Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle. Richard Leo Enos
Читать онлайн книгу.
The other group of individuals in the Iliad and Odyssey who have the capacity for eloquence are the aoidoi, the bards who “weave” together or compose chants of heroic tales to honor the gods. Demodocus and Phemius are two examples from the Odyssey (1.154; 8.65–67; 13.27–28). Aoidoi are invariably given the epithet “divine” or “god-like” aoidoi who receive their power of eloquence from Zeus (Odyssey 1.325–349; Odyssey 8.43, 47, 87, 539; Odyssey, 13.27; Odyssey 9.3, 4). The sixth century BCE lyric poet Pindar considered “aoidoi” to be “weavers of chants” (Nemean Odes 2.1, 2). These composers of discourse were the pioneers of the techniques of oral literature and evolved into the formal guild of Rhapsodes who are discussed in Plato’s Ion. Both the aoidoi, and their later descendents the Rhapsodes, orally composed and preserved texts of heroic tales, of which the Iliad and Odyssey are the most famous. During the sixth century BCE, the Rhapsodes developed written compositional techniques to preserve by script the collection of Homeric words and grammar which was becoming increasingly rare and, consequently, difficult to pronounce. These compositional techniques became so established that by the fifth century BCE private texts of Homer were known to have existed in Athens (Xenophon Symposium 3.6; Memorabilia 4.2.10).
In review, this chapter addressed several issues. First, the earliest Greek literature known indicates that there was an awareness among the characters of the Iliad and Odyssey of heuristic processes that could be used to develop human technai to produce discourse. Secondly, this discourse had power. The power was man-made, but it could produce emotive effects and resolve discord and strife through conceptual, eristic discourse. Third, there is some evidence that a gentler structuring of discourse to turn or direct the mind and soothe emotions was the precursor to protreptic discourse. Lastly, man has some potential to be eloquent but the gift was god-given inspiration and available to only a chosen few. Although women could wrangle and produce strife, they could not be eloquent or even wily in their discourse; they had to content themselves with being reasonable!
The implications of these points are important for the history of rhetoric. It is clear by Homer’s tales of a proto-literate, Bronze Age culture that conceptual processes were being formulated for the structuring and understanding of discourse. There is an awareness of the potential of this power and even an indication of the relationship of thought and discourse. Even at this early stage of development, human technai (i.e., strategies or heuristics) for the structuring of discourse were being developed. More importantly, with this consciousness there is an emerging shift from a theocentric notion to more of an anthropocentric notion of discourse. The supremacy of the gods as the generating force of effective expression would be challenged to the extent that words and arguments could be composed by Sophists so powerful that they could defy the very existence of the gods who had once been credited with giving them the divine power of speech. To Zeus, it may have been better if Pandora had not opened the lid of that jar in the first place.
The Evolution of the Hellenic Rhapsode
A good song, I think. The end’s good—that came to me in one piece—and the rest will do. The boy will need to write it, I suppose, as well as hear it. Trusting to the pen; a disgrace, and he with his own name made. But write he will, never keep it in the place between his ears. And even then he won’t get it right alone. I still do better after one hearing of something new than he can after three. I doubt he’d keep even his own songs for long, if he didn’t write them. So what can I do, unless I’m to be remembered only by what’s carved in marble?
