Papaioannou, Sophia, Andreas Serafim and Beatrice Da Vela (edd.). The theatre of justice: aspects of...

The Theatre of Justice

Aspects of Performance in Greco-Roman Oratoryand Rhetoric

Edited by

Sophia PapaioannouAndreas SerafimBeatrice da Vela

leiden | boston

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents

Acknowledgements ixNotes on Contributors x

1 Introduction 1Sophia Papaioannou, Andreas Serafim and Beatrice da Vela

part 1Speakers—Audience

2 Audience Reaction, Performance and the Exploitation of Delivery inthe Courts and Assembly 13

IanWorthington

3 ‘Conventions’ in/as Performance: Addressing the Audience inSelected Public Speeches of Demosthenes 26

Andreas Serafim

4 Would I Lie to You? Narrative and Performance in Isaios 6 42Brenda Griffith-Williams

5 The Orator and the Ghosts: Performing the Past in Fourth-CenturyAthens 57

GuyWestwood

6 Speech without Limits: Defining Informality in RepublicanOratory 75

Catherine Steel

part 2Ēthopoiia

7 Ēthos and Logical Argument in Thucydides’ Assembly Debates 93Christos Kremmydas


vi contents

8 Elite Rhetoric and Self-Presentation: Metellus NumidicusReturns 114

Henriette van der Blom

part 3Hypocrisis—Delivery—Actio

9 Pitiable Dramas on the Podium of the Athenian Law Courts 133Kostas Apostolakis

10 From the Stage to the Court: Rhetorical and Dramatic Performance inDonatus’ Commentary on Terence 157

Beatrice da Vela

11 Oratorical Performance in Pliny’s Letters 175Kathryn Tempest

part 4Emotions in the Law-Court

12 TheMind’s Theatre: Envy, Hybris and Enargeia in Demosthenes’AgainstMeidias 201

Dimos Spatharas

13 How to “Act” in an Athenian Court: Emotions and ForensicPerformance 223

EdwardM. Harris

14 Roman Judges and Their Participation in the “Theatre ofJustice” 243

Jon Hall

part 5Language and Style in Performance

15 Style, Persona and Performance in Aeschines’ Prosecution ofTimarchus 265

Christopher Carey


contents vii

16 Narrative and Performance in the Speeches of Apollodoros 283Konstantinos Kapparis

17 Public Performance and the Language of Antiphon’s Speeches 304Alessandro Vatri

Bibliography 321Index Locorum 349General Index 351


© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004341876_002

chapter 1

Introduction

Sophia Papaioannou, Andreas Serafim and Beatrice da Vela

Peoplehave tended to thinkof performance in the context of the theatre,wherea drama is enacted before an audience by a group of people (the actors) imper-sonating another group of people (the characters) in the presence of a thirdgroup (the audience). The majority of scholars within the domains of classics,classical rhetoric and ancient history, however, have begun to explore oratoryas being intrinsically performanceful—a fact that the title of this volume, TheTheatre of Justice, aims to highlight. There is a theatre in the law-court in thesense that an orator, like an actor, uses techniques of performance, seeking toengage and manipulate his audience to elicit a certain reaction from it. Ora-torical and theatrical performances are three-cornered dialogues. In both, thetriangulation, even if it is not explicit, is always there, since there are alwaysthree parties involved: a performer—whether actor or orator—talks about and,intermittently, to his opponent or co-actor before the audience, offering stimulito the target audience and aiming to provoke a specific reaction.

The increasing scholarly interest in oratorical performance from the Clas-sical to the Hellenistic eras is reflected in a wide range of studies within thedomain of classical literary criticism. These studies, however, mostly focus on arelatively narrow understanding of performance as being connected with the-atrical genres and/or as being synonymouswith delivery, a notion that refers togesticulationandvocal ploys.Theworkof Hall, for example, is particularly valu-able in shedding light on these two dimensions of performance. Hall devotesthe last chapter of her book,TheTheatrical Cast of Athens, to a discussion of thelinks between drama and oratory, focusing her investigation on the construc-tion of characters and on delivery.

