Contemporary Insights from an Ancient Debate on Rhetoric

In the mid-2nd century CE, at the height of the Roman Empire, the Greek intellectual and self-proclaimed advocate of rhetoric Aelius Aristides composed and delivered two speeches responding in angry tones to the critique of rhetoric, orators, and the art of rhetoric itself that the philosopher Plato had launched over five hundred years earlier in his dialogue *Gorgias*. These two pieces were later collected in Aristides’ works as the second and third of his *Orations*. They are often dismissed as a stale defense of a long-settled issue, or as a typical display of the author’s unrealistic arrogance and pedantry. In my view, however, such a reading is a mistake.

公元2世纪中叶，罗马帝国鼎盛时期，希腊知识分子、自封修辞术拥护者埃利乌斯·阿里斯提德（Aelius Aristides）创作并发表了两篇论文，以愤怒的语调回应哲学家柏拉图在五百多年前的对话《高尔吉亚篇》中对修辞术、演说家及修辞学本身的批判。这两篇文章后来被收录到阿里斯提德作品集中，即《演说录》第二篇和第三篇。人们常常将这些作品视为对一个早已终结话题的陈旧辩解，或认为是作者不切实际的自大和学究气的典型表现。然而，我认为这样的解读是一个错误。

Four years ago, in an article, I argued that these two speeches are anything but stale. Although they may contain a certain pedantry, they simultaneously present a remarkably lively, confident, and malicious attack on a classic philosopher. At the outset of this attack, Aristides earnestly asserts that even the greatest authority cannot foreclose further debate on important issues. First, in a detailed and indignant exposition, he refutes Plato’s dismissal of rhetoric and its teaching (the art of rhetoric) as “non-scientific,” arguing that Plato’s comparison of it with the true science—philosophical dialectic—is biased. Second, he equally indignantly rebuts Plato’s criticism of four great orators and statesmen of Athenian democracy. Finally, he portrays Plato and his philosophical school as a deviation and misreading within the Greek tradition, an anomaly in an unfortunate period of Greek intellectual history. At the same time, he hints that Plato, deep down, might agree with him and even regret having “defiled his own home” on this fertile soil of thought.

四年前，我在一篇文章中试图论证这两篇论文绝非陈腐之作。尽管其中可能带有一定的学究气，但它们同时展现了一场极为生动、自信且带有恶意的对经典哲学家的抨击。在抨击的开篇，阿里斯提德以恳切的姿态提出，即使是最伟大的权威，也不能阻止围绕重要问题展开后续辩论。首先，他以详尽且愤怒的论述，驳斥了柏拉图将修辞术及其教学（修辞学）贬为“非科学”的观点，认为柏拉图将其与真正的科学——哲学辩证法——相比较的做法是偏颇的。其次，他同样愤怒地反驳了柏拉图对雅典民主四位伟大演说家兼政治家的批评。最后，他将柏拉图及其哲学流派描绘为希腊传统中的一种偏离与误读，是希腊思想史上一个不幸时期的反常现象。同时，他还暗示，柏拉图在内心深处或许会认同他的观点，甚至会对自己曾在这片孕育思想的沃土上“玷污家园”的行为感到悔恨。

Undeniably, Aristides’ rhetoric is mixed with a considerable degree of exaggeration and overconfidence. Deeply influenced by the tradition of the 4th-century-BCE orator and theorist Isocrates, he assumes without argument a fundamental axiom: that the true orator and his speech are necessarily embodiments of moral virtue. Moreover, he unhesitatingly extols the outstanding achievements of the four eminent Athenian statesmen and generals—Miltiades, Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles—whose deeds had long been canonized in numerous Greek literary and historical classics. Nevertheless, his arguments still contain genuine and powerful criticism. He explicitly and implicitly reveals certain obvious weak points in Plato’s anti-rhetorical stance, thereby delivering a telling rebuttal to Plato’s discourse.

