Volume 19, 2007 - Brown University

Fluency and Fear 29
Whereas Plato approaches rhetoric from a philosophical point of view,
Thucydides encounters rhetoric as an historical condition. In his History of the
Peloponnesian War, he chronicles several instances of rhetoric and its uses,
most notably in Pericles’ funeral oration. While in this speech Thucydides
presents an almost elegiac adoration for the tradition of Athenian oratory, there
are several instances in his History where Thucydides notes different views of
rhetoric. The most vigorous complaint against rhetoric is voiced by Cleon in the
Mytilenian Debate. Cleon accuses the Athenian polity of favoring speech over
action, becoming “victims of your own pleasure in listening and. . . more like an
audience sitting at the feet of a professional lecturer than a parliament discussing
matters of state” (His.3.38). Like Socrates, Cleon also acknowledges that
speeches are not necessarily venues for just action with regards to state affairs.
In the Melian Dialogue, the conquered Melians raise an indirect criticism of
rhetoric:
Athenians: . . .the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to
compel. . .
Melians: Then in our view (since you force us to leave justice out of account
and to confine ourselves to self-interest). . .in the case of all who fall into
danger. . .such people should be allowed to use and to pofit by arguments that
fall short of mathematical accuracy. (His.5.89-90)
In connecting “the power to compel” with “argument,” the Melians suggest
a strong relationship between the two. Like Medea, the Melians see the abilty to
argue as critical to the “power to compel” others. Like Socrates, though, they
acknowledge that such arguments do not necessarily leave room for truth or
justice.
However, the only complaints against rhetoric discussed thus far have been
lodged by non-Athenians. Given that Thucydides was writing as an Athenian, he
might actually be criticizing critiques of rhetoric. However, in the section of his
History describing the end of Plataea, an Athenian presents the view that Medea
and Socrates share, namely that: “[g]ood deeds do not require long statements;
but when evil is done the whole art of oratory is employed as a screen for it”
(His.3.67). While it is hard to discern whether Thucydides himself agrees with
the various complaints the speakers raise in his History, when he attributes to
Athenians and non-Athenians alike a shared distrust in rhetoric and oratory, he
certainly acknowledges the ambivalent status of rhetoric within his society. On
the one hand, powerful orators like Pericles serve as proud reminders of what
Athens stands for, yet Athenians themselves note that words and rhetoric can be
“a screen” for evil intentions.
Euripides’ Medea, then, does show something about the Greeks to the
Greeks, as Geertz would suggest. Among other values and attitudes certainly
uncovered in his tragedy, Euripides simultaneously exposes and confirms the
contradictory nature of rhetoric and the tension inherent in the very mode of
communication that informed Athenian political, intellectual, and theatrical life.