Murder in sophistopolis: paradox and probability in the First Tetralogy.

• Author: Hoffman, David C.
• Position: Report

MURDER IN SOPHISTOPOLIS: PARADOX AND EIKOS IN FIRST TETRALOGY

The First Tetralogy is a set of two prosecution and two defense speeches in a fictitious murder trial presented in a manner that mimics the procedure of Athenian homicide trials, known as dikai phonou. (1) The arrangement of the speeches in a dike phonou (sing.), and in the Tetrologies, is prosecution, defense, second prosecution, second defense, all given before the verdict was read. The First Tetralogy was one of three Tetralogies traditionally attributed to Antiphon. They are arguably the oldest Greek forensic speeches still in existence (Usher, 1999, p. 6).

In this essay I argue that the First Tetralogy uses paradox to challenge some of the conventions of fifth century Attic forensic argumentation. While some scholars have viewed the First Tetralogy as a set of model speeches (Usher, 1999, pp. 1-6), following Gagarin (2002, pp. 105-106) I view them as flights of forensic fancy intended to test the limits of courtroom argumentation. Set in that half-real, half-imagined space for entertaining and ostentatiously clever intellectual experimentation that Innes (1991) and Russell (1984) called "Sophistopolis," (2) the First Tetralogy tests the limits of legal doxa through paradox in much the same manner that philosophers and sophists like Heraclitus, Zeno and Gorgias tested the limits of doxa about the cosmos.

Because it is generally agreed that a major intellectual theme of the First Tetralogy is argument from eikos (a.k.a "probability"), a staple term of early rhetorical theory, (3) this essay will also consider the relationship between eikos arguments and the paradoxes of the First Tetralogy. Gagarin reads one of the purposes of the First Tetralogy as being "not only to explore probability [eikos] arguments, but to consider the reasons for such arguments and their validity relative to other arguments" (2002, p. 113). The paradoxes of the First Tetralogy so consistently involve eikos argumentation that it seems that eikos argumentation itself is the real defendant in the trial.

THE FIRST TETRALOGY AND THE PARADOXOGRAPHIC TRADITION

Scholars have long puzzled over the questions of who wrote the Tetralogies, when, and why. Concerning the question of authorship: The Tetralogies are traditionally attributed to Antiphon of the deme Rhamnus (b. circa 480, d. 411), who was praised by Thucydides as a man of great ability and identified as a member of the Four Hundred who briefly took power in Athens in 411 B.C.E. (4) In addition to the Tetralogies, three speeches composed for actual trials--The Murder of Herodes, On the Choreutes, and Against the Stepmother--and fragments of several philosophical works--On Truth, On Concord, and Politicus--are also attributed to Antiphon of Rhamnus. The presence of some legal terms from the Ionian dialect of Greek (Dover, 1950, pp. 57-58; Gagarin, 2002, p. 59), together with logical and stylistic inconsistencies between the Tetralogies and the actual court speeches, have led some to question whether the author of the Tetralogies was the same Antiphon who composed the court speeches. (5) The issue of authorship is further complicated by the question of whether a single Antiphon composed both forensic speeches and philosophical treatises, or whether there were two men named Antiphon, one a speech writer and the other a sophist/philosopher. (6)

Concerning the composition date of the Tetralogies: although there are those who point out a number of legal and political references in the Tetralogies consistent with a fourth century composition date (Sealy, 1984, p.77)--a position that obviously entails that Antiphon was not the author--most scholars accept that the Tetralogies were composed sometime in the fifth century. (7) Gagarin (1997) argues that, while most of Antiphon's works were probably composed toward the end of his life, the Tetralogies were written in the 430's (pp. 4-5; also see Dover, 1950, p. 59 and Avery, 1982, p. 157). Edwards (2000) seems to allow an even earlier date.

As to why the Tetralogies were written, I will contend that, inspired by the philosophical paradoxes of Heraclitus, Zeno and Gorgias, the Tetralogies were designed to challenge what was obvious and accepted about legal argument. Although this thesis is congenial to Antiphon the sophist being the author of the Tetralogies, there is nothing in it to require this.

