Oratorical manipulation and critical reading: a study of the proem of Lysias's against Eratosthenes.
The task of the writer is to construct a text which will most effectively coerce the reader into accepting the constructed text.... Clearly the best reader will be a critical, resistant reader, one who both sees the constructedness of the text and of the reading position and who can at the same time reconstruct the text in a manner useful to herself or himself. Hence the aim of the teaching of reading in school should be just that: to train effective readers who are active in relation to the text, able to construct the text to their benefit. Paradoxically, reading in school positively counteracts the engendering of such modes of reading. (40)
In the present paper I would like both to explore how this counterproductive influence of educational practices can extend to the university, as evidenced by scholarly publications addressed mainly to the university student, and to suggest a particular alternative approach that allows the student to engage actively with the text in reconstructing its meaning, namely its analysis through the tools developed by the school of linguistics known as Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). (1)
The texts in reference to which I will try to tackle this question is the proem of Speech 12 by Lysias entitled Against Eratosthenes, (2) a very authoritative piece of oratory that has attracted critical admiration for over two thousand years; and its commentary by Usher, (3) a much respected piece of scholarship that always finds its way to the reading lists of students of Greek Oratory throughout the world.
Before presenting the text itself, I will introduce the historical context within which it was produced. The presentation of the text itself tries to accommodate the reader without knowledge of Greek by offering interlinearly two English translations, one that follows closely the grammar of the Greek text, and another in more easily comprehensible English. Given that neither of these translations has literary aspirations, and as a stimulus to the reader to explore alternative ways of understanding the text, the two most widely used English translations are quoted in the Appendix. The following section examines the reasons which make Usher's commentary on the text, although impeccable as scholarship, unsuitable for a course that envisages engaging students in an active exploration of the meanings of the text. This introductory part concludes with an explanation of the linguistic tools made available by SFL. The main part of the paper is devoted to an application of the tools to the text, and my interpretation of the data gathered.
1.1. The Historical Setting
The Peloponnesian war, which started in 431 B.C. and was fought by Athens and its allies and Sparta and its allies, ended in April 404 B.C. with the defeat of Athens. One of the terms imposed on Athens was the abolition of democracy and its substitution by a regime headed by the Thirty Tyrants (usually referred to as "the Thirty"). Under this regime political rights were reserved only for five hundred persons (as opposed to, under democracy, every male born to an Athenian man and an Athenian woman) and the right to bear arms and to receive a jury trial was available to only three thousand persons (as opposed to every free person living in Athens). The Thirty remained in power less than a year; however, even in this short period they executed without trial hundreds of Athenian residents and forced thousands into exile. Among their victims were Lysias and his brother Polemarchos, members of a wealthy family of resident aliens in Athens. Lysias was arrested and would probably have been executed had he not succeeded in escaping. However, his brother did not succeed in escaping summary execution. During his time in exile, Lysias provided the democrats in exile with generous financial assistance, and after the restoration of democracy in 403 B.C. he was awarded Athenian citizenship in recognition for his services to democracy, an award that was revoked a few months later on technical grounds. Nevertheless, the time he had full citizen rights was enough for him to conduct in his own person the prosecution of Eratosthenes, a member of the Thirty that carried out the arrest of Polemarchos. The speech of prosecution presented in that trial (Lysias, Speech 12, Against Eratosthenes) is regularly credited with having an extremely significant impact on the forensic rhetoric of its time. (4)
1.2. The Text
The part of Lysias 12 to be examined in this paper is the proem, i.e., the prologue, of the speech. Regarding the proems of forensic speeches Aristotle notes that they
produce the same kind of effect as the dramatic prologues and the epic exordia ... they provide a sample of the speech, so that the hearers may know in advance what the speech is about ... Other forms of the proem help to remove or create prejudice ... to secure the hearer's good will ... [and] to engage the hearer's attention or the opposite. (Rhetoric 1415a5-7)
1.3. The Commentary
The commentary is a long established genre in the domain of Classical scholarship being a descendant of the scholia (6) of antiquity. A commentary usually accompanies an edition of the text of manuscripts, or of a translation into a modern language, or as is the case with the commentary by Usher, a bilingual edition, and it is preceded by a general introduction to the author and work in question. The content of the commentaries themselves can be extremely variable, but in general they tend to reflect the teaching experience of their respective authors, i.e., they concentrate on issues that they have empirically found to trouble their students, or to have been missed by their students. (7) The form that the individual comments take is similar to that of a dictionary in that several words from the text are given as the Head of an entry and followed by the comment itself. Since the comments of Usher on Lysias 12.1-3 are short they can be quoted here in full: (8)
1-3 PROOEMIUM: Though full of conventional topics, these opening chapters point firmly towards the general political attack into which the speech is to evolve There is no summary of the specific charges against the defendant.
1 difficulty.... size and number: a subtle blend and adaptation of two topics assigned to prooemia by the handbooks. For the latter, see 10.1n.: there witnesses are said to be numerous, here crimes (see their crimes (below)). Difficulty is more commonly represented as due to the problems inherent in the case or created by an opponent's behaviour (as in Lys.7 Sac.01. 2 and Lys.19 Arist.). See also Cic.Pro Lege Manilia, 3. their crimes: Eratosthenes is being tried for only one crime, and is the sole defendant. Neither he nor his crime is mentioned in the prooemium (contrast 1.4). But reference to a plurality of crimes and wrongdoers at this early stage establishes the broad front on which the attack is to be conducted. time run out: this was measured by the water-clock (klepsudra)([Arist.] Ath.Po1.67.2 and Rhodes ad. loc. (719-721)).
2 opposite ... former times ... enemies: enmity was one of the motives considered in private cases (Ant.5 Wer.57-8; Lys.l Caed..Erat.4,43; Lys.31 Phi1.2). Lysias thus establishes the picture of the state's enemies in the dock.
today ... enemies of the state: an artificial inversion, since defendants would be concerned primarily with proving their innocence; but historically interesting because it underlines the political character of trials following the removal of the Thirty.
private grievance: Lysias makes this minimum concession to the practical need of specifying the subject of the trial.
