grote damagogues

8/12/2019 Grote Damagogues

1/19

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest09 January 2014 22:04

_______________________________________________________________

09 January 2014 ProQuest


2/19

abla de contenido1. Reclaiming Rhetorical Democracy: George Grote's Defense of Cleon and the Athenian Demagogues..... 1

09 January 2014 ii ProQuest


3/19

Documento 1 de 1

Reclaiming Rhetorical Democracy: George Grote s Defense of Cleon and the Athenian DemagoguesAutor: Whedbee, Karen E.Informacin de publicacin: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 34.4 (Fall 2004): 71-95.Enlace de documentos de ProQuest

Resumen: George Greto's History of Greece (1846-56) was instrumental in overturning the traditional view ofAthens as an oppressive and corrupt society. In particular, Grote's rewriting of the story of the Athenian

demagogue Cleon illustrates the difficulties he faced in attempting to argue for the legitimacy of popular

government and popular rhetoric. His defense of Cleon-and more broadly, his defense of rhetorical democracy-

helped to challenge the ascendancy of rhetoric as belles lettres and to stimulate the modern revival of Athenian

popular rhetoric. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Texto completo: HeadnoteAbstract.George Greto's History of Greece (1846-56) was instrumental in overturning the traditional view of

Athens as an oppressive and corrupt society. In particular, Grote's rewriting of the story of the Athenian

demagogue Cleon illustrates the difficulties he faced in attempting to argue for the legitimacy of popular

government and popular rhetoric. His defense of Cleon-and more broadly, his defense of rhetorical democracy-

helped to challenge the ascendancy of rhetoric as belles lettres and to stimulate the modern revival of Athenian

popular rhetoric.

Today the name of George Grote is little known outside of classical studies. While historians of rhetoric

occasionally mention him in passing, the influence of his writing in shaping modern conceptions of rhetoric has

not been fully recognized.1 We overlook the fact that for centuries prior to Grote, the concept of "Athenian

rhetoric"-like the concept of "Athenian democracy"-retained a decidedly pejorative connotation. Historians

writing prior to the nineteenth century consistently portrayed Athenian rhetoric as symptomatic of the immoral

egoism, partisanship, and mob hysteria which they believed were inherent to popular government. Grote's

landmark work on the History of Greece (1846-56) initiated a transformation in attitudes toward Athens.2

Rhetoricians ought to be more familiar with Grote because (1) he was a crucial figure in shaping modem

interpretations of Athenian democracy and Athenian rhetoric, and (2) he was one of the first modern scholars to

argue that Athenian rhetoric is valuable precisely because of its connection to democratic government.

Grote's innovative treatment of Athens can be better understood by examining his discussion of the Athenian

politician named Cleon. A prototypical "bad guy" demagogue, Cleon has always been a standard ngure in

Athenian political history because of his prominence in the writings of Aristophanes and Thucydidcs.3 In

histories of Greece written prior to Grote, Cleon consistently appeared in the historical record as a dangerous

and arrogant "rabble rouser." His name was synonymous with deception, flattery, and emotional manipulation of

the "ignorant Athenian mob." Grote's defense of Athens depended in part on defending the demagogue and, by

so doing, vindicating popular oratory as a legitimate means of political decisionmaking. In Grote's revisionist

history, Cleon appears as a political hero who used rhetoric to challenge the authority of wealth and

unexamined tradition. Cleon's expressions of political dissent opened space for public deliberation and for

rational consideration of alternative modes of thought and conduct.

In this essay, I provide a brief survey of eighteenth-century commentaries on the Athenian Constitution in order

to demonstrate how deeply entrenched was the anti-Athenian tradition in Anglo-American thought. Historians of

the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries identified the Athenian addiction to popular rhetoric and todemagogucry as a principal cause of all that was sinister in democratic government. Second, I consider Grote's

rehabilitation of Cleon as representative of his larger case for the legitimacy of Athenian democracy and

Athenian rhetoric. In Grote's analysis, the rhetorical performances of demagogues like Cleon represented a kind

09 January 2014 Page 1 of 17 ProQuest
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216269791?accountid=14598http://search.proquest.com/docview/216269791?accountid=14598


4/19

of "critical rationality" essential to achieving political liberty. Finally, I conclude by locating Grote's revisionist

History as an important text that can help to illuminate the modern reception of classical rhetoric. The text

assumes a distinction between two different traditions (or conceptions) of rhetoric. Grote attempted to discredit

the aristocratie conception of rhetoric (associated with polite belles lettres) and to stimulate the modem revival

of Athenian popular rhetoric (which valued partisan advocacy over renned expression).

The Anti-Athenian Tradition

Grote is a paradigmatic case of a scholar who fell victim to his own success. His arguments in defense of

Athenian democracy were so influential that it became difficult for subsequent scholars to imagine that his major

claims were ever very controversial. Thus, if we are to appreciate Grote's significance to the history of rhetoric,

we need to begin by examining his scholarship against the background of Hritish eighteenth- and early

nineteenth-century Hellenic studies.

For most historians writing prior to Grote, the story of Athenian democracy appeared through a frame of

reference that is largely alien to us today. We think of democracy as synonymous for legitimacy in government,

and we read the story of ancient Greece through the lens of this pro-democratic ideology. Hut in the eighteenth

and early nineteenth centuries, the British ideal of government was seen to consist in one form or another of a

"balanced" or "mixed" constitution in which power was distributed among a monarch, an aristocracy, and a

merchant class. The primary advantage of a balanced constitution was that each branch of the government

would provide "checks" on the other branches, thus preventing any one faction of society from achieving a

dominance that would threaten the civil liberties of other factions.4

Not surprisingly, British intellectuals felt secure in the knowledge that Britain itself represented a near-perfect

constitutional alignment. According to William Blackstone, the "true excellence of British government" consists

of the fact that

all the parts of it form a mutual check upon each other. In the legislature, the people are a cheek upon the

nobility, and the nobility a check upon the people; by the mutual privilege of rejecting what the other has

resolved: while the king is a check upon both, which preserves the executive power from any encroachments.

According to Blackstone, this balanced interaction among the parts of government "constitutes the true line of

liberty and happiness of the community" (Blackstone 1: 154-55)

If the British Constitution exemplified the ideal alignment of political powers, the Athenian Constitution

represented the epitome of "unbalanced" popular government. As Jonathan Swift (1701) explained, the

constitution of Athens was a "Dommitio Plebis, or Tyranny of the Commons" (8). Today this description is likely

to strike us as odd. We think of "tyranny" and "democracy" as mutually exclusive categories, but for writers of

the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, "tyranny" was taken to refer to any sovereign (whether an

individual or a multitude) that governed by unchecked self-interest rather than by consistent adherence to the

"rule of law." Accordingly, Temple Stanyan (1739) declared that the "temper of the Athenians was too delicate,and capricious, to be brought to those grave and regular Austerities" that are necessary for consistent and

balanced leadership (1: 180). The conflicting and vacillating desires of the multitude meant "it was hardly

possible to avoid confusion and discord; the Demagogues, and other artful and designing men, from hence took

occasion to perplex and inflame matters still more, in order to carry on their own selfish views at the expense of

the public" (2: n.p.). Consumed by self-interested partisanship, Athens "began daily to degenerate into sloth and

luxury, faction and corruption, fraud and violence" (2: n.p.).