不可否认，阿里斯提德的言辞中确实夹杂着相当程度的夸张与过度自信。他深受公元前4世纪演说家兼理论家伊索克拉底（Isocrates）传统的影响，毫无论证地直接假设一个公理：真正的演说家及其言辞必然是道德美德的化身。此外，他也毫不怀疑地推崇雅典四位杰出的政治家兼将军米提亚德斯（Miltiades）、提米斯托克利（Themistocles）、西蒙（Cimon）和伯里克利（Pericles）的卓越功绩，这些人物的事迹早已在众多希腊文学与历史经典中被奉为典范。尽管如此，他的论点中依然包含了真实且有力的批判。他明里暗里揭示了柏拉图反修辞立场中某些明显的薄弱环节，从而对柏拉图的论述进行了切中要害的反驳。

For example, through the mouth of Socrates in the *Gorgias*, Plato argues that rhetoric cannot be recognized as a genuine art (*technê*) and therefore does not deserve respect. This is because, according to Plato, rhetoric is not based on certain knowledge (*epistêmê*) of its object of study but relies on some groundless conjecture. In response, Aristides seizes on the term Plato uses for “operating based on conjecture”—“aiming” (*stochastikê*)—and raises two counterpoints. First, “conjecture” (i.e., “aiming”) is itself a rational act, not an irrational one; second, observable facts show that many superior arts rely heavily on the element of estimation or conjecture, yet this does not diminish their value or disqualify them as genuine arts. To take the most literal meaning: an archer aims at a target, and no one would therefore deny that archery is a genuine art. More persuasively, navigation and medicine may both involve a kind of initial “aiming,” a conjecture based on existing knowledge, adjusted as circumstances change. In these fields, these arts are undoubtedly regarded as genuine and well-deserved. These three examples are carefully chosen; Aristides moves from the literal meaning step by step to the metaphorical sense of “aiming,” clarifying his point. Although Aristides does not fully articulate it, he implicitly responds to Plato on two levels: on the one hand, he challenges Plato’s rationalist stance with an empiricist conception of art; on the other, he reveals that the opposition Plato sets up between the rational and the irrational is too absolute, overlooking the possible gradations between them.

例如，柏拉图通过《高尔吉亚篇》中苏格拉底的口辩称，修辞术无法被认定为一种真正的技艺（technê），因此也不值得尊重。因为按照柏拉图的说法，修辞术并非基于研究对象的确凿知识（epistêmê），而是依赖于某种无根基的臆测。对此，阿里斯提德抓住柏拉图使用的“基于臆测操作”这一术语——“瞄准”（stochastikê），提出两点反驳。首先，“推测”（即“瞄准”）本身是一种理性行为，而非非理性行为；其次，从可观察的事实来看，许多高超的技艺在很大程度上依赖于估算或推测的要素，但这并未削弱它们的价值，也未影响它们作为真正技艺的资格。仅以最直观的字面意义而言，射手瞄准靶子，也没人会因此否认射箭是一种真正的技艺。更有说服力的是，航海与医学都可能包含某种初始阶段的“瞄准”，一种基于已有知识的推测，并随着实际情况的变化加以调整。在这些领域，无疑会将这些技艺视为实至名归的真正技艺。这三个例子经过精心选择，阿里斯提德从字面意义逐步引向隐喻意义上的“瞄准”，阐明了自己的观点。尽管阿里斯提德未明确将其全部阐释出来，但他隐含地在两个层面上回应了柏拉图：一方面，以经验主义的技艺概念挑战柏拉图的理性主义立场；另一方面，揭示了柏拉图在理性与非理性之间设定的对立过于绝对，而忽略了二者之间可能存在的渐变地带。

On a broader level, beyond direct critical exposition, Aristides also presents his own positive vision of the value of rhetoric, in stark contrast to Plato’s condemnation. Plato depicts rhetoric as a phenomenon that is both corrupt and corrupting. He argues that, whether in private life or in the more destructive public political sphere, rhetoric can only be seen as a tool for individuals to seek power and influence in order to satisfy their own material desires. In this process, rhetoric caters to and reinforces the materiality and desire-driven tendencies of the audience, while missing the opportunity to elevate their moral character through speech, thereby causing a double corruption of both the individual and society. Faced with this disastrous situation, Plato proposes that salvation can only come through a “radical surgery”—turning to morally oriented philosophical dialectic.

