| Hans Holbein the Younger. Sir Thomas More. © Frick Collection, New York |
Sir Thomas More's Speech at his Trial.
[1535]
If I were a man, my lords, that did not regard an oath, I need not, as it is well known, in this place, at this time, nor in this case to stand as an accused person. And if this oath of yours, Master Rich, be true, then pray I that I may never see God in the face, which I would not say, were it otherwise to win the whole world.
In good faith, Master Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than for mine own peril, and you shall understand that neither I nor any man else to my knowledge ever took you to be a man of such credit in any matter of importance I or any other would at any time vouchsafe to communicate with you. And I, as you know, of no small while have been acquainted with you and your conversation, who have known you from your youth hitherto, for we long dwelled together in one parish. Whereas yourself can tell (I am sorry you compel me to say) you were esteemed very light of tongue, a great dicer, and of no commendable fame. And so in your house at the Temple, where hath been your chief bringing up, were you likewise accounted. Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships, that I would, in so weighty a cause, so unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth, as your lordships have heard, so far above my sovereign lord the king, or any of his noble counselors, that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king's supremacy, the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?
A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's Highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the Tower unto me for none other purpose. Can this in your judgment, my lords, seem likely to be true? And if I had so done, indeed, my lords, as Master Rich hath sworn, seeing it was spoken but in familiar, secret talk, nothing affirming, and only in putting of cases, without other displeasant circumstances, it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously; and where there is no malice there can be no offense. And over this I can never think, my lords, that so many worthy bishops, so many noble personages, and many other worshipful, virtuous, wise, and well-learned men as at the making of the law were in Parliament assembled, ever meant to have any man punished by death in whom there could be found no malice, taking malitia pro malevolentia: for if malitia be generally taken for sin, no man is there that can excuse himself. Quia si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. [If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.] And only this word, "maliciously" is in the statute material, as this term "forcibly" is in the statute of forcible entries, by which statute if a man enter peaceably, and put not his adversary out "forcibly," it is no offense, but if he put him out "forcibly," then by that statute it is an offense, and so shall be punished by this term, "forcibly."
Besides this, the manifold goodness of the King's Highness himself, that hath been so many ways my singular good lord and gracious sovereign, and that hath so dearly loved and trusted me, even at my first coming into his noble service, with the dignity of his honorable privy council, vouchsafing to admit me; and finally with the weighty room of His Grace's higher chancellor, the like whereof he never did to temporal man before, next to his own royal person the highest office in this whole realm, so far above my qualities or merits and meet therefor of his own incomparable benignity honored and exalted me, by the space of twenty years or more, showing his continual favors towards me, and (until, at mine own poor suit it pleased His Highness, giving me license with His Majesty's favor to bestow the residue of my life wholly for the provision of my soul in the service of God, and of his special goodness thereof to discharge and unburden me) most benignly heaped honors continually more and more upon me; all this His Highness's goodness, I say, so long thus bountifully extended towards me, were in my mind, my lords, matter sufficient to convince this slanderous surmise by this man so wrongfully imagined against me....
Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, to Saint Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man....
More have I not to say, my lords, but that like as the blessed apostle Saint Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation.
In good faith, Master Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than for mine own peril, and you shall understand that neither I nor any man else to my knowledge ever took you to be a man of such credit in any matter of importance I or any other would at any time vouchsafe to communicate with you. And I, as you know, of no small while have been acquainted with you and your conversation, who have known you from your youth hitherto, for we long dwelled together in one parish. Whereas yourself can tell (I am sorry you compel me to say) you were esteemed very light of tongue, a great dicer, and of no commendable fame. And so in your house at the Temple, where hath been your chief bringing up, were you likewise accounted. Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships, that I would, in so weighty a cause, so unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth, as your lordships have heard, so far above my sovereign lord the king, or any of his noble counselors, that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king's supremacy, the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?
A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's Highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the Tower unto me for none other purpose. Can this in your judgment, my lords, seem likely to be true? And if I had so done, indeed, my lords, as Master Rich hath sworn, seeing it was spoken but in familiar, secret talk, nothing affirming, and only in putting of cases, without other displeasant circumstances, it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously; and where there is no malice there can be no offense. And over this I can never think, my lords, that so many worthy bishops, so many noble personages, and many other worshipful, virtuous, wise, and well-learned men as at the making of the law were in Parliament assembled, ever meant to have any man punished by death in whom there could be found no malice, taking malitia pro malevolentia: for if malitia be generally taken for sin, no man is there that can excuse himself. Quia si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. [If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.] And only this word, "maliciously" is in the statute material, as this term "forcibly" is in the statute of forcible entries, by which statute if a man enter peaceably, and put not his adversary out "forcibly," it is no offense, but if he put him out "forcibly," then by that statute it is an offense, and so shall be punished by this term, "forcibly."
Besides this, the manifold goodness of the King's Highness himself, that hath been so many ways my singular good lord and gracious sovereign, and that hath so dearly loved and trusted me, even at my first coming into his noble service, with the dignity of his honorable privy council, vouchsafing to admit me; and finally with the weighty room of His Grace's higher chancellor, the like whereof he never did to temporal man before, next to his own royal person the highest office in this whole realm, so far above my qualities or merits and meet therefor of his own incomparable benignity honored and exalted me, by the space of twenty years or more, showing his continual favors towards me, and (until, at mine own poor suit it pleased His Highness, giving me license with His Majesty's favor to bestow the residue of my life wholly for the provision of my soul in the service of God, and of his special goodness thereof to discharge and unburden me) most benignly heaped honors continually more and more upon me; all this His Highness's goodness, I say, so long thus bountifully extended towards me, were in my mind, my lords, matter sufficient to convince this slanderous surmise by this man so wrongfully imagined against me....
Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, to Saint Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man....
More have I not to say, my lords, but that like as the blessed apostle Saint Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation.
In 1535, Sir Thomas More was tried and executed for denying, rightfully so, King Henry VIII’s absolute supremacy. In his final speech as his trial, Sir Thomas More gives reason for his actions by eloquently using the points of the stasis theory. Even though he was found guilty, Sir Thomas More’s speech is very effective because of the many rhetorical strategies and the strong appeals that were used within the speech.
ReplyDeleteAt the very beginning of his speech, Sir Thomas More does not right come out and say he did or did not commit the crime. Instead, he makes a claim to question the credibility of the source of the accusations, as well as the severity of the accusation. “A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's Highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the Tower unto me for none other purpose.” Sir Thomas More appeals to the logos of the court by showing that the evidence could be skewed due to the fact that he had always been loyal to the King and the members of the royal council.
At the end of the speech, Sir Thomas More does deny the importance of what he is being accused of as well as the death sentence he is being faced with. “ Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church… it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man....” Even though Sir Thomas More did commit the accused crime, with this statement, he explains that the punishment assigned is not the rightful punishment.
Along with using the stasis theory, Sir Thomas More uses many rhetorical strategies to make his speech all the more effective and moving. Throughout the speech he asks many rhetorical questions such as, “Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships, that I would, in so weighty a cause, so unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth.... that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king's supremacy, the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?” Not only is this a rhetorical question, but also a device to strip the credibility from the source of the accusation.
Even though Sir Thomas More was not able to sway the court to see his point of view, the trial speech is one that effectively illustrates the characteristics of a good rhetor and the power of persuasion that rhetoric holds.
I really enjoy your rhetorical analysis, I only have one critique. I feel as if you could combine paragraphs 2 and 4 because they're interconnected both in the speech and subject wise because it is a question of credibility. I actually interpreted More's use of rhetoric questioning the credibility of Master Rich as the stasis theory of fact because if it is untrue, then it cannot be factual, thus swaying public opinion in favor of More because the execution of More would be unjust simply because the testimony would not be factual, thus resulting in a "mistrial" in modern day court systems.
DeleteGood use of quotes to support points. These quotes helps support the main area of the stasis theory. Well done.
DeleteIt is apparent that Sir Thomas More worked his way through the stasis theory and used many rhetorical strategies when proclaiming his speech at his trial in 1535. He knew that he must state his point and then prove the case in order to even have a chance at being proven innocent. In order fully analyze his piece, one must examine the rhetoric of wrong triangle: motive, wrongdoer, wronged. The motive behind More’s case was that he opposed the idea that King Henry VIII should be declared head of the Catholic Church. However, the role of the wrongdoer and wronged can be reversed depending on the viewpoint. In King Henry’s perspective, Sir Thomas More was the wrongdoer because he believed that this act of denial was a form of treason and he, himself, was a victim to this crime of betrayal. In contrast, More can be seen as the wronged because he had the right to refuse the Oath of Supremacy because King Henry VIII was not fit to be head of the Catholic Church because he was in it for the wrong reasons, making him the wrongdoer.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in his speech, Sir Thomas More establishes his authority by introducing where he stands in his case, “If I were a man, my lords, that did not regard an oath, I need not, as it is well known, in this place, at this time, nor in this case to stand as an accused person.” By doing this he proves his credibility and promotes respect. He continues this idea throughout the speech when he consciously engages his audience by referring to them as, “Master Rich” and “King's Highness.” He also notes in the second paragraph how much of an honor it is to be speaking to one of such great importance, as a sign of utmost respect and politeness.
Sir Thomas More then begins to discuss the logic behind his reasoning. He mentions the men involved in the assembly of Parliament, as well as makes references to Christian Latin literature that proves the accusation against him (the death penalty as a result of ‘treason’) are simply unjust. Likewise, More identifies the readings of Saint Paul in the Acts of the Apostles and the opposition between Parliament and the Church. All of which help bestow the logic used alongside the stasis theory.
In addition, rhetorical strategies are exhibited through this piece written and spoken by More. One of the more noticeable ones being rhetorical questions which help prey on the emotions of his audience and make them begin to think. One example of a rhetorical question used is, “Can this in your judgment, my lords, seem likely to be true?” He also uses metaphors here and there in order to get his point across. In paragraph two, Sir Thomas More compares Master Rich to “a great dicer,” meaning that he is good at gambling, in terms of negotiations. By using strategies such as rhetorical questions and metaphors, More proves his case and simply taps the audience’s emotions.
It becomes evident that the argument involved in the stasis theory that Sir More uses the most is justice. The question if his penalty is just or not becomes the entire foundation for his judicial argument. Although, he was proven guilty and decapitated anyway, the execution of his speech continues to serve as a significant example for those studying judicial rhetoric and the stasis theory.
