Cole Elliott

Garriott

3 November 2015

Help Received: MAJ Garriott’s comments

Athenian Aristocracy’s effect on Rhetorical Development

Throughout history many barriers have been broken, through much opposition, in societies. In the United States perhaps the most vivid and well-known example is the advancement of African Americans through the Civil Rights movement and beyond. In South Africa, the elimination of Apartheid and the racism along with it serves well as an example. In the Ancient Greek society, one of the most respected and non-dynamic aspects was the Aristocracy and the rights to those which were a part of it. In addition to simply being at the top of society, many different privileges and rights came along with that—the right to vote, to education, and to a lifestyle worthy of praise. Rhetoric, when thrown into the hands of the common people, serves as a threat to aristocratic lifestyle. Although rhetoric served as a way for the aristocracy to display their power, when other members of society enter the picture, this is not the case. Aristocracy will come to play a significant role in the development of rhetoric. With the help of the Sophists and their effect on education, aristocracy is viewed in an entirely different way—with less power, intelligence, and meaning. Through these rhetoric—with the help and assistance of the emergence of Democracy—comes to both define and diminish the aristocracy in Ancient Greece.

When a true aristocracy exists in a society, community, or even a small village, it is composed of human-beings with a general advantage over most people. These people that make up the aristocracy often control the political and social norms of the society in which they reside. Change can bring a dynamic and more open-minded society, and change is not good for an aristocracy that relies on keeping the same norms in order for them to retain their power. In a modern day aristocratic group, this threat might come in the form of a political issue or scandal, but in Ancient Greece and aristocracies long ago it was a more basic and elite aspect of society—education.

Education represented what the elite had and what the lower classes could not achieve. But now the Sophists—foreigners to Athenians—enter Athens and begin to provide education of rhetoric to the middle class simply for an exchange of pay. For the aristocracy, two problems are presented with Sophistic teachings of rhetoric in Athens—on one hand this provides a form of education that the aristocracy does not want the lower class to have and secondly, the Sophists teach in a way that preaches what the aristocracy sees as false, evil, and wrong. In Susan C. Jarratt’s Rereading The Sophists Classical Rhetoric Refigured, the sophists teaching style is examined—“Consciously refusing to tell history as a continuous, complete narrative leading to a pre-understood end, the sophist was able to throw into new light a range of facts and causes for the purpose of a more general consideration” (Jarratt 17). What Jarratt is pointing out here is that the sophists provided new, progressive ideas to the minds of the lower class, ultimately instilling in them confidence and the idea that the aristocracy can be defeated. In Isocrates’ Against The Sophists, the author provides an example of this sort of teaching, “[The sophists] transmit the science of discourse as simply as they would teach the letters of the alphabet, not having taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge, but thinking because of the extravagance of their promises they themselves will command admiration and the teaching of discourse will be held in higher esteem” (Isocrates). Isocrates asserts here that the Sophists teach with the perceived admiration of themselves, not with the real facts of education that exist. Isocrates believes in scholarly gentlemen, not new, cocky up-starts.