在更广泛的层面上，除了直接的批判性论述外，阿里斯提德还提出了自己对修辞术价值的积极展望，与柏拉图的谴责形成鲜明对比。柏拉图将修辞术描绘成一种既腐败又具腐化作用的现象。他认为，无论在私人还是更具破坏性的公共政治领域，修辞术都只能被视为个人为了满足自身物质欲望而寻求权力和影响力的工具。在这一过程中，修辞术迎合并强化了受众的物质性和欲望倾向，同时错失了借助言辞提升其道德境界的机会，从而造成对个体和社会的双重腐化。面对这种灾难性的局面，柏拉图提出，唯有转向以道德为导向的哲学辩证法这一“剧烈手术”才能实现拯救。

In response to Plato’s negative account, Aristides offers his own positive view, presenting rhetoric as the defender of the civilizational values of the modern world and, at the same time, the key driving force behind the rise of human civilization and civic society in ancient times. He argues that rhetoric plays a central role in the formulation of laws and the operation of the judicial system. Therefore, it is a solid guarantee of justice, a bulwark against the tyrannical rule of despots, and an indispensable substitute for violence in political interaction. To better express this view, he proposes a new version of the Prometheus myth, drawing on both its traditional form and the revision that Plato attributes to Protagoras. In Protagoras’ version, the key gifts brought by the interaction between Prometheus and Zeus are “reverence” (*aidôs*) and “justice” (*dikê*). In Aristides’ version, this gift becomes rhetoric, which is not distributed equally to all but granted to the “best, noblest, and strongest” individuals, who exercise this ability on behalf of the whole.

为了回应柏拉图的消极论述，阿里斯提德提出了自己充满正能量的观点，将修辞术视为现代世界文明价值的捍卫者，同时也是远古时期人类文明与公民社会崛起的关键推动力。他认为，修辞术在法律的制定和司法系统的运作中起着核心作用。因此，它是公正的坚实保障，是对抗暴君专制统治的防线，也是政治互动中不可或缺的暴力替代手段。为了更好地表达这一观点，他提出了一个新版的普罗米修斯神话，既借鉴了其传统形式，又融合了柏拉图所认为是普罗塔戈拉斯所做的修订版。在普罗塔戈拉斯的版本中，普罗米修斯与宙斯之间的互动所带来的关键恩赐是“敬畏”（aid?觝s）和“正义”（dike）。而在阿里斯提德的版本中，这一恩赐变为修辞术，这种恩赐并非平等地分配给所有人，而是授予“最优秀、最崇高、最强壮的”人，让他们代表全体行使这一能力。

This exaltation of rhetoric is undoubtedly exaggerated. Yet, even if this concern is not explicitly stated, Aristides still succeeds in revealing the problem with Plato’s preference for philosophical dialectic or dialogic exchange as the preferred mode of communication and relationship-building, as opposed to rhetoric directed at the masses. For we must ask: how can a political community be built through dialectic alone? Plato himself raises this question in the *Gorgias* through the mouth of Socrates. Socrates says, with an obvious sense of paradox, that he—the faithful advocate of one-on-one communication—is the only true politician in Athens. If Plato has an answer to this paradox, it lies in the construction of the state in the *Republic*. There, the dialectical political community restricts its dialectical exchange to the members of the elite ruling class, and even between them and the masses, no form of communication is possible. Moreover, in the apparent absence of rational debate, deception and coercion become part of the political community.