3 inexperience: as both speechwriter and speaker, Lysias invests this commonplace (cf.Ant.5 Her.1 (and n.);Lys.19 Arist. 2; And.1 Myst.1, lsoc.15 Ant.26; Is.10 Arist.1; [Dem.] 58 Theok.3) with double significance: for clients, the anxiety they expressed concerned only their ability to present the speech effectively. If this was Lysias' first speech, then Speech 20 in the corpus, Against Polystratus, must be spurious. (Edwards and Usher 237).
The comments as a whole are marvelous in linking the particular text with the genre of forensic oratory as practiced in Classical Athens. This purpose is served by the many references both to the conventions and to the way Lysias conforms or departs from these conventions. The student is also given valuable opportunities for hypertextual reading through the references to other oratorical works, which if they are consulted with the help of a similar commentary will open up new links for study. To this extent, commentaries of this style perform an admirable function.
However, the student is not well served with regard to the question of what Lysias accomplishes in this section of his speech, and of how the proems of other speeches can be approached with a view to reconstruct the position into which these texts try to coerce their hearers. Sure enough, Usher mentions the political colour of the speech (under 1-3 PROOEMIUM, 1 their crimes, 2 opposite ..., and today...). Yet, he never makes clear how these entries are connected with each other, if indeed they are; nor does he explain whether the simple mention of a plurality of defendants and of the phrase "enemies of the state" (9) are enough by themselves to "point firmly towards the general political attack into which the speech will evolve"; nor whether the "artificial inversion" contributes to the speech, apart from providing us evidence regarding the atmosphere prevailing in Athens after the restoration of democracy. Furthermore, what about the private grievance and the inexperience: are they too part of the broad political attack or, as one might assume from the relevant entries under 2 and 3, are they separate strands within the proem; and if the latter, do they affect the political attack or not, and why? No answers to these questions are provided, nor any pointers to the answers, nor indeed any clues that these questions exist. Students are invited to limit themselves to what the author of the commentary considers important, and move forward without much additional reflection.
1.4. The Tool
The preoccupations characterizing Usher's commentary (overemphasizing hypertextual reading of similar topics, while at the same time underprivileging the importance of the topic for the present text) is a malady of all work that attempts to read meanings without paying close attention to the language used in a text, or that thinks that it can pay close attention to language without a grammar, since as Halliday makes clear: "A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one. But meanings are realized through wordings; and without a theory of wordings-that is, a grammar-there is no way of making explicit one's interpretation of the meaning of a text" (Introduction xvii). Unfortunately, grammar, the way it is often taught, and the way it is researched by some schools of linguistics, does not seem particularly well suited for elucidating meanings. So, for example, should I produce here a table of statistics detailing how many of the verbs in Lysias are copulas, how many are common verbs, and how many belong to the class of verbs which takes a "that-clause" as its complement, I am going to produce evidence of painstaking work, but I am not going to make any contribution whatsoever to the meanings of Lysias's discourse as long as I am not able to couple these grammatical differences with differences in meaning, and do so in a principled and systematic way. Fortunately, there are also ways of teaching and researching grammar that enable one to do so, and encouragingly the influence of these functional schools of linguistics keeps increasing.
The particular school of linguistics I subscribe to, Systemic Functional Linguistics, understands language as performing three functions: construing human experience, enacting social relationships, and constructing text. (10) As a consequence of these functions that language performs SFL considers that the lexicogrammar of every language is internally organized around three metafunctions: the Experiential, the Interpersonal and the Textual metafunction. The way these metafunctions work, and the way an understanding of them can empower one's reading of a text can be illustrated by examining the quotation from Kress opening this paper. Kress's first clause ("The task of the writer is to construct a text which will most effectively coerce the reader into accepting the constructed text") could have been re-phrased in several ways, all of them being equally acceptable as "correct English." For example, consider the following rephrasing:
1. The construction of a text which will most effectively coerce the reader into accepting the constructed text is the task facing the writer.
Often this kind of variation is considered as a "mere stylistic variation." However, SFL theorists and practitioners point out that there is an important semantic difference between these two versions. This difference can be exposed by considering these clauses as an answer to an implied question. Kress's original version would be an answer to the question "What is the task of the writer?" ("The task of the writer is ..."), while the re-phrased version would be more appropriate as an answer to the question "What is the construction of an effectively coercive text?" Obviously, the original version would be inappropriate as an answer to the latter question, and the re-phrased version would be an inappropriate answer to the first question. The reason for this, according to SFL, is that the Textual metafunction organizes each clause as a message into a structure that facilitates the exchange of information by separating each clause into two parts the Theme (i.e., what the clause is about, what its starting point is) and the Rheme (i.e., the main body of the message). The way this division is effected in languages like English and Greek is by word order: the first word group is the Theme of the clause, and the remainder is the Rheme.
The importance of Theme selection by a writer is not simply local; on the contrary, paying close attention to the individual Theme selections in a text, one can understand the Thematic Development of a text, i.e., the points of concern around which a text is organized. Returning to the text by Kress, we notice that after "the task of the writer" the Themes of the next few clauses are first the reader ("Clearly the best reader," "one who," "and who") and then reading in school ("Hence the aim of the teaching of reading in school," "Paradoxically, reading in school") Thus, Kress constructs a text that moves through three successive steps (writer-reader-teaching reading). Within this text any individual change of Thematic choice would not really be ungrammatical, but would be awkward because it would destroy the pattern of information distribution that Kress has chosen for his text; while a systematic and wholesale change of Themes would create a different text construing different meanings from the ones Kress has chosen.
A second task accomplished by the Textual metafunction is to create links between elements inside the clauses making up a text by means of Reference, Repetition and Ellipsis. (11) The text by Kress can again supply us with illustrative examples. The second sentence starts by repeating and modifying the word "reader" ("the best reader") that first appeared in the first clause unmodified ("coerce the reader"), this modified repetition creates a developing textual history of the concept "reader" ("any reader" becomes "best reader," a subset of the original concept) and this sense of development links the two sentences into a single text. As the sentence moves to its second and then third clause the "reader" is picked up again but this time by means of Reference ("one who," "who"), items which by themselves are lexically empty and only acquire lexical meaning by referring to other items in the text (here "resistant reader"); but forcing the consumer of a text to recover the identity of an item by reference to another clause effects a link between the clauses and integrates them as part of a text. This particular text does not offer a good example of Ellipsis but an example can easily be supplied by short texts such as "John came in and looked around." Here the subject of the second clause is in Ellipsis and it can only be recovered through consideration of the preceding clause, an action which again integrates the two clauses into a single text. (12)
This operation of the Textual metafunction has as a result the creation of Cohesive Chains within a text, which show the elements that persist through a text. So, for example, in the text by Kress the "writer" does not enter into any Cohesive Chain and is very much jettisoned after setting the text in motion. By contrast the "reader" forms the longest Cohesive Chain, with items occurring from the first to the penultimate clause, while a second more limited Chain is formed near the end of the passage concerning "reading." Further exploration both of the way the Chains are formed and the interaction between different Chains in a text can considerably elucidate the strategy one uses to construct one's text.