In 1786, John Gillies, a prolific writer on classical studies, described Athens as "a wild a capricious democracy"

in which decisions were determined by the "tumultuous passions of the vulgar" (1: 487). Lacking an

understanding of the subjects presented for their judgment, the people of Athens were ill equipped to detect

inconsistency or fraud in law and public policy. Gillies explained, "When their negligence could not be surprised,

their avarice might be bribed, justice was sold." Lower-class Athenians

endeavoured to alleviate their misery by a very criminal consolation, persecuting their superiors, banishing them



5/19

their country, confiscating their estates, and treating them on the slightest provocation, and often without any

provocation at all, with the utmost injustice and cruelty. Though occasionally directed by the equity of an

Aristides, or the magnanimity of a Cimon, they, for the most part, listened to men of an opposite character. He

who could best flatter and deceive them obtained most of their confidence. With such fatal qualifications, the

turbulent, the licentious, and the dissolute, in a word, the orator who most resembled his audience commonly

prevailed in the assembly, and specious or hurtful talents carried off the awards due to real merit. (2: 353-54)

Gillies recognized that Athenians prided themselves on having achieved a constitution dedicated to civil

liberties, but he saw this boasting as a perversion of truth. In Athenian democracy, individual rights (especially

rights to property) were conditional on the capricious and salable judgment of the "Commons." The only

guarantee in Athenian domestic and foreign policy was volatility and shortsighted partisanship.5

In the final decades of the eighteenth century, revolutions in America and in France unleashed forces that would

eventually overturn the eighteenth-century ideal of "balanced government." Radicals like Joseph Priestley,

William Godwin, and Tom Paine (and later, James Mill) fomented suspicion among middle class liberals that

"balanced government" was merely a convenient myth designed to protect the fortunes of the aristocracy. The

word "democracy" began to appear, on occasion, in positive contexts. Nevertheless, such radicalism had little

effect on descriptions of ancient Athens. If anything, classical histories in the final years of the eighteenth

century became even more resolutely anti-Athenian. Anxious to limit the tide of democratic reform and

revolution, Tories and Whigs hurried to their libraries searching for evidence of the corruption and instability of

democratic government.

This evidence was not difficult to discover. Ancient sources appeared to confirm the view that democratic

Athens was, as Aleibiades had described it, an "acknowledged folly" (Thucydides 6: 89). Aristophanes ridiculed

the dishonesty and selfishness of Athenian politicians. Plato denounced the incompetence of the Athenian

people and the perversions of justice that occurred under their government. Thucydides and Xenophon recalled

specific incidents (for example, the debate over the Mytilenians, the Sicilian expedition, the execution of

Socrates) in terms that emphasized the capriciousness, cruelty, and arrogance of the Athenian people.

Isocrates lamented the trend toward immorality and litigiousness that corresponded with the expansion of

democratic government. Historians found still more damning evidence in the works of Aristotle, Cicero, and

Mutarch. Today, as we look back on the eighteenth-century anti-Athenian tradition, it might be tempting to

assume that Tory and Whig historians were merely projecting their own political anxieties onto ancient Athens.

In fact, however, given the overwhelming testimony of ancient sources, it seemed, at the time, more plausible

that it was the radicals who were vulnerable to charges of anachronism.6

At the turn of the century, anti-democratic historians maintained uncontested control over the story of Athens.

Numerous narratives and commentaries appeared during this period, but the most influential was William

Mitford's ten-volume History of Greece (1784-1810).7 A zealous anti-Jacobin and supporter of the CountryParty Tories, Mitford used his narrative as a vehicle for extolling the virtues of the balanced constitution of

Britain and for condemning those who proposed to undermine that balance by increasing the power of popular

assemblies. He supported his argument with familiar anti-Athenian topoi. Civil liberties, he argued, were

irrelevant in a constitution based on majority rule. Any Athenian who found himself in a minority lived in danger

of being "brought to trial for his life at the pleasure of the most profligate of mankind" (4:12). Political conduct in

Athens necessarily involved "a continual preparation for an election, not as in England, to decide whether the

candidate should or should not be a member of the legislature, but whether he should be head of the

commonwealth or an exile"(2: 226-27).

As should be evident, one of the recurring themes of anti-Athenian histories of Greece was the description of a

pernicious alliance between popular government and popular rhetoric. Mitford explained that

In popular government, the art of public speaking cannot fail to be important, and in Athens it was more

extensively so, as no man who possessed anything, could by the most upright conduct, be secure against



6/19

prosecution, and as moreover it was expected of the prosecuted, tho friends or council might assist, that they

should nevertheless speak for themselves (4: 78).

In other words, civil liberties in Athens were not guaranteed but were contingent on the individual's capacity to

command large and uneducated audiences. Further, those who could win the support of the majority

determined the legislative policies of the state. This procedure gave advantage to those "without other

recommendation than reddiness [sic] and boldness of speech" (6: 98). Given the centrality of popular oratory to

the proceedings of democratic courts and assemblies, those who taught the arts of popular appeal and public

speaking could and great "fame and profit" in Athens. The city "shortly abounded with those who, under the

name of sophists, professors of wisdom, undertook to teach every science" (4:125). The sophists reinforced in

the people of Athens a love of public applause. They inculcated in demagogues an ability to argue "cither side

of any question; political or moral; and it was generally their glory to make the worse appear the better cause"

(4: 126).8

Among the most notorious of the Athenian popular orators was the politician Cleon. According to traditional

interpretations, it was Cleon's blind impertinence, bombastic speech, and military incompetence that led the

Athenians into disastrous error in the war against Sparta. Thucydides, for example, described Cleon as being

remarkable for the "violence of his character" (3: 36). Aristophanes called Cleon "the greatest rogue and liar in

the world" (45, 75, 629, 758). Deferring to the authority of these ancient sources, Temple Stanyan hurled

depreciatory adjectives at Cleon:

He was rash, arrogant and obstinate, contentious, envious and malicious, covetous and corrupt. And yet with all

these bad qualities, he had some little arts of popularity, which raised and supported him. . . . That which Clcon

chiefly depended on, was his eloquence: But it was of a boisterous kind, verbose and petulant, and consisted

more in the vehemence of his stile and utterance, and the frantickness of his action and gesture, than in the

strength of his reasoning. By this furious manner of haranguing, he introduced among the orators and

statesmen a licentiousness and indecency, which were not known before; and which gave rise to the many

riotous and disorderly proceedings, which were afterwards in the assemblies, when almost every thing was

carried by noise and tumult. (1: 379-81)

Stanyan's description of Cleon set a standard of denunciation against which later historians of Greece would

attempt to compete. For example, John Gillies explained that

A turbulent impetuous eloquence had raised the audacious profligacy of Cleon, from the lowest rank of life, to a

high degree of authority in the Athenian assembly. The multitude were deceived with his artifices, and pleased

with his frontless impudence, which they called boldness, and manly openness of character. His manners they

approved, in proportion as they resembled their own; and the worst of his vices found advocates among the

dupes of his pretended patriotism.

This "violent demagogue" used his speech to infect the people of Athens with "an arrogant presumption" andfabricated intelligence that was "liable to be shaken by every gust of passion" (558).

More could be said about the reception of the Athenian constitution in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century

Britain, but the major features of histories of this period should be sufficiently clear.9 By the early decades of the

nineteenth century, hostility toward Athenian democracy and Athenian rhetoric was (1) pervasive; (2) coherently

argued with reference to standards and values that were derived from a philosophy of balanced government;

and (3) copiously supported by references to ancient witnesses. Lacking an understanding of this intellectual

background it would not be possible to appreciate the achievement of George Grote in answering critics of

Athenian democracy.

