�鶹��Ƶ

Ancient Greeks loved public speaking. Athenians flocked to performances in large venues and private homes to hear intellectuals debate subjects ranging from ethics and astronomy to poverty and rats.

“Many of these speeches make a point of holding controversial and often paradoxical views – for example, that ‘nothing exists,’” said , Klarman Postdoctoral Fellow in government in the �鶹��Ƶ and �鶹��Ƶ. “Because of this, they have often been ridiculed as fake philosophy. But must all intellectuals necessarily be wholly committed to the views they voice?”

In a new paper, Napoli argues that public speeches in ancient Greece aimed not to express personal views, but to undermine entrenched ideas and challenge common-sense conclusions. “,” published in the American Journal of Philology on Oct. 11.

“Whether they persuade us or not, these speeches make us aware of assumptions that we ordinarily take for granted, as well as puncturing – if only for a moment – the certainty of our convictions,” Napoli said.

Napoli studies polarization and disagreement in ancient Greece. He believes antilogy, the delivery of opposed speeches to an audience, was the main form of public communication in ancient Greece, and is critical to our understanding of public reflection.

“I have in the back of my mind the idea of a political context in which it was OK for people to play devil’s advocate – in fact it was a requirement for somebody to do that,” he said. “In 5th and 4th century Athens, playing the role of dissenter was fundamental for decision-making, and you could not make a decision or pass a law if there was not an opposite proposal on the other side. There were two sides, and the audience was exposed to both.”

In this study, Napoli claims that Greek epideixeis – public performances – were an important cultural phenomenon in the tradition of antilogy rather than a fringe subgenre, as many have thought based on Aristotle’s take.

There were many types of public performances, Napoli said. Some included an opponent on stage, but sometimes the text that reaches us contains only one of the uninterrupted speeches. In other texts the opponent is more abstract. In a paradoxical speech, as he calls it, the opponent is common sense because the speech argues against a widespread idea.

In the paper, Napoli reviews several epideixeis as “antilogic halves … one side of a constitutively unfinished conversation that is invested in opening up provocative questions rather than providing stable definitions,” he wrote.

Even when a speaker made a wild claim, such as defending the innocence of Helen of Troy (a controversial take on a hot topic at the time), this form of speech is related to the uninterrupted delivery of polarized speeches before an audience – a cornerstone of Greek democracy.

Some ancient thinkers scoffed at Greek public performances. Plato hated them, Napoli said, and had characters in his writings make fun of the practice even though he respected some of the practitioners. Aristotle reduced the practice to two components, praise and blame, to fit it into his overall system of public discourse.

“This move makes epideixis respectable, but reduces its potential,” Napoli said.

Since these ancient thinkers, few have given Greek public performance the credit it deserves, Napoli said.

“Many of these speakers are playing devil’s advocate, but they are doing so with provocative arguments that have an impact on the audience,” Napoli said. “There is a value in having the audience pause for a moment and reevaluate the view they took for granted, even if they eventually reject the opponent’s challenge.”