There are more ways to re-phrase Kress's opening clause; for example, it could also have been written as follows:
2. The writer constructs a text which will most effectively coerce the reader into accepting the constructed text.
The difference between the version offered here and the original lies in the way reality is represented. In particular, Kress's original text construes reality as an action of classification which assigns a specific entity ("the task of the writer") to a specific class (construction of an effectively coercive text). In contrast, the re-written version represents an action of doing by an entity ("the writer") which results into the creation of another entity ("a text which ...").
The contrast between these two versions illustrates the operation of the Experiential metafunction in the grammar of a language. The task of the Experiential metafunction is to help language parcel the "goings-on" that make up our experience of the world into units manageable enough to become messages. This is done by representing them as Processes in which some direct Participants are involved under attendant Circumstances. Grammar distinguishes three main Process Types: Material Processes (processes of our outer experience, i.e., doings and happenings), Mental Processes (processes of our inner experience, i.e., perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc.) and Relational Processes (processes of classification, i.e., being). (13) A number of minor Process Types also appear on the borderlines between the three main types, but for our purposes here we will limit the discussion to the Verbal Processes (processes of saying, lying on the borderline between Mental and Relational processes). Each of these Process Types represents a distinct semantic configuration. In a Material Process the direct Participants are the Actor (the doer) and the Goal (the thing affected by the action of the Actor). Mental Processes are configured with a Senser and a Phenomenon. (14) Relational Processes configure a Classified in relation to a Classifier that expresses the class-membership or identity of the Classified. Finally the central role in Verbal Processes is occupied by the Sayer. It should be emphasized that, as illustrated by the rewriting of Kress's clause, what happens in the real world (or more precisely, what we think happens in the real world) does not dictate the way a language will construe it. So, on the one hand, there often is great discrepancy between the way different languages usually construe the "same" experience (for example "I am bored" is a Relational Process in English, its translation in Greek is a Mental Process). More importantly, as is shown by the re-phrasing of Kress's clause, even within the same language there is enough indeterminacy to allow the expression of the same piece of experience by means of different Process Types. The fact that language has the ability of construing different "realities" out of what might objectively be characterized as the very same situation/event (for example, the occurrence of a sensation of pain in one's head can be expressed in several different ways: "my head hurts me"; "I have a headache"; "I feel a pain in my head") (15) makes it extremely important, indeed an essential first step towards the interpretation of a text, to examine it carefully with a view to determine the choices made by its writer.
However, there are still more ways to rewrite Kress's initial clause:
3a. The duty of the writer, one may claim, is to construct a text which will coerce the reader into accepting the constructed text ...
3b. Is the duty of the writer ...?
3c As a writer, you should construct a text which ...
The difference between this set of clauses and the original one is accounted by reference to the Interpersonal metafunction, i.e., the part of the grammar which is concerned with organizing language in such a way as to enable it to enact social relationships, to influence the behaviour of others, and to express one's own viewpoint on things in the world. So, for example, in 3c the speaker casts himself in the role of a decider and his addressee into that of a performer of an action; in 3a, again the speaker adopts the role of a knower, and in 3b the diametrically opposite role of an inquirer. However, for the purposes of this paper, the important part of the interpersonal component is that which enables the expression of viewpoints, known as the Appraisal System, and whose operation accounts for the difference between 3a and Kress's original clause.
According to White the Appraisal System covers "all evaluative uses of language, including those by which speakers/writers adopt particular value positions or stances and by which they negotiate these stances with either actual or potential respondents" ("Appraisal: An Overview"). So 3a, for example, differs from the original in that it assumes that the writer is under an obligation ("duty" vs. "task") to produce a particular kind of text; but while the original both expresses Kress's Attitude towards the kind of text ("effective") and Amplifies this appraisal ("most," which could contrast with, among others, "adequately"), 3a does not attempt to value the text. The network of choices made available by the systems of Attitude and Amplification are presented in Figure 1.
3a differs from the original in one more significant way from Kress's original text: the parenthetical phrase "one may claim." This inclusion presents the writer of 3a as acknowledging the possible existence of alternative opinions and at the same time distances him from these other positions (one could also adopt these alternatives by using instead of this phrase something like "undoubtedly"); in contrast, the original text prefers to ignore the existence of other views altogether. The modeling of this sub-system of Appraisal, Engagement,
is informed by Bakhtin's now widely influential notion of dialogism and heteroglossia under which all verbal communication, whether written or spoken, is 'dialogic' in that to speak or write is always to refer to, or to take up in some way, what has been said/written before, and simultaneously to anticipate the responses of actual, potential or imagined readers/listeners. (White, Appraisal and the Resources 1)
The basic opposition is between a Monogloss position (which does not take into account any other possible positions) and a Heterogloss position (which admits the possibility of other voices). The Heterogloss position is further subdivided, depending on the amount of Expansion or Contraction of the dialogistic space, a position of maximal Expansion being adopted when a proposition is Entertained, (16) and one of maximal Contraction when a proposition is Denied. (17) The Engagement sub-system is fully presented in Figure 2.
Concluding the presentation of the Appraisal systems of the Interpersonal metafunction, I would like to stress their importance for the interpretation of a piece of writing. They allow one not only to present an account of what kind of evaluations are presented in the text and how they are positioned dialogistically, but also to contrast them with other possible (but not chosen) choices.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
2. Analyzing the Text
In applying a linguistic analysis to a text the point of interest is not so much the individual choices made by a speaker/writer locally, but rather how each of the choices made contributes to the meaning of the text as a whole; in other words, the focus is not on what grammatical patterns appear in each individual clause, but on how these patterns pattern in the text as a whole. Consequently, a simple listing of the choices would be inadequate. A second step of interpreting the choices is required. The following few sub-sections will present and interpret the choices made in Lysias 12.1-3 with regard to each of the metafunctions. As the discussion progresses, it will occasionally synthesize the joint contributions made by distinct metafunctions; however, a systematic synthesis of the presentation will not be attempted before the next section.
