Universify International
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for mîcrofHming. WhQe the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. Universify Microfilms International 300 N, 2EEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WCIR 4EJ. ENGLAND 7921260 RINKER. CRAIG WAYNE THE ART OF CENSURE: CLASSICAL •PSOGOS” RHETORIC. THE UN IVERS ITT OF OKLAHOMA, PH*D., 1979 COPR. 1 9 7 9 RINKER, CRAIG WAYNE Urwers*/ Micnânirns IrÉemaüonal s o o n , z e e b r o a d , a n n a r b o r , m i 4 s i o 6 © 1979 CRAIG WAYNE RINKER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE a r t " o f CENSURE: CLASSICAL tj^oroS RHETORIC A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY CRAIG WAYNE RINTCER Norman, Oklahoma 1979 THE ART OF CENSURE: CLASSICALRHETORIC APPROVEDV m ■ /à r ^ V \ . DISSERTATION COMMITTEE THE ART OF CENSURE: _ 'JlSSICAl PSOGOS RHETORIC BY: CRAIG WAYNE RINKER MAJOR PROFESSOR: PAUL A. BAREFIELD, Ph.D. This study investigated the development of invective into the rhetorical theories of 4th century B.C. Greece. The work showed that invective was a vital aspect of Greek public activity rooted in their poetical, legal, and oratorical tra ditions. The study isolated technical meanings of various terms for invective from individual rhetors and focused on sophists who stood out as teachers of the art. The study con centrated on the art in the Rhetoric to Alexander and Aris totle's Rhetoric. Invective functioned culturally as the presentation of ignominy or the casting off of evil with vile words. In vective's power for social criticism, foreshadowed in Homer, was used forcefully by Archilochus and other iambographers. While invective's apotropaic function transferred into ancient comedy, Aristotle classed the iambographers as t>sogos speakers. The sages' maxims on a proper use of blame indicated a typing of blame into categories. Laws on loidoria, anorrata, and the political dokimasia demonstrated the tension between the pro tection of citizens from slander and the protection of the city-state from undesirables. Plato restricted psogos to ed ucators for training ideal citizens. The earliest sophists taught the art. Evenus of Paros invented narapsogoi and de veloped commonplaces of blame. Thrasymachus became famous for employing diabole and defending against it. Gorgias de veloped censures to new stylistic heights. Isocrates out- shown the rest in theoretic treatment and the moral value he attached to censures on great themes. Anaximenes' Rhetoric to Alexander interchanged psektikon and kakologikon as the species'label and included ridicule, and abuse within its parameters. Epitimao (Isocrates' label for moral censure) primarily meant an irritated jury's uproar against the speaker. Anaximenes clearly placed diabole within the species of accusation and defense, mentioning it only indirectly for kakologikon prooemiums. He considered blame an independent, but interrelated, species of rhetoric not normally employed in contest situations. Psektikon pro posed to achieve moral condemnation using blameworthy things, developed by amplification, and aimed against persons, actions, emotions, and possessions. Anaximenes showed no •unique concern for artistry in this species. Aristotle uniquely treated the suh-genre in his process of proofs and hound nsosos particularly to artis tic ethos. Since usogos was classed under epideictic, the following terms were defined: (l) theoros was a judge in the wide sense, (2) dynamis was hoth the faculty of the speaker to demonstrate the case and the magnitude of vice displayed, (3) euideixis meant the demonstration of the sub ject of the speech. Aristotle gave example censures on practical themes and did not support epideictic as mere dis play of skill. Censure was distinguished from other genres hy its present time frame, non-contest occasion, ethos material, ethical goal, and enthymemic amplification. Psogos excluded diahole, loidoria. hyhris, and katageloion. Aristotle did not relate indignation to censure. Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge Dr. George L. Kustas, who, while serving as visiting professor of Classical Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, critiqued my pros pectus. And, I wish to express appreciation to Dr. William R. Carmack, Dr. Paul A. Barefield, Dr. A. J. Keisserer, and Dr. J. Clayton Feaver of the University of Oklahoma for enlightening me to the vissitudes of classical rhetoric and ancient Greece. And I wish particularly to express my deep appreciation of my dissertation chairman. Dr. Paul Barefield, now chairman of the Department of Speech at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, for his persistance, perseverance, and continued willingness to serve in this capacity until the completion of this dissertation. I also wish to acknowledge here my parents, Berl and Maxene Ririker, who aided me financially during the years of my doctoral program. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my loving wife, Kathy, who had to give her husband up for this project, for her patience, perseverance, and sacrifice. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.................... 1 II. SETTING FOR THE THEORETIC TREATMENT OF BLAME............... l6 The Poetic/Oramatxc Tradition 19 Invective in the Homeric Poems.. 20 The lamhic Poets..:........... 23 Old and Middle Comedy......... 32 The Philosophical/Legal Tradition.. 38 Pre-S ocra tic Philosophers..... 39 Laws Concerning Invective..... ^5 Plato on Blame................ 55 The Rhetorical forerunners to the Rhetoric of Blame..... 66 Evenus of Paros.......... 68 Thrasymachus of Chalcedon..... 71 Gorgias of Leontini...... 78 Isocrates... 83 III. INVECTIVE IN THE RHETORIC TO ALEXANDER.................... 102 The Place of Blame in the Treatise........................ 10? Definition of Blame Oratory...... 118 Materials and Objects of Blame 120 Methods of Blame................. 124- Arrangement of Blame and its Style....................... 12? Blame in Relation to Accusation and Attack............ 131 in Accusation....... 135 iv KttKoXojcoL in Accusation.......... 144- Censure as Epideictic Oratory........ 150 Censure and Ethical Considerations... 155 Suromary........................... 15^ IV. BLAME ORATORY IK ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC ................... I6l Setting for the Oratory of Blame 168 Explication of Blame Oratory......... 191 Methods of Blame Oratory........... 201 Style and Arrangement of Blame..... 208 Other Pertinent Considerations..... 217 Injustice as Blame and as Accusation..................... 217 The Presentation of 222 mi?he Relation of Blame and Anger... 224 V. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION..... 236 The Climate of Rhetorical Invective.. 237 Aristotle and Anaximenes Compared.... 242 Blame Oratory and the Epideictic Genre....... ;.................... 251 Conclusion and Questions...... 25& BIBLIOGRAPHY...................... 259 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Focus of the Study Classical epideictic oratory has traditionally been labeled as "mere display" or "praise rhetoric" and has been relegated to all those occasions where nothing important needs to be addressed, in the manner of the modern after- dinner speech. Yet there is evidence that the ancients employed one of the sub-divisions of the genre, censure, both extensively and with the purpose of making a decisive impact. This study, then, seeks to expound and clarify the role and usage of invective and censure in ancient Greece. The essay develops the following theses: First, the study produces a history of the development of invec tive into rhetorical theory in the 4th century B.C. The work shows that invective vra.s a vital aspect of Greek public activity rooted in the poetical, legal, and oratorical tra dition. Second, the study establishes the technical meanings of