Rhetorical Ethics in the Comedy of Aristophanes A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE ...

218 Pages·2014·0.92 MB·English

Rhetorical Ethics in the Comedy of Aristophanes

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
BY

Sean William Larson

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Advisor: Edward Schiappa

May 2014
© Sean William Larson 2014
i
Acknowledgments

A dissertation draws influence from a myriad of individuals, without whom my
analysis and arguments would have been less scholarly, critical, and focused. I am
deeply indebted to everyone who has provided instruction or support since I became
interested in the mechanics of language and persuasion, from my earliest Latin and Greek
classes to the final revisions to the dissertation itself.

This project benefited significantly from the efforts and support of my dissertation
committee. Ed Schiappa is everything one could ask for in an advisor and more. From
the pragmatics of wading into professional academia to the challenges of presenting
interdisciplinary research in rhetorical and classical studies, Ed has consistently guided
my understanding of the ancient world and how scholars can continue to bring insight
into its modern counterpart. From my first course with him on classical rhetoric to the
later versions of the dissertation, Richard Graff immediately notices the key issues of an
argument and calls attention to how they fit within the current state of scholarship in our
field. My analysis and willingness to engage other scholars is a direct result of his
efforts. Art Walzer poses the kind of challenging questions that make graduate students
blanch, but that ultimately transform them into scholars who can contribute effectively to
rhetorical studies. There is no professor I enjoy sparring with more than he! Ron Greene
does not research the ancient world, but he is precisely the audience I hope to address in
future studies. His focus on the larger issues posed by Aristophanes and what they mean
for our understanding of modern rhetoric and ethical citizenship were an invaluable
contribution to the project, and a model of how to position and frame future arguments.

I would also like to thank faculty and friends who did not serve on my committee
for their support leading up to and during the dissertation. Professors Karlyn Kohrs
Campbell, Kirt Wilson, and Mary Vavrus provided key guidance as department chair and
directors of graduate study. Bea Dehler and Joan Lund were a consistent source of
information on policy, keeping the graduate students informed on department changes,
and kept my studies funded long enough to span 2 M.A.’s and a Ph.D. Lastly, I would
like to thank friends and colleagues who provoked discussion, offered moral support,
challenged ideas, and also worked to refine my approach as a scholar. On the rhetorical
studies side, I am forever grateful to Kevin Haebeom Vollmers, Tim Behme, Martin
Lang, Mariko Izumi, Stacy Fitzpatrick, Peter Gregg, Kristen Swenson, Aric Putnam, and
Chani Marchiselli. I must also thank Jim Hamm, Heather Woods, and Christy Marquis
for being the definition of collegial as we slogged through the philological trenches.
Much gratitude goes out to Jennifer Willis-Rivera, Grace Coggio, Robin Murray, and the
other faculty at the University of Wisconsin, River Falls for consistently keeping me
balanced between teaching and scholarship.

It would be remiss not to mention the outstanding faculty in the department of
Classical and Near Eastern Studies, without whom my ability to engage texts in Latin and
Greek, along with a corresponding sense of historical context for the ancient world,
ii
would never have developed fully. In many ways Doug Olson was the classics
counterpart to Ed Schiappa, providing candid advice about conference presentations,
argument construction, developing a keen eye for textual evidence, and being as skilled a
philologist as possible. He was the first to kindle my appreciation for Aristophanes and
to show that comedy can be a profound rhetorical force. Doug was a true mentor and
educator, whom I have used as the model for leading discussions and constructing
assignments in my own courses. Betty Belfiore cultivated an affection not only for
ancient philosophy but tragedy as well. My attention to drama as moralizing speech and
the ability for narrative arguments to influence audiences is a result of her valued
instruction. George Sheets conveyed the importance of text transmission and the weight
of intertextuality, demonstrating that texts are deeply connected from one author to
another. As the professor of both Greek and Latin composition, my language skills
improved markedly with his teaching. Chris Nappa was another challenging presence,
cutting to the quick of an argument so that any gaps or weakness would be addressed
effectively and quickly. His presence in and out of the classroom was the kind of rare
support that few professors can provide, especially when preparing for philological
audiences. Steve Smith was a formative influence on my understanding not only on
Latin as a language, but also how to teach it effectively. He was often a calming
presence during the more intensive points of the semester. Finally I would like to thank
the office staff of Barbara Lehnhoff and Victoria Keller, for keeping the department
running smoothly, putting out the occasional brushfire, and making sure graduate
students such as myself were well funded.