2.1 Textual Analysis Thematic Organization
Thematically paragraph 1 is organized around the experiential content of "prosecution," initially the two terminal points of a prosecution and then passing into its content (the crimes of the defendants), the possible attitudes of a prosecutor and the constraints on him. While the paradoxical situation of clauses l-2 is expressed in the Rheme, it is also picked up in the Themes of 4-5 by means of the negation "neither ... nor."
Paragraph 2 is primarily organized around another "abnormality" of the present case in comparison to past ones, and secondarily around the concept of enmity between the contestants in a trial. Clauses 13 and 15, Rhematically very similar to each other, are marked by the first appearance of Lysias in Thematic position (13) and his parallelism to "everyone," a rhetorical maneuver that integrates Lysias with every Athenian citizen.
In marked contrast with the previous two paragraphs, in paragraph 3 Lysias allows himself to appear as the entity around which his discourse is organized, either explicitly or through reference to his inexperience. Although a study of the Thematic structures in itself cannot suggest reasons to explain either why this choice is made at this point rather than earlier, or why it is made at all, nevertheless it highlights the fact that an answer should be sought.
Paragraph 1 is held together rather densely by four interacting chains: (18) Lysias, accusation, the actions of the Thirty, and the Thirty. Nevertheless, it is important that the first chain presents a complication as a result of Lysias's manipulation of the possibilities provided in Greek by the resource of ellipsis. In clauses 4 and 5 Lysias does not explicitly mention the subject of the clauses. This is normally no problem and the subject can easily be supplied by the context, usually anaphorically, i.e., with reference to the preceding text. Should that be the case in the present text too, then the subject of these two clauses should be understood as "l," i.e., Lysias. (19) However, in certain cases the ellipsis works cataphorically, i.e., it gets resolved by reference to the text that follows; and the present passage with the strong coordination of clauses 4, 5 and 6 provides one with enough evidence to claim that this is the case here, (20) and the subject is the same as in clause 6, i.e., the prosecutor. Despite the fact that a translator into English (and many other languages) is forced to choose one of the two possibilities, the fact remains that in Greek the identity of the subject of clauses 4 and 5 remains vague. Yet, this vagueness is instrumental for the purposes of Lysias here, since it allows him to take the first step towards diminishing his own personal involvement in this case, and to allow himself to blend with the people in general. In this first step he hides behind a general accuser.
The second step occurs in the very beginning of paragraph 2, where Lysias initially gets himself integrated with the jury of the trial ("we"), something that allows him in clause 8 to identify the jury with the prosecution, and later, clauses 11 and 12, to identify the conglomerate Lysias + jury with the city of Athens as a whole. Even when near the end of paragraph 2, in clause 13, the speaker resurfaces, this act also functions as a way to reaffirm his total identity with the city as a whole in clause 15.
Only after this complex maneuver of identification has been completed and Lysias feels secure that the jury will identify with him, does he step forward with his own case in paragraph 3 and allow a single defendant to emerge as well.
2.2. Experiential Analysis
A simple count of the types of Processes occurring in this passage provides one with a general idea of the experiential picture that Lysias construes in the opening of his speech.
[GRAPHIC 1 OMITTED]
As can be seen in Chart 1, the most frequent type is that of Relational Processes, closely followed by Verbal Processes. Each one of these types of processes accounts for over a third of the twenty clauses of the passage, while between them they amount to three quarters of the total. The remainder is made up of Material Processes (almost half the instances of those of each of the previous two types) and a single instance of a Mental Process. On the basis of this evidence one would conclude that Lysias is not concerned with opinions and thoughts, he has a limited interest in happenings and actions, but he is very interested in acts of speaking and acts of classification. This general picture of the passage as a whole provides one with a useful starting point; however, it can also be misleading if it is not accompanied by a more detailed examination of both the distribution of the Process types through the text, and the Participants involved.
As Chart 2 makes clear, Relational Processes are not predominant throughout the text; instead they dominate the first two paragraphs, and then in paragraph three they are reduced to a peripheral role. In a complementary way, Verbal Processes, which in the first two paragraphs are limited to a supporting role, in paragraph three come to be by far the main type of Process. In other words, the proem of this speech is experientially concerned with Classification only in the first two paragraphs, while in the third paragraph the experiential content re-focuses in the depiction of acts of speaking.
[GRAPHIC 2 OMITTED]
One might find it reasonable that at the beginning of the speech, Lysias will engage in acts of Classification so as to pass summary characterizations concerning the defendant and his actions and possibly himself. Although this may be a possible way of opening his speech, (21) it is not the one Lysias chooses, as can be seen by examining the Participants that are classified in the Relational processes of these two paragraphs.
With the exception of clause 13, no other clause in these two paragraphs (see Table 5) has a Classified that is a concrete entity. In paragraph 2 the Relational Processes are concerned with classifying and building a taxonomy of the abstract entity "enmity" (clause 9: usual enmity of prosecutor against the defendant; clause 11: unusual enmity of the Thirty against the city; clause 15: justified enmity of the citizens against the Thirty). The exceptional clause 13, which significantly uses as Classifier this very abstract entity "enmity," serves to classify Lysias himself with reference to the taxonomy presented by the other Relational clauses in this paragraph: he is just another citizen with justified enmities against the Thirty.
The Relational clauses in paragraph 1 are also concerned with the classification of a single concept: the act of prosecuting (clause 1: usually it is difficult to start a prosecution; clause 2: in the particular case it is difficult to bring it to an end; clause 6: necessary consequences of a full prosecution).
It is extremely important to notice here that Lysias had alternative ways to start his speech, such as, for example: "I will start the prosecution without difficulty, but I will bring it to an end with great difficulty." (22) 1 am most certainly not suggesting that this alternative wording would be equally effective rhetorically, but since the question of how Lysias composed a rhetorically effective speech is the point of this paper, it may be worth outlining the reasons why the alternative wording would be less effective. Had Lysias chosen this particular alternative wording, then his meaning would be considerably different. Instead of Relational processes we would have Verbal processes: Lysias himself would be the Sayer and very prominent in the discourse and so incompatible with his tactic of blending himself with the general population of Athens (discussed earlier both in this and in the previous section), and he would not be able to present his case as "the people versus the Thirty"; nor would he be able to present himself as someone subjected and responding to situations beyond his control. (23)
However, even if the Relational processes form the backbone of paragraphs 1-2, the numerically peripheral Material processes make a great contribution to the discourse constructed by Lysias. The three relevant clauses are analyzed in Table 6.
