Pericles used his
opportunity to address the public in this type of setting as the means to
perpetuate his own desires for reform.
As Isaac stated, “What better time than this to build up the nation in
the way that you want?” However, his
post argues that the introduction to Pericles’ speech demonstrated a lack in decorum.
I would disagree. In fact, I
would argue that his entire speech was masterfully crafted in such a way that
he could accomplish his agendas while adequately giving the people what they
wanted and/or needed to hear. All of
this was set forth in his rhetorically significant introduction.
 |
| Pericles' goal was to fill this gap. |
While some would
argue that Pericles was foolish in beginning his speech by disagreeing with
tradition and the forefathers of the audience, it is through this that he was
able to establish ethos. Though this does not seem intuitive, the
mention of his difficulty and inadequacy in addressing the subject at hand was
a way to appeal to the audience. Those
in attendance were either grieving the death of loved-ones or the loss of fellow
countrymen—not necessarily a state that lends one to desire a speech praising
the nation that was considered at fault for the loss. If Pericles were to have commenced his speech
in a more entitled, pretentious manner, his following words would not have had
the same affect. He showed, in a sense,
humility—or at least seemed relatable to the people by appealing to them
emotionally (ethos). He claimed, “…these men have shown themselves valiant
in action, and it would be enough, I think, for their glories to be proclaimed
in action.” Through this and claiming his goal as “to
meet the wishes and the expectations of every one” in attendance, he primed the
audience to be receptive to his message.
The ensuing speech was interpreted as epideictic and the audience was preset to interpret Pericles’ words as
completely applying to their losses.
Thucydides similarly used
his introduction to Pericles’ speech as a form of rhetoric and priming. Just as in all history—it is subjective based
on the narrator. Thucydides stated that
he “put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion…” This implies that there have been carefully
selected sentiments in the following piece that were chosen to perpetuate the
narrator’s purpose. However, he followed up with, “…expressed as I thought he (the original speaker) would be likely to
express them.” This was used as a tactic
to persuade the audience of the accuracy of the following speech (read more).
I liked that you explained that Pericles primed his audience by saying that he wishes to meet their expectations. There aren't many speakers who handle situations like these with so much grace, but Pericles definitely did.
ReplyDeleteThe audience very much shaped what Pericles had to say. These people just lost loved ones, and the would naturally want to to hear something that would sooth their sadness and sense of loss. He was very aware of his audience's needs, and tailored his speech to meet those needs.
ReplyDeleteYou're visual illustrates your point really well. Pericles craftily holds back on completely laying out his own agenda by balancing a middle ground with the comfort that the people need to here at this specific time. This makes his argument very kairotic.
ReplyDelete