雅典喪禮演說之性質及詮釋

Athenian Funeral Speech: Its Nature and Interpretations

10.29439/FJHJ.200906.0001

翁嘉聲(Jia-Sheng Ueng)

古代希臘 ； 雅典 ； 喪禮演說詞 ； 修辭 ； 展示性文類（Epideictic） ； Ancient Greece ； Athens ； Epitaphios ； Rhetoric ； Epideictic

輔仁歷史學報

23期（2009 / 06 / 01）

1 - 47

繁體中文

雅典在每年冬天集體安葬陣亡將士，並選出傑出公民發表喪禮演說，以表對逝者敬意的儀式。這種喪禮演說（epitaphios）一向被歸類為展示性（epideictic）演說文類中，而亞里士多德《修辭學》將這種演說文類定義為是針對一群被動聽觀眾進行讚美或責難的修辭性演說。喪禮演說詞是展示性演說文類最重要的次類別，具有固定架構及主題，高度修辭性，語調為歌功頌德，在處理歷史事實上多所扭曲，在實際上別無用途，被視為是較劣等的文類。因此在學術上一向被忽略，直到N. Loraux出版《雅典的發明》（The Inventions of Athens）才稍有改變，強調喪禮演說詞是雅典人用來創造自我理想形象的最佳文類。然而，希臘文化研究的學者還是常以「實證」的心態來解讀這種演說詞，認為這類演說詞不過是對歷史事實做愛國性的扭曲，以泛希臘主義之名，宣揚雅典帝國主義。這種解讀在學術界雖然仍是主流，但有許多不當之處。本文一方面要繼續Loraux的洞見，但希望更進一步強調喪禮演說詞的修辭及儀式性格，以及所具有之文類特性，來了解它的性質及功用。首先，我們必須尊重雅典人將喪禮演說體制化為公共論述這一事實，認知到它是由雅典人所贊助，由雅典人為雅典人表演，傳達雅典人意識形態的活動，是一種高度自我指涉（self-referential）的文學。因此在歷史還原上，我們必須對喪禮演說詞採取「信賴詮釋學」（hermeneutics of faith），而非大多數學者所接受的「懷疑詮釋學」（hermeneutics of suspicion），並理解喪禮演說的語言是儀式性語言，具有獨特的修辭性格，而非政論或法庭演說的工具性（instrumental）語言，並據之詮釋。展示性演說的文類特徵係構成支配喪禮演說詞的「文法」，強調喪禮演說的集體、共識以及教化性質，這些是透過提出一種「正典化的」愛國歷史以及對生者之告誡來傳達。喪禮演說詞因此明顯表達出城邦價值，塑造公共道德，並鼓勵遵守社會規範，是雅典人組成之市民城邦不可質疑的共同前提，並訓練下一代預備他們進入公共領域的生活，進行在公民大會或法庭等的論述行為。喪禮演說因此本身即是相當重要性的社會行為，也解釋我們何以要將之視為重要的社會儀式。或許也只有如此理解這種演說詞，我們才能了解雅典人何以重視它，並使之成為一項公共論述。

The annual ritual of a public and collective funeral (epitaphia) of the fallen soldiers, with a funeral speech (epitaphios) delivered by an eminent citizen, was typical only of Classical Athens and existed only in the classical period. Epitaphios was categorized in the genre of epideictic orations which, according to Aristotle's Rhetoric, is a virtuoso oration about praise and blame for a passive audience. Epitaphios as a sub-genre of the epideictic was seen as the most important kind of occasional speech, defined with a set topic, rigid structure and high rhetoric in style, tainted by a comprehensive distortion of past history and pointless in practicality. It was thus seen as inferior genre and had much ignored in scholarship until the publication of N. Loraux's The Inventions of Athens in 80s. Loraux interprets epitaphios as the genre par excellence by which the ancient Athenians used to project an ideal self-image of the Athenians. However, the negative readings of this genre remains prevailing and continues to see epitaphios as a patriotic distortion of historical reality, advocating an imperial jingoism that became outdated and difficult to defend as time went by. This reading is very unsatisfactory because it completely neglects the special features of epitaphios and makes it such a barren genre.The present approach is to take the insight of Loraux as a basis but with go further with a stress on the ritual and rhetoric nature of epitaphios. It is, first of all, necessary to contextualize the epitaphios in the ritual occasion of epitaphia, with an understanding that epitaphios as an official discourse was sponsored by the Athenians for the Athenians in an expression of Athenian ideology. It is a highly self-referential genre and adopts a ”rhetoric of orthodoxy,” spoken only to those who are ”in.” Its language is ritualistic and rhetoric, not instrumental, and one therefore has to interpret it accordingly. This demands that one adopt a ”hermeneutics of faith” (instead of ”hermeneutics of suspicion” as in those positivists) to respect its conventions with its apparatus of a ”canonized” history of Athenian past and an explicit exhortation for the living. Epitaphios in this way articulates the values of a community, fabricates the public morality and encourages adherence to social norms as a social common denomination for Athenians and constitutes a preparation for the political life in the polis. This explains why it is necessary to stress it as a social ritual because epitaphios constitutes in its delivery a significant social action by itself. It is only in this way can we understand why Classical Athenians paid such an attention to epitaphios and institutionalized it as an official discourse.

