Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I mean, have you read the ancient speeches that inspire these? Lendon (2017) memorably describes most literary examples as "cold, unbuttered toast."
I'm not sure that's fair to the genre (Lendon is speaking only of Appian there, as I recall?). Lendon concedes the genre is fundamentally tethered to actual delivery, even if the speeches themselves are inventions....
...I'd suggest that the purpose of those speeches is suited to their conventional, somewhat boring delivery. Civilian rhetoric was meant (as Cicero says, over and over) to stir the emotions. Whereas I think the ancient battle speech is meant more to calm them.
The basic structure of "here is why the enemy is scary, here is why we can still win, here is why we must win" is a pretty effective way to calm terror. There's elements of CBT in it (validate the feeling, present a more helpful mode of behavior, explain its value).
No, he's speaking generally, though he seems to draw mostly on writings from the Roman era. He also refers to many of these speeches as "painfully similar" and stresses the extreme limitations of the genre.
"Compare the speeches Lucan writes...to the cold, unbuttered toast that Appian serves up for the same speeches" (151). The quip looks to be for Appian alone, even if it fits into a general discussion of flatness in the speeches.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
