|
Delahoyde & Hughes
Orpheus
SOPHISTRY
|
 |
The Norton Anthology gets interestingly snippy about one aspect of
The Ancient World. After mentioning Pericles' Athenian critique that "a
spirit of reverence pervades our public acts" (qtd. 7), the insistence
here is that the century eroded the balance between "individual freedom
and communal unity."
The Sophists were great teachers, but like most teachers they had little
or no control over the results of their teaching. Their methods placed an
inevitable emphasis on effective presentation of a point of view, to the
detriment, and if necessary the exclusion, of anything which might make
it less convincing. They produced a generation that had been trained to
see both sides of any question and to argue the weaker side as
effectively as the stronger, the false as effectively as the true; to
argue inferentially from probability in the absence of concrete evidence;
to appeal to an audience's sense of its own advantage rather than to
accepted moral standards.... The emphasis on the technique of effective
presentation of both sides of any case encouraged a relativistic point of
view and finally produced a cynical mood which denied the existence of
any absolute standards....
In the last half of the fifth century the whole traditional basis of
individual conduct, the unity and cohesion of the city-state, was
undermined, gradually at first by the critical approach of the Sophists
and their pupils, and then rapidly, as the war accelerated the process of
moral disintegration.... The mood of postwar Athens oscillated between a
fanatic, unthinking reassertion of traditional values and a weary
cynicism which wanted only to be left alone. The only thing common to the
two extremes was a distrust of intelligence.
(7-8)
First, where does Oedipus Rex fall within this scheme? Note
Jocasta's speech about remaining in darkness -- the happiness of
stupidity -- and the Chorus' speeches including the very last one in the
play.
In general, does the play express a loss of faith in the gods and a
higher order? Does the play reflect a kind of negative stoicism?
More importantly, is the Norton editor responsible for the above
assessment of the decline of Athens making a valid case or is this clever
sophistry itself? a thinly disguised and reactionary Jeremiad? Is the
following process a valid formula:
One of the solvents of traditional values was an intellectual revolution
which was taking place in the advanced Athenian democracy of the last
half of the fifth century, a critical evaluation of accepted ideas in
every sphere of thought and action. It stemmed from the innovations in
education. Democratic institutions had created a demand for an education
that would prepare men for public life, especially by training them in
the art of public speaking. The demand was met by the appearance of the
professional teacher, the Sophist, as he was called, who taught, for a
handsome fee, not only the techniques of public speaking but also the
subjects which gave a man something to talk about--government, ethics,
literary criticism, even astronomy. The curriculum of the Sophists, in
fact, marks the first appearance in European civilization of the liberal
education, just as they themselves were the first professors.
Sophist education --> moral disintegration --> political disintegration?
(It sounds a bit like blaming the Beatles for the fall of Western
civilization.)
The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces, Volume I. 6th ed. NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1992.