C. T. Murphy has argued that the longer speeches in Aristophanes’ plays display a familiarity with the traditional divisions of a forensic oration as outlined in the Rhetoric to Alexander, which although about a century later is our earliest extant discussion of the formal organization of topics within a speech.45 The preface to this treatise and other sources suggest that this standardization of sequence began with Tisias and Corax.46 However, the premises and specific analyses on which critics applying these concepts to Aristophanes have relied do not withstand sharp critical scrutiny, since few if any of the speeches really feature both diegesis and pisteis, which constitute the two most important divisions in the traditional quadripartite scheme.47
Critics may have made the mistake of looking for formal structure in the wrong places. Although many speeches in Aristophanes aim to persuade their audience, most are not, strictly speaking, forensic orations in which one would expect close point-bypoint parody of the style and structure of a prosecution or defense speech. The one instance where we do have a formal forensic contest is in fact probably the most successful example, the trial of the dog Labes in Wasps (907-930, excerpted):
Cydathenian You’ve heard the indictment that I’ve indicted Hound: Against this one here, O jurymen. The most terrible
Of deeds has he done both to me and to the shiprowers’ rabble.
For running off to a corner, he insicilated the better part of The Big Cheese and filled up on it in the dark.
(Philocleon interrupts)
And he didn’t share it with me when I asked him.
Who can bring you benefit
Unless he throws something to me, the Hound?
(Philocleon interrupts again)
Don’t let him off, since he is by far
The most monogluttonous man of all dogs,
Who when he sailed round the mortar bowl,
Ate off the rind from the cities.
(Philocleon interrupts again)
For these things punish him! As the saying goes,
‘One nest can’t feed two thieves’.
This way I won’t have barked in a void.
But if you don’t do it, I’ll bark nevermore!
Although I divide the speeches a bit differently than Murphy, we both see in brief compass the four major parts of a speech in the proper order: the summary of the charge and formulaic address to the jurors in Lines 907-909 are prooimial, 910-914 narrate the event in a succinct diegesis, and 915-925 give the proofs, consisting of the prosecutor’s self-described value as a citizen and an attack on the defendant’s character and earlier behavior, which are consistent with the present crime. Aristotle (Rhet. 1418a38-41) identifies the pisteis as the correct section in which to make arguments based on the moral character of the speaker and his opponent. Wasps 915-916 illustrate the other major component of the pisteis, what Aristotle would call an enthymeme: since I need food to protect you and my protection benefits you, anyone’s failure to share food with me will provide you with no benefit. The epilogue (927-930) reiterates the prosecutor’s plea for conviction and warns of the future consequences of acquittal.48
The defense speech follows the same pattern, except that the diegesis is omitted, since the fact of what happened is apparently uncontested (see the admission in Wasps 958-959). As Aristotle (Rhet. 1417a8-12), notes, dilglsisis not necessary for defense speeches in such cases (Wasps 950-978, excerpted):
Bdelycleon: It is difficult, O men, to give a response
On behalf of a slandered dog. But I’ll speak all the same,
For he is a good dog and chases wolves.
Philocleon: He’s a thief and a conspirator!
Bdelycleon: No, by Zeus, but he is the best of the dogs who now live,
The kind who could stand watch over much livestock.
Philocleon: What use is that if he eats up the cheese?
Bdelycleon: What use? He fights on your behalf and guards the door,
And in other respects is the best. If he took a little,
Forgive him! For he’s never learned to play the cithara.
(Philocleon interrupts again)
Listen, good sir, to my witnesses.
Step up to the stand, Mr. Cheese Grater, and speak out loud,
For you were Treasurer at the time. Answer clearly,
Whether you didn’t grate out for the soldiers the cheese you received. He says he did grate it out.
(Philocleon interrupts again)
Good sir, have compassion for the unfortunate.
This Labes eats both table scraps and fishbones,
And never stays in the same spot.
But what a sort the other dog is! Homebound and nothing else,
He always stays there. Whatever someone brings in,
He demands his part. Otherwise, he bites.
(Philocleon interrupts again)
Come, I beseech you. Father, pity him
And don’t condemn him to ruin. Where are his children?
Step up to the stand, poor creatures, and whining Seek and beseech and cry.
The first two lines (950-951) invoke the common prooimial topos of how difficult the speaker’s task is.49 The bulk of the speech consists of demonstrations (pisteis). a reminder of the defendant’s services (952-958), an argument that unprivileged background mitigates his responsibility (958-959), calling of a witness to prove that no real loss was suffered from the act (962-966), and finally, as a rebuttal, proof that the defendant is of better character than his prosecutor (967-972).50 The epilogue trots out the stereotypical display of the family in a plea for mercy (975-978).51 Every single one of these elements has clear parallels in forensic oratory.
