Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero PDF
Preview Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero
Argumentation Library Gábor Tahin Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero Argumentation Library VOLUME 23 Series Editor Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Editorial Board Bart Garssen, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Scott Jacobs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign, USA Erik C.W. Krabbe, University of Groningen, The Netherlands John Woods, University of British Columbia, Canada For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/5642 Gábor Tahin Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero Gábor Tahin Downside School Stratton-on-the-Fosse Radstock, UK ISSN 1566-7650 ISBN 978-3-319-01798-3 ISBN 978-3-319-01799-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2013949688 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Nearly every philosopher likes necessity, but not chance; they want peace. But even philosophers need chance. Hannes Böhringer, Immer kommt etwas dazwischen Preface In the following work, I will be introducing a concept of strategic and probabilistic reasoning called heuremes in order to describe the argumentation of speeches in classical oratory. After the discussion of theoretical considerations, these forms of arguments I will explain these forms of arguments through the analysis of four speeches from Attic orators and six from the Roman orator M. Tullius Cicero. At the start of my research in classical oratory, I asked the question to what extent analytical tools provided by ancient rhetorical theory could be used successfully in the argumentative analysis of classical speeches. After the study of several speeches with the help of classical terminology, I concluded that in many respects classical handbooks did not give an in-depth and comprehensive view of the argumentation of Greek and Roman forensic and political speeches. It seemed that the elaborate terminology of classical rhetoric does not take into account the variety of argumenta- tive strategies in forensic oratory. Somehow, rhetoric as a scholarly subject appeared to have been developing independently of practical oratory for centuries and built up a highly specifi c terminology, which does not necessarily refl ect the most complex forms of persuasive reasoning in Greek and Roman courts. Therefore, building on the results of classical scholarship on Attic and Ciceronian oratory, I decided to move beyond the extant terminology and create a concept infl uenced by the notions of uncertainty in sophistic rhetoric and heuristic reasoning in the psychology of decision-making and in mathematical problem solving. In the detailed analyses of the speeches, I identifi ed different forms of heuristic reasoning, all of which represent a form of probabilistic argumentation which aims at manipu- lating the mental decision-making processes of the jury. These analyses concentrate on the detailed interpretation of passages where the nature of evidence requires probable reasoning. In the fi rst two chapters, I will outline the process which led me from classical scholarship to the application of rhetorical heuremes. I attempt to explain as briefl y as possible the complex relationship between classical rhetoric, informal logic, cognitive psychology and heuremes. I will also provide a description of each individual heureme. In the third chapter, I will present a detailed introduction to vii viii Preface the meaning of probability in Greek and Roman oratory and the early history of arguments from probability, which could be considered the precursors of heuristic arguments. In Chap. 4, I will offer short analyses of Greek forensic speeches which I believe will shed light on the question how Cicero could (in part) fi nd models for forms of heuristic reasoning. In Chaps. 5–10, I will give detailed descriptions of six Ciceronian speeches, P ro Flacco , Pro Sulla , Pro Murena , Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino , Pro Milone , Pro Cluentio . The speeches represent some of the best examples of Ciceronian oratory from his early and mature period. What is common in these cases is that they all argue about questions of fact and therefore rely to a greater or lesser extent on probabilistic reasoning. The order of the speeches is not chronological, but it indicates an increasing level of complexity in their argument. The conclusion will bring together some of the theoretical observations which arise during the analysis as well as provide some suggestions about the further applicability of the concept. Introd uction The analysis of M. Tullius Cicero’s forensic oratory has gradually become a fi eld of intense study, after a number of scholarly works 1 identifi ed strategies which ancient rhetorical handbooks did not account for. Inspired by these works, I initially planned to give an analysis of selected speeches fi rmly rooted in classical theory whilst taking into account the development of rhetorical analysis in recent decades. However, in the course of my research, I realised that although modern studies try to move beyond or extend the scope of classical theories, they still rely on its divisions and assumptions in most areas, such as parts of speech or forms of arguments. T his phenomenon is indicative of both the positive and the negative aspects of the enduring appeal of classical rhetoric. On the one hand, it shows that classical terminology established elements of persuasive oratory and that these may possess universal validity. On the other hand, the same terminology may condition the mind of modern researchers in a way that could make the discovery of certain forms of arguments diffi cult. Thus, a close reading of certain speeches presented me with problems related to argumentation which I could resolve neither with the help of ancient terminology nor by consulting modern reference works on rhetoric or argu- mentation theory. It seemed that classical treatises offer comprehensive practical advice on the production of a speech for would-be orators and excellent theoretical discussions on the nature of rhetoric, yet, in some respects, they do not give a detailed overview of extended forensic argumentation. Furthermore, although modern studies on Greek and Ciceronian oratory did refi ne the categories of classical systems, these developments were still, for the most part, guided by the conceptual framework of ancient rhetoric. As a result, they mostly failed to notice a major aspect of forensic arguments in Greek and Roman speeches – their exposure to the contingency of rhetorical situations. Argumentation theory also proved to be useful in identifying elements of logical reasoning and schemes of arguments, but its results are not 1 To name only a few, and the most recent ones, we can cite Alexander (2002), Craig (1993), Dominik and Hall (2006), May (ed.) (2002), Porter (1997), Powell and Paterson (eds.) (2004), Riggsby (1999), Steel (2001), Vasaly (1993). ix
The list of books you might like