The Radical Response

A City of London banker, a disciple of Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, and a leading Liberal Member of the

reformed House of Commons, Grote had little in common with the likes of Stanyan, Gillies, and Mitford.10

Despite obvious political and intellectual differences, Grote did share with them a keen awareness of the



7/19

symbolic importance of the Athenian Constitution. It has sometimes been asserted that Grote rescued Athens

from the ideological prejudices of "Tory" historians (J. S. Mill 11: 79n). There is some truth in the claim, but to

say this is not to suggest that Grote was any less partisan than earlier historians of Greece. Rather, Grote

attempted to displace traditional Whig and Tory ideologies and to replace them with the liberal ideology of the

Philosophic Radicals. Grote's mission was to democratize British polities, and he used the Athenian example to

support this political agenda.11

The project was not as obvious or as inevitable as it sometimes has been made to appear. Grote had at hand

the same textual sources as his predecessors. And, as noted above, those ancient sources were decidedly

hostile toward Athenian democracy. How did Grote generate a credible prodemocratic reading from sources

that were predominately anti-democratic? As Terence Irwin explains, Grote's achievement was not the result of

access to modem archaeological discoveries that his opponents had neglected. The sources that he used were

essentially the same as had been used by previous historians." Further, Grote's achievement was not merely

the result of his reading the ancient sources more carefully than anyone had read them before. Gillies and

Mitford in particular were capable scholars, and there is nothing about their work that could be described as

obviously incomplete or erroneous. Rather, Grote's accomplishment consisted of his having read the ancient

texts more critically than anyone had read them before.

More precisely, Grote's methodology consisted of a close reading and collation of ancient texts in order to

separate descriptions of historical facts from political opinions expressed about those facts. So, for example, in

reading Thucydides, Grote distinguished between the author's detailed historical narrative and the political

commentary conjoined to the narrative. Prying apart the text, he located discrepancies between the author's

conjectural inferences and the evidence actually offered in support of those inferences.

The significance of Grote's critical methodology can be better appreciated by contrasting it with the

methodology of an earlier historian of Greece, Temple Stanyan. Unlike Grote, Stanyan was highly deferential to

the judgments of ancient authors. His primary contribution to Greek history consisted of weaving one unified

chronological story out of older partial narratives and fragmentary comments. When ancient texts conflicted with

one another, Stanyan was forced to assert his own authorial judgment. He did so gently and with reverence for

tradition:

All that I could do . . . was to compare them [the conflicting texts] together, to supply the defects of one out of

another, and to extract out of the whole those particulars, which appeared to me the most rational and probable,

and most consistent with the common known character of the person I was describing. (2: preface)

It never seemed to occur to Stanyan to question "common knowledge" or to investigate the reliability of sources

from which "common knowledge" was derived.13 In this respect, Stanyan was not unusual. In general,

eighteenth and early-nineteenth historians tended to have strong faith in the authority of ancient witnesses and

in traditional interpretations of those witnesses.Grote, by contrast, approached the ancient authorities like a "judge investigating evidence in a trial" (Stephen 3:

338). Where earlier historians had read ancient authors with deference and credulity, Grote approached their

works with presumptuous skepticism. He refused to concede any assertion without verifying for himself its

evidence and reasoning. John Stuart Mill remarked that Grote's History was written "with the precision and

minuteness of one who neither desires nor expects that anything will be taken upon trust" (J. S. Mill 11: 330).

Although Mill was referring to Grote's writing style, the observation more generally describes Grote's

methodology-and indeed his attitude toward all things political, philosophical, and religious. He accepted nothing

on faith-except his own ability to judge for himself the legitimacy of the Athenian system of government. The

effect of this critical stance was to demystify the authority of ancient authors and to open space for alternative

constructions of Athenian political history.14

Grote's Defense of Cleon

With this background in mind, we are now in a position to consider Grote's defense of rhetorical democracy (in



8/19

general) and his defense of the demagogue Cleon (in particular). Grote begins his discussion by acknowledging

that his interpretation of Cleon is not shared by earlier historians of Greece:

As Grecian history has been usually written, we are instructed to believe that the misfortunes, and the

corruption, and the degradation of the democratical states are brought upon them by a class of demagogues, of

whom Kleon, Hyperbolus, Adrokls, etc., stand forth as specimens. These men are represented as mischief-

makers and revilers, accusing without just cause, and converting innocence into treason. (History 6:271)

Tradition condemned the demagogues as tyrants who manipulated public opinion for their own selfish ends.

Grote, however, invited his readers to reconsider the historical record.

In the first place, the issue of sources is crucial. Our two chief sources of information regarding the demagogue

Gleon are Aristophanes and ThucydidEs. Aristophanes, whose signature was satirical caricature, is-according

to Orote-an obviously unreliable witness. Any public figure, from Pericles to Gleophon, was a target for the wit

and ridicule of the playwright. In GlEon's case, Aristophanes apparently had a personal grudge which gave his

wit extra venom (5: 398).15 Grote explained that "So ready are most writers to find Gleon guilty that they are

satisfied with Aristophanes as a witness against him; though no other public man, of any age or nation, has ever

been condemned on such evidence" (5: 393). The writings of Aristophanes are lampoons. The poet's objective

was not historical accuracy but comedic effect. Consequently, the information provided by his writings ought to

be considered reliable only insofar as it is corroborated by other witnesses.

Thucydides is, by contrast, a more reliable source. Even so, we need bear in mind that the historian had political

allegiances in opposition to Cleon. Indeed, when the Athenian forces were originally defeated at Amphipolis, it

may have been Gleon who prosecuted Thucydides for military negligence. (Thueydides was at the time the

commander responsible for defending Amphipolis. As a result of the prosecution, Thueydides was found guilty

and sentenced to exile.) When Thucydides later went on to write his history of the war, he would have had

ample motivation to portray his accuser in unflattering terms. As a historian, Thucydides does command

respect, but it would be nave to think that he could have written without prejudice about a man who prosecuted

him for official incompetence (5: 328-334).16

Hearing in mind the prejudices of primary sources, what does the historical record tell us about Glcon? Grote

acknowledged that Gleon obviously was a man of modest birth. A leather-seller, he belonged to the new class

of Athenian politicians who emerged from the middle-class world of business and trade (5: 165-66). Gleon

became active in the Athenian assembly during the early years of the Peloponncsian War.17 While it is clear

that he was a leader of the democratic party, Grote doubted whether Gleon ever really wielded any significant

power in Athenian government. He always seems to appear in the historical record as an anti-establishment

figure. That is, his primary function appears to have been to "supervise and censure official men for their public

conduct" (5: 210). In this role as oppositional speaker, Gleon was well known for employing highly aggressive

rhetorical tactics. His characteristic modes of expression were sarcasm and invective.'" Nevertheless, while hewas notorious for caustic outbursts, his so-called "violent temper" appears to have been entirely verbal.

Historical records provide no indication that Gleon ever engaged in any action that would have violated the

requirements of the democratic constitution.

Further, Grote observed that Gleon's aggressive rhetorical outbursts might be explained in a context that would

not have been considered by Thucydides or Aristophanes. While it is likely true that Cleon was brash,

unpleasant, temperamental, and even dishonest, these features of his character need to he understood against

the background of larger economic and social realities. That is,

Men of the middling class, like Kleon and Hyperbolus, who persevered in addressing the public assembly and

trying to take a leading part in it, against persons of greater family pretension than themselves, were pretty sure

to be men of more than usual audacity. Without this quality, they would never have surmounted the opposition

made to them. (5: 167)

In Athens, as elsewhere, wealth and nobility provided social and political advantages that Cleon would have



9/19

lacked. Given his low birth, he would have had no choice but to work harder and display more aggression than

politicians of noble birth who, by comparison, would have automatically commanded the attention of the

assembly.