Two volumes, one edited by Goldhill and Osborne, Performance Culture andAthenian Democracy (Cambridge 1999), and the other edited by Hall and Har-rop,Theorising Performance: GreekDrama, CulturalHistory andCritical Practice(London 2010) provide invaluable insights into performance in classical liter-ary theory in general. They do not, however, focus exclusively on and discuss indetail performance in Greek and Roman oratory. The volume of Goldhill andOsborne, for example, contains four chapters on aspects of oratorical perfor-mance, but its focus as a whole is on drama and ritual. Despite its suggestivetitle, the most relevant chapter to the topic of this volume is that of Easterling


2 papaioannou, serafim and da vela

on references to acting in oratory.1 In her chapter in Goldhill’s and Osborne’svolume, Easterling examines the association between oratory and theatre byoffering a perceptive discussion of references to actors and acting in selectedspeeches of Aeschines (2, 3) and Demosthenes (18, 19). The chapters of Fisher-Lichte and Hall, in the volume edited by Hall and Harrop, are most usefulin discussing the defining features of and influential theories about perfor-mance, but they do not examine any key aspects of performance in oratoricalspeeches.2

Another set of scholarly works revisit transmitted texts in order to recon-struct a view of the delivery techniques that may have been used. Boegehold,for example, discusses the use of gesticulation, facial expressions and vocalcommunication in his work entitled When a Gesture was Expected (Prince-ton 1999). Boegehold offers a useful overview of delivery techniques, examin-ing selected passages from Archaic and Classical Greek literature, especiallytragedy, comedy and epic poetry to philosophy, historiography and oratory, inorder to discuss textual indicators of gestures, posturing and other bodily andfacial movements. The fact that Boegehold examines only a selection of pas-sages still offers scope for further research, inasmuch as he does not investigatespeeches in both Greek and Roman oratory.

Performance in Latin oratory has also received considerable attention inclassical scholarship. Fantham, for example, provides useful insights about howoratorical performance abides by the same rules of the theatrical performance;e.g. “Quintilian on Performance: Traditional and Personal Elements in ‘Institu-tio’ 11.3” (Phoenix 1982); “Orator and/et Actor”, in Easterling and Hall,Greek andRoman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession (Cambridge 2002). An oeuvreof other works explores features of the intersection between theatricality andgender/masculinity in oratorical performance; e.g. Gunderson, Staging Mas-culinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the RomanWorld (Ann Arbor 2000); thechapter of Connolly, entitled “Virile tongues: Rhetoric and Masculinity”, in thevolume A Companion to Roman Rhetoric (New Jersey 2010) by Dominik andHall.Other studies shedwelcome light ondelivery.Aldrete’sGesturesandAccla-mations in Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London 1999) and Hall’s “Cicero andQuintilian on the oratorical use of hand gestures” (cq 54, 2004) focus especiallyon the question of the gestures employed by Roman orators to accompanytheir speeches. Panayotakis’ “Nonverbial behaviour on the Roman Stage”, in

1 Theother three chapters are:Hesk on the rhetoric of deception (pp. 201–230); Ford onquotingHomeric verses in speeches (pp. 231–256); vonReden andGoldhill onmanly courage in Plato’sLaches and oratorical speeches (pp. 257–289).

2 Fischer-Lichte (2010) 29–42; Hall (2010) 10–28.


introduction 3

Cairns, ed., Body Language in the Greek and RomanWorlds (Wales 2005), Graf ’s“Gestures and Conventions: The Gestures of Roman Actors and Orators”, inBremmer and Roodenburg, A Cultural History of Gesture (Cambridge 1991) andDodwell’s Anglo-Saxon Gestures and the Roman Stage (Cambridge 2000) areimportant studies on the relationship between oratorical and theatrical ges-ticulation. Corbeill, meanwhile, has examined the cultural politics of gesturein Rome, both in oratory and beyond, in Nature Embodied: Gestures in AncientRome (Princeton 2004).

