Among the major theories of oratorical persuasion are the ‘argumentative reasoning’ and ‘sophist’ styles. The sophistic style originated in ancient Greece and is pragmatic in the sense that its followers believe that the ‘ends justify the means’ in terms of persuasive tactics. In other words, sophists have little or no regard to ethical implications as they apply their persuasive arts. An example of the sophistic method can be found in the advertisements for cigarettes from the 1950’s and early‘60’s. In both print and television ads, the advertisers strongly implied (by using attractive imagery and/or ‘catchy’ phrases or jingles) how smoking brand ‘x’ cigarettes would make one sophisticated, cool—yet they failed to mention (or ‘played down’ by using fine print, for instance) the fact that smoking any cigarette could also cause one to develop emphysema and various forms of cancer. The sophistic speaker makes the negative (or the worse) of alternatives or choices appear to be the better.
Argumentative reasoning (or reasoning by analogy) basically consists of a description and/or examination of an issue, stance or item—followed by a comparison to a model of an analogous or symbolic one (185). Larson states, “We also frequently see argument by comparison in advertising, with competing products compared in terms of cost, effectiveness, safety and so on…(185). In what follows, I will explicate the classic speeches of Shakespeare’s Brutus and Mark Antony (Julius Caesar) in an attempt to demonstrate both the sophistic and argumentative reasoning styles of persuasion.
Firstly, the speech by Brutus is quick, rather simplified and to the point. Brutus suggests that Caesar became ‘ambitious’ and therefore, had to be killed. Although his oratory is much-less wordy than that of Antony, he does offer a reasoned argument, as when he asks, “Have you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” (3. 2). Knowing the context of his argument—that of the possibility that the Senate could declare Caesar king thus effectively putting an end to the Roman Republic—offers weight to Brutus’ defense of Caesar’s murder. Another example of Brutus’ use of reason are the steps of logic he displays when he says (effectively) if you love Rome, then I have not offended you (by murdering Caesar) because I did it out of love for Rome..His argument here utilizes both pathos and logos. In still a further statement of reason (and again infused with pathos) Brutus assures the crowd that he has the dagger ready to kill himself—if the good of Rome should call for it. Brutus uses the expenditure of his own life (thereby comparing the lesser-value of individual life to the greater value of Rome in general) Also, his audience can assume that Brutus does place some value on his own life—therefore there may be little (or no question) that he did, indeed, love Caesar—and—consequently–did have strong reasons for murdering him. Brutus argues that personal life (although individually valuable) should/must be sacrificed (if need be) for the good of Rome. Again, it is the ‘bigger picture’ of a safe, successful Roman Republic that is important to Brutus—and it is to that end that the small, personal nuances of the individual–its passions, its loves—its very existence—are to be surrendered. Brutus wins his audience—but he fails to keep them. His mistake was in his assumption that the crowd would stay with him—therefore, he did not need to work too hard (or too long) at maintaining his position. He would have been better served had he heeded Cassius’ earlier warning.
In contrast, Mark Antony’s speech exhibits much more of a sophistic style. His oratory–despite of his protestation to the contrary (“I’m no orator…” 3. 2)—is much more artful and cunning than that of Brutus. The manner in which Antony ‘works the crowd,’ so to speak, is like that of a skillful, seasoned politician or a fisherman who casts, plays and eventually—successfully–reels in his catch. Antony’s speech is much longer than Brutus’—and is also that much more effective. Initially, Antony says, “I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” (3.2). The statement is not true: Antony came to praise Caesar, fault Brutus, Cassius, etc. and to incite the crowd into taking action. Further, Antony claims that he speaks not to disprove what Brutus has said; once again, however, this is not true—disproving Brutus is exactly his intent.