This line of argument, crucial to Grote's defense of Cleon, demonstrates clearly the extent of his indebtedness

to James Mill. In his writing and teaching, Mill had argued that the real danger of government is not a tyranny of

the majority but a tyranny of the aristocracy. That is, even in governments that appear to grant power to middle

and/or lower class citizens, there is an inevitable tendency for power to concentrate in the uristocrucy which in

turn uses that power to protect the status quo.19 In fact, truly democratic government is unattainable unless

some means are devised to peaceably restrain and resist the tendency of the masses to defer political

engagement to wealth and traditional sources of authority.

Given Grote's ideological framework, any fair evaluation of Cleon requires that we consider the demagogue

within historical context and in relation to his main political rivals. Nicias, a leader of the Athenian oligarchical

faction and Cleon's major political opponent, traditionally has been described by historians as a somewhat

bumbling but highly pious and patriotic leader. For example, as described by Temple Stanyan, "Nicias was

rather a good man, than a great one. He was gentle, compassionate and beneficent; virtuous and religious; he

had also great wisdom and foresight; and always meant well to his country" (Stanyan 1: 419-21). Nicias, in

short, was Cleon's opposite in background and temperament. Hut for Grote these observations were

suspiciously vague and conjectural. He scrutinized Nicias's record for more specific information. Other than his

family background and wealth, what did Nicias actually do to warrant his good reputation? His main claim to

"piety" appears to have consisted of the fact that he eschewed the philosophical and military experts of his day

and surrounded himself instead with mystics and prophets. Further, his "patriotism" appears to have consisted

of the fact that he used his considerable personal fortune (Xenophon describes him as owning 1,000 slaves

who worked silver mines) to purchase the popular esteem of the Athenian people (Grote 5: 206-07; Xenophon,

De vectigalibus, 4.14).

Being from the upper class, Nicias was recognized by the Athenian people as an expert in military tactics.

Elected frequently to serve as stratigos (general), he led several expeditions in the war against Sparta, and

through his prudent judgment, he suffered no serious defeat and won no significant victory. Gleon, on the other

hand, being from the middle class, had no military training. Nevertheless, despite his inexperience, he did not

hesitate to express outrage at what he saw as ineffective and negligent military leadership. Offended by Cleon's

impudence, Nicias and his political allies formed an ingenious plan. When Cleon stood up to ridicule Nicias,

Nicias responded by challenging the demagogue to accept a military command (5: 252-53). As explained by

Thucydides (3:12), Nicias reasoned as follows: If Glcon rejected the assignment, he would, in effect, he

admitting his own ignorance and cowardice. His verbal criticism of the war effort would be exposed as "empty

rhetoric," and he likely would be removed as a significant force in Athenian politics. If Clcon had the gall toaccept the military assignment, his inexperience and brashness would almost certainly lead to disaster on the

battlefield. lie would be himself likely killed, and thus, effectively removed from the political scene. That Glcon

might actually be victorious in battle seemed like a remote possibility. Hut even if so, Athens would, through his

efforts, achieve an important victory in the war. Nicias accepted this possibility as an unlikely but essentially

positive outcome for Athens.

Trapped by political scheming, Cleon was left with little choice but to accept the military assignment. He traveled

to Pylos, and once there, began to issue orders for an aggressive attack on the island of Sphakteria. To

everyone's surprise, Gleon's assessment of the conditions of the battlefield turned out to be accurate. The

vulnerabilities of the Spartan army were rapidly revealed. Cleon's invasion was overwhelmingly successful and,

as Grote emphasized, the capture of Sphakteria gave Athens a significant advantage in the prosecution of the

war (5: 257).

To Nicias's chagrin, Cleon returned to Athens as a military hero and undisputed leader of the democratic party



10/19

(5: 267). Consumed with jealousy for Cleon's newfound reputation as a bold and effective military commander,

Nicias and his allies again conspired to silence the demagogue.20 Cleon was pressured into accepting

command of an expedition which would return Athenian forces to Amphipolis. Once there, he would be required

to confront the great Spartan general Hrasidas. Against such odds, Cleon's fate was sealed. His inexperience-

combined with a failure to receive reinforcements-produced an overwhelming victory for Sparta. Killed in battle,

Cleon was removed, in an ultimate sense, as a force in Athenian politics (5: 374-88). With no one left to defend

his memory, the demagogue became an easy scapegoat for the Athenian defeat.

Meanwhile, back in Athens, Nicias and his allies emerged from the scandal unscathed. Having removed the

voice of disscntion, the oligarehical party was now in a position to dictate their own terms for the prosecution of

the war. Urote lamented,

Happy would it have been for Athens had she now had Cleon present, or any other demagogue of equal power,

at that public assembly which took the melancholy resolution of sending fresh forces to Sicily and continuing

Nikias in command! The case was one in which the accusatory eloquence of the demagogue was especially

called for, to expose the real past mismanagement of Nikias-to break down the undeserved eonndence in his

ability ... to prove how much mischief he had already done, and how much more he would do if continued, (6:

117)

Lacking articulate opposition, the people of Athens were easily deceived by the illusion of competence

emanating from Nicias's imposing rank and wealth. They invested in him all their hopes and ambitions. This

turned out to be a fatal mistake that culminated in Nicias's catastrophic defeat at Syracuse (6: 183).

Having disassembled the historical record, Grote concluded that, contrary to tradition, it was Nicias rather than

Cleon who was guilty of cynical political maneuvering-not to mention disgraceful disregard for the lives of

Athenian soldiers (5: 267). The most serious threat to the stability of Athens originated not in the so called

"rabble-rousing" of the demagogue but in the cocksure ambition of powerful men who, like Nicias, attempted to

use intimidation and bribery to short-circuit deliberative processes for their own selfish ends (6 184). According

to Grote's version of the story, Cleon had far less influence on Athenian government than many historians had

supposed. That is, in comparison to his wealthier rivals, he had little specific control over Athenian foreign and

domestic policy (5: 210). His one major contribution to Athenian society was his expression of political dissent:

It was the blessing and the glory of Athens that every man could speak out his sentiments and his criticisms

with a freedom unparalleled in the ancient world, and hardly paralleled even in the modern, in which a vast body

of dissent both is, and always has been, condemned to absolute silence. (7: 30)

Establishment officials inevitably were offended by Cleon's rhetorical provocations. Hut, according to Grote,

Gleon performed a vital service by opening space for public deliberation and for reasoned consideration of

alternative modes of thought and conduct (6: 271 ). With Cleon's death, the Athenian demos fell into a more

polite but improvident silence.Conclusion

Grote's revisionist history of Greece was so influential that today it is tempting to assume that Athens was, and

always has been, the hero of Greek history. We forget that prior to the nineteenth eentury Athenian democracy

was consistently attacked as a perverse and dangerous political experiment. For historians of the eighteenth

and early nineteenth centuries, the case against Athenian democracy was linked directly to the case against the

rhetorical practices of the Athenian demagogues. Writers like Stanyan, Gillies, and Mitford associated Athenian

rhetoric with the confused "double-talk" of a hysterical mob. In particular, the demagogue Cleon was seen as

posing a direct threat to civil liberty because his aggressive verbal outbursts inspired social conflict and

disrespect for property, tradition, and established authority.

But this eighteenth-century preoccupation with balanced and authoritative leadership held no appeal for Grote.