Only a fewworks in contemporary scholarship discuss the performance ele-ments of speeches from the perspective of thewhole context of a speech.Threechapters of the recently published volume of Kremmydas and Tempest, Hel-lenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change (Oxford 2013),—specifically Hall’s onrhetorical actors and vocalism; Rubinstein’s on oral performance and writtensubmission; and Chaniotis’ on vivid imagery and emotions—offer stimulatingstarting points on how to explore performance in Hellenistic oratory.

In the present volume, however, it is hoped that amore ambitious and large-scale project, with 16 chapters examining oratory and rhetoric, and investigat-ing a much wider range of sources (i.e. not simply Attic or Hellenistic oratorybut also various other Greek and Roman oratorical contexts), will enhance ourknowledge and understanding of ancient oratory in/as performance. This vol-ume sets out to make two interlocking claims that have the potential to affectthe way classical scholarship thinks of and discusses performance in the ora-torical speeches that have come down to us in textual form. The first claimis that the transmitted texts allow glimpses into the performative dimensionof speeches, whether or not these connect with practice in the theatre. Thesecond is that performance encompasses the possibility of more subtle com-municationbetween the speaker and the audience thanmeredelivery.This vol-ume pays attention to the ways in which the audience experiences the speechand its rhetorical strategies. These ways explicate the notion of oratorical per-formance in the same way that Performance Studies treat texts, visual arts oranything else.3 As Schechner, the Father of Performance Studies, puts it, “textsare regarded as practices, events, and behaviours, not as ‘objects’ or ‘things’. Per-formance Studies enquires about the ‘behaviour’ of, for example, a painting:the ways it interacts with those who view it, thus evoking different reactionsand meanings”.4 The aim of the volume is to shed light on what rhetoricalstrategies would have done or have aimed to do in the audience, provoking itsreaction, harnessing its emotions and thus, affecting its judgement and/or vot-ing behaviour.

3 Serafim (2017).4 Schechner (2002) x.



The 16 studies in this collection consider five broad categories of perfor-mance. The first, entitled “Speakers-Audience”, examines a diversity of tech-niques (such as allusions to the comic stage and addresses to the audience)that aim to forge rapport with the audience, provoking its verbal or non-verbalreaction, and the ways in which the speakers responded impromptu to thesereactions or to the comments that their opponents made.

The second category of performance, “Ēthopoiia”, addresses the features andpurposes of the portrayal andpresentation of characters.Modern scholars tendto use ēthopoiia in two senses: for Usher, the emphasis is firmly on ēthopoiia asmoral character. ForCarey, ēthopoiiadesignates the depiction of dramatic char-acters.5 This volume draws on both of these approaches: ēthopoiia describesthe process of portraying the moral character of the speaker and his oppo-nent, regardless of whether the quality of their character is good or bad, andwhether the portrayal is commensurate with the real life character or is dra-matic. The depiction of character has the potential to sustain relations betweenthe litigants and the audience by creating a persona for the hearers and view-ers that may be either appealing or unappealing according to the speaker’sneeds, and that invites verbal or non-verbal responses that might affect theaudience’s judgement and voting behaviour. The potential of ēthopoiia to elicitan audience response underlines its performance value in the terms under-stood within Performance Studies, and makes it worth closer examination.

The third category of performance, “Hypocrisis-Delivery-Actio”, is about ges-ticulation, facial expression and vocal ploys, as well as information about thestaging of the speech—in other words everything that has to do with senses,sight and hearing. The fourth category, entitled “Emotions”, aims to revisit froma performative point of view the use of emotions in Greco-Roman oratory.Although emotions are an acknowledged and frequently discussed feature oforatorical speeches, there is a gap in the scholarship in respect to understand-ing the use of emotions in a performative sense.

