Sppeches

It is certainly true that the value of great speeches is that they continue to speak to us. They are admired by responders over many years and have an ability to speak to us, hence stimulating many different responses as time goes by. This value is present in speeches such as “Among us you can dwell no longer” delivered by Cicero in 63 BC in the presence of a Roman Senate, Lincoln’s 186 “Gettysburg Address” orated during the Civil War and Keating’s 1993 “Funeral Service of the Unknown Soldier” given at the Australian War Memorial. Along with universal values of patriotism and loyalty despite difference in time and context, all three speeches are timeless and allow us responders to interpret them according to our context and ways of thinking. In Cicero’s oration he exposes Catiline to the Roman Senate and attacks him for attending the Senate’s meeting after being declared a public enemy. By doing this he calls the Senate to take action against Catiline’s conspiracy to murder Senators and destroy Rome. He portrays threat of Catiline to the Senators in an indignant tone presenting Catiline as an agent of evil. The plethora of rhetorical questions from the very start of the speech made Catiline appear inferior and started the speech off with a resentful tone. He alienates Catiline from everyone else further by using inclusive language and referring to Rome and himself as “we” or “us”, where as Catiline was referred to as “enemy to the public”, Cicero aims to unify the Senate to make them appear stronger against Catiline’s threat in order to persuade the Senate to believe him. He used repetition in referring to Catiline as wicked, the public enemy, a fear and the need of having Catiline executed, which assisted to re-iterate Cicero’s message about Catiline. Cicero also used specific details such as dates and the hostility to the republic and so on as a device to taunt and intimidate Catiline, as they are seen as evidence for Cicero’s claim. The speech was thus well received and Cicero’s heroic drove Catiline into exile, while the Senate dubbed him Rome’s saviour. Today, this speech is valued for its brilliant use of rhetoric and skilful construction. The speech’s structure is that of a classical Roman oratio, beginning with an exordium, continuing with evidence and concluding with the peroration which brings the climax in ‘eternal punishment’. The original audience – the Roman Senate would have valued Cicero’s speech for its use of these traditional oratory techniques, as well as rhetorical questions, and they would have understood the seriousness of his message, which is evident as Catiline was executed subsequent to the delivery of the speech. However, because this speech is timeless and continues to speak to us in present context, we can easily view it from today’s objective viewpoint and recognise hints of political self aggrandizement in Cicero’s references to his own actions, highlighted through personal pronouns “I strengthened”. Thus, Cicero continues to have as many interpretations as responders. Lincoln’s commemoration of the national soldier’s cemetery is for us a stepping stone from Cicero’s speech from long ago to today. Like Cicero’s speech, Lincoln’s speech also explores notions of identity and patriotism. Lincoln does this by embodying quotations from the Declaration of Independence ‘All men are created equal’, we see this as an American version of Cicero’s Roman patriotism. Lincoln targets the country’s lack of motivation and therefore appeals to their patriotism to unify and inspire the nation as well as honour and commemorate the Gettysburg dead. The speech’s structure, that of a Greek funerary oration, separated into three paragraphs deals with the past, present and future. In the first part, Lincoln makes reference to the Declaration of Independence, glorifying the birth of America, he moves onto the purpose of commemorating the dead, “we are engaged in a great civil war...” and lastly he looks to the future, a return to the freedom and liberty of the Declaration of Independence. This Greek funerary structure strengthens the religious ideals of martyrdom referred to in “gave their lives that this nation might live”. The epainesis praises the fallen soldiers and the parainesis exhorts the living not to forget the dead. This assisted in swaying the Christian audience, and later inspired Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream”. Edward Everett, the main speaker at Gettysburg praised Lincoln for his great speech, he wrote to him that “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near the central idea of the occasion in two hours, as you did in two minutes” that outlined his appreciation for the President’s brief yet moving speech. However, few critics believe that Lincoln’s speech can easily be received by pacifists as another world leader’s manipulation of the masses to promote war. It is easy for politicians, as talented orators to appeal to the patriotic and democratic values of the nation, to sell war as the only means of protecting these values and our way of life. Many communists would read this, in a Marxist discourse, as a simple demonstration of man’s lust for power and a good example of political manipulation. Either way, Lincoln’s speech is memorable and timeless, speaks to its responders as it is even carved into the Lincoln Memorial. It reminds us that references to national identity have remained continuous oratory from Cicero to Keating. Keating’s who made an address on Remembrance Day (11th November 1993) at the Funeral Service of the Unknown Soldier for all Australians who have suffered or died in the armed conflict. Similar to Lincoln, Keating was also commemorative of a soldier’s entombment and celebrates Australian pride in country. Also similar to Lincoln’s speech, Keating’s speech can easily be received by pacifists as a world leader’s manipulation of the masses to promote war. However, Keating tries to protect himself from such a reception, by stating that his intentions are not ‘to glorify war over peace’. Some pacifists may appreciate his admission that often one war will ‘sow the seeds of a second’ war and his portrayal of the brutality of war, as a means of advocating ‘a nation’s love of peace’. However, others could easily argue that contradictory to Keating’s speech, nothing is to be gained from war except for suffering and oppression. Keating continued the speech carefully, so he doesn’t glorify war, instead focusing on the ‘ordinary Australians’ who fought. His use of statistics in ’45, 000 Australians who died’ highlight war’s bloody, futile nature, an example of something the pacifists may appreciate in Keating’s speech. Keating effectively uses inclusive language such as “we”, “us”, “he is one of us” are used in order to make a bond with the audience; it creates a sense of unity in the audience. Further to this; Keating builds an image of the ordinary Australians who became heroes and this is reinforced by the repetitive, emphatic phrases used throughout the piece. He also builds a picture of an ordinary person who served his nation, thus invoking the audience’s patriotism as well. This speech was, and is, considered to be one of the greatest speeches delivered in Australia. This is mainly because it isn’t a triumphing speech and also because it recognises and commemorates the great contribution of Australians while still maintaining war as something that should be avoided in every circumstance. The three speeches by Cicero, Lincoln and Keating indicate that orations are timeless in their morals and therefore speak to us, may that be in different interpretations. This is due to their inclusion of values specific to their time and universal for all time: patriotism, loyalty and national identity.