{"id":5617,"date":"2021-10-24T16:50:58","date_gmt":"2021-10-24T14:50:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5617"},"modified":"2025-04-29T10:19:45","modified_gmt":"2025-04-29T08:19:45","slug":"stasis-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/stasis-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Stasis"},"content":{"rendered":"

STASIS<\/span><\/h1>\n

The word stasis<\/em> is of Greek origin; it is translated in Latin as quaestio<\/em>, and, \u201cin modern parlance\u201d, as issue<\/em> (Nadeau 1964, p. 366).<\/p>\n

As used in rhetorical argumentation, the word stasis<\/em> is a medical metaphor; medicine is a valuable source of examples and an important analogical resource domain for argumentative theory see natural sign<\/a>.<\/strong>
\nIn medicine, a stasis<\/em> is defined as \u201ca slowing or stoppage of the normal flow of a bodily fluid or semifluid<\/span>\u201d\u00a0(MW, Stasis<\/em>). A stasis results in congestion<\/span>, that is, in \u201can excessive accumulation especially of blood or mucus in an organ\u201d (MW, Congest<\/em>), and the medical arts must be applied to restore the proper flow of fluids.<\/p>\n

Similarly, in the realm of human action and interaction, a situation of stasis occurs when the consensual circulation of discourse is blocked by a contradiction or a doubt, and the arts of argument must be employed to restore the normal, cooperative flow of dialogue.<\/span> Nadeau defines the situation of stasis as \u201ca position of balance or rest\u201d established between two opposing discourses (id.<\/em>, p. 369).
\nIn a state of stasis, the equilibrium is that of an aporia<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cthe Greek verb aporein<\/em> describes the situation of the person who, faced with an obstacle, finds no way through, finds no passage\u201d; the associated psychic state is embarrassment<\/em> (Pellegrin 1997, art Aporia<\/em>). In philosophical usage, an aporia<\/em> is an unresolvable contradiction.<\/p>\n

1. The classical theory of stasis<\/span><\/h2>\n

The first systematic formulation of a theory of stasis is found in Hermagoras of Temnos (late 2nd century BC; Benett 2005).<\/span> The technique of stasis was used by rhetoricians before Hermagoras, but he was the first to formally identify and name the concept along with four basic types of stasis (Nadeau 1964, p. 370). This theory is best known through the treatise On Stasis<\/em> of Hermogene of Tarsus<\/span>, a Greek rhetorician of the second century (Hermogene, AR<\/em>; Patillon 1988).<\/p>\n

Hermogene distinguishes between:<\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0<\/strong>On the one hand, misconceived<\/em> questions, on which no argumentative debate can be built, either because their answer is obvious, or because they are undecidable; these questions are \u201cincapable of stasis\u201d (id.<\/em>, p. 385); in other words, they cannot be discussed rationally.
\n(ii)<\/strong> On the other hand, are the well-conceived<\/em> questions, which can be discussed rationally.<\/p>\n

Hermogene organizes the different kinds of general, well-conceived questions as follows (after Patillon, p. 57 sq.).<\/p>\n

\u2013 Stasis of <\/strong>conjectur<\/strong>e<\/em><\/span>: Is the fact established?
\n<\/em>\u2013 Stasis on the definition<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, on \u201cthe name of an act\u201d (Nadeau, p. 393): Someone robs a private person in a temple; is he a temple plunderer<\/em>?
\n\u2013 The next step is the qualification<\/em><\/span> of the act<\/strong>; it can be rational<\/em><\/strong><\/span> (discussed on the basis of good reason) or legal<\/em><\/strong><\/span> (discussed on the basis of an existing law).<\/p>\n

The legal qualification<\/em><\/strong> <\/span>is discussed along the following lines (from Patillon, p. 59).<\/p>\n

The accused does not admit<\/em> to the maliciousness of the fact: antilepsis<\/strong> (\u201ccontradiction, objection\u201d, Bailly, [Antilepsis<\/em>])<\/p>\n

The defendant admits<\/em> to the malice of the fact: opposition<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2022 He accepts<\/em> responsibility: compensation
\n<\/strong>\u2022 He rejects<\/em> responsibility:<\/p>\n

\u2014 and blames the victim<\/em>: counter-accusation
\n<\/strong>\u2014 and blames someone or something else<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u2260 who or what can be guilty<\/em>: report of accusation
\n<\/strong>\u2260 who or what cannot be guilty<\/em>: excuse<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The authentic \u201crhetorical question\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

A stasis is a question, the knot<\/em> of a conflict that articulates a judicial action in order to resolve it. The Rhetoric at Herennius<\/em> defines the first stage of a judicial encounter as the determination of the question that constitutes the cause (Ad Her<\/em>., I, 18, 17):<\/p>\n

The issue [constitutio<\/em>] is determined by the joining of the primary plea of the defense with the charge of the plaintiff<\/span> (Ad Her.<\/em>, I, 18, 11)<\/span><\/p>\n

Quintilian explains that the first<\/em> thing he does to resolve an argumentative situation is to find the qu\u00e6stio<\/em>, the question, or the issue<\/em>. The question \u201carises\u201d when a statement made by one party is contradicted by the other party. Notice that the following text assumes that adultery was a crime<\/em>; that it was legal to kill<\/em> an adulterer; and, apparently, that the executioner was prosecuted for killing the man<\/em> while also killing the woman<\/em>:<\/p>\n

