subjugates their will.
The works of Cicero became the foundation of European rhetorical education. His oratorical treatises for the first time fully presented the classical sections of rhetoric: invention, arrangement of words, expression, memory, pronunciation, body movement. In addition, they contain interesting tips for practical mastery of the art of rhetoric. According to Cicero, “eloquence is something that is more difficult than it seems, and is born from a lot of knowledge and effort.”
Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 96-36 BC) is a famous rhetorician, lawyer, author of meaningful, well-systematized works on oratory. In his essay “Education of the Orator,” Quintilian calls for the comprehensive development of the rhetorician, who must be a sage, a highly moral and harmonious person. His main requirement for a speaker and writer is “pure, clear, beautiful and appropriate speech.”
Quintilian's stylistic ideal is very close to Cicero's ideal, and this is no coincidence: Cicero's standards of eloquence served as a criterion for Quintilian. They have a lot in common in their views on oratory. Both distinguish three styles of eloquence: high, middle and simple; both divide the work of speech into five stages according to ancient rhetorical tradition; both argue that rhetoric is both a science and an art.
However, according to Cicero, the speaker must be a thinker, since the basis of rhetoric is philosophy, and Quintilian put the stylistics of speech in the first place. The practical education of an orator, Cicero believes, takes place in the forum (the square, the center of the political and cultural life of the Roman city); for Quintilian, the center of the educational system was the rhetorical school. Cicero's speeches are intended for the people gathered in the forum, while Quintilian focuses on a narrow circle of educated listeners.
Quintilian's work “Twelve Books of Rhetorical Instructions” presents a harmonious system for educating a civil and judicial rhetorician. The upbringing of a speaker is divided into physical and spiritual, including physical education and language education; study of philosophy and law; training in the invention of speech and analysis of it in parts, figures of speech and figures of thought. None of the ancient rhetoricians approached the issues of training, education and development of the orator so comprehensively.
Quintilian's "Instructions" created a pedagogical system in which the foundations of general education were also developed. The development of oratory skills was thought of as the crown of training in the entire range of subjects. The education of an orator according to Quintilian laid the foundations of pedagogical psychology, anticipated educational methods divided by levels of education, and included the education of linguistic creativity. Quintilian's teaching retains its significance for modern science.
Theophrastus
Let us turn to Theophrastus (III century BC), a student of Aristotle. As we have already said, most often in Antiquity they referred to his essay “On Style,” where Theophrastus identifies four, as he says, forces (later called “virtues of style”): correctness, clarity, appropriateness, decoration. Thus, Demetrius writes that “Theophrastus considers beautiful a word that pleases our imagination and hearing or indicates a sublime thought contained in it” ( On Style,
173). He also wrote an interesting essay “Characters”, where he examined in detail the negative human qualities and continued the study of the psychology of emotions, begun by Aristotle in the second book of “Rhetoric”. “Characters” provided rich material for rhetorical argumentation—for example, to denigrate an opponent.
Theophrastus also developed a theory of speech pronunciation, thereby completing the series of “invention (invention), disposition (arrangement), elocution (creation of the text of an utterance), memoria (memorization) and accio (pronunciation).” In developing this theory, he used the experience of the acting art of the Greek theater.
Germagor
In the II century. BC e. the Greek rhetorician Hermagoras from the city of Temnos developed the theory of stasis (στάσις - point of disagreement, initial point of discussion).
Stasis refers to the main issue being discussed by the speaker and was originally used in the legal field. This is the key point, when addressed, the case turns, and the parties, although agreeing on something, enter into a period of disagreement.
If the speaker knows how to determine the moment of balance, when the forces have not yet completely collided, it is easier for him to achieve his goal. In the political sphere, for example, determining the stasis of a political issue and focusing on the relevant arguments is necessary in order to have a better chance of convincing or dissuading the relevant audience.
