Eric MacPhail’s Odious Praise: Rhetoric, Religion, and Social Thought examines a paradoxical form of rhetoric in which writers praise someone highly as a way of showing their true contempt for that person. He argues that this practice of “odious praise” is heavily undervalued in the academic study of rhetoric and social thought. By looking more closely at this phenomenon, we can learn more about the nature of a society and what it holds as truly unworthy of admiration.
The first crucial example that MacPhail uses to introduce this concept is the story of Busiris, a king of Egypt “who slaughtered his guests at the altar of the gods and then ate them,” and the sophist Polycrates who wrote the Defense of Busiris in praise of him. According to MacPhail, Isocrates, an opponent of Polycrates, argues that although Polycrates is purportedly aiming to defend Busiris, he is instead showing that what Busiris was doing was more heinous than many had previously thought, as the idea of him eating people was not directly tackled before his defense. This example captures the central phenomenon MacPhail addresses in his book.
Isocrates points out that praise is often given to things that may not truly be worthy of it. People who talk about things that are commonly agreed to be good, or “excelling in arete” as MacPhail puts it, often run out of things to talk about when praising them. Contrarily, people who are arguing for something being praiseworthy that is not ethical by consensus can spend more time arguing, as some may see these ethical questionables as “dubious or worthless”. Sophists’ rhetoric was generally political, as was all their praise defending political leaders. By recognizing this, Socrates was able to become popular during his time. Socrates was still shown to engage in practices that were considered odious praise, like his praise of death. He also believed that death ought to be considered good, especially in a theistic context, so praising death expressed how controlling the religious doctrine in society was on what it meant to die. Dialogue like this about the questionable morality of any particular person creates a more well-informed society, as the members of that group have to deliberate on what values they respect in a person.
Furthermore, MacPhail sought to address the practice of odious praise in the Christian church as well as how it is addressed alongside religion in general. He tells a story in which Lorenzo Valla, while giving a speech in honor of Thomas Aquinas, begins by reciting the Ave Maria. This act, inspired by the Greek tradition of invoking the gods, is intended to demonstrate that Christian devotion surpasses pagan practices. This example shows the reactionary nature of odious praise. Valla continues this by opining that Aquinas, a confessor, is just as valuable as a religious martyr, which goes against the common belief at the time. However, the way Valla cites Aquinas’ philosophy also becomes critical in that he implies that Aquinas’ Latin was “barbarous” and that his style was bad compared to Paul's. Through his appreciation of Aquinas, Valla simultaneously insults him. The mental gymnastics required to hold a position of veneration and defamation simultaneously reveals the imperfection of humanity, especially in a realm as disingenuous as rhetoric.
Another instance of odious praise involves Polybius, an atheist who nonetheless “recommended religion above everything else” (94) in the context of a debate with Jean Bodin, who opposed Machiavellian ideas. Bodin was in a difficult position, as he wanted to defend the political utility of religion (from the perspective of someone who regards religion as positive but isn’t religious himself), but then he would be agreeing with Machiavelli, who was later compared to Carneades, who gave opposing speeches regarding justice. This phenomenon shows multiple levels of the paradoxical nature of odious praise: how else could Bodin oppose religion by defending it, in contrast to someone who approved it (Machiavelli) against someone who also approves it but is also an atheist (Polybius) by asserting that one should be religious because it is politically beneficial to do so?
Using these examples, MacPhail effectively demonstrates the importance of odious praise and shows how its practice was illuminating in the past and continues to be relevant today. With modern examples of odious praise proliferating on the internet today (and often involving politicians), through my reading of this text, I am now privy to the value of this ancient rhetorical practice, as well as the academic benefits of learning it. MacPhail is speaking to us modern scholars to look at this praise-turned-to-blame as a way to interpret the culture of the Renaissance, where by looking at comprehensively-researched texts from that time period with a set of new eyes, while also shedding more light on more obscure sources, we can now be more well-versed in the antithesis of traditional praise.
Justin Cruz is a religious studies graduate student at the University of South Florida.
Justin Cruz
Date Of Review:
December 2, 2024
