Research on dramatic rhetoric has profited from considerable bibliography. It may suffice to mention J. Duchemin, L’agon dans la tragédie grecque (1945, 2nd ed. 1968), R. Buxton, Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Peitho (1982), E. Barker, Entering the Agon: Dissent and Authority in Homer, Historiography, and Tragedy (2009), pp. 265–373, D. Sansone, Greek Drama and the Invention of Rhetoric (2012). The formality of Euripidean rhetoric, in particular, is extensively studied in the monographs by M. Lloyd (The Agon in Euripides [1992]) and M. Dubischar (Die Agonszenen bei Euripides [2001]); and there are the major articles by C. Collard (G&R 22 [1975], 58–71) and D.J. Conacher (AJPh 102 [1981], 3–25) as well as chapters by V. Bers (in I. Worthington [ed.], Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action [1994], pp. 176–95), S. Goldhill (in P.E. Easterling [ed.], The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy [1997], pp. 127–50) and R. Scodel (in M.J. Cropp, K.H. Lee, D. Sansone [edd.], Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century [1999–2000], pp. 129–44).
Z.'s monograph focuses on cases of ‘unsuccessful’ rhetoric in tragedy by investigating character speeches that fail to persuade the speaker's interlocutor (‘scheiternde Reden’) and addressing the reasons for communicative failure in the light of rhetorical theory. The introduction sets out the status quaestionis, developing the theoretical framework of this research, which rests upon the interpretation of unsuccessful tragic rhetoric from the viewpoint of Theory of Mind in conjunction with the metapragmatic features of the speeches under investigation. Z. then proceeds with an exploration of Aeschylean opposing speeches (pp. 41–119: Sept. 182–286, 677–719, Supp. 882–965, Ag. 810–974, PV 937–1079) and chooses to discuss the debates of Sophocles alongside those of Euripides (pp. 120–94: Soph. Ant. 631–780, Eur. Hipp. 902–1101, Med. 446–626, Soph. Ph. 1261–471). Notably, Euripides’ agonistic scenes are markedly more formulated than Sophoclean debates, but Z.'s choice is evidently based on the fact that both dramatists reflect the highly rhetorical culture of late fifth-century Athens. The Hippolytus agon is reasonably investigated next to the Antigone debate, since they both represent a father–son conflict, whilst in both cases the son displays remarkable moderation. Nonetheless, it is not clear to me why Z. has chosen to address only two agon scenes of Euripides (both coming from his earlier production), given that the Euripidean corpus offers a considerable sample of formal debates that remain unresolved. In fact, agon scenes constitute a distinctive trend of Euripidean drama, and it might have been useful if debates from later tragedies of Euripides (e.g. Phoenissae or Orestes) were also brought into play to enhance the diachronic approach to tragic rhetoric that is attempted in this monograph.
Z. evaluates the effectiveness of the speeches from the viewpoint of Theory of Mind, which has been launched by R. Scodel (in M. Quijada-Sagredo, M.C. Encinas Reguero [edd.], Connecting Rhetoric and Attic Drama [2017], pp. 23–41) to yield insight into the potency of tragic rhetoric. Theory of Mind explores the ways in which speakers tailor their attempts to persuade their interlocutors by inferring the thoughts, disposition and mind-set of the latter and, in turn, by adopting strategies most likely to convince them. This concept goes back to Plato, Phdr. 271d–e, which refers to the orator's ability to judge a person's mental state in a given situation and to anticipate the latter's response (cf. also Arist. Rh. 1388b31–1391b21, stressing that different types of character require different techniques of persuasion).
Z. points out that Theory of Mind is nearly absent in Aeschylus partly in view of the inflexibility and linearity of the characters. Moreover, she argues that Aeschylus is not concerned to employ typical rhetorical devices, such as prolepsis (Aeschylean characters barely anticipate their opponents’ objections); instead, he chooses to underscore the irreconcilable positions of the opponents by focusing on each speaker, whose underlying motives are grasped by the audience. Conversely, the debates of Sophocles and Euripides give more scope for this interpretative approach, as Theory of Mind is significantly more formulated in their speeches and constitutes an essential part of the speakers’ rhetorical strategy. These characters seek unsuccessfully to connect to their opponents, who are often presented as firm, uncompromising and immune to persuasion or are aware of their interlocutors’ motivation, which accounts for the failure of the speeches to convince. According to Z. Theory of Mind serves to delineate the ēthos of Sophoclean and Euripidean dramatic personages; but apart from characterisation, it would have been worth stressing that it is an effective means of bringing forward each speaker's dianoia, that is, the representation of the speaker's intellect, involving his/her ability to say what is possible and appropriate in each case (Arist. Poet. 1450b4–6). Z. reasonably suggests that Theory of Mind may also be applied to activate audience response, in that the spectators are in a position to assess the speakers’ disposition and intentions.
The metapragmatic features of tragic speeches involve their self-reflexive rhetorical framing, which presents the characters as engaged in verbal performance that is signalled as such; this includes the speaker's self-representation as an orator, the references to the competitive context of the agon, the management of the rhēsis, the self-conscious manipulation of rhetorical register and devices as well as moral evaluations comparing the speaker's ēthos with his/her speech. Rhetorical self-reflexivity pervades Euripidean debates, and it is present in Sophocles and to a lesser degree in Aeschylus. As Z. argues, these metapragmatic elements shed light on the cognitive and communicative aspects of power conflict, as well as directing the audience's focus and critical evaluation of the scene's rhetorical effect.
The book features an index locorum; there is no general index, which would have been helpful, especially in view of the wide range of terms and concepts used throughout the book.
Overall, the significance of this monograph lies in the diachronic interpretative approach to the debates from Aeschylus to Sophocles and Euripides that showcases the points of convergence and variation among them; this study brings forward the development of rhetoric within the tragic genre, the evolution of the verbal expression of power conflict and the rhetorical strategies applied to persuade. Remarkably enough, the ‘failure’ of these speeches announced in the book's title is limited only to the microcosm of the scenes discussed; by contrast, these rhēseis succeed in stimulating the audience to reflect upon the degree of the effectiveness of rhetoric and communication in conjunction with the delineation of the speakers’ ēthos. The book is a welcome contribution to the field of tragic rhetoric.