The fifth, and last category, of performance that is examined in this volumeseeks to shed light on the performative perspective of language and style inoratorical contexts. Revermann is right to note (with specific reference to the-atre) that “playwrights, actors and everyone else involved in a performancesuccessfully ‘do things with words’: spellbind, entertain, alienate, persuade,provoke, entice, unify (through horror and laughter), and, last but not leastin the Greek context, win”.6 This, as argued, is also the function of perfor-

5 Usher (1965) 99, n. 2; Carey (1989) 10–11, 61–62.6 Revermann (2006) 36.


introduction 5

mance in oratory: to do things with words in order to influence the audi-ence.

The valueof thepresent book lies in its holistic approach tooratorical perfor-mance. In contrast to narrower understandings of oratorical performance, thisholistic approach has the potential to provide new insights into, and open upthe terms of, the scholarly debate about the fundamental nature of law-courtperformance. To see the whole picture is to develop a better understandingof the objectives of public speaking, the mechanisms of persuasion and theextent to which performance determined the outcome of judicial and politicalcontests. A full appreciation of the performative elements in the speeches is asimportant to a complete understanding of these speeches as is an appreciationof the particular arguments of the speakers in their historical context.

Given the breadth of issues investigated in this study, and the importanceof exploring each closely, it is not possible also to break down the examina-tion of performance into the three traditional oratorical contexts—forensic,epideictic and deliberative. It is hoped, however, that this inevitable omissiondoes not detract from the overall value of the suggested holistic approach. Infact, this volume, in elucidating indetail performance in specific oratorical con-texts, aims to establish a framework within which further work on the Greekand Roman orators will be undertaken.

Oratorical Performance in Five Parts

1 Speakers—AudienceIn chapter 2, Ian Worthington considers the importance attached to perfor-mance in the courts and the Assembly, and, by extension, the abilities of speak-ers to perform in those arenas and how they responded, or might respond,to audience reaction. This chapter suggests that, in the forensic arena, per-formance went hand-in-hand with the memorised speech, with no room forindividuality. In the Assembly, however, the audience dictated not only whata speaker said but also how he said it, and to score points over opponents aspeaker needed to respond to audience reaction because the directions takenby a political debate could never be accurately predicted.

In chapter 3, Andreas Serafim explores the use and the performative dimen-sion of addresses to the audience in selected public speeches of Demosthenes(18:On theCrown; 19:On the False Embassy; and 24: AgainstTimocrates), arguingthat addresses to the audience are more than merely a matter of convention.The insertion of addresses reminds us that speeches were intended for oraldelivery and that a fundamental aspect of law-court performancewas the inter-



action between speaker and audience.When a speaker addressed the audiencein an Athenian court, he had specific purposes to achieve: to engage the hear-ers/viewers, to create a certain disposition in them towards the litigants and toaffect the verdict of the judges.

In chapter 4, Brenda Griffith-Williams examines how Isaios enhances thecredibility of his speech On the Estate of Philoctemon by means of performa-tive techniques and by appealing to the judges’ recognition of stock charac-ters and situations from the comic stage. The speaker of Isaios 6 denies hisopponent’s claim that the deceased Euktemon left two legitimate sons. Isaiosenhances the credibility of his alternative story by exploiting its performa-tive potential, using theatrical allusions and enabling the speaker to engagewith the audience through various rhetorical devices and non-verbal tech-niques.

In chapter 5, Guy Westwood examines how individual Athenian oratorswent aboutmediating eminent historical figures in performance, andwhy theydid so, and further explores why these (and related) techniques appear wherethey do, and why more ambitious manoeuvres towards full-scale imperson-ation (eidōlopoeia) are not attempted in the extant Attic oratorical corpus. Heargues that the extent to which fourth-century Greek orators chose to performthe roles of great historical Athenians depended on their own assessments oftheir skills as performers, and on how far they could engage with the opportu-nities for connectionwith the civic past brought by the Lycurgan era. Conjuringhistorical figures creates a connection with audience members on various lev-els (i.e. surprising and thrilling them by the act of impersonation, and drawingpersuasively on their understandings of the civic past).