Formal structure was certainly nothing new to comedy. Not only the epirrhe-matic agon, but especially the parabasis follows a paradigmatic pattern based on variations in meter, voice, delivery, and rhetorical purpose. It would be a mistake to expect the poet’s or chorus’ self-defense in the parabasis to follow the same dispositio as forensic oratory, but many of the same rhetorical devices and functions play a role. Moreover, the parabasis was probably an innovation of Cratinus or other poets of his generation,52 so its development occurred during precisely the same period as that of the earliest teachings concerning the parts of oratory and the first paradigmatic collections of prooimia, epilogues, and other formulae. One critic has recently argued that these developments also coincide with Democritus’ ‘materialist poetics’:53
The atomist account of speech and poetry was consonant with the rhetorical in that for both, affective language was analyzed into its constituent basic elements, which were to be selected, combined, and arranged to give specific effects. But the scientists’ way of looking at speech added something to the artisanal idea of the eloquent speaker or poet: it placed more emphasis on the intrinsic powers of the complex, constructed object.
It is therefore entirely appropriate to examine the parabases for the deployment of familiar rhetorical conventions and even see the form’s evolution as primarily a rhetorical phenomenon.54
Some parabases begin with a short lyric section called the kommation. But even the first anapestic lines share with the kommation a prooimial function which appeals to the audience’s attention, sometimes with flattery of its cleverness (e. g., Knights 505506, Wasps 1013-1014, Clouds 521), and announces the principal theme of the parabasis (Acharnians 626-632, Knights 498-509, Wasps 1009-1016, Peace 729738, Clouds 518-526, Birds 676-689). In Acharnians 628-629, the poet admits his inexperience like a good many forensic speakers.55 The bulk of the anapests consist of proofs of the poet’s worthiness, through narration of his services to the state ( Acharnians 633-651, Wasps 1018-1043, Peace 739-760, Clouds 528-550) or by contrast with his opponents (Knights 510-511, 519-540, Wasps 1030-1036, Peace 739-748, 752-759, Clouds 537-559). Every one of the five parabases from Acharnians to Peace, including the later second version of Clouds, fashions itself as the poet’s selfdefense either against attacks by his enemies or doubts of his audience. The anapestic tetrameters are often followed by dimeters called the pnigos. As with the prooimial kommation, the pnigos combines with the last few tetrameter lines to form an effective epilogue, addressing the audience (and dramatic jury) again, usually with some form of imperative, and using memorable expressions to ask for their future favor ( Achar-nians 652-664, Knights 544-550, Wasps 1051-1059, Peace 760-774, Clouds 560562). This epilogue usually features some kind of summary formula as a transition: ‘in response to these things’ (pro tauta, Acharnians 659), ‘on account of all these things’ (touton oun houneka panton, Knights 544), ‘on account of these things now’ (hon houneka nuni. Peace 760), ‘whoever laughs at these things’ (hostis oun toutoisi gelai, Clouds 560).56 The three sections of each parabasis shift temporal focus from the phatic present (calling for the audience’s attention) to a diegetic past (the poet’s services and his opponents’ disservices) to an optative future (wishing for victory and good repute).57
Earlier scholarship has been somewhat more successful in demonstrating Aristophanes’ knowledge of specific rhetorical conventions, although these might have been gleaned from close attention to skilled forensic speakers just as readily as from published handbooks or formal rhetorical training.58 These conventions may not yet have had the names assigned to them by fourth-century rhetorical treatises: nothing in Aristophanes compares with the compilation of jargon we find in Cratinus the Younger, fr. 7 PCG, unless Knights 1378-1380 (quoted in Section 3) preserves or distorts actual rhetorical terms of his era (e. g., synertikos, perantikos, gnOmotypikos, kataleptikos). He probably does refer to current rhetorical terms with prooimia (Knights 1343), tekmOrion (Knights 33, 1209, Birds482) and hypotekmOrion (fr. 205 PCG), and antithesis (fr. 341 PCG, in reference to Agathon’s style, characterized as Gorgianic by his speech in Plato’s Symposium). That Aristophanes paid a great deal of attention to the niceties and finer details of oratory in his time can hardly be doubted.
Our examination of Aristophanes’ corpus clearly concludes that he was familiar with at least some form of rhetorical theory and education. The speeches within his plays typically adapt their style and argumentative strategy to their specific audience, with the sole intent of persuading, not establishing objective truth. Wasps (in 422) attests intense public interest in oratory even on the part of common people. Starting with Banqueters in 427, Aristophanes refers to a new and highly effective style of public speaking common among the younger generation, characterized in part by the lexical orthoepeia for which teachers like Protagoras and Prodicus were known; the plot of Clouds (of 423) revolves around acquiring a sophistic education to succeed as such an orator. The trial scene in Wasps betrays knowledge of the canonical divisions of a forensic speech, as well as numerous other conventions. Finally, Frogs (of 405) presents a contest between two paradigmatic styles similar to those familiar from later rhetorical analysis. When the Euripides of that play says, ‘there is no shrine of Peitho other than speech’ (1391), he is surely not expressing a sentiment with which Aristophanes’ earlier work was unfamiliar.
World History
