Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Ethopoiia and Character-Assassination in the Conon of Demosthenes

Ethopoiia and Character-Assassination in the Conon of Demosthenes ETHOPOIIA AND CHARACTER-ASSASSINATION IN THE CONON OF DEMOSTHENES BY MARK P. O. MORFORD Ariston's case against Conon rests largely on his account of events before the night of the fight and on the narrative of the fight itself (3-12). The crucial part of his argument is the passage anticipating Conon's version of the facts (30-33) and discrediting Conon's expected witnesses (34-37). He returns to the fight at the start of the peroration (41), and the closing words of the speech (44) hammer away on the theme of with which the speech had opened 1). Undisputed facts were that there was a fight in which at least Ariston and Conon's son, Ctesias, were involved; that Ariston got the worst of it; and that Conon was present. Disputed are the questions of who started the fight and of the extent of Conon's involvement. Ariston's aim is to convince the jury that Conon was guilty in two ways: of a crime of omission in not disciplining his son; of a crime of commission in taking part in the fight 2). The narrative is remarkable for its use of ethopoiia, an important part of the technique of persuasion 3). Ariston presents himself http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mnemosyne Brill

Ethopoiia and Character-Assassination in the Conon of Demosthenes

Morford, Mark P.O.
Mnemosyne , Volume 19 (3): 241 – Jan 1, 1966
Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/ethopoiia-and-character-assassination-in-the-conon-of-demosthenes-iYMKABFNQx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1966 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0026-7074
eISSN
1568-525X
DOI
10.1163/156852566X01393
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ETHOPOIIA AND CHARACTER-ASSASSINATION IN THE CONON OF DEMOSTHENES BY MARK P. O. MORFORD Ariston's case against Conon rests largely on his account of events before the night of the fight and on the narrative of the fight itself (3-12). The crucial part of his argument is the passage anticipating Conon's version of the facts (30-33) and discrediting Conon's expected witnesses (34-37). He returns to the fight at the start of the peroration (41), and the closing words of the speech (44) hammer away on the theme of with which the speech had opened 1). Undisputed facts were that there was a fight in which at least Ariston and Conon's son, Ctesias, were involved; that Ariston got the worst of it; and that Conon was present. Disputed are the questions of who started the fight and of the extent of Conon's involvement. Ariston's aim is to convince the jury that Conon was guilty in two ways: of a crime of omission in not disciplining his son; of a crime of commission in taking part in the fight 2). The narrative is remarkable for its use of ethopoiia, an important part of the technique of persuasion 3). Ariston presents himself

Journal

Mnemosyne – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1966

There are no references for this article.