It is striking that all three of these clauses occur in pivotal positions within the text. Clause 3 provides the grounds for which a complete prosecution of the Thirty is impossible; its configuration has the Thirty in the position of Actor and their actions as a Goal. Clause 7 announces the abnormal nature of the present trial presenting it as a happening that affects, i.e., has as its Goal, an inclusive "we" (i.e., Lysias and the jurors). However, the initiator of this happening, the Actor, is unrecoverable from the immediate context. The following few clauses elaborate the picture by introducing the concept of enmity as discussed above until clause 12 presents a Material Process configured in the same way as Clause 3, and so providing grounds for interpreting the Thirty and their actions as the reason for this second paradoxical situation too. (24)
In summary, the Experiential picture drawn by paragraphs 1-2 is very similar. Each of these paragraphs is concerned with a paradoxical situation, which is construed by means of Relational processes; furthermore this situation has been caused by the actions of the Thirty, actions which are construed by Material processes. The effect of the world view presented by Lysias in these two paragraphs is to turn attention away from the question of whether the Thirty have committed heinous acts against Athens; this is simply assumed as the only thing for which they are centrally responsible. Instead, the focus is on the additional abnormal situations that their actions continue causing even after their downfall.
Paragraph 3 is sharply differentiated. Not only is it characterized by a heavy concentration of Verbal Processes, but in addition Lysias occupies in every clause the central role in the process (Sayer in the Verbal clauses 17, 19, 20; Actor in the Material clause 16; Classified in the Relational clause 18). Lysias having earlier manipulated his language in such a way as to allow him to achieve identification with the jury and the Athenians in general, now steps out not only as a particular prosecutor, but also as a somewhat reluctant champion of Athens. The reluctance of Lysias is construed by the Relational clause, while the Material clause gives the background for this reluctance. (25)
2.3. Interpersonal Analysis
Paragraphs 1-2 follow the same dialogic tactic for the most part. Lysias starts by allowing a maximal dialogic expansion (Clause 1: "it seems ...", Clause 7: "we seem to me ...") by Entertaining the possibility of different opinions on the matter, only to move quickly to contract the dialogic space and in places to become completely monoglotic. In paragraph 1 the dialogic contraction is achieved first by Countering the earlier proposition (Clause 2: "but ..."), then Clause 3 passes into a Monoglot discourse to present the actions of the Thirty, while Clauses 4-6 return to dialogical contraction by acknowledging but Denying the possibility of contacting a full prosecution (26) In paragraph 2 this contracting maneuver is executed by Pronouncing on the expected nature of a trial (Clauses 8-9: "Before prosecutors should ...") and the abnormal nature of the present trial (Clauses 1011: "Now you should inquire ..."). Clause 12, referring again to the actions of the Thirty, adopts a Monoglot position. A new movement is started in Clause 13-14 with a Denial of the lack of personal motives, this possibility being Countered in Clause 15. The effect of this movement from an open to a closed dialogic position is to draw the audience to adopt the evaluations and appraisals Lysias himself offers, under an initial pretext that he is open-mindedly weighing all possibilities.
Interestingly, Paragraph 3 moves in the opposite direction than the previous two paragraphs: from contraction to expansion. Starting with a Denial of experience in judicial cases (Clause 16) and a Pronouncement both on the compulsion to engage in a case now (Clause 17) and his feelings concerning this decision (Clause 18), he actively Entertains the possibility of an inadequate presentation of his case (not only in Clause 19, but also in Clause 20: "I will attempt ..." continues acknowledging the possibility of failure).
Attitude and Amplification
In terms of Attitude and Amplification the most remarkable feature of paragraph 1 is that most of the text (clauses 1-2 and 4-6) serves as a multiply reinforced amplification of clause 3: every item in these three clauses, whether it is the Incapacity of an Inveracitous prosecutor, or the Incapacity of Lysias to make a full prosecution (for a full analysis of Attitude in this paragraph see Table 7), they only function to Intensify the phrase "such in size and so many in number." In other words, by means of explicit Relational Processes, Lysias has meticulously avoided Classifying the Thirty as wrongdoers and strived to make his own person disappear from his speech, yet still found ways to manipulate the linguistic resources available to him so as to pass judgments against the Thirty, judgments whose truth is not up for argument but is instead assumed and presented as factual.
In paragraph 2 Lysias continues to Amplify the actions of the Thirty by recalling to the minds of the jurors the block of Amplification in paragraph 1 (clause 12: "this kind of actions"; clause 16: "abundance"), but he also constructs an elaborate opposition between Propriety and Impropriety (27) by exploiting the ancient Greek belief that proper behaviour entailed a mutuality that dictated behaving "like a friend to a friend, like an enemy to an enemy." Elaborating the Abnormality of the present trial (clause 7), he portrays the Proper behaviour of prosecutors in earlier trials, who having a personal enmity against the defendants, resorted to the hostile action of taking legal action, and incorporates within this frame of Propriety not only himself (clause 13, where the reference to his own feelings of Unhappiness also Enriches his personal characterization), but also every Athenian (Clause 15). In contrast, the Thirty are portrayed as feeling hatred not against their enemies but against their own country (28) (clause 11), and this Impropriety is Intensified by being repeated in the following clause and is further Enriched by the only "positive" appraisal of the Thirty: their Tenacity to being Improper.
Paragraph 3 is marked by a complete shift in the domain of Appraisal. Up to now the main concern of Appraisal was the Thirty, but in this paragraph the focus falls exclusively upon Lysias and his performance as a prosecutor.
The paragraph starts with his lack of experience in judicial matters, which acts as an implicit Incapacity and which is multiply Intensified by its double mention, the repetition of the negation ("neither ... nor"), and the time reference ("ever") in clause 16, only to be returned to in clause 19, where not only is it explicit but it is again multiply Intensified by repetition. (29) In between intervene two more instances of self-Appraisal: that of the unwilling participant in the trial (clause 17), and the Unhappiness that springs out of this inexperience, which is multiply Measured ("many times ... much"). Finally, the passage concludes with the only positive Appraisal of Lysias in the text, his Tenacity to proceed with the prosecution, which also serves as an implicit Appraisal of Propriety: Lysias becomes the good citizen who steps up to perform his patriotic duty in spite of all adversities facing him.
