In the brief description of Cicero,
it says he apprenticed for a noted lawyer Quintus Scaevola and later on it
describes how Cicero’s own style was classified. His style was “characterized
by amplification –naming the same thing tow or three different ways in
succession, adding elaborating or qualifying clauses, and otherwise developing
the periodic sentence pioneered by Isocrates.”
I can’t help thinking that Cicero may have developed some of his style
from Quintus Scaevola. Lawyers today talk in this manner, they amplify names,
say facts two or three times and elaborate to there greatest ability, all in
hopes of swaying the jury. All of these technics are known to assist in the
convincing that a certain belief is correct and to give the speaker credibility
by repetition.
Also I believe Cicero developed
habits from Scaevola because he later says he, “aims to evoke heightened
emotion and at the same time to explore every facet of an idea –in Cicero’s
view, stylistic ornateness contributes to the development of content.” It is
highly debated if it is proper to bring emotion into an argument, however
lawyers often do just that; they explore every fact of a case while playing on
the juror’s emotions. I do agree with
Cicero’s belief that “stylistic ornateness contributes to the development of
content.” I see it as a lawyer building a series of pictures to create the
action he or she is defending. The style and finesse that he or she puts on the
argument or image will determine how believable it is, regardless if the facts
are true.
I wanted to conclude my post with something from the final
part of book one, however I found that section very confusing. In particular I did not understand: “So by
you account the learned lawyer, in and by himself, is nothing but a circumspect
and sharp kind of pettifogger, a crier of legal actions, a chanter of legal
formulas a trapper of syllables; but, because the orator in Court often employs
the aid of the law, you have therefore associated your legal knowledge with
Eloquence, as a little maid to follow at her heels” (315). If anyone can break this down for me it would
be much appreciated.
Hey Alyssa, I also really see the effect of style on court proceedings. It's why some lawyers are paid the big bucks. First off, I guess, they have to make the connections and find the vital argument but I think that the best ones are the ones that know how to shape the juror through this style and finesse that you're talking about. That's why I think one of the most important parts of the trial comes even before it-when the lawyers get to pick out the jurors. I'm not sure how it works exactly and if it is done by both the defense and prosecution but it seems that this is a huge advantage to one or the other side. If you are able to already know the background of the jury and what they believe in, if they have families, if they can have a connection with the defendant than you have already breached a giant obstacle and a piece of the war has been won.
ReplyDeleteThat last section seemed to be a critique on Crassus's argument that law and oration are seperate entities. He was saying that if Crassus's argument was true then the lawyer without rhetoric would basically just be a pencil-pusher with no common sense on how to sway an argument and win a case.
That's why I'm still stuck on the emotion thing - at least as far as oratory goes, for the sake of this post. Everything that a lawyer does is loaded with emotion; knowing how to tug the heartstrings of the jury seems paramount, especially when the facts of the defense may not seem as strong as they should. Jurors are taken from all walks off life, and while simple logic may appeal to some, it may escape others.
ReplyDeleteI remember that some of the texts we've read have often mentioned the word "passion" which to me is one of the strongest emotions there is. Passion for your work, passion for a subject, etc - it's all important. I'm trying to discover how these men whose works we are reading separate passion/dedication, from emotion, or if they are simply equating it as a distasteful word that seems to apply to women in that time period.