Voice Into Text

When I did my research for oral knowledge in ancient Greece, I checked out a big stack of books. When I got home, I dismissed the book Voice Into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece because it didn’t deal strictly with oral culture. But with the admonition to participate in self-directed learning, I decided to explore. I soon found a pertinent chapter entitled “Greek Oratory and the Oral/Literate Division” by Ian Worthington. It discussed the transition from a mainly oral society into a mainly text-based society, and the importance behind these mediums. Sound familiar?

            Well it should because it basically embodied the essence of what we have been talking about in class, and the article puts it in the context of ancient Greek culture. As I discuss the transition from orality to text and its effects, I will focus on two main questions:

What effect did the change from oral speech to written speech have on the substance of speeches we have today? How does this change affect the veracity of speeches as historical source material?

To answer these questions, we must identify two main types of orality: oratory, used in the presence of a case of a law court or Assembly, and poetry, which includes stories, dramas, and songs.

Oratory, as we can understand it, has a relatively short life. It is no longer applicable after its first performance, so it can be said that the complexity of the ring composition (see earlier post) and stylistic symmetry found in these speeches is lost on a listening audience, who hears it only once and often with distractions. So when these are revised after oral delivery, they are directed toward a non-listening audience, one with more time to ponder and appreciate the subtleties. (Like Professor Burton pointed out in class, Walter Ong saw this as the analytic aspect of literacy.)

Aeschylus, ancient Greek tragedian

Poetry on the other hand, counters this claim. Homer employed a very complex composition, which was not lost on its listeners. Also, Aeschylus’ Greek, an example of tragedy, included even more complexity and density, and its message was successfully communicated through this medium. But the difference here is that oratory, as compared with Homer and Aeschylus, has a short shelf life, whereas poetry is meant to be heard, recited, and performed over and over again.

So the purpose of ring composition in oratory is to keep listeners attentive and to repeat key points for listeners who may be distracted by physical surroundings. A speech’s complexity in structure and repetition also signifies a “reader/writer process”, which is native to oral tradition but has been more associated with the growing communication through writing. So then why is it used in poetry? Worthington posited “Like Homer, from original oral beginnings or oral style a speech, containing a mass of differing items of information, each linked to each other and intimately related to the entire framework of the speech, has become shaped and changed in structure and format in its revision stage (by the impact of literacy).” And thus he proves that complicated ring composition or symmetry is evidence of a literate poet just as the complexity of oratory denoted a literate author.

To answer the second question, Worthington emphasizes the use of speeches by historians to be the information imparted on history and society, but what about the post-oral use of speeches in classical Athens? What role did the revised speech play if it did not end up as part of rhetorical curricula, as many did not? The answer revolves around the use of the revised speech to testify of the orator’s own reputation, allowing him to show off his rhetorical skills to the growing wave of literate communicators, and use perfect medium to advertise and promote business.

Next we come to this question: What effect did literacy have on society? I remember the phrase “Knowledge is Power” on a poster in my 3^rd grade class, and the same principle applies here. The literate in society had a power over the illiterate. It is these few literate in ancient Greek society who would attend the symposia and discuss the topics brought up there, which were philosophical and political. With this power, people like Aristophanes feared that the literate had to the power to “beguile the people and assure their political ascendancy by exploitation of rhetoric and law.”

And so I’ll turn the tables on us now. Is it true that the literate have power over the illiterate? Is this used justly or unjustly? In regards to the transition from oral to textual, how are our speeches and poetry the consequence of our literate society? What has been lost or gained from this transition?