3. Towards a Conclusion: Manipulation and Resistance
At this point we are in a position to answer the questions that Usher's commentary left unanswered or unmentioned. (30) With regard to the question of what Lysias sets out to achieve in this part of his speech, the answer should be that he sets out to coerce his audience, the two hundred and fifty jurors of the trial, into treating a private case as a political one. (31) To achieve his purpose he manipulates the linguistic resources available to him so as to represent this particular case as a case dominated by paradoxical and abnormal situations arising out of the actions of the Thirty (by means of the Experiential metafunction); as a case pursued on behalf of Polemarchos and Lysias but for the sake of the city and every citizen in it (by means of the Textual metafunction); and as a case brought against perpetrators of a superlatively great number of crimes (by means of the Attitude and Amplification sub-systems of the Interpersonal metafunction) as everyone can conclude upon examination of the facts (by means of the Engagement sub-systems of the Interpersonal metafunction) by an unwilling and incapable prosecutor (Attitude and Amplification) as is obvious and as everyone is invited to give confirmation (Engagement).
Given that the purpose of a law-court speech is Interpersonal (to persuade), it is not surprising that the interpersonal metafunction carries most of the burden in Against Eratosthenes, but characteristic of the skill with which this proem is composed is the fact that the other two metafunctions are also oriented towards interpersonal purposes. The paradoxical difficulty Lysias finds himself in is not just a blend of conventional topics, as Usher's comment would lead a student to believe, but an implicit characterization of the abnormal situations to which the actions of the Thirty led. The plurality of the defendants and the phrase "enemies of the state" are neither the only pointers to the political colour of the speech, nor just historically interesting "artificial inversions"; they are closely related with the "private grievance," which is not just a "minimal concession to practical needs." They are all integral parts of a complex rhetorical maneuver in which the individual addressing the jurors attempts to appear to be speaking as one of them, a picture that is further enhanced by his "inexperience," which of course is not just another instance of this topic in the corpus of Lysias.
Ironically, Lysias was unable to coerce successfully his original audience and, as scholarly consensus stands, he lost his case. The sophistication of the Athenian public is confirmed by the fact that this speech became the starting point of Lysias's highly successful career as a speechwriter: they did not accept his point, but they admired the skill with which he delivered it! The speech Eratosthenes delivered for his defense does not survive, so we will probably never know his role in helping the audience resist Lysias's coercion. However, this paper has attempted to highlight the crucial role that close attention to the language of a text plays in helping us, whether teachers or students, to reconstruct the positions constructed by a text, or indeed to produce our own texts so that they will be valued by their addressees. Moreover, the close attention to language that is so important to both the production and consumption of valued texts underscores the need to increase cooperation among language education, linguistic research, and literary criticism, recognizing them as constituent parts and illuminators of the same continuum of scholarly and human experience.
LYSIAS 12.1-3 (LAMB TRANSLATION)
 The difficulty that faces me, gentlemen of the jury, is not in beginning my accusation, but in bringing my speech to an end: so enormous, so numerous are the acts they have committed, that neither could lying avail one to accuse them of things more monstrous than the actual facts, nor with every desire to speak mere truth could one tell the whole; of necessity either the accuser must be tired out or his time must run short.
 It seems to me that our positions will be the reverse of what they were in former times: for previously the accusers had to explain their enmity towards the defendants; but in the present case inquiry must be made of the defendants as to the motive of their enmity towards the city in committing such audacious offences against her. It is not, in deed, from any lack of private enmities and sufferings that I make these remarks, but because of the abundant reasons that all of us have for anger on personal grounds, or in the interest of the public.  Now as for myself, gentlemen, having never engaged in any suit either on my own account or on that of others, I have now been compelled by what has occurred to accuse this man: hence I have been often overcome with a great feeling of despondency, from a fear lest my inexperience might cause me to fail in making a worthy and able accusation on my brother's and on my own behalf. Nevertheless I will try to inform you of the matter from the beginning, as briefly as I can.
LYSIAS 12.1-3 (USHER TRANSLATION)
 My difficulty in this prosecution, gentlemen of the jury, is not to know where to begin, but where to end. The size and number of their crimes are so great that even if I lied I could not accuse them of worse crimes than they have committed; nor could I describe them all, though wishing to speak only the truth, but either the accuser would inevitably tire, or his time run out.
 I think we shall have the opposite experience to prosecutors of former times: for in those days accusers were required to explain how they came to be enemies of the defendants, but today it is necessary to enquire of defendants how they came to be enemies of the state, whereby they dared to commit such crimes against her. However, this statement of mine does not arise from any lack of private grievance and damage sustained, but from the abundance of reasons which everyone has to be angry for both personal reasons and those of public concern.
 Now, I gentlemen of the jury, having never previously engaged in litigation either on my own or another's behalf, have been forced by events to prosecute this man. I have therefore often viewed the prospect of this with great diffidence, fearing that I might, through inexperience, fail to conduct the prosecution worthily and competently on my brother's and my own behalf. Nevertheless I shall try to inform you of the facts from the beginning as briefly as I can.
Davidse, Kristin. "A Semiotic Approach to Relational Clauses." Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6 (1992): 99-131.
Edwards, Michael, and Stephen Usher. Greek Orators P Antiphon and Lysias. Warminster: Aris and Philips, 1985.
Halliday, Michael A.K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: E. Arnold, 1994.
--. "On the Grammar of Pain." Functions of Language 2.2 (1998):249-67.
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: E. Arnold, 2004.
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Ruqiaya Hasan. Cohesion in English. New York: Longman, 1976.
Kress, Gunther R. Linguistic Processes in Socio-cultural Practice. Geelong: Deakin UP, 1985
Lamb, Walter. R.M. Lysias, with an English Translation. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1976.
Martin, John R., and David Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum, 2003.
Usher, Stephen. Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002.
White, Peter R.R. "Appraisal: An Overview." The Appraisal Web Site. 01 May 2005. 24 Jan 2006 <http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisaiGuide/UnFram ed/Appraisal-Overview.htm>.