—Mary Renault, The Praise Singer
Traditionally, Corax and Tisias of Sicily (fifth century BCE) are acknowledged as the inventors of rhetoric. However, Rhapsodes (the individuals largely responsible for the transmission of Homeric literature) were developing techniques for the theory and practice of oral literature at least three centuries earlier and were a link between Homer and the systematized rhetoric that emerged centuries later in classical Athens. Milman Parry’s discovery that the Iliad and Odyssey were oral documents was an extremely important contribution to the study of the prehistory of rhetoric. Parry’s exhaustive efforts and evidence clearly reveal that Homeric compositions were recorded so that they could be recited aloud (Milman Parry 1928 and 1932; Adam Parry 1–50; Dodds 1968; cf. Davidson 216–18, 224). The implications of this discovery not only indicate a shared interest in oral technique between Rhapsodes and ancient rhetoricians, but also compel an examination of the role of Rhapsodes in codifying, transmitting, and even composing this oral literature. More importantly, research done by Parry, Albert B. Lord, and Berkley Peabody demonstrates that early oral compositions reveal an ancient oral tradition functioning as a “highly sophisticated sociolinguistic institution that plays a central role in maintaining the continuities of the culture in which it occurs” (Peabody 1). Rhapsodes were composers of epic poetry who continued from the formation of Homeric literature through the evolution of rhetoric into a discipline. Yet the relationship between the Rhapsodes and the development of rhetoric was far from autonomous, for in the period prior to rhetoric’s emergence as a discipline, Rhapsodes developed compositional techniques that laid a foundation that contributed to rhetoric’s development.
Some of the more valuable contributions about Rhapsodes came from the German philologist Harald Patzer, who made commendable efforts to explain the etymology and nature of the term “rhapsode” (‘ρaψωdόs), and Carolo Odo Pavese, who made a thorough study of the epic tradition of rhapsodic literature. Both Patzer and Pavese, however, concentrated on linguistic issues of composition and not on the evolution of the tradition itself. In the field of communication, Eugene and Margaret Bahn deserve recognition for calling attention to the importance of Rhapsodes in the development of Greek literature. Donald E. Hargis improved on the efforts of the Bahns by synthesizing and focusing earlier research.
Despite these efforts, contemporary research on the origin and role of Rhapsodes, particularly prior to and during the establishment of rhetorical theory, is slight. Moreover, several incompatible notions about Rhapsodes persist in the few studies that have been conducted. First, the origin and development of a rhapsodic tradition is unclear. Likewise, the relationship between a group of Homeric experts, called “Homeridae” (e.g., Pindar Nemean Odes 2.1, 2), and Rhapsodes has not been thoroughly explained. Second, the importance of Rhapsodes to the history of Greek literature is still an issue of dispute. Writers such as G.S. Kirk regard Rhapsodes as “decadent and moribund” entertainers who were guilty of “straining” for “rhetorical effects” which corrupted the text of Homer (Kirk, Epic 29). Eugene and Margaret Bahn do imply that Rhapsodes played significant roles in the development of Greek thought, but they do not specify either the nature or impact of such a role (13). Finally, there is no agreement concerning the date of the demise of Rhapsodes nor why it occurred. Hargis, for example, argues that Rhapsodes reached their zenith at the time of Plato but persisted until the time of Christ (397). Martin Litchfield West claims that Rhapsodes practiced their art down to the third century after Christ (920). This chapter attempts to resolve the uncertainties noted above by tracing the development of a rhapsodic tradition prior to and throughout the period of Hellenic classical rhetoric.
A. Etymological Issues Concerning the Homeric “Rhapsode.”
As the preceding section reveals, a casual reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey inaccurately suggests that such characters as Phemius and Demodocus could be stereotyped as illiterate improvisers chanting Homeric verse. If ancient terminology is properly understood, however, these predecessors to Rhapsodes were developing and employing systems of oral discourse even before the Homeric age. The origin and relationship of Homeric interpreters with Rhapsodes, moreover, is best understood through etymology, for the literal meaning of such terms as “bard” and “rhapsode” has been a source of misunderstanding. The term “bard” is particularly confusing since it has no Greek equivalent and implies a distinction from the term “rhapsode” which is essentially arbitrary. The closest cognate to a “bard” is the Latin bardus, which means a poet, singer or minstrel (usually in reference to Gauls). Individuals such as Phemius and Demodocus, who are commonly labeled by translators as “bards” or “minstrels,” are consistently called an “aoidoi” (άoiδoί) in Homeric literature. Yet Plato, who lived over three centuries after Homer, specifically refers to Phemius in the Ion as a “rhapsode” (Ion 533C). Plato would seem to be mistaken, for he should have called