Talk:parrhesia

RFV discussion: October 2019–May 2020
Sense 2: “ the seeking of forgiveness for such [i.e. frank] speech”. Some dictionaries (e.g. Collins) have this as a second sense, but where does this come from? In the uses of the term I could find, it simply means “frank speech”, as in “speaking truth to power”, without having to say you’re sorry. --Lambiam 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it where you say sorry immediately before being bold or frank in speaking to a superior? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is common cultural practice when criticizing someone, also in public speech, but is it a separate sense ? We also do not define as “1. A spoken lesson or exposition, usually delivered to a group. 2. Clearing one's throat before commencing such lesson or exposition.”  --Lambiam 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Silva Rhetoricae:
 * "Either to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. Sometimes considered a vice."
 * The names of rhetorical figures often cover distinguishable phenomena, so I'd hope that many of them would have multiple definitions here. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, that is what Collins and Oxford say too, and what we find in A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms. But these are all mentions . The issue here is whether the term is actually used in this sense. Something like, “‘Forgive me for spealing so bluntly, sir, and with all due respect, ...’. After this parrhesia he paused, wiping the sweat off his brow, and then resumed, ‘with all due respect, sir, you are a veritable douche bag.’” --Lambiam 18:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This use of the term is discussed in this journal article and is essentially 16th–17th century—the Skinner quote currently at the entry is unhelpful for dating since he is talking historically about how a 16th-century author used the term. However, this article only discusses rhetorical textbooks, which means the examples are properly mentions: "he will seem to bespeake pardon before hand, [in margin: Parisia, or the Licentious]" ; "Parresia, or libertie to speake, when by winning of curtesie to our speech we seek to auoid any offence thereof, as thus. Pardon if I be tedious, the circumstance of the cause requireth it [...]" (, 1599). Given the temporal scope it might be difficult to source uses. —Nizolan (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Skinnet quotes ’s The Garden of Eloquence, essentially an encyclopedic treatise of the figures of speech of eloquence; his section on parrhesia also is a mention. Still, as I interpret the text, Peacham does not equate parrhesia with the asking for forgiveness; I think that the admonishment “do[,]desire them to pardon our boldneſſe” is not meant as part of the definition but as sage advice to the reader intending to practice boldness in speech; the subsequent exposition makes clear that the point of this advice is to avoid one’s due criticism being unduly dismissed. The term and its use by Peacham is discussed in the book Freedom of Speech, 1500–1800. Parrhesia is defined as having four essential elements, none of which involves an apology. Further on the definition is given found in ’s The Arte of Eloquence, described as the most influential Tudor handbook on rhetoric: “when we speake boldely, & without feare, euen to the proudest of them, whatsoeuer we please, or haue list to speake”. This is immediately followed by a discussion of Peacham’s Parrhesia entry, with no hint that being apologetic is essential; only that it is prudent (and likewise for other authors treated). It seems to me that some later compilers of lists of figures of speech and lexicologists may have misinterpreted such accompanying usage notes as being part of the definition; as far as I can see, this misunderstanding has remained confined to such mentions. --Lambiam 15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The version of Peacham you link is the first edition (1577); his definition was changed in a later edition of Garden of Eloquence (1593) to the following: "Parrhesia, is a forme of speech by which the Orator speaking before those whom he feareth, or ought to reuerence, & hauing somewhat to say that may either touch themselues, or those whom they fauour, preuenteth the displeasure and offence that might be taken, as by crauing pardon afore hand." The latter is the one Skinner is talking about (the reference is to Peacham 1593). The chapter in Freedom of Speech, 1500–1800 says much the same thing as the article I mentioned, at your link following the Wilson quote: "Parrhesia is thus not free speech itself for these writers, but carries within it the request for freedom of speech. In the absence of institutionalised universal rights, frank speech to those in power requires the indulgence of the listener in each instance" (my emphasis). Hence George Puttenham's definition, given ibid, which states that parrhesia is when an interlocutor "will seeme to bespeak pardon before hand, whereby his licentiousnes may be the better borne withall". As for Wilson himself, the article I linked in fact mentions explicitly (at pp. 198–99) that Thomas Wilson's definition is idiosyncratic for the period: "The only English rhetoric other than Wilson's which treats parrhesia solely as boldness of speech is Abraham Faunce's Ramist handbook The Arcadian Rhetorike". —Nizolan (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)