It is important to acknowledge the wonderful faculty at Truman State University
for setting me along this path many years ago. David Christiansen, Clifton Kreps,
Rebecca Harrison, Bridget Thomas, and Alex Tetlak were the bedrock of my introduction
to classics. Janet Davis and Kevin Minch then opened my eyes to the worlds of rhetoric
and argumentation. This dissertation could not have been written without their friendship
and world class instruction.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support throughout
the years. My parents, Alex and Martha Larson, encouraged me to pursue a budding
interest in language from the humble beginnings of my first Latin classes all the way to
the completion of graduate school. I hope they can read this project with pride. Last but
certainly not least, Ginny Windels was also one of the more crucial factors in the
completion of this dissertation. As wife, confidante, and editor, you are as much the
author of this project as I. I hope it lives up to your exacting standards, and am forever
grateful for your love, humor, and support.
iii
Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Alex and Martha Larson, for showing me the
value of curiosity and pursuing knowledge.
iv
Table of Contents

Chapter 1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1

Performance Culture in 5th c. BCE Athens………………………………………..1
The Politics of Old Comedy………………………………………………………5
The Rhetorical Power of Ridicule………………………………………………..13
Aristophanes as Rhetorical Agent………………………………………………..24
Aristophanes as Stylistic Critic…………………………………………………..29
Aristophanes as Critic of Rhetoric……………………………………………….36
A New Direction: Ethical Arguments in Old Comedy…………………………..47
Old Comedy and Kenneth Burke’s Theory of the Negative……………………..54

Chapter 2
Ethical Considerations of Sophistry in Clouds…………………………………………..72

Introduction………………………………………………………………………73
Old vs. New Education…………………………………………………………..78
The Ethics of Old vs. New Education……………………………………………85
Sophistry in Practice: Pheidippides vs. Strepsiades……………………………...99
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..109

Chapter 3
Judicial Ethics for Orators and Jurors in Wasps………………………………………..118

Introduction……………………………………………………………………..119
Delusions of Grandeur in the Agōn……………………………………………..131
Philocleon’s Benefits of the Juror Lifestyle……………………………………133
Bdelycleon’s Indictment of Demagogues………………………………………142
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..151

Chapter 4
Ethical Criticisms of Oratory in Knights……………………………………………….157

Introduction……………………………………………………………………..158
A Desire to be Shameless: Arguments in the First Agōn………………….……163
The Ethics of Inter-Orator Debate……………………………………………...169
Bribery and Political Pandering: Arguments in the Second Agōn……………...173
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..184
v
Chapter 5
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………..189

Summary of Evidence and Analysis……………………………………………189
Implications of Comedic Oratory……………………………………………....195
Implications for Future Research……………………………………………….198

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………201
1
Chapter 1

Introduction

ô despoinai, deomai toinun humôn touti panu micron,
tôn Hellênôn einai me legein hekaton stadiousin ariston.

O Mistresses, I ask of you this very small favor,
Of all the Greeks that I be the best in speaking by one hundred miles.
-Clouds, 429-430