The sophists were the ultimate enemy for the aristocracy. In addition to teaching new ideals to the lower class, the sophists represented an outside perspective that was not respected by Ancient Greek culture. In Against The Sophists, Isocrates makes the point that the sophists aren’t just bad for the aristocracy, but the people of rhetoric as a whole—“For I note that the bad repute which results therefrom does not affect the offenders only, but that all the rest of us who are in the same profession share in the opprobrium” (Isocrates). Perhaps Isocrates is attempting to deceive his readers that rhetoric is used and affected by all of those in society—even though he in fact believes rhetoric belongs to the aristocracy. Regardless, it is important to see that Isocrates is displaying his own rhetoric to strike down the sophists “ill-minded” teaching ways that would destroy rhetoric in Ancient Greek society. One of the more interesting points that Jarratt looks into is the idea of “natural law”. She writes, “rhetoric can be closely linked with nomos as a process of articulating codes, consciously designed by groups of people, opposed both to the monarchical tradition of handing down decrees and to the supposedly non-human force of divinely controlled ‘natural law’” (Jarratt 42). Garrett clearly identifies rhetoric here as a device to break down an aristocracy. She furthers it by saying, “a sophistic interest in nomos  represents a challenge to that tradition” (Jarratt 42)—validating that the sophists not only represented a threat, but their teaching methods had motives that lead to the destruction of monarchy-based society. Nomos is the concept of the current law system and it pertaining to the natural reasoning of why it exists. Britannica Encyclopedia includes in their definition of nomos: “human invention arrived at by consensus for the purpose of restricting natural freedoms for the sake of expediency and self-interest” (Britannica). By explaining that law is random and effectively spontaneous, it is easy to conclude that combined with the rhetoric sophists taught, the aristocracy would be in some trouble. Isocrates also has his take on natural law in terms of the sophists—“But [sophistic teaching] cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers” (Isocrates). He is continuing to prove his disdain for the sophists by examining another angle in their weakness—natural talent and ability. Here, Isocrates asserts that it is absolutely impossible for one to gain the “natural aptitude” required to be a good rhetor without inheriting it. Thus contributing to the idea of nomos in that it cannot be arbitrarily created at random. Jarratt then comments further on the relationship between the sophists and the aristocracy of Ancient Greece—“[sophistic teaching] signifies the imposition of humanely determined patterns of explanation for natural phenomena in contrast to those assumed to exist ‘naturally’ or without the conscious intervention of human intellect” (Jarratt 42). Before the sophists entered the societal picture, the aristocracy essentially controlled all of what was thought—regardless of whether that seemed true or not. It is with this upper-hand that the aristocracy enjoys the ability to control the society in which they reside.

Prior to the sophists entrance into Greek culture, there was new thinking and reforms stirring up within the confines of Ancient Greece. In James A. Herrick’s The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction the sophists found themselves in the midst of a current shift to a democratic society according to rhetoric historian John Poulakos—“when the Sophists appeared on the horizon of the Hellenic city-states, they found themselves in the midst of an enormous cultural change: from aristocracy to democracy” (Herrick). Poulakos is then quoted as saying the new Greek political system “created the need for a new kind of education, an education consistent with the new politics of limited democracy” (Herrick). Enter the sophists, of course. The Sophists certainly deserve a large deal of credit for their ability to educate those in Ancient Greece that wouldn’t have otherwise, but a large deal of credit also needs to go to the perfect timing in this shift to democracy. It was this progressive, new, and exciting mindset that set the sophists up for much success to come before they even began their teachings. “The sophists were innovators in Greek education who emphasized intellectual, literary, and oratorical training hater than ethical, athletic, and military training,” (Clark 6) writes Donald Lemen Clark in his book, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. Here Clark speaks well to the Sophists and their abilities, but ultimately their ability to teach in this way was truly set up by former men that paved the way. Solon Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, and Pericles, Ancient Greek statesmen and philosophers, were four men that played a large role in establishing the original ideals of democratic thinking and in-essence, laying the groundwork for the sophists.

Going into more detail about what the sophists taught and how it really did displease those of the aristocracy, it is necessary to venture deeply into the previously-mentioned concept of what is and isn’t natural. This also relates back to the debate of natural talent versus actual learned skill. The sophists and aristocracy debated over whether it was natural talent gained from inheritance or learned skill that can be acquired through teachings like the sophists. Quoting from Clark’s book, “If you have natural power and add it to knowledge and practice, you will be a distinguished speaker. If you fall short of either of these, you will be to that extent defective” (Clark 4). It was assumed at that time that those with the ability to be a “distinguished speaker” were the members of society that mattered and were worth something—an interesting discovery considering how different it is in our world today. But in part of what is being said here is that those who do not own a natural sense of power and understanding of the world—which of course (in the view of the aristocrats) can only be attained through birth, status, and establishment—are not going to reach educational equality in society. So what in fact is natural power and what is the justification of its prerogative? Isocrates ventures into a similar territory that Clark does in talking about the creation and sustainment of a complete speech—“appropriately to adorn the whole speech with striking thoughts and to clothe it in flowing and melodious phrase—these things, I hold, require much study and are the task of a vigorous and imaginative mind” (Isocrates). There are several indicators as to why Isocrates believes a speech to be so complex. He mentions phrases such as “clothe it in flowing and melodious phrase”, providing a musical connotation that relates to perhaps music only the wealthy elite would have listened to? In addtion, it takes “a vigorous and imaginative mind” to prepare and execute such a speech—clealry indicating (in an under-the-table manner) that only a certain person of inheritance and special skill could do such a thing with a rhetorical exercise. These mentionings further embody Isocrates disgust and total oppostion to the sophists teachings and goals.

