By Demosthenes, Cecil Wooten
Philippic I, introduced among 351 B.C. - 350 B.C., was once the 1st speech by way of a well-known flesh presser opposed to the growing to be strength of Philip II of Macedon. in addition to the opposite Philippics of Demosthenes', it really is arguably one of many most interesting deliberative speeches from antiquity. the current quantity offers the 1st remark in English at the Philippics due to the fact 1907 and supplies to inspire extra research of this crucial Greek orator. Aiming his observation at complicated undergraduates and first-year graduate scholars, Cecil Wooten addresses rhetorical and stylistic concerns, ancient historical past, and grammatical difficulties. as well as an entire observation on Philippic I, this quantity comprises essays that define Philippics II and III, set them of their old context, and emphasize the diversities among those later speeches and the first.
Read or Download A Commentary on Demosthenes' Philippic I: With Rhetorical Analyses of Philippics II and III PDF
Similar medieval books
Explores the connection among gender and id in early medieval Germanic societies.
The traditional Greek tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides have lengthy been thought of foundational works of Western literature, respected for his or her aesthetic perfection and undying truths. less than the microscope of modern scholarship, although, the presumed universality of Greek tragedy has began to fade, because the particularities of Athenian tradition have come into sharper concentration.
- Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic worship: holy places, ceremonies, pilgrimage
- Saving the Souls of Medieval London: Perpetual Chantries at St. Paul's Cathedral, C.1200-1548
- Sciences and the Self in Medieval Poetry: Alan of Lille’s Anticlaudianus and John Gower’s Confessio Amantis
- Xerxes' Greek Adventure: The Naval Perspective (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Supplementum, Vol. 264.)
Extra info for A Commentary on Demosthenes' Philippic I: With Rhetorical Analyses of Philippics II and III
See Hammond, 483–84, and Sealey, 53–56. 7–8) sections 2–3 of this speech when he discusses D as an example of an orator who used good judgment (consilium) in the presentation of his argument. He says that D begins by pointing out to his audience that it is still possible to improve the situation that has been created by their negligence. Then, rather than openly attacking their lack of energy in defending their own interests, he praises the courageous policy of their ancestors. This, according to Quintilian, makes them favorably disposed to the speaker, and the pride that they feel in Athens’ heroic past causes them to repent of their own unheroic behavior.
Some of the passages that discuss Philip are written in a style that Hermogenes calls Florescence (IŒìÞ). Florescence, the mildest form of criticism in the Hermogenic system, involves reproach, like Asperity, but it tones down this reproach by using stylistic characteristics associated with Brilliance (ºÆìðæüôçò), which deals with remarkable and praiseworthy human actions (265), mainly long clauses, parallelism, ﬁgures of speech that tend to make language pleasing to the ear, and rhythm, such as the dactylic, associated with Solemnity (óåìíüôçò): ‘‘By using longer clauses and those ﬁgures of speech, such as anaphora, that are often associated with poetry and that consequently give a pleasing effect, the orator can soften his reproach and make the criticism 17 Syrianus, in his commentary on Hermogenes, makes this point (Rabe, 59–60), adding that too much criticism can also undermine the ethical appeal of the orator.
D is here referring to those citizens active in politics who were known as ‘‘rhetors,’’ ‘‘a recognizable ‘set’ of men who played a special role in the political life of the polis’’ (Ober, 107). This was a very small number, perhaps as few as ten or twenty at any one time, who came from an elite background, usually well educated and wealthy, and regularly spoke and proposed motions in the Assembly. There was, however, no legal distinction between the rhetor and ordinary citizens, since all citizens, unless speciﬁcally restricted, had the right to speak and make proposals in the Assembly (cf.