Demetrius, already quoted earlier (1st century AD), wrote an essay “On Style,” based on the work of the same name by Theophrastus and the third book of Aristotle’s “Rhetoric.” Most of his work is devoted to literature, but it is also important from the point of view of rhetoric, since their stylistic techniques are the same. The basis of Demetrius's stylistics is the doctrine of four styles: simple, sublime, graceful and strong.
Among the other authors, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (mid-1st century BC, “On the Connection of Words”), as well as Pseudo-Longinus (“On the Sublime”), said a new word in the theory of rhetoric. In the first work, the theory of three styles is deepened, the sound properties of language are studied, the theory of rhythms is developed, and the idea is put forward that a beautiful thought must necessarily be clothed in beautiful words, and the plan of content and the plan of expression are one. The second treatise, “On the Sublime,” explores the pathetic aspects of speech and the category of the sublime, which is “the pinnacle and height of verbal expression.”
The effect of persuasiveness is facilitated by the harmonious combination of words. Their harmony and euphony are much more important than the harmony of sounds, for in verbal harmony an infinite variety of ideas about everything that surrounds us is born.
As for the two greatest Roman rhetoricians, Cicero and Quintilian, enough has been said about them in the previous article, to which we refer the reader. Let us only add that they developed, complicated and refined what had already been invented by the Greeks long before them.
So, we have become acquainted with the basics of rhetorical theory, and now let us turn directly to the analysis of the rhetorical canon.
Themistocles
Many believe that Themistocles does not belong to the ancient Greek orators, since he was a commander and statesman, but such arguments have little weight. Even in early childhood, the aspiring speaker, according to his peers, had a tendency to participate in social activities. Even during leisure hours, he enjoyed various educational activities and improved in everything.
Therefore, his teachers constantly said that nothing mediocre would ever come out of the boy, but something great. However, the young man never relied on his natural talents and improved his skills. Over time, Themistocles became a great and renowned orator who, in addition to eloquence, also explored various fields of science, such as philosophy. Most of his works were lost as Themistocles assumed leadership positions in 493 BC.
Rhetorical canon (ideological speech cycle)
Everything that can be said within any rhetorical practice is covered by the following elements of the rhetorical canon:
Invention - invenire quid dicas (invent what needs to be said).
Disposition - inventa disponere (to arrange what has been invented).
Elocution - ornare verbis (decorate with words).
In essence, this is rhetoric as such - the three rhetorical pillars on which this entire discourse rests. Now let's talk about each of them in more detail.
Invention
As Aristotle noted, invention means the search for means of persuasion that would contain the object of speech. The invention has a three-part structure that is already familiar to us (see above): ethos, logos and pathos. Also adjacent to the invention is the use of topos (common places). Thus, the speaker’s thinking at the moment of invention operates simultaneously in three registers: the speaker thinks about his own morals (ethos) and the impression he will have on the listener, then evaluates the addressee and the emotions (pathos) that his speech and his moral character will evoke , and also reflects directly on the arguments themselves (logos), the selection of which is made through a system of commonplaces. As a result, by the end of the intervention, the speaker has a ready-made mental image in his head, a certain speech substance that needs to be streamlined. This is how the first stage ends and the transition to the next occurs.
Disposition
At this level, the arrangement and ordering of mental material, which is still in a rather chaotic state, occurs. It is to this part that the structural components of speech that we have already mentioned include: introduction, middle (presentation), conclusion. The introduction, in turn, is threefold. A simple introduction (principium) calmly introduces the listener to the topic. An indirect introduction (insinuatio) is used when the audience is hostile to the speaker and it is impossible to immediately move on to the development of the topic, so you have to beat around the bush at first. And there is also an ex abrupto (sudden) introduction, when the speech begins directly with a topic that excites the speaker. Narration, or narration, involves the presentation of facts related to a topic.
The narration should be conducted “to the point”, in connection with persons directly related to the topic of speech, accentuation of descriptions of facts is permissible in order to arouse more interest and give liveliness to the narration, but it is advisable not to let the thoughts run wild.