--. "Appraisal and the Resources of Intersubjective Stance." The Appraisal Web Site. 01 May 2005. 24 Jan 2006 < http://www.grammaties.com/appraisal/EngagementLatest.doc>.
* This paper owes its existence to the highly motivated and intellectually challenging group of students that joined my graduate seminar on Lysias's Against Eratosthenes in the academic year 2005. It has also benefited greatly from the conscientious and meticulous attention of the editorial staff at Fu Jen Studies.
(1) I am most certainly not attempting to claim that the approach to be presented in this paper is the only possible one. Other approaches might be quite as good, or even better; however, I have found that the approach I have chosen suits my own purposes and circumstances better than other methods.
(2) For purposes of brevity in the rest of the paper the speech will be referred to as Lysias 12.
(3) In Edwards and Usher.
(4) See Usher, Oratory 58-64.
(5) Throughout the paper, as an aid to the reader, I have added to the text (sometimes to the original, sometimes to the translation, sometimes to both, as seemed necessary) words that in the original Greek text are in ellipsis (i.e., understood from the context). I have indicated this addition by highlighting in grey the word(s) inserted. Additionally discontinuous groups of words have been indicated by suspension signs.
(6) Notes by ancient scholars inscribed in between and around the lines of the manuscript.
(7) In this respect they set an admirable example for the purpose of scholarly publication: the sharing of one's teaching/learning experience for the purpose of enhancing the teaching/learning experience of people who cannot physically share the same space (or time).
(8) Usher's translation of the text is included in the Appendix.
(9) Unfortunately, this overtranslates the Greek text.
(10) It is impossible to give here a detailed enough overview of the theory as a whole, as well as of the relation between language and social situation; instead I will limit myself to a brief overview of its features that are directly relevant to the purpose of this paper. The reader who is interested in more information will find that the most comprehensive account available is that of Halliday and Matthiessen, while Martin and Rose offer a valuable guide to the application of SFL for discourse analysis.
(11) Again it is impractical to give here a more detailed account of Cohesion and I make no reference at all to Conjunction and Lexical Cohesion, since they play no part in this study. For a full account of Cohesion one should consult Halliday and Hasan.
(12) Notice how "John came in. John looked around." does not come across as a text, but as two unrelated utterances (e.g., a list of sentences to translate in a school exercise).
(13) For the characterization of Relational Processes as processes of classification I rely on Davidse's semantic account.
(14) While the distinctions drawn here have semantic consequences, they are drawn on grammatical grounds. So for example, Material Processes do not put any limitations on who/what occupies the central role of Actor, but Mental Processes require a conscious Participant as the Senser, additionally a Phenomenon can be a macro-thing or a meta-thing (i.e., a "that-clause"), but a Goal cannot.
(15) These examples are from Halliday, Grammar.
(16) "... by representing the proposition as grounded in a contingent, individual subjecthood, the textual voice represents the proposition as but one of a range of possible positions--it thereby entertains or invokes these dialogic alternatives" (White, Appraisal and the Resources 3).
(17) "The final dialogistically contractive option is supplied by meanings by which some prior utterance or some alternative position is invoked so as to be directly rejected, replaced or held to be unsustainable. Obviously to deny or reject a position is maximally contractive in that, while the alternative position has been recognised, it is held not to apply--the alternative position is thus directly confronted" (White, Appraisal and the Resources b).
(18) "The analysis of Cohesion in Lysias 12.1-3 is presented in Table 4.
(19) This is the interpretation given by Usher who translates: "even if I lied I could not accuse them ... nor could I describe them all, though wishing to speak only the truth ..." (Edwards and Usher 157).
(20) Lamb opts for this solution when he uses cataphoric reference to translate: "that neither could lying avail one to accuse them ... nor with every desire to speak mere truth could one tell the whole ..." (227).
(21) It was chosen for example in the opening of several of his speeches, e.g., 1 (On the murder of Eratosthenes), 14 (Against Alcibiades 1) 22 (Against the corn-dealers), 24 (For the invalid), etc.
(22) In Greek: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
(23) This line of his argument, although already anticipated here, will be brought into sharper focus in paragraph 3.
(24) Importantly, clauses 3 and 7 are the only instances in the text where the Thirty occupy one of the central roles (i.e., Actor, Senser, Classified, Sayer) in a process. Significantly clause 10, which could easily have been formulated as a Verbal Process with the Thirty as Sayer ("the defendants should tell you"), has instead been expressed as a Mental Process with the jurors as Senser.
(25) So in this paragraph too Lysias uses the Material Process to provide the grounds that bring into existence the situation construed by Relational Processes as he did in Paragraphs 1-2.
(26) But notice that here there is no movement away from the Monoglot position insofar as the question of the multitude of the crimes of the Thirty is concerned.
(27) For a full analysis of Attitude in paragraph 2 see Table 8.
(28) Of course, the trick of portraying one's own political opponents as enemies of the country as a whole within Greek literature occurs as early as Homer (cf. Odysseus treatment of Thersites in the Iliad), and continues universally to the present day.
(29) For details see Table 9.
(30) See section 1.3 above.
(31) Democracy, when it was restored in Athens, declared a general amnesty for actions that happened during the rule of the Thirty. The Thirty themselves were the only persons exempt from the amnesty, but they could take advantage of its provisions, provided they submitted themselves to an audit for their actions. It is the scholarly consensus, despite the lack of explicit information on the matter, that Eratosthenes did submit to this audit and so was covered by the amnesty at the time of the trial. Consequently, the trial could only be brought to court as a private lawsuit.