1. Pearson, Lionel. “Three Notes on the Funeral Oration of Pericles,” The American Journal of Philology, 64 (1943), pp. 399-407.
2. Beale, Walter(1978).Rhetorical Performative Discourse: A New Theory of Epideictic.Philosophy and Rhetoric,11,221-246.
3. Boedeker, D.(ed.),Rafflaub, K. A.(ed.)(1998).Democracy, empire and the arts in fifth-century Athens.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
4. Carey, Chistopher(2006).Epideictic Oratory.Worthington:
5. Carter, Michael F.(1991).The Ritual Functions of Epidectic Rhetoric: The Case of Socrates' Funeral Oration.Rhetorica,9,209-232.
6. Chase, J. Richard(1961).The Classical Conception of Epideictic.Quarterly Journal of Speech,47,293-300.
7. Cohen, B.(ed.)(2000).Not the classical ideal: Athens and the construction of the other in Greek art.Leiden:Brill.
8. Collins, Susan,Stauffer, Devin(1999).Plato's Menexenus and Pericles' Funeral Oration. Empire and the Ends of Politics.Newburyport:The Focus Classical Library.
9. Collins, Susan,Stauffer, Devin(1999).The Challenge of Plato's Menexenus.Review of Politics,61,85-115.
10. Connor, W. R.(1993).The Ionian Era of Athenian Civic Identity.Proceedings of the American Philological Society
11. Cooper, J. M.,Hutchinson, D. M.(1997).Plato. Complete Works.Indianapolis:Hackett.
12. Coventry, Lucinda(1989).Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Menexenus.The Journal of Hellenic Studies,109,1-15.
13. Dean-Jones, Lesley(1995).Menexenus - Son of Socrates.The Classical Quarterly,45,51-57.
14. Duffy, Bernard K.(1983).The Platonic Functions of Epideictic Rhetoric.Philosophy and Rhetoric,16,79-93.
15. Euben, J. P.(ed.)(1986).Greek Tragedy and Political Theory.Berkeley:University of California Press.
16. Frangeskou, Vassiliki(1999).Tradition and Originality in Some Attic Funeral Orations.The Classical World,92,315-336.
17. Hauser, Gerald A.(1999).Aristotle on Epideictic: The Formation Of Public Morality.Rhetoric Society Quarterly,29,5-23.
18. Henderson, M. M.(1975).Plato's Menexenus and the distortion of history.Acta Classica,18,25-46.
19. Huby, Pamela M.(1957).The Menexenus Reconsidered.Phronesis,2,104-114.
20. Kahn, Charles H.(1963).Plato's Funeral Oration: The Motive of the Menexenus.Classical Philology,58,220-234.
21. Kennedy, George A.(1963).The Art of Persuasion in Greece.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
22. Kennedy, George A.(trans.)(2007).Aristotle on Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse.NY:OUP.
23. Loraux, Nicole(2000).Born of the Earth. Myth and Poetics.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
24. Loraux, Nicole,Levine, Caroline(trans.)(1993).The Children of Athena. Athenian ideas about citizenship and the division between the sexes.New Jersey:Princeton UP.
25. Loraux, Nicole,Sheridan, Alan(Trans.)(1986).The Invention of Athens. The Funeral Oration in the Classical City.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard UP.
26. Mitchell, Lynette(2007).Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece.Swansea:Classical Press of Wales.
27. Monoson, S. Sara(1994).Citizen as Erastes: Erotic Imagery and the Ideal of Reciprocity in the Periclean Funeral Oration.Political Theory,22,253-276.
28. Monoson, S. Sara(1998).Remembering Pericles. The Political and Theoretical Import of Plato's Menexenus.Political Theory,26,489-513.
29. Ober, Josiah(ed.),Hedrick, Charles(ed.)(1996).Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern.New Jersey:Princeton UP.