Maddie, although you technically did use the triangle properly, it is typically used during a court case for example. A lawyer would observe the motive, wrongdoer, wronged, but in this case I could be wrong, but I don't think it could be practically applied unless if you specifically were trying to prove More innocent, but this is a rhetorical analysis. You also forgot to explicitly state which portion of the stasis theory he used until briefly in the conclusion. I would argue that he not only used justice, but I would argue harm and fact as well because he casts doubt on Master Rich's testimony by proving it to be not trust worthy, thus making it nonfactual, and he mitigates the harm it caused when he states "And if I had so done, indeed, my lords, as Master Rich hath sworn, seeing it was spoken but in familiar, secret talk, nothing affirming, and only in putting of cases, without other displeasant circumstances, it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously; and where there is no malice there can be no offense."
DeleteMaddie, I thought your blog was very well written. I thought the inclusion of the rhetorical triangle was a unique way to look at the speech. I also liked how you pointed out that he used judicial rhetoric at the end of your analysis.
DeleteI simply used the triangle in order to get a better understanding of the case, but I do see where you’re coming from! I might have used it wrong, but I just thought that by including that element will make for more clarification. I did wait to state what point of the stasis theory at the end because I alluded to it at the beginning when stating, “(...) that proves the accusation against him (...) is simply unjust,” and I don’t think that there is a “set” time or amount of times that I would need to include it. I personally thought that he used justice the most, however, I did not totally cancel out the other points. I do appreciate your opinions, and your ideas gave me a different way to look at it.
DeleteLogan^
DeleteI on the other hand like how you divided your analysis! It was very easy to read and actually comprehend your thoughts. I thought this was one of your best blogs! Well done!
DeleteSir Thomas More with his use of judicial rhetoric attempted to change the mind of the king at his execution, an attempt that ultimately failed, but exemplified the proper use of stasis theory within judicial rhetoric. More once was a trustworthy adviser to the king, establishing a previous relationship with the king, but ultimately More was relieved of his duty when their relationship began to become strained. Although it was in the past and the relationship was strained, More uses this to his advantage by giving himself credibility over Master Rich.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of his speech, knowing both him and King Henry VIII were God loving and following men, he addresses the king in a manor that would build More's credibility and ensue doubt in the King's decision through More's use of their faith when he states "if this oath of yours, Master Rich, be true, then pray I that I may never see God in the face, which I would not say, were it otherwise to win the whole world," because no one who is a devout Christian would make such a claim to that severity. More goes on to commit ad hominem on Master Rich's testimony, but in a proper manor so that it would not affect his rhetoric in his claim, in all of paragraph two. By stating that More had known Master Rich since he was young, and yet he still distrusts him, it destroys any credibility to Rich's testimony, ultimately putting a sword in the credibility when More states "unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth," followed by More's use of a rhetorical question that casts major doubt in the king's decision. Through all of paragraphs one and two More works his way through the first stasis theory, fact, by casting doubt on Rich's credibility in a factual statement and enforcing More's testimony.
More then moves onto the second portion of stasis theory, harm. With his use of circumstantial words and logic, such as "if I had done X then Y," More not only avoids admitting guilt, but uses logic to persuade the king. For example, when More states " if I had so done... it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously; and where there is no malice there can be no offense" he combines logic with stasis theory no mitigate the harm and intent of his supposed words in order to convince the king otherwise. More then continues adding on to his use of rhetoric by using the king's and Parliament's emotions against them when he says "And over this I can never think... Parliament assembled, ever meant to have any man punished by death in whom there could be found no malice," where he continues to use common law against them when it explicitly states that the action must be malicious, but More's actions were not malicious nor forced, thus establishing the stasis theory of justice. More then continues on to give praise to the king and wish no ill desire upon him.
As More works towards his conclusion he plays on the morality of the decision for one Christian man to execute another Christian man. Because the "indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church" then, as More states it, "it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man." More then concludes with "we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation," thus proving he has no ill will and his character is sin-free to the point where he believes with utmost certainty that he will be granted passage into heaven.
Logan, I believe you did a good job on your blog this week. However, when you said, “In the beginning of his speech, knowing both him and King Henry VIII were God loving and following men...” this can not be further from the truth. Yes, at one time in his life King Henry VIII found himself as a God fearing man but soon turned to committing heinous acts. King Henry VIII killed his wives if they did not produce sons and also started the long tradition of persecution against Catholics especially in English territories. Henry VIII started to see himself as a god. Other then that, there was little else I found problems with, good job. I think you did an excellent job with the stasis theory.
DeleteOn July 6, 1535 Sir Thomas More, now known as Saint Thomas More, was beheaded. He is known in the Catholic Church as a martyr for standing up for his faith against arguably the most powerful man during that time, King Henry VIII. Within Sir Thomas More’s final speech, before being executed, he utilized the stasis theory. He knew how to use judicial rhetoric because he worked closely with King Henry VIII and had to use it within his courts often. Even though Sir Thomas More did an excellent job at utilizing the stasis theory and other forms of rhetoric, King Henry VIII made an example out of him and executed him anyway.
ReplyDeleteSir Thomas More establishes his authority to start his final speech. “If I were a man, my lords, that did not regard an oath, I need not, as it is well known, in this place, at this time, nor in this case to stand as an accused person.” He states the fact, the logos, “A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's Highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the Tower unto me for none other purpose.” In this he both appeals to the court and King Henry VIII and shows his loyalty to the king.