5. So, first of all, then, (and this is not difficult to determine, but must be examined first and foremost) I settled what each party wished to establish, and then by what means, in the following way<\/span>. I considered what the prosecutor<\/span><\/em> would say first: either an admitted point or a contested point. If it was admitted, the question could not be in it. 6. I would then proceed to the <\/u>defendant<\/span>‘s answer<\/u> and consider it in the same way. Sometimes, too, what was elicited there was admitted. But as soon as there was any disagreement, the question arose.<\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/span>The procedure was like this: \u2018You killed a man<\/em>\u2019 -\u2018I did kill him<\/em>\u201d. The fact is admitted, so I pass on. 7. The accused should give a reason why he killed him. He may say \u2018It is lawful to kill an adulterer with an adulteress<\/em>\u2019. It is admitted that there is such a law. We can then move on to a third point, that may be disputed. \u2018They were not guilty of adultery<\/em>\u2019 \u2013 \u2018they<\/em> were\u2019<\/em>. So, the question arises<\/strong>.<\/em><\/span><\/span>
\n(IO<\/em>, VII, 1, 5-7; my emphasis).<\/span><\/p>\n

The question, that is to say, the point to be judged, is inferred from the nature of the accused’s response to the accuser. If the parties agree, the facts are considered to be established or \u00ab\u00a0peaceful\u00a0\u00bb; if they disagree, they are disputed.<\/p>\n

Early in On Invention,<\/em> Cicero criticizes Hermagoras for taking too general a view of argumentative questions, including philosophical as well as scientific questions:<\/strong> \u201cCan the senses be trusted? What is the shape of the world? How big is the sun?\u201d (On Inv.<\/em>, I, 8, VI). Cicero limits the theory of questions to those belonging to the proper domain of the orator, the epidictic, deliberative, and judicial genres. The concept of question, however, has no such predetermined limit.<\/p>\n

The concept of stasis as a question<\/em> is the counterpart in the rhetorical domain of the Aristotelian concept of problem<\/em> in the dialectical domain (Aristotle, Top<\/em>., I, 11, 104b-105a10, pp. 25-28); a question is a rhetorical<\/em> problem<\/em>.<\/strong> The theory of stasis is the theory of \u201crhetorical questions\u201d in the proper sense:<\/p>\n

The constitutio<\/em> of the auctor<\/em> ad Herennium<\/em>, is thus the functionally dual stasis of Greek rhetoric [\u2026] whose psychical counterpart is the articulate question, or, as Sextus Empiricus (Against the Geometricians<\/em>, III, 4) styled it, the \u201crhetorical question\u201d (Dieter 1950, p. 360).<\/span> [1]<\/span><\/p>\n

This meaning of the term rhetorical question<\/em> is quite different from the current meaning, which denotes a question to which the speaker knows the answer, knowing that his interlocutors also know the answer, and whose value is that of a challenge to potential opponents. To avoid confusion, we’ll use the term argumentative question<\/em>, see argumentative question<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4. Example<\/span><\/h2>\n

Faced with the accusation, \u201cYou stole my moped!<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/span>, the defendant can adopt different strategies that determine the nature of the ensuing debate.<\/p>\n

(1) Deny having committed the act<\/strong>; the fact is not established (\u201cconjectural stasis\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

I didn’t even touch your moped!<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) Admit that was a theft, and blame someone else:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It’s not me, it’s him!<\/span><\/p>\n

Idem, blaming the author of the accusation:<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s not me, it’s you, who accuses me, but you destroyed your own moped to get the insurance premium.<\/span><\/p>\n

This strategy, like the strategy of reorientation of the fact, manifests the tendency to radical refutation, by symmetrical inversion, see reciprocity<\/a>; causality<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0(3) Recognizing the fact, denying that it was a theft, and re-categorizing the action under a more honorable label<\/strong>,\u00a0see categorization.<\/a> This can be accomplished by a number of different strategies:<\/span><\/p>\n

But this is my<\/em> moped; you stole it from me last year!<\/span>
\nBut this moped is mine, you pretended to buy it, but you never paid me.<\/span>
\nI didn’t steal it, I borrowed it. I asked your permission.<\/span><\/p>\n

(4) The same, but with various extenuating circumstances<\/strong>:<\/span><\/p>\n

The gang leader made me do it.<\/span>
\nI was just taking my grandmother to the hospital<\/span><\/p>\n

(5) The same, apologizing<\/strong>:<\/span><\/p>\n

I made a mistake, Mr. President.<\/span><\/p>\n

(6) Recuse the tribunal (stasis on the procedure); disqualify the accuser:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It is not for the victor to judge the vanquished.<\/span>
\nBut who are you to judge me?<\/span>
\nIt suits you (= the accuser<\/em>), you the gang leader, to complain about a theft! This should be settled by a good fist fight, as usual.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0(7) Admit the fact and claim to be proud of it:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

You were drunk, I saved your life by taking your moped, and you should thank me!<\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps because of its spectacular character, the last case is known in the rhetoric of figures as an antiparastasis<\/em><\/strong>, see orientation<\/a>.
\n<\/strong>All these strategies are equally interesting, and all might deserve to be known by a specific name.<\/p>\n

Some of these strategies are mutually exclusive<\/strong>, see kettle argumentation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

[1] I couldn’t find this main reference in my edition.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

STASIS The word stasis is of Greek origin; it is translated in Latin as quaestio, and, \u201cin modern parlance\u201d, as issue (Nadeau 1964, p. 366). As used in rhetorical argumentation, the word stasis is a medical metaphor; medicine is a valuable source of examples and an important analogical resource domain for argumentative theory see natural […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5617","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5617"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5617\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14122,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5617\/revisions\/14122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}