This is followed by confirmation (confirmation), which consists of a detailed development of the argumentation in order to prove the truth of the provisions expressed in the introduction. Here all the evidence is brought together using the so-called Homeric rule: strong arguments are deduced at the beginning, then average evidence comes, and at the end one shock argument is given, the strongest. The confirmation is followed by a conclusion, which contains a summary of the argument while appealing to the emotions of the listeners. What is desirable here is precision and stylistic richness of presentation, coupled with emotional intensity. This concludes the disposition stage.
Elocution (text formation, not to be confused with actio - pronunciation)
Speech in the human mind does not have a linear structure; rather, it is fragmented and discrete. First, at the level of invention, a selection of mental forms occurs, which are ordered at the level of disposition and, at the stage of elocution, are expressed in words. In this way, speech units are selected that are combined with already prepared and ordered mental material, after which a transition occurs directly to the speech or written levels of juxtaposition of speech objects. All this, I repeat, exists even before the speech is delivered, in the mind of the speaker. At this stage, words are selected using tropes and figures of speech, rhythm, intonation and everything that ultimately forms the style are determined.
Memoria
Everything is clear here: the prepared mental-speech material is remembered either with the use of special mnemonics or without them.
Making a speech (actio, pronunciatio)
At this stage, all extralinguistic means are used - facial expressions, gestures, etc. Also, it is at this stage that the timeliness of speech delivery is important - kairos, therefore this stage requires the speaker to exert maximum tension and composure, readiness for objections, counter-arguments and the instant launch of a new ideological speech cycle , which underlies not only a rich and pompous speech, but also the shortest and most inconspicuous remark, not only the basis of a long and passionate love letter, but also the basis of several phrases thrown in a messenger or Twitter, not only the basis of a sequence of frames of the most complex arthouse cinema, but also at the heart of our everyday selfies. This is due to the fact that the ideological speech act, or rhetorical utterance, is a universal form of expression for any sign system - music, literary texts, formal languages, painting and sculpture, computer games, etc. In a word, Jacques Lacan was right when said: “The universe is a flower of rhetoric... and I myself am just a flower of rhetoric.”
§4. Style as a subject of rhetorical aesthetics
The other main problem of rhetorical aesthetics, besides the problem of beauty, is the problem of style.
Here it is very important to emphasize Aristotle’s very sound and very sober attitude to the problem of style. This attitude is quite serious, and the entire third book of Rhetoric is devoted to the analysis of style. Nevertheless, the spirit of scientific objectivity permeates the entire Aristotelian theory of style, although we already know well how sensitive Aristotle is to the style of the writers who preceded him and how often he quotes different writers in the Rhetoric itself. There is no need to set out in detail all the subtle observations of style and all its distinctions with which it really shines here. But we still wanted to point out one problem, which cannot otherwise be called a problem of the classical style.
1. Style as art.
Aristotle attributes stylistic devices to the same area of speech, which also includes teachings about methods of persuasion and the construction of parts of speech (III, 1, 1403 b 6-8). This, however, does not yet define style. But even here it becomes clear what style is for Aristotle. In our language, the style of a work, according to Aristotle, is nothing more than its specific structure, way and manner of speaking, which is why we use the term “style” to translate Aristotle’s lexis (which literally means “speaking”, “structure of speech” ). It was not for nothing that Aristotle placed his doctrine of style in rhetoric. After all, rhetoric, according to Aristotle, does not speak at all about objective objects in their absolute givenness, but speaks about them only insofar as they are perceived by a person, insofar as he understands them, insofar as they convince him.
This methodological clarity of Aristotle’s aesthetic position on problems of style is directly and openly formulated by him in the following reasoning (III 1, 1404 a 1-7):
“Since the whole business of rhetoric is aimed at arousing [this or that] opinion, then one should take care of style not as something containing truth, but as something necessary, for it is most fair to strive only for speech did not cause either sorrow or joy, to fight fairly with the weapon of facts, so that everything outside the scope of proof becomes superfluous.”
