Persuasion in Ancient Greece

Andrew Scholtz, Instructor

Informational Pages. . .

Major Papers

select... Note Regarding Topics, Scope, Critical Thinking Overview (requirements, assessment, etc.) - Length - Submission - Assessment (critical thinking, writing) - Assessment Criteria - Expository Writing - Format, Layout (MLA, page numbers, etc.) - Required Supplementary Secondary Research Topics (& Their Selection) - Major Paper 1 topic (1st ½ of semester) - Major Paper 2 topic (2nd ½ of semester)

Useful Links . . .

• Writing Issues
• Structuring a paper
• Critical thinking
• Guide to Research, Academic Honesty, etc.
• Sample paper
• BU Library's "Web Page Checklist" (for vetting web sites)
• BU Writing Center
• BU English as a Second Language Center (ESL)
• Purdue Owl

Note Regarding Topics, Scope, and Critical Thinking

It will be crucial to keep in mind that, despite the broad terms in which topic questions are framed below (topic 1, topic 2), there simply is no way in which a limited review of limited evidence can hope to resolve questions as vast as those.

Rather, those big questions offer a larger frame and starting point for a selective and surgical intervention into the matters you address. Do not, therefore set out to argue:

• In the final analysis, Athenian democracy was/was not democratic/tyrannical/oligarchic/etc.
• In the final analysis, Athenian democracy was/was not functional/dysfunctional/etc./etc.

Rather, start out by asking:

• How are your primary texts concerned with class- and topic-related issues?
• How does your lens clarify? How might you need to move beyond it to gain insight?
• What is the take-away?

You may not even need to formulate a thesis; it may be enough simply to reflect critically on your texts within the framework of issues at hand, and see where that takes you. For these papers, that's reasonable and doable in terms of critical thinking.

I advise making the "surgical" nature of your intervention clear in your title and in your introduction. Both can, and the second must, mention texts you use. The second will as well need to address how you intend to proceed.

More here on paper introductions.

If there is anywhere in your paper that a more global perspective is permitted, it will be in the conclusions, where tentative! answers to the bigger questions may well add depth and interest to your discussion — see more here on conclusions.

Overview (focus, requirements, assessment, etc.)

You'll be writing two longer CRITICAL-REFLECTIVE papers for this course.

• By "critical," I mean that they serve as critical-thinking labs, allowing you to test ideas and to come up with your own
• By "reflective," I mean that they will give you the chance to think about issues important not just to this course, but, arguably, to life generally
  • It will be essential to keep in mind that these papers don't ask you to answer huge questions in a mere ten +/- pages. Rather, they ask you to reformulate the bigger questions to fit a limited range of texts allowing for no more than modestly provisional conclusions. Anything else just isn't critical thinking — see further below. . .

Each of these papers will target readings and issues associated with one or another half of the semester:

• Major paper one relating to the issue of HOW "DEMOCRATIC" WAS ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY?
• Major paper two relating to the issue of HOW STABLE or FUNCTIONAL WAS ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY?

More specifically, each paper will have you digging deeper into 2 or more ancient texts to investigate a problem or issue through 1, maybe 2 modern "lenses," by a reading or readings assigned for each of the 2 "Modern Theory and Related" class days (26-Jan for paper 1, 28-Feb for paper 2).

Part of the task is to test the lens: to see what its explanatory potential or its limitations may be.

There will also be some additional supplementary research in modern scholarly sources. Each of these papers will, furthermore, give you practice in an important form of professional writing: expository prose.

[top]

Length

2,250 words (+/–) each, including top-matter (course name, title, etc.) and "Works Cited" page. That should come to just over 9 pages, with the req'd 12-point Times font, double-spaced as per MLA.

Submission

These will be multiple submission (2 submissions), due dates as per "Assignments" page — electronic copy only via dedicated myCourses "Assignment Submission" link.

Assessment

I will not be assigning an "en route" grade to the first submission, but the final grade of the paper will reflect the level of effort for that first submission plus the level of revision effort combined with quality of result on the final submission.

• First submissions don't have to be polished, final drafts; improvement is expected. But so is a good-faith effort that first time around
• The final submission will show the final, aggregate grade for the paper. A poor job revising can result in a final grade lower than that for the initial submission. Grading of this final submission therefore depends on how well the writer processes comments and uses them to improve
  1. I can't provide point-count for each and every aspect of these papers. But A reflects exceeding expectations, B more or less reaching. C approaching with issues. D and lower, seriously falling short of goals.
  • The goals in terms of critical thinking and writing are described below, "Assessment Criteria."
  2. The grade on submission 1 of a paper provides a snapshot of where the paper is at that moment. In the rare event that there's really little left that needs to be done, I might ask for very few revisions.
  3. The final grade will reflect the effort made to process my suggestions with a view to improvements
     • A really deficient submission 1 in terms of effort cannot lead to an A
     • A good-faith-effort C or higher on submission 1 at least has the potential to lead to an A-level final result
     • A deficient submission 2 in terms of effort will be graded lower than submission 1.