The aristocracy also placed a strong belief in the confidence and demeanor required to give a convincing rhetorical argument. Clark also is quoted as saying, “natural aptitudes of greatest importance in the education of an orator: a mind capable of learning the truth, industry, memory, a clear and charming voice, and assurance” and later “let [the “uneducated” man] stand up before the crowd and lack one thing only, namely, assurance, and he could not utter a word” (Clark 8). Both passages relate to the previously mentioned concept of being an orator in Ancient Greece—the most respected and well-known occupation one could hope for. Here Clark quotes what the aristocracy thinks of what it takes to become well-educated and gain the ability to successfully articulate. Assurance is clearly emphasized and it is interesting that it is. Because of all the “natural aptitudes” mentioned, assurance may make the least sense in terms of what could be taught by a teacher or mentor. Assurance and the confidence comes from within someone. It is the courage and will of someone to persevere and proceed in an action—in this case, the ability to step in front of an audience and successfully articulate. To provide a disclaimer, it was a much different time of understanding and interpretation of life in Ancient Greece. But aside from that, to suggest that assurance is something that is natural talent and is attained only through a family’s affluence, status, or history is exactly where the aristocracy is credited of being wrong. Isocrates writes in Against The Sophists, “the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught… show in their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in others” (Isocrates)—speaking to the teacher’s responsibility to uphold a standard that they themselves must also represent in their everyday actions. By stating this, Isocrates is telling the reader that the sophists cannot achieve this. They—because they are foreigners—do not possess this eloquence and perfection in their rhetorical ways. This can be nicely compared with that of assurance that Clark speaks of, and the fact that it is important to have another level of confidence in oratory—without it, a true sense of rhetorical success cannot be achieved.

Of course, as in anything in life, there is generally a flip side of the coin. In the case of Ancient Greek education that lies within the psychology of those in the aristocracy. In some ways, it can be interpreted that these men were responding to the sophists and the overall changing of society in such a negative manner because they hadn’t experienced even the faintest bit of change ever. Were these men simply scared of a destruction of the lives they knew and couldn’t see past it? Clark writes later that, “[the sophists] were ignoble because they were devoted to the practical arts of getting on in the world instead of to the disinterested search for abstract and theoretical truth” (Clark 6). Here Clark suggests—in the opinion of Plato—that with the sophists teaching came a great deal of not only change, but gut-wrenching change. With this change, the fear of people like Plato and other aristocrats in Ancient Greece was cemented in their conscious. In our American society, change comes and goes from time to time and even though there may be certain societal uproar or a period of time when tragedy strikes, for the most part not much is truly thought of it. It’s sad for me to admit it but when thinking about the tragedies that I’ve lived to see or hear of, the majority of them I didn’t even bother to think of a few days after they occurred. We’ve almost reached a point in our society that unless something directly affects you or your family, it’s just another tragedy occurring. So we have to wonder: were these men looking into the future—after seeing what transformation the sophists were leading in their society—and simply saying, what is going to happen to the quiant little existence that I know?

In closing, it is important to note what in fact all of these examples provided did for the development and advancement of rhetoric. While rhetoric was given a contextual history as a result of its involvement in the Ancient Greek society, it also gained key momentum to advance into the future. Without the sophists, aristocracy, and culture contained therein Ancient Greek society, would this course even be offered at VMI? Would departments of the liberal arts exist in the American educational system? These sorts of questions that we have the distinct privilege of pondering and wondering about for a lifetime. Without the differences of opinion, debate, and discovery of a different vision of how society can work, rhetoric would have never left the ground—and of course we would never be able to examine it. In addition, it is important to respect the true credibility and intelligence of  the people debating it at the time. The experiences, both triumphs and struggles, rhetoric had in Ancient Greece gave it a foundation for the future—a foundation that certainly led to much more than the aristocracy had planned on.

Works Cited

Clark, Donald. Rhetoric In Greco-Roman Education. Morningside Heights: Columbia UP, 1957. Print.

Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2013. Print.

Jarratt, Susan. Rereading The Sophists Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UPCa, 1991. Print.

“Nomos | Greek Philosophy.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 3 Oct. 2015.

Norlan, George, trans. Against The Sophists. Vol. 2. London/New York: William Heinemann LTD/G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Print.