这种对修辞术的推崇无疑具有夸张之处。然而，即使这种担忧并未明确表达出来，阿里斯提德依然成功地揭示了柏拉图将哲学辩证法或对话式交流视为首选交流与关系建立的方式，而非面向大众的修辞术。因为我们必须回应：如何仅凭辩证法来构建政治共同体？柏拉图自己在《高尔吉亚篇》中通过苏格拉底的口辩提出了这一问题。苏格拉底以一种显而易见的悖论感说，他——这个一对一沟通的忠实倡导者——是雅典唯一真正的政治家。如果柏拉图对此悖论有所解答，那么它体现在《理想国》中的国家构建中。在那里，辩证的政治共同体将其辩证交流仅限于精英统治阶级的成员之间，甚至在他们与广大民众之间也无法进行任何形式的交流。而且，似乎在缺乏理性辩论的情况下，欺骗与强迫成了政治共同体的一部分。

I do not intend to take sides in this confrontation, picking out which side is the victor, although Aristides might welcome such a third-party judgment. Objectively speaking, both sides have their blind spots and exaggerations, and both can even be suspected of pushing certain arguments to extremes in order to produce a greater impact. Beyond this, I want to specifically state that I do not agree with Aristides’ view that, simply as a rhetorician, the speaker should automatically become a hero and a defender of civilized values. This assumption is based more on his individual understanding of rhetoric as a sacred mission than on a cool analysis of objective data.

我并不打算在这场对抗中站队，挑选出哪一方是胜者，尽管阿里斯提德可能会欢迎这种第三方裁定。客观来说，双方各有其盲点和夸张之处，甚至都可以被怀疑为了产生更大影响而将某些论点推向极端。除此之外，我想特别说明我并不赞同阿里斯提德的观点，即单纯作为修辞学家，演讲者就应自动成为英雄和文明价值的捍卫者。这一假设更多地基于他对修辞术作为一种神圣使命的个体化理解，而非对客观数据的冷静分析。

However, I want to emphasize that, although Aristides’ response is full of exaggeration and overconfidence, it reminds us—whether in the past or today—that continually reflecting on modes of communication, their meanings, and how to apply them appropriately still has genuine value. How do we exchange ideas and engage in intellectual collision with those around us? How should we interact with others? These questions remain crucial to this day. I also want to further emphasize that Aristides’ contribution actually lies in leaving behind classical works from ancient Greece and Rome. These classical works not only provide us with models of rhetoric and dialectic as linguistic modes of personal and political interaction, but also offer us the possibility, even the necessity, of continuously debating their respective strengths and weaknesses. It is in this spirit that Aristides’ seemingly untimely rebuttal not only reveals the possibility of raising disagreements, but also, together with the Platonic views he opposes, invites us to reflect, to debate, and to draw lessons from them.

然而，我要强调的是，尽管阿里斯提德的回应充满夸张与过度自信，但它提醒我们——无论是在过去，还是今天——不断思考交流方式、它们的含义以及如何恰当应用它们，仍具有真正的价值。我们如何与周围的人进行交流和思想碰撞？我们应如何与他人互动？这些问题直到今天依然至关重要。我还想进一步强调，阿里斯提德的贡献实际上是留下了来自古希腊罗马时期的经典作品。这些经典作品不仅为我们提供了修辞术与辩证法的模型，作为个人与政治互动的语言方式，也为我们提供了持续辩论它们各自优势与劣势的可能性，甚至是必要性。正是在这种精神下，阿里斯提德看似不合时宜的反驳，不仅揭示了提出分歧的可能性，而且与他所反对的柏拉图观点共同吸引我们去反思、去辩论，并从中吸取教训。

(This article is compiled from Michael Trapp’s speech at the First World Congress of Classical Studies; translated by Yang Xue)

（本文根据迈克尔·特拉普在首届世界古典学大会上的发言整理而成 杨雪/译）

(Author: [UK] Michael Trapp, Emeritus Professor of Greek Literature and Thought, Department of Classics, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, King’s College London)

（作者：[英国]迈克尔·特拉普（Michael Trapp），英国伦敦国王学院艺术与人文学院古典学系希腊文学与思想荣休教授）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