During this time in history Catholic where being persecuted by the English crown. “...it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man....” King Henry VIII was the head of the Church of England, one of the highest sectors in the Anglican Communion, which is Christian similarly to the Catholic faith. It is not right for fellow Christians to fight with one another. Sir Thomas More was accused because he spoke out against King Henry VIII.
However, this issue is serious because Parliament is wrongfully putting someone, Sir Thomas More and many more Catholics, to death. “Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church....” Sir Thomas More is calling out Parliament for going against the law of God. Therefore, Parliament and King Henry VIII is the wrongdoer, Sir Thomas More and many more Catholics are the wronged, and the motive is that Parliament and King Henry VIII are offended by Sir Thomas More speaking out against them. Even in his final hour Sir Thomas More is hopeful and forgiving, “...was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation.” Even though Sir Thomas More is being put to death, he still prays for his accusers, wrongdoers.
Sir Thomas More was not fighting for his life as much as he was fighting to defend his faith in his final hours. His final speech is a great example for judicial rhetoric, especially the stasis theory. His speech helps young rhetors develop their rhetoric to be able to better defend or accuse. Saint Thomas More was a strong courageous man that was not scared to look death face to face in his final seconds of life. “Quia si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est.”
This is just really good. You had your own knowledge of More that helped me to understand what was actually going on. And you pointed out his use of stasis theory very well through quotes. You added in a meaningful Catholic perspective that really added to your analysis specifically. You segmented it well and wrote developed ideas. Very good!
DeleteI like that you included extra information about More’s life and that really made the speech make more (no pun intended) sense. However, the Catholic persecution in England happened a little later after More’s death. Good job though.
DeleteTrust in the power of God is much more assuring than trust in the power of man. Sir Thomas More understood this concept, but was accused and eventually executed because others had not been enlightened as he was. In his final words here on earth, More offered a series of compelling points that would make his beheading appear more like a crime than an act of justice.
ReplyDeleteThomas More used the rhetorical appeal of ethos in order to give him an edge in his argument. He mentioned that he was a trusted and beloved servant of King Henry. He was trusted enough to be promoted to Lord High Chancellor of England and remain in that position over twenty years. More also made the comparison between himself and Saint Stephen, who was stoned to death with the consent of Saul, who later became known as Saint Paul. More not only increased his credibility, but he also degraded the ethos of the man who testified against him. He mentioned that no matters of importance are ever spoken to Richard Rich because of his lack of trustworthiness. For this reason, Thomas asked, “[Why] that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king’s supremacy?” In this way, Thomas More made his audience consider the truth behind Rich’s testimony.
More also added to his argument by touching the emotions of those he was speaking. He continuously gave praise to the king, to make it seem as though he could never say wrong against him. In the final line of his speech, Thomas made known that even though he was being condemned, he would hope to see those who persecuted him in heaven with him.
Reason and justice were also present in More’s speech. In regard to his execution, Thomas exclaimed, “It is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge the Christian man.” More’s entire argument rested upon the reason for why he should be innocent and the injustice that would occur if he was executed. The logos found throughout Thomas More’s speech is compelling, but it was not enough to save his life.
At his beheading, Thomas More provided a well spoken speech in hopes to save his life. Although it was unsuccessful in saving him, More’s speech was very persuasive through his use of rhetorical tactics.
Regis, I believe you did an excellent job on your blog this week. You did a great job identifying the ethos, pathos, logos. However, I had a hard time identifying where you analyzed the stasis theory used within Saint Thomas More’s final speech. It also could have helped the reader if there were more direct quotes instead of summing the statements up. Other then that, you developed your points in a well constructed way. I especially liked your opening paragraph, great job.
DeleteYou did a great job explaining how he used ethos pathos and logos, and also explaining how his speech used other rhetorical tactics. Good job!
DeleteI really liked the first sentence of your analysis, it really pulled me in and set the stage perfectly for what you were going to talk about. You did a nice job of explaining ethos, logos, and pathos, and they blended in with your take on the stasis theory really nicely in the third paragraph. I would like to hear more about some other rhetorical strategies that he used and/or some more quotes from the text, but overall this was pretty good!
DeleteGreat opener. You did a fine job in exposing the three appeals in an easy manner, but like Grace, I wish you had focused a bit more on stasis theory.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSt. Thomas More’s star has risen and fallen in unusual ways over the years. Hailed in his lifetime as one of the great humanists of the age, he died with almost all of his friends and family accusing him of pointless pertinacity. There was a point in his life where he was accused some formal charges that later led to his execution. His trial was one of the most famous since the trial of Socrates, but there was something different between the two. More was an experienced judge and lawyer, and had been preparing for this trial for several years. Not only preparing to defend himself, but his family, his church, his country, and his English tradition of law.
ReplyDeleteIn his trial, Thomas More focuses mainly on ethos more than logos and pathos to drive his argument. In his defense, he used a few different accounts in which he was promoted or raised to a higher level by the leader or king. He was highly trusted in he places in which he was involved, and he used his in his argument in order to better persuade the judge. He stated; “If I were a man, my lords, that did not regard an oath, I need not, as it is well known, in this place, at this time, nor in this case to stand as an accused person.” He does a very good job at using ethos to be the base of his argument.
