Antigone and Oedipus The King, written by Sophoclesare deeply tragic plays with a dramatic ending. In both plays, fate arises the question: Or were their lives cursed upon by determination?
Book I Part 1 Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.
Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.
Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have constructed but a small portion of that art. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: These writers, however, say nothing about enthymemes, which are the substance of rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with non-essentials.
The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case.
Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say.
All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. Again, a litigant has clearly nothing to do but to show that the alleged fact is so or is not so, that it has or has not happened.
As to whether a thing is important or unimportant, just or unjust, the judge must surely refuse to take his instructions from the litigants: Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges; and this for several reasons.
First, to find one man, or a few men, who are sensible persons and capable of legislating and administering justice is easier than to find a large number.
Next, laws are made after long consideration, whereas decisions in the courts are given at short notice, which makes it hard for those who try the case to satisfy the claims of justice and expediency. The weightiest reason of all is that the decision of the lawgiver is not particular but prospective and general, whereas members of the assembly and the jury find it their duty to decide on definite cases brought before them.
They will often have allowed themselves to be so much influenced by feelings of friendship or hatred or self-interest that they lose any clear vision of the truth and have their judgement obscured by considerations of personal pleasure or pain.
In general, then, the judge should, we say, be allowed to decide as few things as possible. But questions as to whether something has happened or has not happened, will be or will not be, is or is not, must of necessity be left to the judge, since the lawgiver cannot foresee them. The only question with which these writers here deal is how to put the judge into a given frame of mind.
Hence it comes that, although the same systematic principles apply to political as to forensic oratory, and although the former is a nobler business, and fitter for a citizen, than that which concerns the relations of private individuals, these authors say nothing about political oratory, but try, one and all, to write treatises on the way to plead in court.
The reason for this is that in political oratory there is less inducement to talk about nonessentials. Political oratory is less given to unscrupulous practices than forensic, because it treats of wider issues. In a political debate the man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own vital interests.
There is no need, therefore, to prove anything except that the facts are what the supporter of a measure maintains they are. In forensic oratory this is not enough; to conciliate the listener is what pays here.BECK index Roman Decadence Caligula Claudius Nero Seneca's Tragedies Seneca's Stoic Ethics Judean and Roman Wars Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian Oedipus the King: Free Will or Fate?
- Oedipus the King: Free Will or Fate. A common debate that still rages today is whether we as a species have free will or if some divine source, some call it fate, controls our destiny.
Antigone and Oedipus The King, written by Sophocles, are deeply tragic plays with a dramatic ending. In both plays, fate arises the question: could have Creon, Oedipus, Antigone, and the rest of the family, prevented the misfortunes, which fell upon them?
Antigone is a tragedy by Sophocles written in or before BC. Of the three Theban plays Antigone is the third in order of the events depicted in the plays, but it is the first that was written.
The play expands on the Theban legend that predates it, and it picks up where Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes ends. Part 1 We have now considered the materials to be used in supporting or opposing a political measure, in pronouncing eulogies or censures, and for prosecution and defence in the law courts.
We have considered the received opinions on which we may best base our arguments so as to convince our hearers-those opinions with which our . In Antigone by Sophocles, Antigone should have followed human law instead of following divine law by burying Polyneices.
After the exile of Oedipus, there was conflict between Polyneices and Eteocles, sons of Oedipus, over who would become king.