Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter fece, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, b%inning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnaticn Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 BEYOND THE FIFTH CANON: BODY RHETORIC IN ANCIENT GREECE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor o f Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By James Fredal, M.Div.; M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1998 Dissertation Committee: Approved By: ” Professor Nan Johnson, Adviser r\ Professor Andrea Lunsford i Professor Jennifer Terrv Ad/^iser English Graduate Program UMI Number; 9911191 Copyright 1999 by Fredal, James Anthony All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9911191 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT Modem rhetorical scholarship has frequently downplayed the importance of delivery to the origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece and to its subsequent role in the arts of persuasion ever since. While the Aristotelian canons of invention, arrangement, and style have maintained a relevance and utility up to the present, delivery is rarely discussed. When it is introduced as a canon of rhetoric, delivery typically is afforded only very brief treatment, often not in terms of physical presentation, but rather of mediated forms of communication. In this way, persuasive artistry is restricted to a narrow conception of speech, in which only written words and mental theory are considered relevant. Behind this marginalization of delivery lies a profound ambivalence: it is considered to be powerful but highly unpredictable and therefore dangerous. Body rhetoric, when not subservient to the rationality of the mental word, is thought to inflame passions and turn rhetoric into demagoguery, mob appeal, or the outright use of force. Delivery, that is, must remain subordinate to rational speech for fear of turning rhetoric into its opposite. An examination of ancient Greek practices of persuasion, though, suggest that early rhetoric relied much more heavily on delivery orhupokrisis than is typically ii recognized by traditional historical scholarship. This practice required. I argue, an implicit rhetorical theory based on a culturally informed body habitus which is rarely theorized or explicitly articulated. Delivery is also neglected because of the paradoxical necessity in ancient Greek practice to conceal performative artistry. To recover delivery in its full significance, one must first understand its connection to other patterns of cultural practice, fields for individual action and genres of performance. By looking at the semantic field established by terms like sophos, metis, strophe, and mimesis, the importance of delivery as a practice, a type of action, and the defining feature of performance stands out. Delivery not only stylized individual speeches, but constituted the avenue through which orators presented their public selves, gaining personal honor and political influence. In ancient Greece, selfhood and the characteristics of selfhood that we consider to be innate and biological, like gender and sex, were understood to be changeable and constantly at risk of being lost. Thus, they had to be constantly performed, and performed well, without appearing to have been "composed’' or feigned through artistry. The case of Demosthenes and his opponents illustrate the degree to which rhetorical artistry and political influence depended upon carefully constructed patterns of deportment, gesture, dress, and voice, while at the same time demonstrating why and how the arts of self-presentation were disavowed and scorned as unmasculine and soft. Rhetorical delivery was central to the ancient Greek art of self-fashioning and to all persuasive artistry. Ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my adviser. Nan Johnson, for her continuous, unflagging, and inspiring confidence in my abilities, for steering me in the right direction, and for always making me explain what I mean. My committee members, Andrea Lunsford and Jennifer Terry offered engaged and insightful discussions, suggestions, questions, and comments on all the work leading up to and including this project. I have been fortunate in having readers who are at once critical, friendly, rigorous, and supportive. 1 would like to thank Mary Garrett, who does not appear on any official forms, for first asking some of the questions that this project attempts to answer, and for introducing me to some of the wide range of materials that bear upon rhetorical scholarship. 1 would like to thank Brenda Jo Brueggemann for all her many modes of encouragement and love: as wife, friend, scholar, critic, sparring partner, and role model. She has listened, discussed, read, suggested, and questioned patiently, honestly, and productively, and she has given me time to write. My children, Karl and Esther taught me things much more important than dissertation research and writing. 1 would finally like to thank the Ohio State University English Department for several fellowships which allowed me time to write. IV VITA October 12. 1961 ......................................................... Bom — Detroit, Michigan 1985 ............................................................................... B.A. English. Michigan State University, Lansing. Ml 1988 ...............................................................................M.Div. Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary. Princeton. NJ 1992 ...............................................................................M.A. English. University of Louisville. Louisville. KY 1992-present .................................................................. Graduate Administrative. Teaching. and Research Associate PUBLICATIONS 1. Brueggemann. Brenda and James Fredal. Studying Disability Rhetorically. Disability Studies Quarterly. Winter. 1998. 14-28. 2. Fredal. James. Ladybug Picnic: Engendering Pyrophobia and Promethean Desire. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. By Sonja Foss. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. 1996. 175-180. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................iv V ita ....................................................................................................................................................V Chapters; 1. Body Rhetoric: Word, Hand, and Fist ..................................................................................1 1.1 Rhetoric as the Word “Written with Intelligence"................................................. I 1.2 Rhetoric as the Performance of a Public Self .....................................................28 1.3 The Case of Meidias: Delivering Insolence to the Judgement of the People 35 2. The Drama of Persuasion: Action, Practice, Performance.................................................57 2.1 Act 1: A ction............................................................................................................57 2.1.1 Act 1, Scene 1 : Action as Public Speaking .......................................63 2.1.2 Act 1, Scene 2: Action as G am e.......................................................... 69 2.1.3 Act 1, Scene 3: Action as the Politics of W inking........................... 79 2.2 Act 2: Practice ..........................................................................................................82 2.2.1 Act 2, Scene 1 : Breaking the Rule ...................................................... 82 2.2.2 Act 2, Scene 2: Dialectical Knowledge ............................................. 90 2.2.3 Act 2, Scence 3: The H a b itu s ................................................................98 2.3 Act 3: Performance ...............................................................................................107 2.3.1 Act 3, Scene 1: Framing the House of R hetoric.............................

Load more