Assessment criteria as follows, based on Writing Issues page (this site) and on SUNY Critical Thinking and Writing rubrics.

Critical Thinking
Analysis of arguments	Identification of key arguments in others' work and elements thereof (premises, reasoning, conclusions). Ability to to distinguish substantive argument from rhetoric, filler, etc.; to assess validity of arguments (others', your own).
Development of arguments	Development of clearly articulated, well-supported (well-documented, well-reasoned) arguments. Anticipation of, response to, reasonable objections. Articulation of broader relevance.
Writing-Specific (i.e., apart from CT)
Structure, coherence	Principles of expository writing followed. Topic area, problem/issue, thesis stated at start. Argumentation set forth clearly. Points addressed in logical sequence. Broader implications of arguments explored at end. (On structure, more here.)
Citation	Points properly documented, sources cited as per MLA.
Style, mechanics	Word-variety, tone, vocabulary appropriate for subject and for implied audience. Signposting and paragraphing conducive to ready comprehension. Proper grammar, vocabulary, punctuation.
Layout, word-processing	MLA format-layout in all respects. (That includes page numbers!) Correct use of word processor (page numbers in document header, hanging indents in biblio., etc.)
Revision	Good-faith effort to improve quality of work at all levels. My instructor's comments carefully considered, incorporated into revision.

[top]

Expository Writing

Expository writing states and defends a particular thesis or perspective, for this course, your response to the relevant essay question posed below. It should aim for precision and clarity, and avoid wordiness, etc.

Please see the "Writing Issues" page for detailed discussion of expository writing and what it's all about.

Format and Layout

Strictly MLA.:

• Word-processed
  • Electronic copy only. ONLY standard word-processing formats will be accepted:
  • MS Word (.doc, .docx)
  • RTF ("rich text format," .rtf)
  • Word Perfect (.wpd)
• Do NOT upload:
• PDF (Adobe Acrobat files)
• Plain text (.txt)
• HTML (.html, htm)
• Google Docs (.gdoc)
• Any standard word processor will permit you to save a document in one of the permitted formats
• Page numbers (author-name #) on all pages in document header
• Title
• Top-matter (author, instructor, class, date, etc.) formatted as per MLA, see sample paper
• Font: 12-point Times New Roman (or equiv.)
• Spacing: double throughout. No added space between paragraphs
• Citations, Works Cited page as per MLA (more here, "Guide to Academic Honesty, Research, etc." page, this site)
• Works Cited page styled, etc. as per MLA (more here), with properly formatted "hanging-indent" paragraphs

[top]

Required Supplementary Secondary Research

For each of the two major papers, you will need to supplement your research by using at least two SECONDARY (i.e., modern) SOURCES to provide key background, framing, etc. — two secondary sources NOT assigned as reading for this class.

• The second of the two papers must use at least two secondary research sources not included in the first paper
• For these papers, theoretical lenses don't count as supplementary research sources

For what a valid scholarly source is, see the "Academic Honesty, Research" etc. page, this site.

[top]

Topics

Choosing a Topic

PRELIMINARY NOTE: You won't be opting to do paper 1 or paper 2, everyone does both. Plus, you need to have your topics approved. NO PAPER WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS THE WRITER HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL VIA E-MAIL.

[top]

Topic: Major Paper 1. "How 'democratic' was Athenian democracy?"

Assigned Texts to Work from

• PRIMARY (ancient) texts (2+) from 19-Jan through 23-Feb readings
• THEORETICAL LENS = at least one of the 26-Jan readings through which to view preceding

Topic Prompt

Judging from a select group of primary sources "viewed" through one or more theoretical "lenses" suitable for those texts, how democratic does Athenian democracy look IN THOSE TEXTS? Or more broadly, how validly persuasion-based — how "persuasive" — does political and/or judicial process appear as presented in your chosen first-½-semester ancient readings? Does the element of persuasion convincingly validate processes followed or decisions reached? Are ancient and/or modern criteria for a just or legitimately democratic system met? How do you feel about it?

• Please note: These papers cannot possibly answer so large a question as, "How democratic was Athenian democracy?" — think small!

[top]

There is actually much that can be done with this topic; let me suggest some problem questions as starting points:

PERSUASION IN THE ORESTEIA / "Peitho" readings / "Early Politics" readings. How "persuasive" do you find persuasion in the Oresteia? Though we are dealing there with a mythological treatment of public institutions (e.g., homicide courts), even at a mythological or symbolic level, do the plays convincingly vindicate persuasion, consensus, etc. as basis for the judicial AND political settlement that is finally reached?