More also took the time to - for lack of a better word - attack the emotions of the Judge panel. He spoke highly of the king and made it clear that he would never do anything to purposefully offend him. Also, as Jesus implied while dying on the cross, he wished for the sinners to join him in heaven, More did the same.
More gave a very touching speech at his beheading. Although it did not turn out in his best favor, he was still able to provide a very persuasive speech that many people still learn from to this day. Even up to the minute of his death, More continued to forgive and rather than saving himself, he at this point he was fighting for the future of the church and the common good of his country.
You wrote this very well. You broke it into distinct parts and you seem to have done some research on it. Your knowledge and writing about this speech makes your analysis good. You even managed to subtly mention his comparisons to Jesus and Socrates, and were able to reference his text in your own. Very good.
DeleteI can tell that you were well versed on the topic, and that makes your analysis more interesting to read. I learned a lot from your piece. You mainly focused on the three rhetoric appeals and did not include much of the stasis theory or other rhetorical strategies. I would like to hear more about those next time.
DeleteYou included a really nicely deatailed background on the topic which added to your analysis. The connections you made with Jesus and Socrates were nice as well!
DeleteProviding a well researched background on Thomas More really adds to the analysis of the speech. I do agree that More used ethos as his primary rhetorical appeal. Your arrangement of words as well as your diction was very well done in this analysis.
DeleteSir Thomas More was a smart man and a worthy holder of high regards. He was an advisor to the king of England. He was tried for crimes of disloyalty to the king and defend himself in a most noble way: through rhetoric. He talked of what he had done but more importantly, of what it meant.
ReplyDeleteThroughout his speech, he mentioned his relation to the king and his position of authority. He was a good man who did good work. He worked the angle of his predicament to his advantage. He made the audience believe that he was a good person and that he had reason for his actions. This coupled with his high style and choice of words, he made it clear that he knew what he was talking about and that he was a worthy person.
He was also quick to tackle the important argument. He acknowledged what he did, because it was true, he couldn't change that. But he went on to talk about what reason he could had for it and why it shouldn't have been taken how it was. Sure, he did it, but he said it in secret talk, in a familiar setting, he then argued why that shouldn't be taken as serious.
He found the argument he needed to make, that he did it, but not with ill intent. His words did not inflict any harm nor were they spoken in a public place. Through his speech, it becomes clear that he shouldn't have been put to death for his words against his king, because he did his work, and he acted properly. So what if he didn't believe in his Kings supremacy, he normally kept that to himself and maintained his work. It should seem that he was punished unfairly for his actions because he used the power of rhetoric to defend himself.
Very well written and smaller than your normal length in blogs but I believe that it was straight to the point and just as good. Nice job bringing it all together.
DeleteChris you did a nice job on your explanation of More's final words. I like how you identified the high style of the speech and the how you explained that he understood that he was talking to educated people.
DeleteIn Sir Thomas More’s trail, he made good use of the stasis theory for his defense against King Henry VIII. With the use of the stasis theory and many other rhetorical strategies he questions the trial itself, the reasoning behind his actions, and the justice of his appointed punishment. His speech, in the end, did not go in Sir Thomas More’s favor, but that does not mean it was a poor speech.
ReplyDeleteSir Thomas More opens his speech by questioning the credibility of the king. More was on trial because he opposed the idea of King Henry VIII of being head of the Catholic Church. By More questioning the king’s credibility of the trial, he also helps prove his own case, that King Henry VIII should not be the head of the Catholic Church. More was able to support these claims due to his loyalty to the king.
Throughout More’s speech he used different rhetoric strategies, but the most common was rhetorical questions. These rhetorical questions can be found throughout the entire speech and used in every part of the stasis theory. He uses this strangely in questioning the credibility of the king by say, “Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships,... the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?” Again, he uses rhetorical questions to prove his point, “Can this in your judgment, my lords, seem likely to be true?”
Even though Sir ThomasMore’s speech did not go as planned it was still an excellent speech. He used the stasis theory to support his defense against King Henry VIII. He also used rhetorical questions to support his stance on the credibility of the king and the justice of his actions. The well planned and executed speech might not have fallen in More’s favor, but it was not for a lack of effort.
You are very true by mentioning that Thomas More’s use of rhetorical questions is commonly used throughout his speech. In your final sentence, I enjoyed how you pointed out that even though More’s speech was unsuccessful in saving his life, it was very well written with many good points.
DeleteThis was very well-written. I like how you pointed out his use of rhetorical questions throughout the speech and included some examples whitin your analysis.
DeleteIn the year 1535 More, a former worker, advisor to the king was under trial for treason, he refused to accept the kings supremacy over the Church of England. In his speech, he tried to use rhetorical strategies to persuade the people that he was not guilty and committed no crime, however his attempt at this ultimately failed. More made four arguments, three of which were thought to be reasonable, however the fourth argument he made was ultimately rejected. In his argument he stated that silence was not a crime, and the letters he wrote were never involved with the state. By doing this he was trying to show the people that he was a good person, and a good worker and committed no crime. As the speech progressed it was clear that More really didn’t do anything wrong, however he was still put to death. More does acknowledge what he did was wrong, but just having thoughts or an opinion on something does not justify killing him. Just because a person believes in something does not mean they should be killed, as I stated above he was silent about what he believed in about the king, silence is not a crime. He empowers his speech through the use of logic, reason, he states his points and how he committed no crime, during his speech he would praise the king and try to make it look like he did nothing wrong, thus capturing the emotions of the jury. Nearing the end of the speech he was just trying to help the church and fight for what he believed in.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you did not do cover the stasis theory. You covered the other areas of the speech well, it missed out on the stasis theory.
