Le Regard Libre Special issue on the French language - Sébastien Oreiller and Jonas Follonier
It would take several pages of this journal to list the career path and various functions of Mr. Laurent Pernot. Director of the Greek Institute at the University of Strasbourg, he has been a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres since 2012 and a senior member of the Institut Universitaire de France. On November 13, 2014, by decree of the President of the Republic, Laurent Pernot was named a Knight in the National Order of Merit. For Le Regard Libre, he answers a few questions about rhetoric, of which he is an internationally recognized specialist.
Le Regard Libre: Rhetoric holds no secrets for you. What are you most passionate about?
Laurent Pernot: Personally, I love everything about rhetoric - the elegance of form, the beautiful periods, the spiritual repartee, the discipline of the intellect to conceive and order ideas, the meticulous analysis of utterances, the psychology of audiences... I also like the collective impetus that carries rhetoricians from all over the world and brings them together in international societies, such as the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, the Rhetoric Society of America, the American Society for the History of Rhetoric, the Organización Iberoamericana de Retórica, and so many others. But if a choice has to be made, what seems to me most important is the role of rhetorical culture, of rhetorical patterns and models, in the functioning of political life.
This passion can't always be easy to claim.
That's right. In common usage, the word «rhetoric» is often pejorative. This is because rhetoric provokes a double setback. It is both frightening and pitiful. Pity, because it is associated with a reputation for intellectual poverty, emphasis, sclerosis and scholasticism, due to the aridity of its lists of figures or the supposed emptiness of its grids of «commonplaces». Fear, because rhetoric is seen as a formidable weapon, an art of deception and manipulation, with no concern for truth or morality.
Even the greatest minds, who respected and exemplified language, sometimes attacked rhetoric, as did the Romantics:
«...and I cried out in the lightning and the wind
War to rhetoric and peace to syntax» (Victor Hugo, Les Contemplations)
Faced with this formidable battle cry, we must have the courage to look beyond appearances and try to better understand the object. Fundamentally, rhetoric is a dimension of human activity. No one can do without it, and like Monsieur Jourdain in the Bourgeois gentilhomme, many people might say to the historians of rhetoric: «By my goodness, I've been saying rhetoric for over forty years without knowing anything about it, and I'm most obliged to you for teaching me. Every society involves verbal exchanges and regulated uses of speech, in relations between individuals and within the collective and political framework. Rhetoric, as the »art of speech’, was designed to meet this omnipresent need for speech in society.
As a result, rhetoric is much less domineering and manipulative than is often thought. Persuasion means reaching out to others, renouncing dogmatism, fundamentalism and violence. That's why rhetoric is linked to debate, democracy and assembly culture.
It is therefore at the heart of our European identity.
Absolutely. We need to go back to Europe's roots. In political debate, in particular, many forms of rhetoric in use today come from antiquity. We owe to classical Greece the very idea of decision-making in the form of democratic debate: the idea that we need to get together and listen to each other's speeches in order to vote on a resolution which, once proclaimed, becomes the decision of all. When, today, the president of an assembly opens a debate by asking: «Who wishes to speak?», he is simply repeating the cry of the herald at the Athenian people's assembly. When the president of a tribunal gives the floor first to the prosecution - the defense must follow - he is acting like Athena at Orestes' trial before the Areopagus. The ideals of ancient rhetoric, and of Athenian democratic rhetoric in particular, have had a profound influence that continues to this day.
Does this rhetorical culture really last?
Certainly, modern representative democracies are very different, socially and institutionally, from the ancient city. The more time goes by, the more ancient rhetoric becomes distant from us, because speeches in form and well said tend to become rarer, because new means of communication multiply, calling less and less on the traditional qualities of invention, disposition, elocution, memory and action.
The power of the Athenian model is therefore to be found on another level. Not in the detail of its implementation, but at the level of principle: in the idea that living together presupposes a public space for discussion, in which inevitable differences and antagonisms are dealt with and, if possible, overcome by rational argument and persuasion. If there's a legacy of Athenian democratic rhetoric, it's here.
Do some languages lend themselves more to rhetoric, oratory and persuasion than others?
Here, I'll be ecumenical. The languages I know have produced great orators, and I suppose the same is true of those I don't know. French enters this arena with its well-known qualities of clarity, finesse, but also grandeur and poetry. From Bossuet and Corneille to André Malraux, we're spoilt for choice when it comes to citing models of French rhetoric!
Is there good rhetoric and bad rhetoric?
