Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you study Greek orators, you're not just memorizing names and speeches—you're tracing the birth of persuasion as a systematic discipline. These speakers developed the foundational concepts you'll encounter throughout this course: ethos, pathos, logos, the tension between truth and persuasion, and the role of rhetoric in democratic governance. The exam will test whether you understand how different orators approached these core tensions and why their innovations mattered.
Think of Greek oratory as an ongoing debate about what rhetoric should do. Some orators prioritized truth and civic virtue; others celebrated rhetoric's power regardless of content. Some wrote speeches for others; some performed their own. Don't just memorize who said what—know what each orator represents about the evolution of rhetorical theory and practice. That conceptual understanding is what separates a 3 from a 5.
The earliest rhetorical theorists weren't concerned with truth—they were fascinated by language's power to shape perception. These sophists treated persuasion as a techne (craft) that could be taught, sold, and wielded regardless of the speaker's beliefs.
Compare: Gorgias vs. Antiphon—both early sophists, but Gorgias prioritized ornate style and philosophical provocation while Antiphon focused on practical, clear legal argumentation. If an FRQ asks about the range of sophistic approaches, these two represent opposite ends of the spectrum.
Athenian democracy required citizens to represent themselves in court, creating enormous demand for skilled speechwriters who could craft persuasive legal arguments. These logographers developed techniques for characterization, narrative, and ethical appeal that shaped forensic rhetoric for millennia.
Compare: Lysias vs. Andocides—both forensic orators, but Lysias wrote for others while Andocides spoke for himself. Lysias perfected adapting to different personas; Andocides pioneered personal testimony as persuasive strategy.
These orators addressed the ekklesia (assembly), shaping Athenian policy on war, peace, and governance. Their speeches demonstrate deliberative rhetoric—persuasion aimed at future action and collective decision-making.
Compare: Demosthenes vs. Hyperides—both anti-Macedonian democrats, but Demosthenes emphasized gravity and moral urgency while Hyperides deployed wit and emotional imagery. They represent different registers of deliberative rhetoric.
Not all influential rhetoricians were primarily performers. Some shaped the field through teaching and writing, establishing rhetoric as a discipline that formed citizens and leaders.
Compare: Isocrates vs. Lycurgus—both emphasized rhetoric's moral dimensions, but Isocrates worked primarily as an educator shaping future leaders while Lycurgus combined oratory with active statesmanship. They represent different paths for the ethical orator.
Greek oratory was competitive—orators attacked each other publicly, and their clashes reveal fundamental disagreements about rhetoric's purpose and proper use.
Compare: Demosthenes vs. Aeschines—same political context, opposing positions. Their rivalry demonstrates how rhetoric functioned as agon (contest) in Athenian democracy. FRQs about rhetorical combat or the limits of persuasion often reference this pair.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Sophistic rhetoric / language as power | Gorgias, Antiphon |
| Forensic rhetoric / courtroom persuasion | Lysias, Andocides, Antiphon |
| Deliberative rhetoric / political oratory | Demosthenes, Pericles, Hyperides |
| Epideictic rhetoric / ceremonial speech | Pericles, Gorgias |
| Rhetorical education / formation | Isocrates, Lycurgus |
| Plain style / clarity | Lysias, Antiphon |
| Ornate style / poetic prose | Gorgias, Demosthenes |
| Ethos and character appeals | Lysias, Aeschines, Andocides |
Which two orators best represent the tension between ornate and plain style in Greek rhetoric, and what contexts shaped their different approaches?
If an FRQ asked you to explain how forensic rhetoric developed in Athens, which three orators would you discuss and what specific contributions would you highlight?
Compare Isocrates and Demosthenes: both were influential Athenian rhetoricians, but how did their primary modes of influence differ?
How do the careers of Pericles and Lycurgus illustrate the statesman-orator ideal, and what historical circumstances shaped their rhetorical themes?
Using the Demosthenes-Aeschines rivalry as your example, explain how Greek oratory functioned as democratic contest and what this reveals about rhetoric's role in Athenian public life.