Pre-Socratic philosophers and the sophists frequently used paradox to challenge commonly-held beliefs about the cosmos. The English word "paradox" comes directly from the Greek paradoxos, meaning that which is beside or contrary to (para) appearances or opinion (doxa). In general, a paradox is a contradiction of an apparently true or commonly held belief. Such contradiction of common doxa was central to Greek philosophy at the beginning of the fifth century BCE. A great many of the philosopher Heraclitus' aphorisms have a paradoxical character, generally tending to refute the common doxa that there are stable and permanent things in the world. Consider his famous, "You cannot step in the same river twice" (DK22B91), a meditation on how a river is and is not the same from moment to moment. A penchant for paradox is also evident in the great poem of the Elean philosopher Parmenides, who purported to show that change of any sort is impossible, which is also a contradiction of common doxa. His student, Zeno, produced a collection of paradoxes showing that motion is impossible, including the famous contention that motion is impossible because in order to move from point A to point B, one must first cover half the distance, but only after first covering half of the half, and so on ad infinitum (DK29A25). In chapters 12 and 13 of the Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle describes the means by which Socrates was able to lead his interlocutors into logical paradox, thus destabilizing old assumptions and creating new avenues for inquiry. Paradox, from Heraclitus' aphorisms to Socrates' zingers, had a serious philosophic purpose in ancient Greece, and even today continues to prompt philosophic, linguistic and social inquiry. (8) As Moore (1988) argues, "Paradox forces a reader or listener to consider the possibilities of a reality that exceeds common beliefs and attitudes" (p. 26).

The fondness of the early sophists for paradox has been noted in ancient primary texts and by modern scholars. Although he doesn't use the word "paradoxos," Isocrates dwells on the substance of the trend in the opening passages of his Helen:

There are some who are much pleased with themselves if, after setting up an absurd and self-contradictory subject, they succeed in discussing it in tolerable fashion; and men have grown old, some asserting that it is impossible to say, or to gainsay, what is false, or to speak on both sides of the same question, others maintaining that courage and wisdom and justice are identical. (1)

Isocrates cites Protagoras, Gorgias and Zeno by name as the unsurpassable masters of "self-contradictory" discourses before he goes on, with a wink, to defend a mythical figure whose guilt was almost universally assumed. Many paradoxes are connected with the older sophists, from the legend of Corax's suit against Tisias (see Schiappa, 2003, p. 227) to Gorgias' argument that nothing exists. Even the Dissoi Logoi ("Contrary Arguments"), while in most cases not even apparent logical contradictions, are paradoxical in that they challenge the common doxa that a given thing must be either good or bad, just or unjust, true or false. Consiguy (2001) calls paradox one of Gorgias' "signature figures" (p. 178) and Gagarin (2002, pp. 16-18) has noted the tendency of all the older sophists to use paradoxes to make serious points, "singling out the Second Tetralogy as a prime example. (9)

Given the importance of paradox in early Greek prose, and given the fondness of other sophists for it, would it not be natural for Antiphon to employ paradox in the Tetralogies to challenge the reigning doxa of legal argumentation in the same way that philosophers and sophists had challenged the reigning doxa concerning the natural world? This hypothesis is in keeping with the findings of contemporary scholars, which suggest that the Tetralogies would be poor models for direct emulation. Carawan finds that in the Tetralogies there is "a systematic reversal of topics and techniques" found in actual courtroom speeches (1988, p. 210; 1993, p. 266). Gagarin (2002) has made the case they were composed for a reading public seeking the intellectual stimulation created by their paradoxical and unresolved opposing arguments rather than for practical legal advice (pp. 105-106).

The paradoxes of the First Tetralogy are not all logical paradoxes, but do all challenge common doxa: some are plausible contradictions of apparent truths or legal conventions, while others present themselves in the clash of two apparently true, but logically contradictory, arguments.

THE FIRST TETRALOGY: SETTING AND OUTLINE

The case argued in the First Tetralogy concerns a murder in the dead of night, with no living witnesses except the killer. A citizen and his attendant slave were attacked and killed. The exact means by which the murders were accomplished is not specified anywhere in the speeches, but we do discover some important information about the personal histories of the victim and defendant. The victim had apparently been a clever speaker in court, and had won some wealth by repeatedly suing others, including the defendant. Although the victim died at once, his slave is said by the prosecution to have survived long enough to tell some friends of the victim, who happened by, that the defendant had committed the crime. The defendant was a wealthy man fallen on bad luck, and a long-time enemy of the victim. He had recently been sued by the victim for embezzlement, and now stood to lose a very large sum of money if the victim won the suit. Allegedly...