In order to grow as a professional within any field, knowledge is key. Public speaking is no exception. I’ve read many articles on the subject, some great, some more rambling. And some that seems to have been written with the underlying assumption that the writer him- or herself was the inventor of the knowledge in the field. I will not dwell on my point of view on that particular subject, but instead make it clear that in my point of view, we all stand upon the shoulders of giants here. All the theories on the subject that I have taken part of are based on the theories of the Classic Old Greeks. Admittedly, they have been refined and developed further by many more contemporary experts. But at the base, you will find the same theoretical framework and the same basic principles. What you do with those is of course up to you.
Three foundational terms in the art of speaking comes from Aristotle (circa 360 BC) and from his text Rhetoric;
- Logos – which consists of your facts and your arguments
- Ethos – which is your ability to invoke trust for you
- Pathos – which is the emotions you may engage in the listener
These are your three means to “persuade” your audience. And you will have to address each one of them for every speech you make, only differently in different situations.
Two very Old, very Good Speeches
Two of the most famous speeches in history are the ones that Shakespeare let Marc Anthony and Brutus hold in the play Julius Caesar. They take place after the death of Caesar, and at the funeral of the same. I assume you are familiar with the story. In this scene, Brutus delivers a speech where he justifies Caesar’s assassination to the Roman citizens by claiming it was for the good of Rome and to prevent tyranny. Mark Antony delivers his speech after Brutus, turning the citizens against the conspirators who killed Caesar.
I won’t go too deep into those here (although I simply LOVE these speeches!), but just make a comment or two. These speeches contain all the ingredients for a Good Speech. Firstly, without arguments, you can’t persuade anyone.(Logos) But the trust for the person who’s speaking is equally important; we listen to the person we trust. (Ethos) And finally, without emotions the message will not hit home. (Pathos).
Brutus was the first speaker, the more prominent person and judged superior by all means to their accusator, Marc Anthony. Tradition though demanded that Marc Anthony who had claimed speakers rights also were given it. And so he got to finish, with his speech at the end. They are both terrific speeches, and these are just a small fragments of them:
From the beginning of Brutus speech:
- – –
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar’s, to him I say, that Brutus’ love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
–Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men?
– – – Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
It is brilliantly structured, and the above parts show us how Brutus used all the tools in the box blended together.
And then comes Marc Anthony, kicking up a storm:
Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable:
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it: they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Just brilliant! Both have used underlying argumentations and figures such as the “syllogism” (rule of deduction) with major premise, minor premise and conclusion. The classic rhetoric maneuver, comparatio, is used to compare a bigger crime with a smaller crime. And so on, and so on. They both use the claims to trustworthy characters. And they both, though to different degrees, work the emotions of the audience.
In my workshops, we normally look at those speeches in greater length and stay here for a while, to analyze and conclude together. This, I will not do in the blog. I deem it too theoretical and boring to dwell here any longer now. I will however come back with more postings on the theoretical frameworks of Rhetorics. Bye for now and hope to see you again!
In my workshops, we normally look at those speeches in greater length and stay here for a while, to analyze and conclude together. This, I will not do in the blog. I deem it too theoretical and boring to dwell here any longer now. I will however come back with more postings on the theoretical frameworks of Rhetorics. Bye for now and hope to see you again!
Leave a Reply