So, it is absolutely clear that Aristotle’s doctrine of style is not at all a doctrine of objective objects or objective reality (although reality and its objects, according to Aristotle, can also have their own style); but this is a doctrine about the way of expressing objects, about composing speech about these objects, about their verbal structures. Taken by itself, this structure of an object does not at all have the properties of the object itself, it is neither joyful nor sad, it is neither true nor false. It simply refers to a special sphere, which Aristotle interprets as a completely neutral sphere, both from the point of view of reality in the ordinary sense of the word, and from the point of view of the reality of absolute and true reason. Style is simply expression.
What he expresses by himself is certainly reflected on him, and it is to this that Aristotle devotes the entire third book of his Rhetoric. But taken in itself, it is a reality of a very specific kind, as Aristotle spoke about many times before.
How much Aristotle understands style structurally and technically is clear from his words (a 15-19):
“The art of an actor is given by nature and is less dependent on technology; As for style, it is acquired through technology. That is why laurels go to those who master the word, just as in the field of dramatic art [they fall to] reciters. And the power of written speech lies more in style than in thoughts.”
Aristotle's judgments about the poetic, prosaic, tragic, etc. are particularly sober. styles. He is not interested in any style at all as a scientist and tries to analyze them completely on the same plane, although we know a lot about his purely personal artistic tastes and preferences, which are in no way reflected in his scientific theory (a 19-36).
Aristotle is so sober about the problems of style that he does not even place style, taken in itself, very highly. From his point of view, style in general is needed only for morally unstable people who cannot understand pure thought as such and who need to be accustomed to this thought only through various kinds of stylistic devices. In the end, Aristotle says that if people were morally high enough, they would not need at all any style of works of art they perceived.
“As we said, [style] turns out to be very important due to the moral depravity of the listener. In any teaching, style necessarily has some small significance, because in order to clarify [something] there is a difference in whether you express yourself this way or that way; but still [this meaning] is not as great [as is usually thought]: all this relates to appearance and concerns the listener, therefore no one uses these techniques when teaching geometry. And once they are used, they produce the same effect as the art of an actor” (a 7-13).
The result of all these arguments is summed up by Aristotle himself (a 36-39): “It is clear from this that we are not obliged to analyze in detail everything that can be said about style, but must say only about what concerns the art we are talking about.” We can add on our own to explain Aristotle’s theory: a tragedy may be more terrible, but its structure or style does not contain anything terrible; Comedy can be very funny, but there is absolutely nothing funny about its style. This is the neutral existential character of everything possible, everything probable, everything structural, expressive and stylistic.
2. Theory of classical style.
Aristotle himself, being a representative of the Greek classics and almost never going beyond its boundaries, was poorly aware that he was a representative of the classics, classical aesthetics. Since, however, he was a representative of the late classics and already definitely felt the onset of Hellenism, he had every opportunity to formulate the general features of classical aesthetics as a whole, completely unaware that all of his style formulas were already final and maximally conscious formulas.
A)
First of all, Aristotle demands fundamental and deepest
clarity from style.
He still does not know that clarity is generally a characteristic feature of the classics.
But we now know well that classics, not only in Greek, but also in any other culture, are always distinguished primarily by their clear style,
as opposed to the heaps of archaism and the refined mannerisms of decadence. Aristotle talks a lot and beautifully about clarity of style in our treatise, in chapter III 2.
b)
Further, clarity, distinctness, definiteness and, in general, any coinage of the classical style, according to Aristotle, should not make this style cold.
In Chapter III 3 we find a detailed discussion of what contributes to coldness
of style and how it should be avoided.