In chapter 6, Catherine Steel examines the unpredictable elements of theRoman forensic environment and the challenges they posed for speakers, suchas witness statements, character references and the response of the corona.Formal speech in the Roman Republic was framed by informal exchanges,which could undermine or strengthen a speaker’s effectiveness. An orator whocould not cross-examine witnesses effectively, handle audience interjectionsand respond rapidly and pointedly to an opponent’s commentswas at a seriousdisadvantage—however good his formal oratory. The surviving texts of Repub-lican oratory generally edit thismaterial out, but careful consideration of otherevidence for public speech at Rome reveals the extent to which orators had toimprovise and deal with the unexpected.

2 ĒthopoiiaThe second part focuses on the portrayal of the litigants and examines thepatterns (such as the use of images of stock characters) that are used to depict


introduction 7

themoral character and political persona of the litigants. In chapter 7, ChristosKremmydas examines the ways in which logical argument helped shape andpromote the speakers’ ēthos in Thucydidean Assembly speeches, arguing thatboth ēthos and logos contributed to the appeal of Assembly debates as verbalcompetitive performances (cf. Thuc. 3.38.4).

In chapter 8, Henriette van der Blom uses the case of Q. Caecilius Metellus’recall from his African command in 107b.c. to discuss some of the parametersfor public performance in Roman republican oratory. Close analysis of extantoratorical fragments from speeches delivered byMetellus in 107–106b.c. showsthatMetellus tackled the public challenge to his reputation and career by deliv-ering well-prepared contio speeches, which utilised emotional techniques toset himself up as an unjustly recalled general and a defender of the senateagainst an irresponsible tribune of the plebs. His decision to take up the ora-torical challenge where it had been issued demonstrates his recognition of theimportance of public reputation for maintaining a political career and of thepossibilities of contional rhetoric.

3 Hypocrisis—Delivery—ActioIn chapter 9, Kostas Apostolakis examines the performative potential ofselected forensic entreaties, especially the defendants’ practice of bringing for-ward children, friends and relatives in order to arouse the compassion of thejudges. The discussion of these entreaties, in the light of contemporary socialand moral values, and in connection with the intended and the actual impacton the audience, contributes to the reconstructionof certain important aspectsof an Athenian trial. More specifically, pseudo-Lysias’For Polystratus, the earli-est surviving forensic speech with a political dimension, and Aeschines’On theFalse Embassy offer a complementary picture of this particular type of forensicperformance.On theother hand, Socrates’ disparagingdescription andDemos-thenes’ allusions to Aeschines’ excessive hypocrisis both allude to a contra dis-tinction of truth and theatrical illusion with which these entreaties might beassociated.

In chapter 10, Beatrice da Vela offers a new reading of Donatus’ notes onperformance, with particular attention to the Commentary on Adelphoe, whichconfirms the rhetorical nature of these portions of the Commentary, and alsoshows evident links betweenQuintilian’s theorisationof performance (particu-larly book 11) andDonatus’ notes onextra-textual features.Theoverall attentionthat Donatus dedicates to non-verbal communication is evidence of the rolethat oratorical performance had in Roman education, providing a link betweendrama and oratory: this chapter explores the way this perspective was incorpo-rated into school teaching practices.



By examining the emphasis Pliny the Younger places on actio/ pronuntiatioin his letters to junior senators, as well as the ways in which he describes andreflects on his own successful performances, Kathryn Tempest, in chapter 11,demonstrates how a close reading of Pliny’s Letters reveals valuable evidencefor reconstructing aspects of his performative technique.After an initial discus-sion in which she summarises the main forum and opportunities for oratoryin the Imperial period, Tempest argues that Pliny’s discussions of oratoricalperformance are worthy of more consideration than they have hitherto beensubjected to. Not only do these discussions enable Pliny to present himself asan exemplary teacher and pleader; he provides tell-tale signs in his letters thatenable us to imagine him as an orator in action.