DeleteYou did a good job covering the overall view of the story and what forms of speech he used to convince the king, however, just like Jacob said more of the stasis theory could have been identified. Well done!
DeleteOther than missing the topic of the stasis therory, I thought you hit on the other appeals very well.
DeleteSir Thomas More, better known today as Saint Thomas More, used judicial rhetoric in order to attempt to change the kings mind and save his life at his time of execution. However his attempt failed, but overall he demonstrates the proper use of stasis theory within the judicial rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteHe used the stasis theory and used rhetorical strategies when he proclaimed his speech at his trial in 1535, which made it more effective. He knew at this point that he had to state his information and then prove why he is right in order to be proven innocent. At the beginning of his speech you may notice that he does not come out and say whether or not he did or did not commit the crime. Instead, he questions the dependability of the accuser. “A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the tower unto me for none other purpose.” By stating this, Sir Thomas More appeals to logos by showing them that the evidence could have been made up because he had always been loyal to the King and the members of the royal council. Also, at the end of the speech, he denies the importance of what he is being accused of. Even though Sir Thomas More did commit the crime, he explains that the punishment assigned is not the right punishment. The death sentence wasn’t right for him.
Because he felt so strongly and had to fight for his life he used the stasis theory and other rhetorical strategies to try to convince the king. He uses rhetorical questions such as, “Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships, that I would, in so weighty a cause, so unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth.... that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king's supremacy, the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?” in order to once again try to prove the dependability or the accuser.
Even though Sir Thomas More was not able to convince the king and save his life, his speech is a good example because it effectively illustrates how powerful persuasion, stasis theories, and rhetorical devices are. He is now a saint known in the Catholic Church as a martyr for standing up for his faith against King Henry VIII.
Emily, I agree with your information supporting his use of logos due to the fact that the information was false. I included these facts in my analysis as well. Also, More created a wave of emotion for the King in order to change his mind. I enjoyed reading your work. I hope you had a fabulous vacation as well!
DeleteEmily, I like how you organized this and broke it down, it made it easier to understand. Also I liked the use of quotes to show the stasis theory.
DeleteSir Thomas More was previously an adviser for King Henry VII, but left the job when his relationship with the king became strained due to several reasons. Following a trial with King Henry VII, More was said to be guilty. In 1535, Thomas More recited this famous speech at his beheading in an effort to spare him from his sentence, but all to no avail. However, his strong foundation of rhetoric made his speech effective and remarkable. His use of rhetorical appeals and stasis theory has helped this speech to stand the test of time.
ReplyDeleteMore’s speech is strongly centered around ethos. He does this by building his own character and belittling the character of Master Rich (who testified for King Charles VII against More). In building his ethos, he referred to scripture several times, as the King claimed to be a faithful man. More builds strongly on known facts of the events that led up to the trial, adding to his use of stasis theory in his speech.
Later in the speech, More delves into the quality and policy aspects of stasis theory as describes why he does not deserve his sentence. He reviewed his actions and made an effort to be proven innocent. This argument appeals strongly to logos as he uses facts to try to prove his case one final time. Though he effectively used such points through stasis theory and the rhetorical appeals, he could not gain a lesser sentence.
Sir Thomas More effectively used such appeals to create a remarkable speech. Although it could not save his life, it continues to be a notable piece of writing in today’s society. Sir Thomas More will be ever revered for his strong defense for his faith and respect for objective truth.
I agree with your statement that More centered his speech around ethos. When he referred to scripture, he used stories that fit his situation which is why it was thought effective. Although, he did lose his head. I enjoyed reading your thoughts! Great work, Bailey!
Delete“Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived- He’s Henry the Eighth, he’s had six sorry wives, and some might say he ruined their lives.” Henry the Eighth is an absolutely fascinating character to dissect and our culture has never seemed to forget about him. He was at the center of a swirl of the greatest court drama in history- the Divorce of Catherine of Aragon and the creation of a new Protestant, England. Also, at the center of that drama was Sir Thomas More-now Saint and top adviser to the King. Thomas More was beheaded for supposedly questioning the King’s right to command his subjects in religious matters. Before his untimely death, More made an impressive speech in defense of himself.
ReplyDeleteMore was accused of his “questioning” by Richard Rich. More’s first and strongest manner of defense is to absolutely tear Rich apart, Reminding his audience what an unreliable person he is. He calls him “one of little truth”. And he’s got the proof-he states that Rich is well known for this unreliability and he has known him for many years. So, why would such a person as More, confide in such a person as Rich? It makes no sense. This is what More was going for, by making Rich and unreliable witness, the people listening will doubt the accusations.
More also questions the “tone” these mysterious accusations were said in. He stares that even if he did say such things, they were not in a malicious tone. And after all, can someone really be prosecuted for simply stating a fact? Certainly not. This also helped the audience come to believe More instead of Rich.
