Journal 6: A Political Thriller (C. 63 BCE)
2/20/17
This module explores the story of Cicero and Catiline, two figures who prior to this moment, I had never heard of. In 63 BCE there was an election for consulship in which Cicero, Catiline, and a third candidate Hybrida were in competition for the two positions. Cicero was considered to be a “novus homo” meaning that no one in his family had ever held a position as a consul. On the other hand, Catiline was from a distinguished family, however he had his own shortcomings that disallowed him from coming into power as he so desired to do. At the conclusion of the election, Cicero and Hybrida were chosen to be the consuls for Rome. This then lead to what is believed to be Catiline's conspiracy to take over the power structure.
In the two readings which summarize the events that took place during the struggles that began in 63 BCE, there are a few perceivable differences in the delivery of the narratives. The first article “Cicero & the Catiline Conspiracy” seems to tell the story relatively plainly, however a lot of the language and ideas expressed seem to suggest that Catiline was simply not to be respected and was entirely malicious in his conspiracy to take over the political structure of Rome. It also focused more on Cicero’s rise to power and the manner by which he managed the threat of Catiline’s conspiracy. The second article “The Conspiracy of Catiline” definitely goes into more detail concerning Catiline’s conspiracy as the title suggests. It contains more of the rationale behind his inspiration for formulating this plan rather than depicting it as an futile effort of an ashamed political hopeful. The article expressed how Catiline wanted to overturn the power structure in which the oligarch’s held all the power and all the poor were consistently having their land seized and in debt.
In comparing the structure of the two articles, it is a little difficult to discern if Catiline was truly as terrible of a person as the first article was projecting. Perhaps he was an individual with pure intentions but a misunderstood method of carrying out what could have been the “good” of the people.
2/21/17
Rhetoric, by definition is the art of persuasion. It is not necessarily a precise formulation, but rather it has a loose set of features that can be crafted in many ways to achieve the purpose of persuasion.
In class, we discussed the primary ways in which rhetoric shows up in the ancient world. These come in the form of forensic rhetoric which mainly takes place in courts (proving guilt or innocence); epideictic rhetoric which places praise or blame; and deliberative rhetoric which tries to win people over in one direction or another. Through the modules that we have read thus far, it is possible to distinguish the different types of rhetoric utilized case-by-case.
For example, in the Iliad, when Nestor was addressing the soldiers he exhibited epideictic rhetoric in that he was praising both Agamemnon and Achilles on their individual traits in an effort to explain why they should not go to war with each other. Achilles displayed deliberative rhetoric in the way he gathered the people to try to come to a decision on what to do about the plague that was affecting them. However, as his speech continues, it quickly turns into epideictic rhetoric when Achilles and Agamemnon begin going back and forth with insults against each other.
In the module “The Song Remains the Same” which discusses the events of the Peloponnese War, deliberative rhetoric is mainly used. From Agesilaus to Leonidas, the main purpose in delivering speeches is to unite and mobilize the Spartan soldiers into situations of war.
It is interesting breaking down all of the speeches into their respective categories because it signifies that all speech essentially has a purpose in its delivery. This is especially true in situations where a group of people are being addressed. Whether to praise, chastise, mobilize, or prove innocence and guilt — leaders have a method by which they are able to articulate these ideas.
2/22/17
According to the readings and videos in this module, Cicero developed his theories of rhetoric from Aristotle. Interestingly enough, rhetoric is not an idea that is new to me. For the course of my entire 11th grade AP Literature and Composition English class, we explored rhetoric. From rhetorical devices, rhetoric in novels and literature, rhetoric in real life speech and the formulation of rhetorical arguments — I was literally constantly submerged in rhetoric for the course of the year. Luckily, it all paid off when I finally took the AP exam and got a 5 :)(can’t say that it was really that beneficial in the ling run though.) So reading about the development of rhetorical arguments kind of felt like a review of sorts (event though I have forgotten much of the content.) All rhetorical arguments generally follow the rhetorical triangle which suggests that speakers use ethos, pathos, and logos to deliver arguments to the audience.
Based on Aristotle’s theories on rhetoric, Cicero also formulated his own five parts of rhetoric. These five parts are Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memorization and Delivery. There was a question posed by the module that asked “why might Cicero need to use these five individual parts of rhetoric to speak to the citizens of the Roman republic?”
In response, I feel that these five parts were necessary due to the setting of delivering speeches to the senate and the people in the efforts to persuade them that his argument was indeed correct and just. In order to effectively speak to the people, Cicero had to formulate the point in which he would be speaking on (invention). These points would have to be solid points that would address the issue at hand and would leave few, if any, holes in the argument. The arrangement of the argument is important in making sure that the information being delivered is done in a manner that is able to logically place the information in a sequence that makes sense. This leads to the idea of “stopping points” which are points in the argument where those who are in opposition or questioning the argument would try to point out fallacies or weak points. In an effort to combat this, Cicero often used stopping points in between his arguments to address these potential questionable points. In a setting such as a Senate, people would openly ask questions in the middle of an individual’s speech.
Style, memorization, and delivery are primarily features of Cicero’s rhetoric that skilled honed by the speaker to deliver their message more effectively. They take practice and preparation in order to achieve.
In evaluating Cicero’s First Catilinarian, there are ample instances in which rhetoric is utilized through the speech. Firstly, Cicero’s primary reason for giving the speech is to bring down Catiline and his conspiracy, calling the Senate into action, chastising them because they do not want to take action, and all the while is openly showing off in regards to his skills as a leader and orator. In addressing these issues, he utilizes all three rhetorical modes: ethos, pathos, and logos to formulate his argument. He says that it is completely necessary to condemn Catiline due to the fact that he has exhibited deplorable behavior in the past. From his issues in debt, his troubles as governor of Africa, and personal issues of infidelity and rape — it is simply not acceptable for Roman’s to allow him to continue to act in this manner. In this way, Cicero is appealing to the ethos of the audience. Since Catiline’s action are not acting in a way that is Roman-like, he must be taken out. He continues to frame his speech in a way that distances himself and those in the senate away from the persona that is Catiline. He stresses the importance of honor and other exemplary Roman values and the way by which he and members of the Senate are able to abide by them. In contrast, he speaks extensively on how Catiline does not follow the important value of honor like the others. This distancing of character is somewhat a dehumanizing method towards Catiline, making him seem like less of a human being because he was not abiding by traditional rules and culture. Next, he appeals to the audience’s sense of pathos because he states at one point in time that he is “moved by pity”, which is why he is acting in the way that he is. He is using his emotion as a statesman to express why he feels it is necessary to take action against someone who is as deplorable as Catiline. When opposition mentions that it would not be the correct thing to put the conspirators to death without a trial, he quickly rebuts in saying that there is almost no other course of action that could be taken since all of their lives were at stake. In appealing to logos, he basically insinuates that as long as Catiline and his conspirators are alive, all of their lives are at stake. The only way to protect themselves is if he is out of the situation.
By the end of his speech, the senate stands behind Cicero and are in agreeance that the conspirators should be put to death. A number of them are hung without trial and eventually, Catiline himself is killed along with many of his followers.
Personally, looking at the dynamic of the reading and narrative formed against Catiline, I think there is more to the story that must be told. There is a possibility that Catiline. Has been “overly-demonized” by the text that has been made available, but that is difficult to say without having further information.