4 EmotionsIn chapter 12, Dimos Spatharas looks into the ways in which Demosthenesemploys enargeia in order to delineate his opponent’s hybristic behaviour andarouse judges’ legitimate envy in his speech Against Meidias. Spatharas arguesthat the use of enargeia appeals to potent cultural and ideological understand-ings related to the tensions between themasses and the elite in Athens. He alsoproposes that a full understanding of the theatrical aspects of forensic oratorymust take into account the importance that ancient rhetorical theory and prac-tice attributed to the visual qualities of narratives.

EdwardHarris’ chapter 13,meanwhile, examines thedifferencesbetween themethods of “acting” on the tragic stage and in the Athenian courts. The use oftragic language and tragic exclamations was clearly considered inappropriatein Athenian courts. Litigants do not express strong emotions when addressingthe judges: they do not describe themselves as angry or weeping. In theirdescriptions of violence, litigants tend to avoid graphic descriptions of physicalsuffering. When Demosthenes included physical details about the abuse of anOlynthian woman, the judges were said to have expressed their disapproval athis breach of decorum (Aeschines 2.4). This is in stark contrast to Attic tragedy,where such descriptions are commonplace. Litigants in court were expectedto act in a restrained manner and to demonstrate sōphrosynē. Any excessivedisplay of emotion would have been interpreted as an attempt to distract thejudges from their duty to pay attention only to the legal charges and to upholdthe law.

In chapter 14, Jon Hall examines some of the unusual actions undertakenby judges during certain trials of the Late Republican period. These actionssuggest that judges enjoyed considerably greater latitude in their behaviour incourt than is allowed in judicial settings inmanyWesternised societies today—a fact thatCicerooften sought to exploit inhis use of highly emotional pleading.


introduction 9

The judges’ actions also show that they were not always willing to play the roleof passive observer; on occasion, they sought to manipulate the court’s highlypublic profile for their own political and personal ends. To this extent, theycould be actors in Rome’s theatre of justice, as well as its audience.

5 Language and StyleIn chapter 15, Christopher Carey examines the ways in which oratorical perfor-mance enabled Aeschines to win a victory over his rival politician, Timarchus.The success of the prosecution, Carey argues in his chapter, was due to theruthless brilliancewithwhich Aeschines presented his case, an exquisite blendof circumstantial evidence, moral positioning and acting. The insistence onTimarchus’ unrestrained oratorical delivery and debauched physique ties thenarrative of past or distant incontinence to current excesses seen on the bēma.The effect is to link what is unseen and alleged to the visual memory of theaudience and what they see in court, and give autopsy the illusion of evidence.

In chapter 16, Kostantinos Kapparis discusses performance elements in thespeeches of Apollodoros (transmitted in the Corpus Demosthenicum as 46,47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59). Particular emphasis is given to the use of direct andindirect discourse, character portrayal, presentation and interaction with theopponent, ekphrasis and enargeia, addressing the audience and dramatisationof events in the legal narrative.

In chapter 17, Alessandro Vatri examines the linguistic differences related tothe type of performance envisaged for each of the two groups of Antiphon’sspeeches, both the real logographic speeches and the fictional Tetralogies.Oratorical hypocrisis may use paralinguistic and non-linguistic elements inthe expectation that readers may peruse the text at leisure. The lack of thispossibility for forensic audiences suggests that speakers ought to optimisetheir text for real-time comprehension and internalisation. Linguistic analysisconfirms that such was the case with Antiphon’s logographic speeches.


Papaioannou, Sophia, Andreas Serafim and Beatrice Da Vela (edd.). The theatre of justice: aspects of...

Documents

Transcript of Papaioannou, Sophia, Andreas Serafim and Beatrice Da Vela (edd.). The theatre of justice: aspects of...