Yes, of course, just as there is good and bad medicine, good and bad politics, and so on. Plato was already contrasting them in the Phèdre. Bad rhetoric is repetitive, captious rhetoric. And, understandably, we prefer the good kind. However, we must beware of a tendency deeply rooted in each of us: we are often inclined to consider as bad the rhetoric of our opponents and of all those who don't think like we do.
How do you view the current French and American presidential elections? Do you agree that the level of political discourse is declining?
Unfortunately, we have to admit that there is a rhetorical deficit in the speeches of statesmen and decision-makers in general. With a few exceptions, we are often faced with technocratic speeches repeating coded expressions and ready-made formulas, sometimes out of routine, sometimes to mask the speaker's true intentions. The media do not encourage eloquence; more often than not, they favor short formulas («pithy phrases») and leave no room for sustained argumentation. On this point, Europe lags behind the United States, where the tradition of teaching discourse (speech) is rich and lively. In Europe, the teaching of rhetoric should be more developed, especially for those who will become public figures. We need more rhetoric, not just to hear fine, wordy speeches, but to be able to think together better and accept our collective decisions: it's up to us to equip our continent with quality rhetoric.
You are also, and above all, a Hellenist. In your opinion, is classical literature going through a crisis?
Yes, I think so. The situation obviously varies from country to country, but it seems to me that there are two constants. On the one hand, throughout Europe, there is a decline in knowledge of Greek and contact with the Hellenic heritage - a decline that goes hand in hand with the decline of Latin and literary studies in general. On the other hand, it's clear that European citizens remain attached to Greek, as evidenced by the success of books devoted to ancient thought and the ever-increasing number of visitors to archaeological sites. There is indeed a desire for Greek in society. In these conditions, the explanation for the decline is simple: it is due to a kind of pragmatism, or utilitarianism, which drives citizens to seek out for themselves and their children the activities they believe are most likely to ensure well-being and material success. What we need to explain, tirelessly, is that the opposition between ancient culture and practical utility is not as clear-cut as it seems. Greek studies are useful on many levels.
What are these levels?
First of all, no advanced civilization can develop without culture and cultural references. All great countries have, and must have, universities, museums, research centers, libraries and publishing houses. In the case of European countries, this cultural activity necessarily includes Greek, and in a prominent position. Greece provides aesthetic, intellectual and political references, without which our civilization would become incomprehensible to the citizens themselves. It offers roots, tradition and memory, and this is particularly useful at a time when Europeans are increasingly seeking to unite and work together.
We can already see these roots, quite simply, in the vocabulary: Europeans, in their various languages, use the same words derived from Greek: the name «Europe», to start with, and then the words «democracy», «politics», «economics», «history», «philosophy», «theater», «mathematics», «biology», etc. It's no coincidence that Europeans rely on Greek (as well as Latin) to designate the most important areas of their lives. After all, it's no coincidence that Europeans rely on Greek (as well as Latin) to designate the most important areas of their lives. These words are not fossils, quite the opposite: they describe a way of living together, today and tomorrow.
Another obvious fact: the New Testament is written in Greek, and as long as there are Christians, Hellenists will be needed to understand and interpret this fundamental reference.
From an economic point of view, tourism and culture, which owe so much to Greece, carry a great deal of weight. The humanities permeate our entire society, sometimes in a subterranean way, including in our aspirations to break away from the logic of trade and invent new modes of development: «ecology», another Greek word. In addition, scientific and academic research in the field of antiquity has undergone considerable modernization, using state-of-the-art technical instruments to interrogate texts electronically, for example, to read erased writing in manuscripts or to study archaeological objects more closely.
Is French doomed to be a dead language?
As far as I'm concerned, I've got nothing against dead languages. In the past, the expression «dead languages» was commonly used, and nobody had anything against it. «Dead» was not an infamous term: great civilizations know how to respect their dead. There are many dead things in our civilization, and we could talk about dead art, dead history, dead philosophy, dead sciences, about the Renaissance, the Ancien Régime, etc. Our dead live with us and in us, and we can't forget them. Our dead live with us and in us; we do not deny them. Today, we prefer to speak of «ancient languages»: and why not? The important thing is to understand that what is old is essential to create what is new.
The role of the French-speaking world must also be emphasized. How many times have I listened to a French speaker from Europe, Africa or America, and admired the excellence of a polished language, superior to that heard in metropolitan France! You yourselves are setting an example. It's important for France to support the French-speaking world in every way it can.
French 
German 
English