Those shorter, excerpted readings could prove hard to build a topic around just by themselves. But read in tandem with one or more plays from the Oresteia, you'll see shared.

THEORETICAL LENSES. Ober Mass and Elite and Scholtz Concordia Discors, though they don't make the Oresteia a primary focus of attention, can provide you with ways to think about issues of political and/or judicial persuasion, consensus, coercion.

PERICLES TURANNOS? Turannos is Greek for "tyrant." In asking whether Pericles was a tyrant, we are, of course, posing a paradox: Pericles was anything but a tyrant. Indeed, he led the radical democracy to its zenith in the mid fifth century BCE. Still, sources like Thucydides' History and Plutarch's Life of Pericles explore the possibility that Pericles, by dint of his powers of persuasion, performed like a virtual monarch or tyrant. The topic thus considers from a narrow perspective much the same issue as the one above, namely, how persuasion, and persuasion-based consensus, on the one hand validate democracy, on the other hand point out problem areas.

THEORETICAL LENSES. Almost any. But I think Dahl might prove especially pertinent here, for instance, as to the issue of democratic legislative process and an informed citizenry.

[top]

THE PERICLEAN FUNERAL ORATION, DOES IT DESCRIBE DEMOCRACY? In many ways, the Periclean Funeral Oration (Thucydides 2.35-46) can be understood, at least in part, as a "road-map" for democracy. So, how democratic is the state so described? From an ancient perspective? A modern one? And is that Athenian democracy as actually practiced (so far as we can tell from surviving evidence) or something else?

Theoretical lenses: maybe Ober / Dahl / Scholtz.

[top]

Topic: Major Paper 2. "How stable/functional was Athenian democracy?"

Assigned Texts to Work from

• PRIMARY (ancient) texts (2+) from 2-Mar through 2-May material
• THEORETICAL LENS = at least one, 28-Febt readings through which to view preceding

Topic Prompt

Judging from a select group of primary sources "viewed" through one or more theoretical "lenses" suitable for those texts, please reflect this time not just on the fundamental mechanisms of Athenian democracy (as mostly for the previous paper), but whether in seeking to fulfill basic principles of freedom and shared rule, Athenian democracy achieved stability and effectiveness. JUDGING BY YOUR CHOSEN TEXTS (and avoiding a too-broad attack on too big a question), would you say that Athenian democracy, if effective, was still democratic? And if democratic, was it still effective?

[top]

Try not to answer the question with any sort of finality, but to discover how a select few, but highly relevant, primary sources either help or hinder in achieving an answer.

POSSIBLE CHOICES. . . .

(But really try to think of your own, or customize those below to your interests.)

OLD OLIGARCH AND. . . . The "Old Oligarch," if read with Michels and/or Weber in mind, seems to make what sort of case for democracy? (Note that the Old Oligarch does NOT wholly condemn democracy. . . .) Read in counterpoint with another second-½-semester text, what insights into the stability and/or effectiveness of Athenian democracy does the O.O. offer?

ARISTOPHANES' KNIGHTS / LYSISTRATA / ASSEMBLYWOMEN AND. . . . The aforementioned political comedies by Aristophanes (choose one), if read with Weber and/or Finley in mind, seem to make what sort of case for democracy? Read in counterpoint with a another second-½-semester text, what insights into the stability and/or effectiveness of Athenian democracy do your second-½-semester primary texts offer? (Note that the all three comedies arguably can be said to deal with peitho / rhetoric / pandering as, potentially, both problem and solution.)

THUCYDIDES 2 READINGS (or perhaps Plutarch's Alcibiades) AND. . . . If read in tandem with Weber/Finley/Michels, the readings in question tend to say what about Athenian democracy as a system often scope for a charismatic leader, for better or worse, to work his magic? Read in counterpoint with another second-½-semester text, what insights into the stability and/or effectiveness of Athenian democracy do your texts offer?

[top]

DEMOSTHENES' AND/OR LYSIAS' POLITICAL ORATORY AND. . . . If read in tandem with a suitable theory2 text, do we see either a charismatic or quasi-oligarchic elitism emerging? What insights into the stability and/or effectiveness of Athenian democracy do your Lysias and/or Demosthenes texts offer?

PLATO'S PHAEDRUS AND. . . . Plato's Phaedrus, if read with Weber / Michels / Finley in mind, seems to make what sort of case for democracy? Read in counterpoint with a suitable second-½-semester text, what insights into the stability and/or effectiveness of Athenian democracy does the Phaedrus offer? (Note how Plato in the Phaedrus explores rhetoric, which he terms psukhagōgia, "mind-control," as a less than perfect [but improvable?] instrument for influencing [but educating??] citizens.)

But there're the sophists, Aristophanes' Clouds, other texts. . . .

[top]