He maintained that political authority can be legitimate only when it is submitted to freely and deliberately. But

free and deliberate assent means that dissent must always be kept open as a real option for individuals. Critical



11/19

reason, as he conceived it, is always double-sided, allowing the possibility for acceptance or rejection. So,

where writers like Stanyan, Gillies, and Mitford had described the verbal outbursts of the demagogues as a sign

of sedition and social deterioration, Grote interpreted their rhetoric as essential to developing in Athenian

citizens a capacity for independent and reasoned judgment. For Grote, the tradition of political dissent ranked

among the most valuable contributions of Athenian society to history. The choice faced by any political

community is between a politics based on persuasion or a politics based on coercion. When persuasion is

discredited, there remains "open no other ascendancy over men's minds, except the crushing engine of

extraneous coercion with assumed infallibility" (7: 42n).

That Grote intended to write a work that would, among other things, give legitimacy to Athenian popular oratory

seems clear both in his published works and in his unpublished notes. For example, in 1817, he composed a

short essay that includes the following observation21:

When men are debarred from taking interest in political subjects, and cut off from the career of distinction in that

path, they are likely to devote a more exclusive attention to the cultivation of manners and to the ogrment of

society.

On the contrary, the art of persuasion, of which oratory is one branch, can never be much cultivated except in a

free society. It is only where men are free that their actions can be much influenced by persuasion. Liberty and

the art of persuasion seem to be so necessarily connected that we might almost determine where one was not,

there neither did the other exist (Notes fol. 142). Challenging the ascendancy of the belletristic tradition of

rhetoric with its emphasis on "manners and the agrement of society," Grote attempted to direct scholarly

attention to a different kind of rhetoric-a rhetoric that emphasixed the agonistic (and disorderly) "babble" of

popular political debate.

According to Turner, Grote's History was "the single most enduring contribution to the debate over the Athenian

constitution" of the nineteenth century (213). To say this, however, is not to suggest that Grote's contemporaries

accepted his arguments with enthusiasm or without qualification. Many scholars felt an ambivalence toward

Grote that is well-illustrated in a comment from Mahaffy:

The love of political liberty and the importance attached to political independence are so strong in the minds of

Saxon nations that it is not likely 1 or any one else will persuade them, against the splendid advocacy of Grote,

that there may be such losses and mischiefs in a democracy as to justify a return to a stronger executive and a

greater restriction of public speech (73).

Ironically, many of Grote's contemporaries would concede his arguments concerning Athenian democracy (as

an abstraction), but this did not stop them from contesting Grote's arguments in other more covert ways. Many

readers objected that Grote had overestimated the capacity of ordinary citizens for engaging in critical reason.

He appeared to idealize a society devoid of faith in political and in religious authority. Thus, Grote's History

became a lightening rod for classical scholars as they argued about the dynamics of authority, reason, andrhetoric in democratic government. Among the respondents to Grote were John Stuart Mill, Edward Meredeth

Cope, William Ewart Gladstone, Henry Sidgwiek, John Stuart Hlackie, Richard Claverhouse Jebb, and Friedrich

Nietzsche.22 Even to our own day, while democracy may be considered the standard of legitimacy in

government, the value of Athenian "popular rhetoric" remains contentious.23

Grote's History inspired and provoked a Hurry of research concentrating on Greek rhetorical theory and

practice. This recovery, translation, and interpretation of Greek rhetoric set the stage for subsequent innovations

in rhetoric pedagogy. Among the beneficiaries of this scholarship were university professors in the United

States, including Lane Gooper, Hoyt Hudson, and Everett Lee Hunt who established the rhetoric curriculum in

the Department of Speech Communication at Cornell University.24 The impact of Grote's arguments is evident,

for example, in Hunt's lifelong insistence that rhetoric belongs at the core of the liberal arts curriculum because

rhetoric, properly understood and taught, "is the study of men persuading men to make free choices" ("Rhetoric"

114).



12/19

Subsequent generations may have lacked Hunt's training in classical studies. Nevertheless, the Grotean

commitment to popular rhetoric as an essential component of democratic government persisted within rhetorical

studies throughout the twentieth century. For example, Thonssen and Baird declared that an "enlightened

conception of rhetoric as an aid to politics is one of the surest protectors of democratic society" (468).25 Karl

Wallace echoed Grote when he explained that rhetoric marries "partisanship and compromise. It knows the

tradition of agreement and respects the tradition of dissent. Without 'yea,' majority opinion becomes impossible;

without 'nay,' the majority receive no test" (91). In 1970, Douglas Ehninger, writing for a committee of the

National Conference on Rhetoric (Wingspread 1) argued that "Institutions in a free society are as good as the

rhetorical transactions that maintain them" (209). In 1982, Winifred Homer argued that when scholars fail to see

"the ability to reason, to read, to write, and to communicate as a skill vital to a democratic society, not only is

their commitment to democracy empty but democracy itself stands in imminent peril" (94). Today, as we enter

the twenty-first century, increasingly few scholars are aware that the modem ideal of rhetorical democracy

originated in the nineteenth century, at a time when many people were genuinely skeptical (and fearful) of the

implications of popular government.

Of course, scholarship in the last third of the twentieth century has made us more sensitive to the limited

parameters within which Grote's version of democratic Athens operated. In particular, while he expended

considerable energy refuting Whig and Tory attacks on Athenian democracy, there was one issue about which

he maintained a portentous silence: the disenfranchisement of slaves, metics, and women in so-called

"democratic" Athens. Grote's apparent indifference to the plight of the disenfranchised classes was frequently

replicated in later discussions of rhetorical democracy. Consequently, there has been, in the last few decades a

growing tendency to denounce rhetorical democracy as a bourgeois and patriarchal ideal, inherently hypocritical

and exploitative.26

Nevertheless, having said this, many commentators persist in supporting Grote's conviction that, although it

contained serious defects, the genius of the Athenian Constitution was its capacity for evolution and self-

correction. In public debate, conflicting interests meet on a common ground, and there is at least a chance that

the "people" (that is, the "majority") will eventually recognize and correct their injustices. For those who are

victims of injustice and for those who are prevented from expressing dissent in "fair and equal" debate,

rhetorical democracy provides no guarantees-only hope. Whether this hope is well or ill founded remains the

perennial problem of democratic government.

Department of Communication

Northern Illinois University

AUTHOR NOTE: In completing the research for this essay, I was supported in part by a Purdue Research

Foundation Summer Faculty Grant (1999) and a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer research

grant (2002). I thank Don Burks, Dick Johannesen, and an anonymous reader for timely encouragement andsuggestions. I also thank Carol Poster for her cheerful goading and generous criticism.

FootnoteNotes

1. Among rhetoricians, Grote is best known for his role in the modern recover)' of "sophistic rhetoric." Hunt

discusses Grotc at some length ("Plato and Aristotle"). More recently, Poulakos, Consigny, Schiappa, and

Jarratt discuss Grote hut only in passing. Aune acknowledges that Grote's influence extended beyond the

modern recovery of the sophists, hut he too stops short of examining Grote's contributions in detail.

2. Among classicists who are interested in the modern recovery of the literature of antiquity Grote is traditionally

presented as the pivotal figure in nineteenth-century reception of ancient Athens. see Momigliano, Turner,

Roberts, Irwin, and Demetriou (Grote). This traditional view of Grote has recently been challenged by Murray

("More Than Just a Dandy"; "Greece"), who argues that Grote's significance is exaggerated (in part due to the

influence of his wife, Harriet, who was intent on portraying her husband as the founder of the modem study of



13/19

Greek history). Murray claims that Bulwer Lytton's Athens anticipated themes of Grote's History by a decade

and it was released contemporaneously with Thirlwall's History. Murray's argument is bolstered by his discovery

of previously unpublished manuscripts that would have been included in Hulwer Lytton's unfinished volumes on

Athens. At the time of writing, I have not yet had an opportunity to examine the manuscripts in question. In any

ease, while Grote clearly had many important predecessorsincluding Thirlwall, Hulwer Lytton, and, Macaulay

("Athenian Orators"; "Mitford's History")-it would be difficult to deny Grote's importance and influence. I have

argued elsewhere (Whedbee, "Authority and Critical Reason") that Grote's use of critical historiography was

more complete and rigorous than his predecessors. Further, while Grote's reputation for originality has probably

been exaggerated, the fact remains that he did have an undeniable influence on subsequent classical scholars

(Demetriou, Responses).

