Senior teacher Zhaparova A.
Kazakh
National University, Kazakhstan
Forensic
eloquence
As it was once said by a French physicist, inventor,
mathematician, writer Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) «Eloquence is a painting of the
thoughts». A Scottish philosopher, historian, essayist, economist David Hume (1711-1776)
also expressed his attitude on eloquence saying that «Eloquence, at its highest
pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection, but addresses itself
entirely to the desires and affections, captivating the willing hearers, and
subduing their understanding». In accordance with an English cleric, writer and
collector Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832) «Eloquence is the language of
nature, and cannot be learned in the schools; but rhetoric is the creature of
art, which he who feels least will most excel in». The founder of Ancient
Rhetorical Science Aristotle emphasized 3 basic speech types: forensic,
deliberative, and praiseworthy (epideictic). Each kind of speech has quite
general, but individual aim. Such purpose for deliberative speech can be
advantage and harm, accusatory and justificative are for forensic one, for epideictic speech can be accolade
and reprobation. Today we will speak about forensic eloquence.
Currently there is much information of the given theme. John Goss
«Forensic eloquence: a treatise on the Theory and Practice of Oratory as
Exemplified in Great Speeches of Famous Orators, a Manual for Teachers,
Students and Public Speakers and for Use in High Schools and Colleges» (2008); Peter
Joseph Cooke «Forensic eloquence: Or, the Eloquence of the Bar. A practical
handbook for Barristers and Solicitors» (2012); Bayer Thora Ilin «Vico’s
Principles of Sensus Communis and Forensic Eloquence»; «Forensic Eloquence:
Sketches of Trials in Ireland for High Treson» by John Philpot Curran and lots
of others.
Let us look at some observations on juridical speech taken from
different sources. Judicial Rhetoric in
Ancient Greece and Rome
"Anyone reading the classical rhetorics soon discovers that the branch of
rhetoric that received the most attention was the judicial, the oratory of the courtroom. Litigations in court in
Greece and Rome were an extremely common experience for even the ordinary free
citizen--usually the male head of a household-and it was a rare citizen who did
not go to court at least a half a dozen times during the course of his adult
life. Moreover, the ordinary citizen was often expected to serve as his own
advocate before a judge or jury. The ordinary citizen did not possess the
comprehensive knowledge of the law and its technicalities that the professional
lawyer did, but it was greatly to his advantage to have a general knowledge of
the strategies of defense and prosecution. As a result the schools of rhetoric
did a flourishing business in training the layperson to defend himself in court
or to prosecute an offending neighbor." {1}. "Judicial rhetoric promotes justice and identifies injustice by
appealing to the law. 'Forensic speech accepts as given the laws of the polis,'
so the section on judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to adjust 'particular cases to general laws' (Aristotle's Rhetoric).
Aristotle addresses accusation and defense as well as the sources from which
their enthymemes should be drawn, investigating 'for what, and how many,
purposes people do wrong, how these persons are [mentally] disposed,' and 'what
kind of persons they wrong and what these people are like'. Because Aristotle
is interested in causation in order to explain wrong-doing, he finds enthymemes
particularly useful in judicial rhetoric." {2}. "Judicial rhetoric concerns only past
fact and the application of uncontentious moral principles, so that it affords
the ideal Aristotelian orator no grounds for uncertainty. But perhaps deliberative rhetoric, since it concerns future contingencies and the more or less
likely outcomes of alternative policies, is a better prospect for comparison
with dialectic." {3}. "In judicial
rhetoric, prosecutors often try to evoke assent to the truth of a
statement such as the following: 'John killed Mary.' That is, prosecutors try
to 'persuade' their audiences to agree with their representations of reality. Some form of resistance
to their arguments is implicit in their situations because opposing arguments
are expected from the defense. Aristotle emphasized the notion of dispute or debate inherent in judicial rhetoric: "In the law court there is either
accusation or defense; for it is necessary for the disputants to offer one or
the other of these" {4}.
Forensic (juridical) eloquence is oratorical speech of legal
proceedings participants in consideration process of legal case. On equal terms
with other sorts of public speaking, fundamental features of forensic eloquence
are official speech; being polemical; directedness towards court; previous
conditionality (hearing, review of a case in court); concluding trait of
juridical speech; A public prosecutor (to accuse) and a counsel for the defense
give a speech in the court. As a rule, public, prosecutor’s (incriminating) and
advocatory (defensive) speech can be distinguished here. Sometimes a prosecutor
for the community, a civil claimant and a civil defendant (or their
representatives), complainants and his representative, at last – the accused,
his counsel for the defense can be his close relatives, tutors or guardians take
part in legal controversy. Forensic (juridical) eloquence’s purpose is lighting
up social point of view regarding to committed crime and the accused. Only
public prosecutor and advocate have a right to suggest legal penalty or express
opinion on the defendant’s guiltlessness; others just specify details, which
can helpful in impartially describe case condition. Forensic speech must
effectively make an influence on a court, assist to judges’ and present
citizens’ persuasion formation in a court room. Replicas play an important role
during case consideration. They attract attention to incongruity and reality
distortion, which possibly be met in speech of one or another pleadings
participants.
A significant moment of each
juridical speech is its moral assumption. Immoral court of justice is radically
inadmissible, equally as subjective case interpretation or preconception of
legal person vis-à-vis to the criminal. According to well-known lawyer
A.Kony, characteristic features of social accuser should be calmness, personal
irritation absence against the accused, reasonableness of accusation methods,
lacking in passion impulses and contortion of the case data. In his view, it is
vital to avoid play-acting, in voice, gestures and movement manner, any
tendentiousness or outspoken attitude to a person on the court. The argument
system based on strict logic must correspond to moral court pathos.
Literature:
1. Edward P.J. Corbett
and Robert J. Connors, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 4th
ed. Oxford Univ. Press, 1999
2. Wendy Olmsted, Rhetoric:
An Historical Introduction. Blackwell, 2006
3. Robert Wardy,
"Mighty Is the Truth and It Shall Prevail?" Essays on Aristotle's
Rhetoric, ed. by Amélie Oksenberg Rorty. Univ. of California Press, 1996
4. Merrill Whitburn, Rhetorical
Scope and Performance. Ablex, 2000