2.1. Textual Analysis Thematic Organization Table 1: Themes in Lysias 12.1 1 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] not to start ... the prosection 2 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] but to stop ... the prosection 3 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] such in size and so many in number 4 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] so that neither lying 5 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] nor the truth wishing to say 6 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] but necessity Table 2: Themes in Lysias 12.2 7 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the opposite ... than in the earlier time 8 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] because before 9 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] whatever enmity 10 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] but now 11 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] whatever enmity 12 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] because of which 13 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] not as I not having 14 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the speech 15 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] but as to everyone of us Table 3: Themes in Lysias 12.3 16 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Well, I 17 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] now I have been compelled 18 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] so that many times 19 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] lest through my inexperience 20 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] nevertheless I will attempt Table 4: Cohesive Chains in Lysias 12.1-3 Lysias Prosecution Actions of the Thirty 1 1 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] for me the prosecution 2 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] for me the prosecution 3 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] such and so many 4 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I? the to prosecute worse than prosecutor? the existing 5 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I? the to say everything prosecutor? 6 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the prosecutor 2 7 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] we 8 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the prosecutors 9 10 11 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] against the city 12 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] against it such 13 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] I 14 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] I make this speech 15 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to all of us 3 16 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I having conducted cases 17 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I to prosecute by what has happened 18 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] I 19 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I the on behalf of prosecution my brother and myself 20 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I to instruct The Thirty Enmity 1 1 2 3 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] by them 4 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] them 5 6 2 7 8 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the enmity 9 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] against the whatever defendants 10 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] from the defendants 11 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] for them whatever enmity 12 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] they because of which 13 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] personal enmities 14 15 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to be angry 3 16 17 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] him 18 19 20 Table 5: Participants in Relational Processes in Lysias 12.1-2 Clause Classified Classifier Paragraph 1 1 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] to start ... the not difficult prosecution 2 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] to stop the prosecution difficult 6 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] either the prosecutor necessity to grow tired or the time to run out Paragraph 2 9 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] whatever enmity against the defendants 11 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] whatever... enmity against the city 13 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] ? (i.e. Lysias) personal enmities and misfortunes 15 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] a great abundance for everyone (of reasons) to be angry either for private or public matters Table 6: Material Processes in Lysias 12.1-2 Clause Actor Process Paragraph 1 3 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] by have been them done Paragraph 2 7 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] seem will suffer 12 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] they dared to commit Clause Goal Paragraph 1 3 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] such in size and so many in number Paragraph 2 7 [TEXT NOT Range REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] we the opposite than in the past 12 [TEXT NOT Reason REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] this kind of because of things which Table 7: Attitude in Lysias 12.1 Clause Item Attitude Appraised 1 [TEXT NOT Capacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] not to start the difficult prosecution for me 2 [TEXT NOT Incapacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] difficult to stop the prosecution for me 4 [TEXT NOT Inveracity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] lying me? the prosecutor? 4 [TEXT NOT Impropriety [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] worse the existing ones 5 [TEXT NOT Veracity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] wishing to say me? the the truth prosecutor? 5 [TEXT NOT Incapacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] neither to be everything able to say everything Table 8: Attitude in Lysias 12.2 Clause Item Attitude Appraised 7 [TEXT NOT Abnormality [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] the opposite experience from those in the past 8-9 [TEXT NOT Propriety [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE (implicit) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] enmity ... The towards prosecutors the defendants 11 [TEXT NOT Impropriety [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE (implicit) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] enmity against them the city 12 [TEXT NOT Tenacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] dared they 12 [TEXT NOT Impropriety [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] to commit they wrongs 13 [TEXT NOT Propriety [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE (implicit) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] having personal I enmities 13 [TEXT NOT Unhappiness [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] misfortunes I 15 [TEXT NOT Propriety [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] to be angry (implicit) everyone Table 9: Attitude in Lysias 12.3 Clause Item Attitude Appraised 16 [TEXT NOT Incapacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE (implicit) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] having conducted I neither mine nor other people's cases 17 [TEXT NOT Untenacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I have been I compelled by what happened 18 [TEXT NOT Unhappiness [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] distress I 19 [TEXT NOT Incapacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] inexperience I 19 [TEXT NOT Incapacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] unworthily I 19 [TEXT NOT Incapacity [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] incompetently I 20 [TEXT NOT Tenacity; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE Propriety REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (implicit) IN ASCII] I will attempt I Paragraph 1 (5) 1 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] not to start ... for seems me 1 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] difficult to be jurors ... the prosecution Not to start the prosecution seems to be difficult for me 2 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] but to stop 2 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] for me who is who is speaking But to stop seems to be difficult for me, who is speaking; 3 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] such by them in size 3 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] and so many have been done such in magnitude and so many in number have been done by them 4 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] so that neither lying 4 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] worse than the to accuse existing so that neither lying could accuse things worse than the existing ones 5 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] nor the truth wishing to say 5 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] everything to be able nor wishing to say the truth could say everything 6 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] but necessity 6 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] either the or the time prosecutor to to run out grow tired but it is a necessity either the prosecutor to grow tired or the time to run out Paragraph 2 7 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] the opposite to me 7 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] we seem we than in the will earlier time experience We seem to me we are about to experience the opposite than in the past 8 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] before because should 8 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] the enmity the to show prosecutors Because in the past the prosecutors should show their enmity 9 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] whatever might be against the defendants whatever might be that they had against the defendants; 10 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] now from the defendants 10 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] should enquire but now should enquire from the defendants 11 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] whatever was for them 11 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] against the enmity city whatever enmity they had against the city 12 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] because this kind they dared of which of things 12 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] against it to commit because of which because of which they dared to commit this kind of things against it 13 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] not however 13 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] as not personal having enmities and misfortunes However, it is not as not having personal enmities and misfortunes 14 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] the speech I am making that I am making this speech. 15 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] but as to great everyone abundance ... 15 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] being ... to be angry on behalf of privater or public matters But as everyone having great abundance of reasons to feel anger regarding private or public matters Paragraph 3 16 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] I well 16 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] gentlemen neither mine of the jury 16 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] ever nor other's having cases acted Well, gentlemen of the jury, I having never conducted either a case of mine or that of someone else 17 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] now I have been by what has compelled happened 17 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] him to prosecute now I have been compelled by what has happened to prosecute him 18 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] so that many times in great I got distress So that many times I got into a state of great distress 19 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] lest through unworthily and the incompetently inexperience 19 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] on behalf and the I will of the myself accusation make brother Lest because of my inexperience I conduct the prosecution on behalf of my brother and myself unworthily and incompetently 20 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] Nevertheless I will you attempt 20 [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] IN ASCII] from the as briefly to beginning as I can instruct Nevertheless, I will attempt to instruct you regarding this matter from the beginning and as briefly as I can
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Fu Jen Studies: literature & linguistics|
|Article Type:||Critical essay|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Les ravages de la jalousie dans La Cousine Bette.|
|Next Article:||Das Deutschlandbild Taiwanischer Germanistikstudenten vor und nach ihrem Aufenthalt in Deutschland (1).|