3. Cleon does not normally appear in histories of rhetoric, probably because of a tendency in contemporary

history of rhetoric to privilege the study of classical rhetorical theory over the study of classical oratorical

practice. Michael Gagarin's series on "The Oratory of Classical Greece" (University of Texas Press) may help to

rehabilitate ancient oratory as part of rhetorical rather than historical study.

4. Dickinson's discussion of political ideology in eighteenth-century Britain provides useful background.

5. This description was repeated frequently. For example, Edward Wortley Montagu, Jr. (1759) described

Athens, with its "giddy and fluctuating populace" and its "noisy and seditious" demagogues, as illustrative of the

danger of government by a "promiscuous mob" (85, 89). Edmund Hurke accused the people of Athens of being

"forgetful of Virtue and publick Spirit, and intoxicated with the Flatteries of their Orators" (38). Oliver Goldsmith

(1774) condemned the "giddy multitude of Athens" who were so easily deceived by ambitious demagogues

(61).

6. For discussion of the origins of anti-democratic criticism within Athens itself, see Roberts, ch. 3-4 and Ober.

7. Other notable works of this period include William Drummond's A Review of the Governments of Sparta and

Athens (1794) and William Young's revised third edition of The History of Athens (1804). In 1811, William

Godwin (writing under the pseudonym Edwin Baldwin) published a pro-republican History of Greece. It should

be noted, however, that Godwin's work was strongly influenced by the French republican tradition which

identified primarily with Spartan communalism rather than with Athenian individualism. Among the most

vehement (and entertaining) anti-Athenian historians during this period was Thomas Mitchell whose primary

scholarly expertise was Aristophanes.

8. This description of the sophists is typical to late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century histories. Writing in

1822, Mitchell described the sophists as "a pestilent race" whose teachings were symptomatic of the

"dislocation and looseness in the moral frame" of the Athenian people. Through their "gibberish," and with a

"slight tossing some arguments from hand to hand," they found "every crack and crevice in weak brains" (385-

86).9. See Whedbee ("Tyranny of Athens") for a more complete bibliography and discussion.

10. For biographical details, see Clarke (Grote).

11. It is important to emphasize that Grote did not work in an intellectual vacuum. In the first place, his passion

for Greek history was stimulated at an early age, when he was attending Charterhouse school (1804-1810).

One of his younger classmates was Connop Thirlwall, the other great English historian of Greece. The

headmaster at Charterhouse, Matthew Raine, was reputed to have established one of the stronger programs in

Greek in England at that time. Around 1818, Grote first met Jeremy Uentham and James Mill. Grote's political

outlook was profoundly shaped by the elder Mill's critique of the concept of balanced government. As well, his

views on historiography were shaped in part by Mill's History of British India. In the early 1820s, Grote's

opinions on Greek political history were tested in debates with other members of the Philosophic Radicals,

including John Stuart Mill and Charles Austin. Edward Bulwer Lytton was also at the time a member of Grote's

social cirele. Further, Grote was well-acquainted with French philosophy and historiography. He visited Comte



14/19

in Paris in 1843, and though he held reservations about many of Comte's ideas, he was, nevertheless, one of

the promoters of Comte's works in England. (The influence of Comte is most particularly evident in Grote's

analysis of Greek mythology in volume one of the Hisiory.) Finally, and importantly, one of Grote's lifelong

friends was the prolific (but, as Momigliano argues, underestimated) scholar Sir George Lewis. Grote, Lewis,

and Thirlwall shared a lively and abiding interest in the works of German historians, including Hockh, Niebuhr,

Schleiermacher, and K. O. Mller. Grote was personally acquainted with both Bckh and Niebuhr.

12. As Irwin notes, Grote lacked access to archaeological discoveries from the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries. Specifically, he did not have access to inscriptions, which are an especially important

source of information about the influence of the Athenian Empire in the fifth century. As well, Grote, like his

predecessors, lacked access to Aristotle's Constitution of Athens which was discovered in Egypt in 1880 and

published by Sir Frederick Kenyon in 1891.

13. Clarke (Greek Studies 104) makes a similar point. My only disagreement with (Marke is that he describes

this deference to tradition as a denning characteristic of Stanyan's History. I would only respond that Stunyan's

credulity was typical of most Greek histories in eighteenth and early nineteenth century Britain.

14. Garol Poster has helped me to appreciate the degree to which Grote was indebted to German Biblical

criticism. By Grote's standards, however, even the Germans were not sufficiently attentive to the distinction

between "conjecture" and "evidence." So, for example, in a private letter to George Lewis, Grote complained of

the "German license of conjecture" (Quoted by Momigliano 9). William Mure would criticize Grote for his

skeptical severity which surpassed even "the school of criticism to which he belongs, and which 1 shall here

designate as the German ultra-skeptical school of research in matters of prehistorical antiquity" (7).

15. Aristophanes portrayed Cleon as an ignorant buffoon in a comedy entitled "The Babylonians." The play is

not extant and the circumstances of its performance are not entirely clear. Cleon responded by attempting

(without success) to convince the Council of Five-hundred that Aristophanes was guilty of sedition. Grote seems

uncomfortably aware of Cleon's hypocrisy, but defends him anyway arguing that the play may have been

performed under inappropriate circumstances. Even so, Cleon must not have been serious about attempting to

achieve a conviction because he would have known that the case did not fit within the jurisdiction of the Council.

Grote concludes that the extant evidence is too sparse and vague for modem respondents to find fault with

cither side (5: 398-99).

16. Grote's skepticism about Thucydides' objectivity outraged many classical scholars at the time. See, for

example, Stray's analysis of the dispute between Richard Shilleto and John Grote (George's brother).

17. The most infamous of Cleon's speeches is found in Thucydides' reproduction of the Mytilencan debate (427

B.C.). No discussion of Cleon can pretend completeness without accounting for the influence of this debate on

his historical image. The matter, however, is so complex that it is not possible to do it justice in the context of

this essay. Grote's defense of Cleon's position can be found at 5: 164-77. See also Finley, Woodhead, andOber.

18. Grote, as I have said, did not have access to Aristotle's Athenian Contitution. Still, Aristotle's description of

Cleon is worth noting: "the head of the People was Cleon son of Cleaenetus, who is thought to have done the

most to corrupt the people by his impetuous outbursts, and was the first person to use bawling and abuse on

the platform, and to gird up his cloak before making a public speech, all other persons speaking in orderly

fashion" (28.3).

