The inculcation of techniques of persuasion by Greeks and Romans, i. e. rhetoric, in those days a highly necessary form of vocational training for top people, led eventually to the British classical education. But it is probable that few topics are more disliked by classical students of today than rhetoric; and examinees blench at the mere sight of questions in which the word ‘rhetoric’ appears. As E. R. Dodds remarks, ‘To the average modern Englishman “rhetoric” means a distastefully emotional or showy way of talking;… to the contemporaries of Socrates it meant the practical art of influencing men's will through the spoken word.’ Such an art is presumably still of some importance, and it is still worth considering what Plato/Socrates had to say about it. The enquiry is made the more piquant by the fact that Plato himself has been called e.g. ‘an orator himself in mocking other orators’ (Cic. De Or. 1.47), a ‘propagandist’,2 and most recently ‘[a man who] writes not as a scholar or scientist but from first to last as an advocate, an heir to the tradition of didactic poetry, a nursling of Attic drama and a product, no less than the politicians and litigants whom he criticized so articulately, of a culture which admired the art of the persuader’.
1. Plato: Gorgias (Oxford, 1959), p. 4Google Scholar.
2. Popper, K. R., The Open Society and its Enemies 5 (London, 1966), i. 140, cf. 271Google Scholar.
3. SirDover, Kenneth, Plato: Symposium (Cambridge, 1980), p. viiiGoogle Scholar.
4. Socrates apparently thought of himself as midwife rather than doctor. Plato no doubt did think of himself at times as political doctor. Mrs Thatcher has recently claimed the role of political nurse.
5. But the Xenophontic Socrates is quite ready to urge a man to play his part in the Assembly (Xen. Mem. 3.7.9).
6. A recent parallel to such language may be found in the remark of Messner, the solo climber of Everest without oxygen. ‘Mountaineering’ he is reported to have said ‘is a joke but a very serious joke’.
7. Plato would have found much to agree with in Bernard Levin's valedictory article for The Times (23 Apr. 1981), e. g. ‘Writers cannot change anything. The most I have ever been able to do here is to add a brick or two to a wall or two, to strengthen a positive feeling already in some of the people to whom my words are addressed… (the reason for this is that) the knowledge of good and evil is already in every one of us.’