30. Ochs, Donovan J.(1993).Consolatory Rhetoric: Grief, Symbol, and Ritual in Greco-Roman Era..Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.
31. Oravec, Christine(1976).Observation in Aristotle's Theory of Epideictic.Philosophy and Rhetoric,9,162-174.
32. Perelman, Chaïm,Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.(2008).The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation..Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press.
33. Poulakos, John(1986).Gorgias' and Isocrates' Use of the Encomium.The Southern Speech Communication Journal,51,300-307.
34. Poulakos, Takis(1990).Historiography of the Tradition of Rhetoric: A Brief History of Classical Funeral Orations.Western Journal of Speech Communication,54,172-88.
35. Poulakos, Takis(1987).Isocrates's Use of Narrative in the Evagoras: Epideictic Rhetoric and Moral Action.Quarterly Journal of Speech,73,317-328.
36. Pozzi, Dora C.(ed.),Wickersham, J. M.(ed.)(1991).Myth and the Polis.Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press.
37. Rosenstock, Bruce(1994).Socrates as Revenant: A Reading of the Menexenus.Phoenix,48,331-347.
38. Salkever, Stephen S.(1993).Socrates' Aspasian Oration: The Play of Philosophy and Politics in Plato's Menexenus.The American Political Science Review,87,133-143.
39. Sicking, C. M. J.(1995).The General Purport of Pericles' Funeral Oration and Last Speech.Hermes,123,404-425.
40. Sprague, Rosamond Kent(ed.)(2001).The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation by Several Hands of the Fragments in Die Fragmente Der Vorsokratiker, Edited by Diels-Kranz. With a New Edition of Antiphon and Euthydemus.Indianapolis:Hackett.
41. Strassler, Robert B.(2008).The Landmark Thucydides. A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War.N.Y.:Free Press.
42. Sullivan, Dale L.(1993).The Epideictic Character of Rhetorical Criticism.Rhetoric Review,11,339-349.
43. Sullivan, Dale L.(1993).The Ethos of Epideictic Encounter.Philosophy and Rhetoric,26,113-133.
44. Todd, S. C.(trans.)(2000).Lysias.Austin:University of Texas Press.
45. Tyrrel, Wm. Blake,Brown, Frieda S.(1991).Athenian Myths & Institutions. Words in Action.N.Y.:Oxford University Press.
46. Walcot, P.(1973).The Funeral Speech. A study of Value.Greece & Rome,20,111-121.
47. White, Eugene E.(ed.)(1980).Rhetoric in Transition.University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press.
48. Wickkiser, Bronwen L.(1999).Plato's "Menexenus" and the Ritual of Athenian Public Ritual.Rhetoric Society Quarterly,29,65-74.
49. Worthington, Ian(1991).Greek Oratory, Revision of Speeches and the Problem of Historical Reliability.Classica et Mediaevalia,42,55-74.
50. Worthington, Ian(ed. & trans.)(1999).Greek Orators II. Dinarchus and Hyperides.Warminster:Aris & Phillips.
51. Worthington, Ian(ed.)(2006).A companion to Greek rhetoric.Wiley-Blackwell.
52. Worthington, Ian(ed.)(1994).Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action.London:Routledge.
53. Worthington, Ian(trans.)(2006).Demosthenes, Speeches 60 and 61, Prologues, Letters.Austin:University of Texas Press.
54. Worthington, Ian,Cooper, Craig(trans.),Harris, Edward M.(trans.)(2001).Dinarchus, Hyperides & Lycurgus.Austin:University of Texas Press.
55. Ziolkowski, J ohn E.(1981).Thucydides and the tradition of funeral speeches at Athens.Salem:Arno Press.
56. Ziolkowski, John E.(ed.),Khan, H. A.(ed.)(1994).The Birth of European Identity: The Europe-Asia Contrast in Greek Thought 490 - 322.Nottingham:University of Nottingham Press.