Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Plausibility in the Greek OratorsThomas A. SchmitzWhen Tzvetan Todorov edited a special issue of the journal Communications on vraisemblance (verisimilitude) in 1968, he described the origin of the concept as follows (I paraphrase):One day during the fifth century B.C., there was a trial in some Sicilian city. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant could produce witnesses or any other form of evidence to corroborate their version of the events, so they had to convince the judges by the sheer power of their arguments. This was the day the principle of vraisemblance was discovered.Todorov's tongue-in-cheek explanation refers to a concept which in Greek was called. The word combines two aspects that modern logic differentiates: the "objective" meaning of probability (what is probable by the laws of nature) and the "subjective" meaning of plausibility (what the addressee of a message considers plausible). Aristotle's use of the word shows that the Greek concept does not draw a sharp distinction between these two elements.1 Their intricate connection becomes evident in, e.g., his Rhetoric (2.25 1402b14-16) where he defines enthymemes. They are drawn from probability, he explains, when they are based upon things which occur regularly or are perceived to occur regularly (). The same definition combines objective, purely statistical probability () and subjective plausibility ().Ancient rhetorical theory in general highlighted the subjective aspect, as is evident in the definition of that Anaximenes (?) gives in his Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (7.3.4 1428a27-35): [End Page 47]Plausibility is achieved if the listeners have examples of what is said in mind. To wit, if somebody were to say that he wants his fatherland to be great and his friends to be lucky and his enemies to be unlucky and similar things, this, in short, will seem plausible. For every listener is aware that he himself has similar desires about these and like matters. Hence we must always take care in our speeches to secure our listeners' concurrence in the matters about which we are speaking. For they are likely to trust these statements most.Anaximenes thus defines as an attentiveness to the public's assumptions rather than an objective quality inherent in certain facts. His aim is to train future orators. Whereas a philosopher such as Aristotle wants to explore the very foundations of rhetorical persuasion and thus is interested in all aspects of, orators will be concerned with persuading their audiences instead of speculating about the laws of nature. Yet it could be argued that the modern distinction is largely illusory. Even the most "objective" probability must appear probable to someone; if there are no observers bringing in their own experiences and presuppositions, there is no probability.From its earliest period, Greek oratory made extensive use of this concept. It is impossible to pinpoint its exact origin2—it probably was "discovered" several times. Anastassiou's suggestion (1981, 358-60) that was first used as a means of reaching a decision in cases of insufficient evidence and was not employed by orators as a strategy of persuasion until later3 strains the imagination. As soon as there was a case of insufficient evidence, both parties were sure to use to further their point of view, trying to persuade the judges of the plausibility of their [End Page 48] version. From early times, certainly was no less a means of discourse than a tool of knowledge about the world.One of our earliest examples for this rhetorical use comes from the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. When Apollo accuses Hermes of having stolen his cattle, Hermes answers that he, a mere baby, is not likely to be a cattle thief (, 265). So far, discussions of this passage4 have seldom mentioned one important feature: Hermes is lying. Against all appearances and probabilities, the mere baby did indeed steal Apollo's cattle. Thus not only is the author of the hymn familiar with this particular form of argument, he also knows that it can be employed deceptively. His use of the device appears to be a playful parody of arguments that he considered typical of court speeches. This seems to presuppose that at the time of...