Another strategy More uses is to suck up to the King. Small wonder considering Henry VIII was a complete narcissist and considered himself the center of the universe. He flatters him and shows that he really admires and worships Henry. So, why would he speak out against him?
Thomas More’s speech at his trial was brilliant, but it did not save him. Henry VII, decided to behead More (probably practicing for when he would behead Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, wives number two and five respectively). However, it stands as a great example of judicial rhetoric- even if he hid lose his head over it.
Juile, I enjoyed reading your blog. I liked your exploration of the “suck up to the king strategy.” I found that really interesting. Your introduction was also very attention-grabbing. Well done!
DeleteJulie I really liked you beginning of your blog, and the rhyme was really cool. Your analysis was very thorough and well done.
DeleteAt this trial held in July of 1535, Thomas More was determined to bring all of his experience and training to bear—to defend not only himself and his family, but also his country, his church, the English tradition of law, and the future of Christendom. In the beginning of the speech, More begins by establishing his ethos. This portrays that he has a very confident character and does not give himself away right from the start. Rich tried to testify that More had denied the King’s supremacy. Quickly defending himself, it led to the attacking of Master Rich’s character by More, this shows that Master Rich lacks moral virtue as it was pointed out that he has always been reputed as one of so little truth. More argues that he would would never just freely shared his own thoughts with such a person so “light of tongue.” More then argues that he, indeed, did not reveal his thoughts of false supremacy to the “King’s Highness” himself of any of his fellow councillors. More begins to question the credibility of what Mr. Rich claims to be true due to the fact that More maintained a silent position on the matter. “Where there is no malice, there can be no offense,” analogizes the requirement for an entry to be “forcible”. More argued that his lawyerly share of hypothetical conversations with Rich could not amount to malice. It was nothing more than “familiar secret talk, nothing affirming.” Any law dealing with a situation like this would have to involve a crime of “in word or deed.” As More moves toward the King’s esteem of him over the years, he reminds him of the trust and bond they originally shared to reach their positions. He creates a sense of pathos for the King in order to get his emotions stirring in the direction of favor and love, rather than law and order. In the last part, More further establishes ethos by using an analogy of St. Paul and St. Stephen. St. Stephen is Sir Thomas More and St. Paul is King Henry VIII, in such a way that More is being condemend to death and the King would be a witness to that. More notes that regardless of the outcome, they will see each other again in Heaven and for their everlasting salvation together. More stands by his strong use of ethos throughout, even though the end result was not in his favor in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteI like how you started your blog talking and making me feel the pressure Tomas More had with this trail and how he executed it so well.
DeleteIn the year 1535 Sir Thomas More denied King Henry VII’s absolute supremacy. He was a put on trail and later executed because of this. He gave a speech at his trail using the points of the stasis theory. He uses a great amount rhetorical strategy and really gets to the point of the argument in a correct manner. The speech is not the longest but it tells a lot with its few minutes. He has a sly way of avoiding the main question, is his guilty? Or is he innocent?. He talks about the credibility of the accuser and gets the audience to immediately start questioning themselves. By making the court think he shows the logical sense of how the evidence could indeed be faked.
ReplyDeleteHe uses the rhetorical strategies and the stasis theory to further his claim throughout the whole speech. He also possesses a good amount of rhetorical questions. He uses this to make people question themselves and ultimately doubt when they originally believed. It is a very strong way of getting people to believe even if you are wrong. He also uses a fair amount of time painting the picture for the audience with metaphors. Although all of this did not make his case prevail not guilty he used all of these things to make his argument way better. It would have been nicer for him if he would have won the trial but with this famous trail let a famous speech that we can still learn from today.
Something I failed to mention in my blog that you touched on well were the rhetorical questions. I’m glad you added this to your article because it needed to be said.
DeleteIn 1535, Sir Thomas More, later to be known as Saint Thomas More, was faced with a daunting trial that would result in life or death. He delivered an exquisite rhetorical speech using the strategic principles of logos, pathos, and ethos while also including points from the statis theory.
ReplyDeleteMore begins his approach by stating his claim, without substantially swaying to the side of innocence. This immediately shows that More was more deeply concerned for the outlook on the entire nation and church, rather than simply focusing on lobbying for solely himself. He also uses logic, appealing to the logos, in his opening statement by saying that he was rightfully staying on the side of the denial of King Henry’s supremacy. He simply states that it is his will to stick up for what he believes in. He slightly applies the rhetorical strategies of ethos and pathos by using his authority of the trial to plea and lobby for what he so devoutly believed in, and by instilling a sense of pride and optimism for the future of the church. He realized that he would most likely be found guilty, because he knew that he truly was, but that didn’t stop him from providing a truth and outlook for the future. He related greatly to the statis theory by establishing the truth, and acknowledging what he could not change due to being factual evidence.
I like how you mentioned how concerned More was with the church, even more than he was himself. You did a good job showing the ethos and pathos he used during the speech. Good job!
DeleteI also like how you implied that More showed more concern for the greater good of the people rather than himself. Also I agree that he most likely had some doubts, considering the fact that he was indeed guilty.
DeleteMentioning the stasis theory at the end of your rhetorical analysis was a good way to wrap up the whole thing. Well done.
