Digging the Classics

     The history of theory and criticism begins with the classical theorists, because, their work influenced the development of theory and continues to influence present day theorists. In western culture, the big hitters or the classical theorists most widely studied and highly regarded are Plato and Aristotle. In addition, a renewed interest in theory and rhetoric has brought other theorists such as Gorgias and Longinus (to name a few) into the “picture,” as well, thus widening the scope of classical theory and criticism.  “Taken together, the classical theorists represent a wide range of opinions about literature and its significance developed over a millennium (from the fifth century B.C.E to the fifth century C.E.) (7).” In order to break this down for myself and thus personally discern the impact classical theory has had on Literary Criticism, I would like to explore the themes within the classical works I have been studying in my Critical theories class.

1) Gorgias of Leontini (ca. 483-376 B.C.E.) from “Encomium of Helen”

                Gorgias saw speech as a powerful and beautiful form of persuasion. Gorgias was a Sophist, which was a profession not a school of thought, that sought to teach the art of rhetoric to those who could pay for the pleasure. The rise of the sophists was largely due to the political transformation of the day. The Greeks maintained a Democracy that was governed by the people and thus required its people to have a certain level of oratory ability. Gorgias wrote the “Encomium of Helen” for his own amusement in order to display the power properly directed speech could have over an audience. Gorgias’ focus on form over moral intent would later influence Plato’s focus on rhetorical moral purity.

                Gorgias’ “Encomium of Helen” undertook the seemingly impossible task of freeing Helen of Troy from any blame previously bestowed upon her, regarding the Trojan War. Gorgias argues that Helen’s actions, that of abandoning her husband for the Trojan Prince Paris and thus starting the war, were brought about by way of fate/the will of the Gods, physical force, rhetorical persuasion, or love. Gorgias then goes on to explain that either of these forces would leave Helen blameless, as a human cannot restrain a God, physical force would mark Helen a figure of violation or rather as a victim, “speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body” (39), and love is either a force of God or a human weakness and thus leaves it’s victims blameless. This type of reasoning, obviously, leads a reader or listener to not only consider Gorgias’ argument concerning Helen’s innocence but also to consider the idea that anyone, through well thought out reasoning, could be proven innocent of any crime. Thus, Gorgias displays the power that rhetoric has in an intellectual body.

                How can I apply this to Literature? Well, if anything Gorgias could help present day scholars or students of literature understand that one must question an author’s intent as well as the trustworthiness of a narrator. When we read a piece of prose, are we gleaning some form of “truth,” or are we being sold an artful rhetorical fabrication?

2) Plato (ca. 427-ca. 347 B.C.E.) Republic Books II, III, X.

                Plato, a man disgusted with the violence and corruption in Athenian politics, sought to dig deeper into the nature of Ethics and in doing so create an ideal state. Plato believed in rational thought, morals, a loss of ego, a doing away with the illogical distraction of passions, and an ever present quest for Truth. Plato reasoned that no state could ever be truly virtuous until philosophers became kings or kings became philosophers. The Republic was an orally created rhetorical conversation between a character named Socrates and, presumably, students of philosophy/possible future Athenian leaders. This conversational format allowed Plato to rhetorically “discuss” his philosophy concerning an ideal state without actually taking credit for any of the ideas brought forth in The Republic.

                In The Republic the character Socrates discusses the importance justice, despite the fact that most people feel that an unjust life is easier and better than a just one. Socrates argues that while most people are quick to inflict injustice they are loath to suffer through it, which is why laws are created; laws, by dictating what is viewed as just, eradicate suffering, but, they also reveal a flaw within human nature: no one is willingly just, we are just merely because we have to be. Now, in order to safe guard justice, while creating a society founded on logic, Socrates argues for rigid systems of education which would focus on Truth. Imitation or mimesis would not be allowed, which means all art, including poetry would be banned. Socrates argues that art, by being a copy of a copy (The original copy being of course earthly nature which is a copy of something in God’s mind) dissuades from truth and thus justice, because it distorts reality.

                How can I apply this to Literature? Plato was a seemingly hard man, who had little faith in the common man. He thought art would corrupt us and lead us into a world of falsehood. Plato was right about Literature being mimetic, that is an imitation of nature, but, in knowing this, can we not then use Literature to understand the nature of ourselves, of our souls? If Literature copies and corrupts truth, would not what we choose to corrupt teach us what is important to our society and our sense of humanity? I believe that through Literature we explore, disfigure, pull apart, and recreate the parts of ourselves and our world which are too rigid to live by, and in doing so we give room to imagine any type of possibility which might give way to a new kind of truth, not Plato’s logical truth, but something more poetic, the truth of our souls.

3) Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) Poetics, On Rhetoric

                 Aristotle was a student of Plato and his work is a non-unified piece assembled by way of student notes pressed into wax tablets. In Aristotle’s time the Greeks sought to be a “free person”, that is to rise above the level of labor and even “work” to that of a man known by speech and action. To the Greeks, speech turned a man into an object of change and a man who spoke in way he need not was in a way a hero, because he undertook the risking of his “life” to compete publically. To be a master of speech, to think logically, and to be in constant discussion was to create an assertion of reality or rather to prove your humanity. Men are not beasts, because they ask about the meaning of life and know they are going to die, thus to live like a beast, that is to merely labor, one loses sight of their humanity. The Greeks were vividly aware that they were creating city states through their words not by something akin to divinity, thus, to harness the power of speech is to harness the power of creation.

                Aristotle in some ways created the art of persuasion, but his genius was not rooted solely in invention for men argued before him and they argued well; Aristotle’s genius lied in description. Aristotle’s work On Rhetoric reads almost as a rhetorical guidebook. To Aristotle, rhetoric was a scientific endeavor and he sought to know the ins and outs of the game. Here is a simplified list of some of his main rhetorical points:

Aristotle’s Appeals: Logos-Logic, Pathos-Emotion, Ethos-Expertise

5 Stages of Preparation: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, Delivery

3 Kinds of public speech: Forensic-legal/past, Deliberative-future, Epideictic-present

                Aristotle’s scientific approach to persuasion marks him as an authority on speech and in turn leads to his authority on prose or written works, for is Literature not just a different type of persuasion? In his work Poetics, Aristotle creates the first work created solely to critic literature, in other words, Aristotle is our first self-proclaimed Literary Theorist. He divides poetry into Comedy, Tragedy, and Epic Verse. He describes the differing characteristics of each, but, regards them each differently. Comedy he sees as a representation of the ugly or ridiculous within us, Tragedy is a representation of people who are better than us who fall from grace in some way or another, and Epic Verse is similar to Tragedy but longer. Tragedy brings about Catharsis which is a purging of emotions. Aristotle felt that Cathartic works allow us to release that which is pent up inside, thus freeing us from our emotions; this directly contradicts Plato’s theory of art which stipulated that poetry makes us unreasonable slaves to our emotions.

How Can I apply this to Literature? Aristotle birthed the idea of logical, step by step, analysis of rhetorical and prose works and thus opens the door to Literary Theory. Through Aristotle’s works I can begin to see the boxes I might put works in, in order to help dismantle, interpret, and free their meanings.