Parliament, often compared by Tudor writers to the Greek Areopagus and Roman Senate, provides an ideal locus of investigation, since the speeches delivered there were categorically civic in nature and regularly addressed the traditional subjects of classical deliberative oratory. Yet close analyses of speeches from Elizabeth I's 1566 session reveal that the common Renaissance images of the orator are unsuitable for characterizing the expressions of civic voice exhibited in actual public speaking, just as the classical codification of civic speech provides an insufficient hermeneutic tool for understanding the rhetorical purposes of orations delivered in Tudor institutions. Parliamentary orators did not see the revived classical rhetoric as the only, or even the primary, tool for composing orations in civic venues, but rather drew significantly upon institutional customs, procedural gestures, and alternative language arts, such as dialectic and sermonic prophesying, in order to establish finely nuanced stances within the rhetorical situation.no regard paid to pleasure at all (in Diagram 1). Under the branch of honor, by contrast, readers are presented a rather full treatment of the four cardinal virtues. One might note as well that the worldlier branch under honor, the praiseworthyanbsp;...
|Title||:||Civic Voice in Elizabethan Parliamentary Oratory: The Rhetoric and Composition of Speeches Delivered at Westminster in 1566|
|Author||:||Daniel Edward Seward|
|Publisher||:||ProQuest - 2008|