Understanding the role of the comic playwright Aristophanes in the history of
persuasive speech and performance is no small task. Rhetoric scholars and classicists
often consider his plays testimonial documents for the origins and practice of oratory in
the late 5th century BCE in Athens; Clouds in particular is regularly treated as
contemporary evidence that the sophists were peddlers of logical snake-oil, teaching
unscrupulous students how to take advantage of their fellow citizens purely for selfish
ends. This point of emphasis reduces Aristophanes to the role of historical witness
without giving him credit for his own acts of social commentary and intellectual
contributions to the polis. Other attention is given to Aristophanes as pandering moralist,
decrying the outrageous and inimical behaviors corrupting a once prosperous city and its
many institutions. This avenue of research routinely minimizes the playwright’s
influence because his anti-war plays appear to have little practical effect on Athenian
politics, and focuses mainly on institutional critique without solutions for the audience to
consider. My purpose in this dissertation is to draw attention to Aristophanes as an
ethicist who uses comedy to reorient audience values and behaviors. Using Kenneth
Burke’s theory of the hortatory negative, I argue that Aristophanes depicts his characters
as abhorrent models for oratorical behavior, suggesting implicitly to the audience via
inference that an alternative type of speaker may engage in more ethical oratory and
thereby provide more effective and beneficial leadership in the polis. As introduction to
my analysis in this chapter, I consider the performance culture and politics of Old
Comedy, the rhetorical power and advantage of using ridicule over more traditional
persuasive forms, review the scholarship of Aristophanes and his relationship to rhetoric
and oratory, present arguments about the ethical character of comedy, and conclude with
a discussion of Burke’s theory of the hortatory negative and its relationship to
Aristophanes.

I. Performance Culture in 5th c. BCE Athens

Athenian culture in the late 5th c. BCE was marked by an array of intersecting
values and practices, all of which fashioned a keen identity for democratic politics and
2
communal welfare. Male citizens were encouraged to take an active interest and
participation in the body politic, serving as soldiers, officials, or members of the voting
public. They enjoyed and promoted agonistic competitions throughout society, through
such varied fora as the deliberative assembly, which established public policy, or by
judging plays in the polis-wide dramatic festivals. At the heart of these contexts lie
oratorical performance and a budding understanding of rhetorical theory. Citizens
engaged in combative arguments before audiences of their peers to carry influence,
decide important issues of the day, and construct a uniquely democratic identity based
“upon larger habits of thought, feeling, and imagination” compared with other areas of
the ancient Mediterranean world (Halliwell “Audience” 141).
These values and the democratic ideology they privileged encouraged citizens to
adopt certain practices which would fashion them into a robust, ideal member of the
polis. Although a person had to possess the proper birthright in order to be granted the
benefits of citizenship, active participation in Athenian culture was equally as important
and considered a core behavior for this ideal citizen. The number of citizens exceeded
the available positions of leadership within the political infrastructure, so the majority of
voting-eligible males would contribute by serving as members of audiences. Legislative
debates may have been guided by individual orators, but the audience in attendance
would make the final determination over which policies were accepted and rejected.
Advocacy in the lawcourts would have been a pointless exercise without juries to provide
3
verdicts to cases. Even the plays performed at dramatic festivals required an audience to
give opinions about which production had been the most enjoyable.1
It may seem like a pedestrian act to hoot and holler, boo or clap for a play, but this
active participation was heavily encouraged for all citizens. Unlike the other oratorical
fora, it was more convenient and manageable for citizens to watch tragedies and
comedies because the festival environment was a handy justification to rest from work.
The additional attendance also creates a more democratic environment because more of
the citizenry is represented in the same place (Cartledge 17). Even the poor of Athens
could attend the festivals through the Theoric fund, which provided money for citizens to
pay the entrance fee if they could not otherwise afford it. This fund was considered so
vital to the democratic process and conception of citizenship, that it “was protected by
law: it was a prosecutable offense even to propose changes to the fund” (Goldhill
“Audience”67). The Theoric fund was such a hallmark of the festival experience that it
persisted well into the 4th c., only being abolished by a Macedonia-supported oligarchy
aiming to reduce democratic power (Csapo and Slater 287). Even if they were not trained
orators themselves, great value was placed on witnessing a speech performance and
rendering a judgment on it.2 One could say that political involvement was an ethical
imperative for the Athenian citizen.
Oratory served as the object of audience judgment in a wide range of contexts. Apart
from the direct speaking situations involving an individual policy, court case, or play, the

1 Goldhill (“Audience” 1997) provides a robust discussion of the roles of citizens at the dramatic festivals,
including pre-ritual events and the importance of participation (55ff).
2 Cartledge (1997) presents more detailed information about the wages owed to jurors, indicating again the
institutional importance of participating as a witness to oratory at political events (10).