V)
Further, is it possible to imagine a classical style with a language that is either very stilted, or too meager, or somehow confusing or cluttered? The classical style presupposes, of course, the appropriate construction of speech. It should be clear, simple, understandable to everyone, unartificial; there should be nothing in it that is extravagant, barbaric, striking in the eyes with its originality, or designed to be completely surprising. You can read about this in Chapter III 5.
G)
Aristotle was very interested in the question of the prevalence of purity of style. A good style allows length only in moderation, and also conciseness, also in moderation. Everything is too long and everything is too compressed - this is not good style, according to Aristotle. But in our opinion, this does not correspond to the classical style at all (III 6).
d)
All of Aristotle's previous discussions about style may lead the reader to think that Aristotle preaches, generally speaking, a style that is too dry, too hard and clumsy, too cold. Undoubtedly, the classical style always has a certain correctness, proportionality and the absence of any excess. This is what forced Aristotle in the previous paragraphs to talk about precisely this proportionality and regularity of what he calls style. However, such an understanding of the classical style is completely untrue, and it also does not correspond to the views of Aristotle. Classic style can be not only harsh and too measured. It may well also be distinguished by the presence of feelings, correspondence to reality and a variety of characters, in accordance with which there is a variety of speech. The classical style, rather, is distinguished by moral restraint, nobility of feelings and artistic simplicity, and it does not necessarily have to be something formless, abnormal and unhinged. This will no longer be a classic style. But if we take a purely classical style, then all sorts of feelings, affects, diversity of reality, characters and human speech are quite characteristic of it, provided that it is measured and noble. Therefore, Aristotle further points out such features of style that are distinguished by softness, grace, and nobility, and not just wooden immobility.
“A style will have proper qualities,” writes Aristotle, “if it is full of feeling, if it reflects character, and if it corresponds to the true state of affairs. The latter happens when important things are not spoken lightly and trifles are not spoken solemnly, and when no decoration is added to a simple name (word); otherwise the style seems clownish” (III 7, 1408 a 10-14).
If we had more space, then this reasoning of Aristotle would need to be given in Greek and commented on every word. Since this is impossible to do, we will limit ourselves to pointing out only the first phrase from this passage. The translator writes: “The style will have the proper qualities.” Here "proper qualities" will be in Greek "prepon" ("suitable", "appropriate"). In this regard, it must be said that “preron” is a technical term for ancient aesthetics, especially the later one. However, even in Aristotle himself, “the beautiful and the proper are one and the same” (Thor. V 5 135 a 13). “Property corresponds to dignity, it is in space” (Ethic. Eud. III 6, 1233 b 7; a 34). “Of great importance is the ability to properly use each of the indicated types of words, both complex words and glosses” (Poet. 22, 1459 a 4). It is clear that this term even in Aristotle has an aesthetic meaning (we do not cite texts with everyday meaning here).
Further, “if he is full of feeling” in Greek is “pathоticon”. It means much more than “full of feeling.” “Pathos” in Greek is not “feeling” at all, but “affect”. In this case, we mean, of course, affect in the positive sense of the word. Thus, the very first phrase of the above text indicates that style presupposes both beauty and aesthetic efficiency. So it is not just the “proper” character of the style, nor is it just a “feeling.” Aristotle even cites here the name of a certain Cleophon, some talkative and stupid Athenian orator who gave very significant attributes to insignificant objects (a 14-16).
Aristotle explains his reasoning about style as follows:
“[Style] is full of feeling if it appears in the language of an angry person when it comes to an insult, and in the language of an indignant and restrained person when it comes to things ungodly and shameful. When it comes to things that are praiseworthy, we [should] speak about them with admiration, and when it comes to things that arouse compassion, then with humility; like this in other cases. The style appropriate to the case gives the matter the appearance of probable: here the man erroneously concludes that [the speaker] speaks sincerely on the ground that in similar circumstances he (the man) experiences the same thing, so that he accepts that the state of affairs is such as it is represented by the speaker, even if this is not actually the case. The listener always sympathizes with a speaker who speaks with feeling, even if he does not say anything [substantial]; This is how many speakers, using only noise, make a strong impression on their listeners” (a 16-25).
