In this paper I would like to focus on the very basic philological question of frequency and context of utterances in the first person singular and plural as well as the second person plural in the deliberative speeches of Demosthenes and the political writings of Isocrates imitating deliberative sp...
Furkejuvvon:
| Váldodahkki: | |
|---|---|
| Materiálatiipa: | Artihkal |
| Liŋkkat: | https://doaj.org/article/ff999ab28009493887fb7843ae420d44 |
| Fáddágilkorat: |
Lasit fáddágilkoriid
Eai fáddágilkorat, Lasit vuosttaš fáddágilkora!
|
| Čoahkkáigeassu: | In this paper I would like to focus on the very basic philological question of frequency and context of utterances in the first person singular and plural as well as the second person plural in the deliberative speeches of Demosthenes and the political writings of Isocrates imitating deliberative speech. In this genre of oratory self-presentation of a speaker and the way he constructs his relationship with the audience seem crucial for the effectiveness of persuasion. In this respect, it is interesting to notice differences between Demosthenes and Isocrates. Both clearly mark their own positions as opposed to opinions of the others and eagerly employ verbs in the first person singular (or personal pronouns ‘mine’, ‘my’), especially in the opening sections of speeches, but, when it comes to the analysis of past events, the deliberation of present condition or advice for the future, Demosthenes tends to speak in the second person plural standing literally and metaphorically versus the Athenians, while Isocrates chooses the first person plural as if he was trying to erase the division between himself and his audience.
This tendency might be explained by aesthetic preferences and individual dispositions of both orators, nevertheless I would like to argue that some less subjective reason could be taken into consideration. |
|---|