Techniques in Persuasion from Antiquity(thecollector.com)
thecollector.com
Techniques in Persuasion from Antiquity
https://www.thecollector.com/persuasive-technques-antiquity/
15 comments
I was shocked at how bad Cicero’s spittle-flecked rants against Catiline were when I first read them. If I needed any more confidence that he made most of the conspiracy up, him raging about deep-state pedophiles in the manner of modern Tea Party firebrands would be it. I guess it worked for a time.
Demosthenes’ speeches seem rather dull in translation (I’m sure I’d appreciate them more if I had any talent for Attic Greek), and if we’re honest they had little effect on Athenian fortunes until the Lamian War finally exhausted Macedon’s patience. But it’s definitely worth reading him alongside Aeschines for their lifelong rap battle.
Demosthenes’ speeches seem rather dull in translation (I’m sure I’d appreciate them more if I had any talent for Attic Greek), and if we’re honest they had little effect on Athenian fortunes until the Lamian War finally exhausted Macedon’s patience. But it’s definitely worth reading him alongside Aeschines for their lifelong rap battle.
Yes, these techniques in persuasion are quite primitive all things considered. They had nothing comparable to the modern effectiveness of PowerPoint slides.
They were meant to be heard, not read :)
Also, some effect is lost in the translation as well.
Cicero's letters were meant to be read, I suggest you try them. They kind of feel monotonous at times, but it's hard to ignore how good a writer he was.
Also, some effect is lost in the translation as well.
Cicero's letters were meant to be read, I suggest you try them. They kind of feel monotonous at times, but it's hard to ignore how good a writer he was.
Oh I've read all of Cicero, I find him fascinating. He's the most online person I've come across in antiquity - the exact combination of haughtiness and crippling anxiety you see daily on Twitter. I find him equal parts contemptible and pitiable, similar to Pompey in some ways. But however effective some of his speeches were, a lot of the content was unhinged invective.
Obviously we're missing a lot of Demosthenes and Aeschines too - the former's physical gestures, the latter's actorly delivery. You can kind of feel the way Demosthenes hammers his point home, the monotony has a point. It's just surprising when you first come across it - this is the purported height of oratory, and instead of soaring, it's incredibly functional.
Obviously we're missing a lot of Demosthenes and Aeschines too - the former's physical gestures, the latter's actorly delivery. You can kind of feel the way Demosthenes hammers his point home, the monotony has a point. It's just surprising when you first come across it - this is the purported height of oratory, and instead of soaring, it's incredibly functional.
A bit strange to see an article anbout this not mentioning Quintilian (ca. 35 - ca. 96), who wrote the most famous rhetoric textbook of Antiquity (if not of all time): "Institutio Oratoria". An English translation is for example vailable here: https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/stasis/2017/honeycutt/quin...
I feel like these concepts don't go well together in a single list. There's a big leap from "using logic" to using repetition, e.g., "of the people, by the people, for the people."
repeating something you want to emphasize seems like a logical choice to me, quite logical in fact.
The difference is whether you are appealing to the listener's logical faculties. Reasoning with someone feels somehow more respectful and authentic than pulling linguistic tricks to bypass their psychological barriers.
Sure, but being respectful isn't a goal. The goal is to get the other person to agree with you. If the facts are on your side, that's great, but sometimes they aren't, and sometimes you can't make a persuasive case based on the facts even though they are on your side.
I guess I was trying to elucidate the uncomfortable feeling that OP had about "Logos" being lumped in with the rest. I'd say that it's worth weighing up on a case-by-case basis whether the need to persuade overrides the value of respect for others.
> I'd say that it's worth weighing up on a case-by-case basis whether the need to persuade overrides the value of respect for others.
In general, sure. But a manual on how to be persuasive doesn't seem like the place to do that weighing.
In general, sure. But a manual on how to be persuasive doesn't seem like the place to do that weighing.
[deleted]
We have a recent coinage, "truthiness", but the ancient rhetoricians already understood the concept well...
[deleted]
I'd also differentiate that from sales persuasion, or salary negotiation, among others, which is also a great skill but not the life-or-death, make-it-or-break-it moment when you need to out-argument a large room where each misstep may mean +/- X million bucks. The big leap of faith most investor or acquirers take into your business cannot be dealt with just plain excitement and the usual shenanigans, and ideally should, at least, be practiced beforehand and be well prepared. I've seen and suffered so much: enticing gifts as openers, missing decision-makers at key moments, delays, lawyers thrown in out of nowhere, the "higher authority" tactic, Socratic stances... Some people definitely flourish at the negotiation table. I don't.