Aristotle speaks very convincingly about the diversity of speech in connection with age, gender, nationality (a 25-29). Persuasive speech, according to Aristotle, must also correspond to the spiritual qualities of both the listener and the speaker, even if not in reality (a 29-36).
3. Conclusion about style.
Aristotle himself spares us the trouble of summing up his doctrine of proper style. Namely, he writes:
“All these types [of phrases] can be used equally well and inappropriately. For any failure to comply with the measure, the remedy [should serve] is the well-known [rule] that a person must correct himself, because once the speaker is aware of what he is doing, his words seem to be the truth. In addition, one should not [should] use all similar means at the same time, because in this way the listener will become distrustful. I mean here this, for example [case]: if the words [of the speaker] are harsh, you should not [should] say them in a harsh voice, [make] a harsh expression on your face and [use all] other similar means; if this rule is not observed, every [rhetorical device] reveals what it is. If [the speaker uses] one means without [using] another, then imperceptibly he achieves the same result; if he says pleasant things in a harsh tone and harsh things in a pleasant tone, he loses the trust of [his listeners]. Complex words, an abundance of epithets and words of little use are most suitable for a speaker speaking under the influence of anger; one could be forgiven for calling the misfortune “vast as the sky” or “monstrous.” [This is excusable] also in the case when the speaker has already captured his listeners and inspired them with praise or blame, anger or friendship, as, for example, Isocrates does at the end of his “Panegyric” [saying]: “glory and memory” or “ those who have decided." People say such things in a state of enthusiasm, and people listen to them, obviously, under the influence of the same mood. That is why such expressions are suitable for poetry, since poetry is something inspired by God. They should be used either in the above cases and with a touch of irony, as Gorgias did and what are [examples of this] in Phaedrus” (a 36 – b 20).
4. General conclusion.
This general conclusion must be brought to the fore again and again, because almost no one takes into account rhetoric in the truly Aristotelian sense, or, what is the same, dialectics in the truly Aristotelian sense, but usually understand by rhetoric a set of rules of eloquence, and by dialectics - what we understand by this word is, basically, the law of unity and struggle of opposites.
A)
No one takes into account the neutral existential reality that Aristotle deals with in Poetics and Rhetoric. This is a special kind of being, average between “yes” and “no”. This, however, does not apply to the completed styles of classicism, romanticism, etc., since this neutral being is equally present in all styles and in all works of art. We repeat once again, if a realistic play on stage is taken in the literal sense of the word, then murders and all kinds of crimes depicted on stage would immediately force the audience to call the police and take those usual measures that are always taken by people who happen to be spectators of such incidents . However, theater audiences sit completely calmly, no matter what kind of bloodshed is depicted on stage. This means that even the most realistic or most naturalistic work is all permeated with this style of “possibility” or “probability” and is in no case a true reality. Aristotle perfectly felt this neutralist nature of a work of art, and he precisely called its logic “possible”, “neutral”, neutral-existential, poetic, rhetorical and, ultimately, dialectical logic. Without understanding this artistic concept of Aristotle, there is no point in even thinking about touching at least partially the rhetorical aesthetics of Aristotle.
b)
The second thing we must notice is that in his theory of style, Aristotle, strictly speaking, gives a theory of what we now call
purely classical style.
This style is clear, excluding coldness, non-chaotic, moderately concise, moderately long, corresponding to reality (characters, age, gender, nationality), moderately pathetic, publicly linguistic.
We can simply say that under the name of style, Aristotle draws the classical style familiar to him, in which pathos
and
unusualness
are skillfully combined with
clarity, measure
and
accessibility.
This applies equally to poetry, oratory, and all works of art in general.
The page was generated in 0.04 seconds!
