Panel organizer, Classical Association Annual Conference , 2014

Classical Association Annual Conference, 13-16 April 2014 Greek oratory in/as performance Organizer: Andreas Serafim (University College London) Chair: Eleni Volonaki (University of Peloponnese) Panelists: Edward M. Harris (University of Durham), Nancy Worman (Barnard College/University of Columbia), Michael J. Edwards (University of Roehampton), Andreas Serafim (University College London) Although it has never been doubted that Greek oratory was performed, only a limited amount of scholarly attention has been devoted to this dimension of the corpus. Scholarly opinion has often considered it an impossible task to reconstruct performance through an interpretation of the text. At best, scholars have tended to connect performance with delivery, but without examining texts in such a way as to reconstruct a holistic view of it, or they have examined the convergences between oratory and theatre. Building on the international conference “A Theatre of Justice: aspects of performance in Greco-Roman oratory and rhetoric”, which took place at University College London in April 2012, this panel, “Greek oratory in/as performance”, will provide a dynamic forum for exploring aspects of performance in Greek oratory. Four papers aim to enhance current research by discussing performance as encompassing the possibility of more subtle communication between the speaker and the audience than mere delivery and arguing that aspects of the transmitted texts allow glimpses into the performative dimension of speeches, whether or not these connect with the practice in the theatre. A wide range of topics is discussed: emotions (Harris), the performative value of attire and deportment in the law-court (Worman), delivery of proems in public speeches (Edwards), addresses to the audience (Serafim). It was the interplay of the political momentum with the speakers’ arguments and the performative elements of their speeches, which together determined the outcome of the trial. In this regard, a full appreciation of the performative elements in the speeches is as important to a complete understanding of these speeches as is an appreciation of the particular arguments of the speakers in their historical context. 1 Classical Association Annual Conference, 13-16 April 2014 How to ‘Act’ in an Athenian Court: Edward M. Harris Emotions and Forensic Performance In Euripides’ Hippolytus, when Theseus discovers the reason for Phaedra’s suicide by reading the note she has left, he bursts into painful laments. The evil he suffers is ‘unbearable and unspeakable’; he is wretched (tlamōn) (875-76). He exclaims, ‘where can I escape this burden of misery?’ (878-9). He is ‘utterly destroyed and dead’ (879). When Euphiletus describes his reaction to the news of his wife’s infidelity in Lysias’ speech Against Eratosthenes, he only expresses his bewilderment (Lys. 1.16-8). When he recounts how he caught his wife and her lover in flagrante, he does not describe his own sense of outrage or emotional pain (Lys. 1.24-6). One finds the same contrast between Oedipus’ shocked discovery of his wife’s suicide in Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus and Lysias’ restrained account of his brother’s execution by the Thirty (Lys. 12.17-9). This essay will explore how litigants ‘acted’ in court when describing the wrongs they have suffered. In general, victims speaking in court say little about their own emotions. They tended to avoid tragic vocabulary; words like tlamōn, stenō, iō plus the vocative, etc. are entirely absent. In fact, Demosthenes could make fun of Aeschines for tragic style in describing the Olynthians’ sufferings. This paper will suggest several reasons for the differences between the two genres: 1) tragic acting in court would create suspicion of insincerity through use of artificial vocabulary, 2) litigants were expected to act with restraint and display sōphrosynē, and 3) too much stress on the victim’s suffering would distract the judges from the defendant’s wrongdoing. That is not to say that accusers did not attempt to stir the judges’ emotions (pathos), but they had to do it in more subtle ways that would not diminish their credibility (ēthos). Nancy Worman Mimesis, Style, and the Dangers of Dress-up In the performance-oriented setting of democratic Athens, the body was a public measure of moral worth and social standing. Plays, speeches, and theoretical discussions indicate in their different ways that policing of citizen behaviours often took place at this level. Public speakers in particular ran risks of falling short, and not 2 Classical Association Annual Conference, 13-16 April 2014 only because they could appear not sufficiently manly or aristocratic. On the public stage the problems run deeper, to concerns about mimesis and style. In Book 3 of the Rhetoric, Aristotle addresses style (lexis) as intimately bound up with