19. That the aristocracy has a persistent sinister influence on government and public opinion was a central

theme in the teaching and writing of James Mill. Grote would have learned this lesson very early in his

relationship with Mill. In Grote's notebook from 1817, there are detailed notes on (an early version of) Mill's

essay on Government (Notes fol. 230-36). At about the same time, Grote produced a short essay about the

influence of wealth and power on public opinion. It is not clear whether this was an original composition by

Grote or notes on something written by Mill. In any case, the essay expresses attitudes that eventually would



15/19

become crucial to Grote's interpretation of Cleon. The introduction reads as follows: "It cannot escape the most

careless spectator of human affairs, how amazing is the influence which wealth and power exercise over our

opinions. We view the same action with very different eyes in a rich and a poor man, in the powerful and in the

ignoble. Deeds which, if they sprung from the latter, would pass wholly unnoticed, are considered as deserving

signal praise in the former. A very slight act of favour to ourselves, when conferred by a distinguished person, is

sufficient to implant in our minds a sense of obligation which we never bestow upon any other person in return

for a corresponding benefit" (Notes fol. 210). In his History, Grote argued that Cleon frequently expressed

opinions consistent with the opinions of Pericles, "But when uttered by him, it would have a very different effect

from that which it had formerly produced when held by Perikles-and different also from that which it would now

have produced if held by Nikias" (5: 372). Though Grote does not explicitly make the connection, the aristocratic

prejudice against the speech of commoners is famously portrayed in Homer's description of Thersites. In a

sense, one might say that Grote's Cleon is a fifth-century equivalent to Homer's Thersites.

20. Actually, three years pass between the battle at Sphakteria and the expedition to Amphipolis. Grote was

suspicious of the fact that, at a time when he would have been at the height of his political influence, Cleon, for

all intents and purposes, disappears from the historical record. During this period, Cleon probably would have

returned to polities, but we can only speculate about his specific activities. He also would likely have had

opportunities for further military commands. That he apparently refused is considered by Grote to be

presumptive evidence that Cleon could not have been as conceited or foolhardy as most historians describe

him to have been. In Grote's version of the story, Cleon accepted command of the expedition to Amphipolis only

because Nicias was intimidated by Brasidas. Grote contends that Nicias probably refused to carry out the order

that was given him by the Assembly. Thus, he "would have had before him the same alternative which he and

his friends had contemplated with so much satisfaction in the affair of Sphakteria; either the expedition would

succeed, in which case Amphipolis would be taken-or it would fail, and the consequence would be the ruin of

Kleon." (5: 373-74).

21. The untitled essay is a short critical analysis and discussion of Plato's Euthydemus.

22. See J.S. Mill's 1853 review of Grote (11: 309-37). Chapter 2 of On Liberty (J. S. Mill 18: 213-310) may or

may not have been influenced by Grote's arguments per se, but it was cut from the same intellectual cloth.

Additional works of interest include, Cope's series of essays on sophistic rhetoric ("Sophists"; "Rhetoric [1]";

"Rhetoric [2]"; "Rhetoric [3]"); Gladstone's defense of rhetorical deliberation in the Homeric Age; the essays by

Sidgwick ("Sophists [1]"; "Sophists [2]") and by Blackie on the sophists; Jebb's survey of the Attic Orators; and

Nietzsche's lectures on Athenian rhetoric.

23. See, for example, Luthin; Goldzwig; Woodhead; Finley; Yunis; and Lang.

24. Admittedly, I have not attempted to provide direct evidence that the Cornell scholars were influenced by

Grote. As Momigliano, Turner, and Demetriou explain, through the late nineteenth century and early twentiethcentury a person could hardly receive any training at all in Hellenic studies without becoming acquainted cither

with Grote himself or with authors who were responding to Grote. I focus in particular on Hunt because, in what

is probably his most influential essay ("Plato and Aristotle"), he identified Grote's History as a key text shaping

his view of ancient rhetorical theory.

25. Thonssen and Baird qualified their support for freedom of speech thus: "When men have something on their

minds, freedom to speak it constitutes the natural outlet for their will to action. Hut it presupposes literacy on

their part, a knowledge of what they express, and a recognition of the responsibility inherent in free expression"

(468). This qualification was a common reaction to Grote. See, for example, Gladstone's counterproposal of a

Homeric aristocracy as the ideal of political deliberation and in Matthew Arnold's call for the nurturing of

"cultured citizens."

26. Bernal's Black Athena is an obvious example of this critique. See Roberts, ch. 12 for further sources and

discussion.



16/19

ReferencesWorks Cited

Aristophanes. The Comedies of Aristophanes. Trans. W. J. Hiekie. London: George Bell &Sons, 1893.

Aristotle. The Athenian Constitution; the Eudemian Ethics; Virtues and Vices. Trans. II. Rackham. Loch

Classical Library, 285. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952.

Arnold, Matthew. "Democracy." Mixed Essays, Irish Essays und Others. New York: Macmillan, 1894. 1-35.

Aune, James Arnt. Black Athena and the Fabrication of the Rhetorical Tradition. 1996. Available:

http://www.mcgees.net/fragments/essays/ guests/black, htm.

Baldwin, Edward [Godwin, William]. History of Greece from the Earliest Records of That Country to the Time in

Wliich It Was Reduced to a Roman Province. London: M. J. Godwin and Co., 1822.

Bernai, Martin. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. London: Free Association Books,

1987.

Blackie, John Stuart. "On the Sophists of the Fifth Century B.C." Horae Hellenicae: Essays and Discussion on

Some Important Points of Greek Philology and Antiquity. London: Macmillan, 1874. 197-216.

Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-69.

Bulwer Lytton, Edward. Athens: Its Rise and Fall. 1837. Ed. Oswyn Murray: Routledge, 2004.

Burke, Edmund. "A Vindication of Natural Society." Edmund Burke: Pre-Revolutionary Writings. Ed. Ian Harris.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Clarke, M. L. George Grote: A Biography. London: Athlone Press, 1962.

___. Greek Studies in England, 1700-1830. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1945.

Consigny, Scott. "Nietzsche's Reading of the Sophists." Rhetoric Review 13.1 (1994): 5-26.

Cope, Edward Meredeth. "On the Sophistical Rhetoric [1]." The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 1

(1855): 129-69.

___. "On the Sophistical Rhetoric [2]." The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 2 (1856): 253-88.

___. "On the Sophistical Rhetoric [3]." The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 3 (1857): 34-80.

___. "The Sophists." The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 3 (1854): 145-88.

Demetriou, Kyriacos N., ed. Classics in the Nineteenth Century: Responses to George Grote. 3 vols. Bristol:

Thoemmes Press, 2003.

___. George Grote on Plato and Athenian Democracy: A Study in (Classical Reception. Frankfurt am Main:

Peter Lang, 1999.

Diekinson, H. T. Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain. New York: Holmes and

Meier, 1977.

Drummond, William. A Review of the Governments of Sparta and Athens. London: W. Bulmer, 1794.

Ehninger, Douglas, et al. "Report of the Committee on the Seope of Rhetoric and the Place of RhetoricalStudies in Higher Education." The Prospect of Rhetoric: Report of the National Development Project. Eds. Lloyd

F. Bitzer and Edwin Black. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971. 208-19.

Finley, M. I. "Athenian Demagogues." Past and Present 21 (1962): 3-24.

Gillies, John. The History of Ancient Greece, Its (Colonies and Conquests : From the Earliest Accounts Till the

Division of the Macedonian Empire in the East : Including the History of Literature, Philosophy, and the Fine

Arts. 2 vols. London: Printed for A. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1786.

Gladstone, William Ewart. Studies in Homer and the Homeric Age. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1858.

Goldsmith, Oliver. The Grecian History, from the Earliest State to the Death of Alexander the Great. 2 vols.

London, 1774.

Goldzwig, Steven R. "A Social Movement Perspective on Demagoguery: Achieving Symbolic Realignment."

Communication Studies 40 (1989): 202-28.



17/19

Grote, George. A History of Greece; from the Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation Contemporary with

Alexander the Great. 1846-56. New ed. 10 vols. London: J. Murray, 1888.

