Search

The Gorgias is frequently read as a dialogue in which Socrates fails to convince especially his last interlocutor Callicles to adopt a philosophical way of life. Instead, Callicles becomes increasingly indignant about the repeated refutation of his personal convictions and eventually refuses to participate in the conversation any longer. In general scholars explain this result by Callicles' recalcitrance. It is supposed that the dialogue illustrates the impossibility of persuasion if an interlocutor refuses to cooperate - which would imply certain limitations of the Socratic elenchus. In contrast, this paper demonstrates that Socrates indeed achieves his aim of shaking Callicles' faith. By decoding the medicine and court imagery, ubiquitous throughout the whole dialogue, it will be argued that, far from being an illustration of failure, the text instead indicates that Socrates' conversation with Callicles is successful - and thus proves the efficacy of the elenctic method even on reluctant opponents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lucian, one of the most prolific authors during the Second Sophistic, is famous for his multifaceted and manifold literary production. His works are dealing with different topics such as literary criticism, philosophy and myth, and display a wide range of various stylistic devices such as irony, parody and satire. Especially the art of rhetoric is highly present in his texts. This has been emphasized in different works regarding his theoretical writings. This reflects the importance of the rhetorical handbooks, the progymnasmata, which were flourishing during the Second Sophistic and had a strong influence on Lucian. However, the rhetorical approach in Lucian's shorter dialogues has not attracted much attention. An exhaustive commentary on the dialogues is also missing. This paper focusses on Dialogue of the Dead (28) and analyses the rhetoric used by the figures in this dialogue. It is shown that Lucian - in a playful manner - displays different modes of persuasion (especially logos and pathos) with the help of his figures Protesilaos and Pluto arguing in the dialogue with each other. In addition to this treatment of the dialogue, the influence of the progymnasmata is also discussed. Further, it is argued that the dialogue can be seen as a 'model' for rhetoric in practice. Therefore, the dialogue fulfills two purposes: rhetorical education and entertainment by using myth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]