delivery (hypokrisis). Both are tricky to handle within the oratorical setting, since they are the province of mimetic poetry. Thus performance itself is distracting: Aristotle claims that both actors and those adept at speeches win more favour, because the audience members have corrupt tastes (Rhet. 1403b-1404b). So what is an orator to do? The speeches of both Demosthenes and his rival Aeschines reveal that they are very attuned to aspects of performance and aware that these best broadcast their opponents' moral failings. This paper takes up one corner of this mimetic minefield: dress and deportment. Aeschines lampoons Timarchus for his "naked" wrangling on the bēma (1.26) and Demosthenes for his love of soft clothing (1.131), while Demosthenes finds fault with Aeschines' aping of archaic drapery and gestures (19.251-55, cf. 314). While this notion of the proper citizen's attire and bearing was itself a fiction produced by the normative rhetoric of orators, it was held up by them as a real measure in order to oust their enemies from the political scene. What they highlight in others and mask in their own performances, then, is mimesis itself—the dress-up central to the orator's successful persuasion of his audience. Proems in Performance Michael J. Edwards Attention has been increasingly paid in recent years to the performance of the speeches of the Attic orators, in recognition of the fact (famously celebrated by Demosthenes, according to Plutarch) that delivery was key to the success or failure of a speech. Comparisons have been made with dramatic performance by scholars such as Victor Bers, Alan Boegehold, and Edith Hall. In this paper I intend to focus on one aspect of delivery, how the speaker delivered his opening remarks, or proem. This section of the speech, as Aristotle recognised in the Rhetoric, was vital both for establishing the character (ēthos) of the speaker and of his opponent, and also for securing the attention and goodwill of the jurors (captatio benevolentiae). I propose to test the theory through an analysis and comparison of the proems of two well-known speeches that are concerned with the topic of physical assault – Lysias 3, Against Simon and Demosthenes 54, Against Conon. 3 Classical Association Annual Conference, 13-16 April 2014 Lysias, who was highly regarded by Dionysius of Halicarnassus not only for his narratives (Lysias 18) but also for his proems (Lysias 17), relies on characterisation, as he cleverly paints a picture of a client who is restrained and honest, as opposed to his opponent Simon, who is shameless. Demosthenes was renowned among ancient critics for his forcefulness (deinotēs), and he brings all his powers to bear from the start of the speech in contrasting his decent client Ariston with the violent Conon. In sum, I shall investigate how these consummate logographers not only provided their clients with an appropriate text, but also through that text led them to perform the speech in a persuasive and winning manner. Andreas Serafim “Conventions” in/as performance: addressing the audience in selected speeches of Demosthenes Addresses to the audience, I argue, can be more than merely a matter of convention. The interpolation of addresses indicates that speeches were intended for oral delivery and that a fundamental aspect of law-court performance was the interaction between speaker and audience. When a speaker addresses the audience, he has specific purposes to achieve: to engage the hearers/viewers, create a certain disposition in them towards the litigants, and affect their verdict. This paper explores the use of addresses in selected public speeches of Demosthenes (18, 19, and 24). In speech 18, the civic address (andres Athēnaioi) is used forty-two times. This speech (together with 22.1) is unusual in containing just a single example of the judicial address (andres dikastai; §196), whereas in speech 19 there is notable variation in the use of addresses – sixty-five instances of the civic address and twelve of the judicial. The distinct preponderance in the use of the civic address in Demosthenes 18 and the high frequency in Demosthenes 19 are strategic and purposeful: they are means of creating a civic fellow spirit between the hearers/viewers and of estranging Aeschines (19.96, 259, 262; 18.52). This paper also explores the use of the judicial address: although it might be argued that the judicial address in 18.196 is a random variation, the particular context, I argue, indicates that it has a strategic function. The use of judicial addresses in Demosthenes 24 is also worth closer examination: although the civic address is generally used more frequently than the judicial address in Demosthenes’ public 4 Classical Association Annual Conference, 13-16 April 2014 speeches, Demosthenes 24 is an exception to this rule, since the judicial address is used thirty-two times, compared to nineteen instances of the civic address. 5