Journal #6
On Monday February 20th I started to read the 6th module of the semester called “A Political Thriller.” This module is much like the last, appearing to have only a small amount of information to read, but after clicking all of the links provided within the listening for leadership section, it was clear this was not the case. At the beginning of the first step of the module, I was instructed to create a chart comparing the lives of both Marcus Cicero and Luscious Catilina (also called Catiline). The purpose of this chart was to distinguish where both of the leaders came from and what type of person they might be as a leader. There were also two videos to watch that would further explain their story. The first one, on the political structure of the Roman Republic was not working for some reason; youtube kept on timing out and would not play the video. The second one however explained some basic facts about Cicero and Cataline. There were also two articles telling the story of how the Catilinarian Conspiracy came about. Using these two articles, I was instructed to read them both and distinguish the differences between them. I believe the first article, “Cicero and the Catiline Conspiracy” told the story from Cicero’s perspective. In my opinion, it painted Cicero in a better, more just light than Catiline. The second article, “The Conspiracy of Catiline” showed Catiline in more of a favorable light. More details of his plan were provided and so was an explanation of why he had attempted his plan. This step took me way more than an hour to complete; because of some confusion I had to re-read the articles to process the information given to me. As someone who frequently likes to play devil’s advocate, I can say that I understand where both Cicero and Catiline came from. Being someone who is also from a lower middle class family, I would want to help others like myself as much as I possibly can. With that being said, I also do not know how burning the city down would help.. Speaking for Cicero’s point of view, having someone trying to burn the city down and assassinate important members of the Senate would not only affect me, but the people within my city as well; this could result in so many casualties. On the other hand, deciding to execute and exile members of this conspiracy is completely wrong. They were denied their basic human rights. Also, doing this may even cause uprising from other members of society in the near future because of Cicero’s unjust actions. Was he really thinking about the good of the Roman Republic when he did this, or was he thinking of himself?
The second step of the journal named “Why do we remember Cicero as a persuasive leader?” took me about an hour and a half to complete. This step explained many reasons as to why Cicero was a great and compelling speaker. The first link (which I really found interesting) was a list of logical or illogical fallacies in arguments. What I truly found interesting was that most of these fallacies I had heard in many discussions. I had no idea that there was a name for these types of arguments. Next, I was instructed to watch two short videos. The first, titled “A History of Argument” and the second, “Law and Justice: A History of Roman Republicanism.” I am sure it it highly obvious what the first video was about, but it went into detail about Cicero’s understanding of rhetoric and his opinions. The second video also told about Cicero’s understanding of rhetoric but was far more detailed, being that the video was about 8 minutes longer. Finally, I was told to read an article called “Classical Canons of Rhetoric.” This article explained in depth Cicero’s canons of rhetoric. One thing I found interesting about this article was that it stated how we still use they canons today either intentionally or unknowingly. A direct quote that I had to write down in my notebook was: “The strength of Cicero’s canons was that they transcend time in their importance.” While also reading this article I was also instructed to answer some questions that were provided within it. One of the questions were, “why might Cicero need to use these five individual parts of rhetoric to speak to the citizens of the Roman republic.” To which I responded using each of the five canons to speak to the citizens of the Roman Republic would be extremely beneficial to Cicero because it would make for a more genuine speech. As a leader, one would want their followers to feel as though they are being as genuine as possible while also knowing as much information as they can on the subject, keeping their word in being fit to be a leader.
The third step of this module honestly took a lot out of me. I had to take a break in between listening to and reading Cicero’s speech and reading the second article that was provided. Two hours was definitely the accurate amount of time it would take to complete the everything. My first instruction was to listen to Cicero’s entire speech, read it as well and declare what was persuasive about it. Listening to the speech alone took about thirty minutes. Basically, what was persuasive about Cicero’s speech was that he spoke with so much conviction. Just reading his exact words showed how strongly he felt about Catiline being at fault. Even the recording of “Cicero’s first Catilinarian” by that student was convincing and somewhat moving. I will say it was hard to keep my attention during the speech as I found myself checking my phone or fiddling with other things during the speech being that there were no visuals, just one picture for the thirty minutes; which resulted in me rewinding the video every so often to take notes to be sure that I was paying full attention. During this speech, Cicero makes certain to paint Catiline as dark as he can, convincing the people of the Roman Republic to turn against him as he is not only a bad person, but he may be one of the worst. Following the Cicero’s speech was an article written by Lauren Raubaugh titled, “Lucius Sergius Catalina: Villain or Victim? The Famed Cicero as a Violent Aggressor.” This article was one that I found extremely interesting. After reading all that I have about Cicero and how Catiline was such a scheming person with a dark past, this article did a role reversal of the two characters and painted Cicero in a dark light and Catiline positively. Catiline is spoken to be a handsome, smart, fashionable, personable man within this article. It was said that while it MAY be true that Catiline did, there is absolutely no proof! Who are we to say that this man is as despicable as he was originally painted to be? We weren’t there to see what happened or who he was as a person nor can we really judge someone off of hearsay. That, in my opinion is a very interesting point.