___. Notes of Various Studies. MSS 429/3 1817. University of London Library. Horner, Winifred Bryan. "Rhetorie

in the Liberal Arts: Nineteenth-Century Scottish Universities." The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing. Ed.

James J. Murphy. New York: Modern Language Association, 1982.

Hunt, Everett Lee. "Plato and Aristotle on Rhetoric and Rhetoricians."

Historical Studies of Rhetoric and Rhetoricians. 1925. Ed. Raymond F. Howes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1961. 19-70.

___. "Rhetoric as a Humane Study." Quarterly Journal of Speech 41 (1955): 114-17.

Irwin, Terence. "Mill and the Classical World." The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Ed. John Skorupski.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 423-63.

Jarratt, Susan C. "The First Sophists and the Uses of History." Rhetoric Review 6.1 (1987): 67-78.

Lang, Mabel L. "Cleon as the Anti-Pericles." Classical Philology 67.3 (1972): 159-69.

Luthin, Reinhard H. American Demagogues: Twentieth Century. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1959.

Macaulay, Thomas Babington. "On Mitford's History of Greece." Miscellaneous Works of Lord Maeaulay. 1824.

Ed. Lady [Hannah] Trevelyan. Vol. 4. New York: Harper &Brothers, 1873? 470-94.

___. "On the Athenian Orators." Miscellaneous Works of Lord Mucaulay. 1824. Ed. Lady [Hannah] Trevelyan.

Vol. 4. New York: Harper &Brothers, 1873? 444-58.

Mahaffy, John Pentland. "Introduction." History of Greece, and of the Greek People, from the Earliest Times to

the Roman Conquest, by Victor Duruy. Ed. M. M. Ripley. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1890.

Mill, James. An Essay on Government. Ed. Currin V. Shields. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1955.

Mill, John Stuart. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Ed. John Robson. 33 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1963-1991.

Mitchell, Thomas. "Panegyrical Oratory of Greece." Quarterly Review 27 (1822): 382-404.

Mitford, William. The History of Greece. 1784-1810. 10 vols. Boston: Timothy Bedlington and Charles Ewer,

1823.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. George Grote and the Study of Greek History. London: H. K. Lewis, 1952.

Montagu, Edward Wortley. Reflections on the Rise and Fall of Antient Republicks: Adapted to the Present State

of Great Britain. 1759. 2nd ed. London: A. Millar, 1760.

Mure, William. Remarks on Two Appendices to the Second Volume, Third Edition of Mr. Grote's History of

Greece. London, 1851.

Murray, Oswyn. "Greece, Radical and Romantic-Bulwer-Lytton's Athens: Its Rise and Fall." Paper presented at

Re-Imagining the Ancient World in 19th-century Britain: An International, Interdisciplinary Symposium,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2004.___. "More Than Just a Dandy." Times Literary Supplement November 28 2003: 14-15.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. "Description of Ancient Rhetoric." Friedrich Nietzsche >on Rhetoric and Language. 1872-

73. Eds. Sander L. Gilman, Carole Blair and David J. Parent. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1989. 2-193.

Ober, Josiah. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule. Princeton/Oxford:

Princeton University Press, 1998.

Paine, Tom. The Rights of Man. 1792.

Poulakos, John. "Hegel's Reception of the Sophists." Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990):

160-71.

Priestley, Joseph. An Essay on the First Principles of Government; and on the Nature of Political, Civil, and

Religious Liberty. London, 1768.

Roberts, Jennifer Tolbert. Athens on Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought. Princeton, N.J.:



18/19

Princeton University Press, 1994.

Schiappa, Edward. "Sophistic Rhetoric: Oasis or Mirage." Rhetoric Review 10.1 (1991): 5-18.

Sidgwiek, Henry. "The Sophists [1]." Journal of Philology 4 (1872): 288-307.

___. "The Sophists [2]." Journal of Philology 5 (1873): 66-80.

Stanyan, Temple. The Grecian History. From the Original of Greece, to the Death of Philip of Macedon. 1739.

London: W. Strahan [etc.], 1774.

Stephen, Leslie. The English Utilitarians. 3 vols. New York: A.M. Keley, 1968.

Stray, Christopher. "Thueydides or Grote?: Classical Disputes and Disputed Classics in Nineteenth-Century

Cambridge." Transactions of the American Philological Association 127 (1997): 363-71.

Swift, Jonathan. A Discourse of the Contests and Dissensions between the Nobles and Commons in Athens

and Rome, with the Consequences They Had Upon Both States. 1701. London: John Nutt, 1701.

Thirlwall, Connop. A History of Greece. 8 vols. London: Longman, Rees, Rome, Orme, Brown, Green and John

Taylor, 1835-45.

Thonssen, Lester, and A. Craig Baird. Speech Criticism: The Development of Standards for Rhetorical

Appraisal. New York: Ronald Press, 1948.

Thueydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Richard Crawley. The Landmark Thucyclides: A

Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. Ed. Robert B. Strassler. New York: Touchstone, 1998.

Turner, Prank M. The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981.

Wallace, Karl. "Rhetoric, Politics, and the Education of the Ready Man." The Rhetorical Idiom: Essays in

Rhetoric, Oratory, Language, and Drama. Ed. Donald C. Byrant. New York: Russell &Russell, 1958. 71-95.

Whedbee, Karen E. "Authority and Critical Reason: George Grote's Defense of Democratic Justice." Paper

presented at Re-Imagining the Ancient World in 19th-century Britain: An International, Interdisciplinary

Symposium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2004.

___. "The Tyranny of Athens: Representations of Rhetorical Democracy in Eighteenth-Century Britain." Rhetoric

Society Quarterly 33.4 (2003): 65-85.

Woodhead, A. G. "Thucydides' Portrait of Cleon." Mnemosyne 13 (1960): 289-318.

Xenophon. The Xenophon Papyri: Anabasis, Cyropaedia, Cynegeticus, De Vectigalibus. Trans. A. H. R. E.

Paap. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Young, William. The History of Athens; Including a Commentary on the Principles, Policy, and Practice of

Republican Government; and on the Causes of Elevation and of Decline, Which Operate in Every Free and

Commercial State. 3rd ed. London: Bulmer, 1804.

Yunis, Harvey. "How Do the People Decide? Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction." The

American Journal of Philology 112.2 (1991): 179-200.

Materia: Rhetoric; Etymology; Democracy; Greek civilization;Ttulo: Reclaiming Rhetorical Democracy: George Grote's Defense of Cleon and the Athenian Demagogues

Autor: Whedbee, Karen E

Ttulo de publicacin: Rhetoric Society Quarterly

Tomo: 34

Nmero: 4

Pginas: 71-95

Nmero de pginas: 25Ao de publicacin: 2004



19/19

Fecha de publicacin: Fall 2004

Ao: 2004

Editorial: Taylor & Francis Inc.

Lugar de publicacin: Raleigh

Pas de publicacin: United StatesMateria de publicacin: Literature

ISSN: 02773945

Tipo de fuente: Scholarly Journals

Idioma de la publicacin: English

Tipo de documento: Commentary

Caractersticas del documento: References

ID del documento de ProQuest: 216269791URL del documento: http://search.proquest.com/docview/216269791?accountid=14598

Copyright: Copyright Rhetoric Society of America Fall 2004

ltima actualizacin: 2011-10-17

Base de datos: ProQuest Research Library

_______________________________________________________________

Contactar con ProQuestCopyright2014 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos. - Trminos y condiciones
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216269791?accountid=14598http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupporthttp://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupporthttp://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditionshttp://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditionshttp://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupporthttp://search.proquest.com/docview/216269791?accountid=14598

grote damagogues

Documents