Lastly, I saved the final step of this module for the day after the next (February 22nd.) This final step was another one that took me a while; I wish I finished it in two hours. The first thing thing that caught my attention was the title: “Is rhetoric still a path to leadership?” paired with a photo shopped picture of Obama giving a speech at a podium in front of an ancient Greek or Roman building (I’m really not sure where it’s from I just found it interesting). This alone made me think of the quote I had written down in my notebook earlier: The strength of Cicero’s canons is that they transcend time in their importance. I knew there was a logic for public speaking which is why we have a course allowing for students to practice and improve their public speaking, but I was unaware of where it originated. The first link of this final step was a link explaining the definition of the word decorum. The definition given was “a central rhetorical principle requiring one’s words and subject matter be aptly fit to each other, to the circumstances and occasion (kairos), the audience, and the speaker” (basically meaning a key element or elements that tie the whole speech together). The next link in the listening for leadership was a video further explaining the term rhetoric, using the rhetorical triangle to make sure the definition is explained thoroughly. The rhetorical triangle is mentioned to be sectioned into three major parts, the audience, author, and the text. The three rhetorical appeals are also used and stated to be logos, ethos, and pathos. Within the video was a short commercial advertising mustangs (that I found a little weird, as a horror movie fanatic, corn fields don’t seem like the best place to be). With this commercial I was asked to identify the intended audience. If not me, who would this audience be? As I stated before, I wasn’t too fond of the commercial so obviously I must not be the intended audience; I don’t even have my license! If I had to take a guess I would say I think the intended audience would be people who drive, that like safe affordable cars that are American made. The next and last instruction was to watch the first fifteen minutes of Obama’s 2009 Notre Dame Commencement Address. The purpose of watching this video is to compare the rhetorical styles of both Obama and Cicero. The first difference I will state between the two is that Obama of course did not make his speeches bashing anyone. Not that he would need to, but his speeches were always given with such class and in such a vibrant nature when appropriate. Also, Obama happens to be a speaker who is often relaxed when speaking, even cracking a joke every once in a while; Cicero seemed to be a bit more serious to me. One similarity that I saw was that just as it was stated that Cicero used many hand motions and dramatic pauses to really relay his messages to his people, so does Obama.
With the risk of sounding like the end of a Dora the explorer episode, I’ll say that my favorite part of this module was the flipped script that painted Catiline in a new light; one that really makes the reader ponder, wondering how many other stories within our history have been told from only a one- sided point of view instead of giving us the actual truth. As they say there’s always three sides to a story and I love a good plot twist. Reading that part of the module only furthers my reasoning for playing devil’s advocate as much as I can.
On Thursday February 16th, during our class period of about an hour and a half, we discussed our own modern day versions of portraiture and what they are. Our modern portraits would be social media. We show other people what we want them to know about us by posting pictures or quotes of or everyday life. We also learned the definition of apotropaic and how there are many things we have around us that are in fact apotropaic (meaning warding off evil). Also the difference between Obama and Trump’s twitter profile picture. The final question of that class session was what would be my ideal portrait. I guess my ideal portrait would have to be of me in my everyday life, probably surrounded by the people I love signifying happiness.
On Tuesday, February 21st, we discussed a number of things. We learned the meaning of “novas homo” which means a new man, first in his family, and/or rise to consulship. We also discussed how the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles was deliberate and epideictic. We also discussed the different types of rhetoric pertaining to forensic rhetoric, epideictic rhetoric, and deliberative rhetoric. We also discussed which type of rhetoric was used in each of the modules we had read.