DeleteIt is evident that Sir Thomas More worked his way through the stasis theory as well as made good use of other various rhetorical strategies. More strategically organized his speech by stating the facts , describing the nature of the issue, defining the severity of the issue, then purposing a plan of action. The stasis theory provides information in a manner that effectively gets the listeners on the same page, leaving nothing to chance. It also allows the audience to agree upon a similar conclusion. The stasis theory proves very effective especially when the speaker asks the audience questions that have obvious answers, so that the listeners all agree with one another.
ReplyDeleteThe stasis theory is popularly used for topics such as trials. Because the stasis theory is supposed to get its listeners to agree upon a topic, More was able to get many of his listeners to agree with him through the use of the stasis theory. More never necessarily states whether or not he is innocent or guilty. Instead, More establishes his authority and cleverly avoids the main issue at hand and mentions the fact that the so called evidence could have been exaggerated to the point of it being inadequate and useless.
You did an excellent job discussing the stasis theory along with this specific trial. This was a very good blog post.
DeleteNice blog Mady. I think it was good that you pointed out how he avoided the main issue in a clever way, he did approach the situation very different then what was expected.
DeleteSir Thomas More, a former advisor to the throne, was tried and executed for supposedly denying the supremacy of the throne. At his execution, he tried to sway the make a statement and change the king's mind using the idea of a stasis theory. He attacked Master Rich, saying he wasn't a reliable source and that he could easily be lying and trying to benefit himself. This is the idea of logos and let's the people and the executioners decide for themselves. He makes a lot of rhetorical questions, making the people make their own decisions. By doing this he let's lets them think for themselves, and not be "brainwashed", and is a smart decision done by More, and would be effective in flipping the thoughts of the people. He also is strengthening his ethos by making him seem better than all those around him. In the later part of his speech, he uses historical and religious examples to make himself even more righteous in the saying that they will meet in heaven, making him seem righteous as said before.
ReplyDeleteMore does an awesome job of making a case to not be executed, yet it doesn't matter. His case is filled with logos and ethos, using stasis theory and rhetorical questions wisely and well, and if I was king most likely wouldn't have executed him because of the ideas he proposed.
You did a good job discussing the logos and ethos. I think you could’ve discussed the stasis theory a bit more but other than that this was really good.
DeleteNice job Gerg. I think it was good that you provided some background information before going right into it.
DeleteI like how you identified the fact that More uses multiple rhetorical questions to persuade the audience to agree with his side. You could have went in depth on the stasis theory more, but it is still a well-written rhetorical analysis.
DeleteI’m using an exemption this weekend.
ReplyDeleteIn 1935, Sir Thomas More was out on trial and executed after refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy. During his trial he gave a speech that was heavily influenced by the stasis theory. He did this by stating the facts of the situation and establishing the nature of the issue. His goal during the trial was to convince others that he was not guilty and while he went about it in a good way, the trial did not go in his favor. Aside from the stasis theory he also used a lot of logic and reason in his speech along with a few other rhetorical strategies. Using rhetorical questions was a very smart move because it provides easy answers to obvious questions. Sir Thomas More tried to conclude the trial in a very roundabout way. He hardly addressed the topic at hand and he never definitively said whether or not he was guilty. While he was able to get many people on his side, he was still executed in the end.
ReplyDeleteSir Thomas More was a famous judge and lawyer. He was put on trial for denying the kings supremacy, then impressed in the Tower of England and charged with high treason. His final trial was on July 1, 1535. He was determined to bring all his experiences together in one speech. Ever since this day, he carries a legacy for not only defending himself and his family but, also his country and many more meaningful organizations in his life. He may have been found guilty, yet he gives strong reasoning for his actions by using logos, pathos, and ethos. In the beginning of Sir Thomas More’s speech he uses strong ethos. He questions the credibility of the source on the accusations. This was a strong way to begin the speech, considering he never said if he did the crime or not. It was clear that Sir Thomas More had a lot of respect for the King, which brings out the question if he would actually do this. This is the logic behind the situation. Are the accusations accurate considering the logos? This was another point brought to the audiences attention. By the end of the speech, Sir Thomas More believes the reasoning for being on trial and facing death is not sufficient enough. Sir Thomas More, however, truly goes above and beyond to move the audience. He uses strategies like rhetorical questions. He was unable to convince the court to see his points, which left him facing death later on. Yet, he left them with a speech that is still being remembered today
ReplyDeleteSir Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor and friend of King Henry VII during his reign. However, a rift grew between the two because of More’s devotion to Christianity. King Henry VIII declared himself the high priest of the English Church after his annulment to his first wife. Since More did not agree with Henry’s perspective, General Richard Rich accused More of high treason for denying the king’s supremacy. Sir Thomas More goes on to deliver a moving speech immediately before his beheading. The four stasis points can be traced throughout the speech.
ReplyDeleteSince Sir Thomas More did not actually denounce the king as supreme, More argues the stasis point of fact: did it actually happen. Thomas always kept his mouth shut when the topic of King Henry VII being the high priest was presented because he did not believe it. There is a difference between believing something and then stating it. In his head, Thomas did not regard King Henry VII as the head of England’s religion because the Pope is the head of England’s religion. However, because of his chivalry, he still respected the king.
Sir Thomas More also focused on whether the behavior of the King and General Rich was just. Murdering someone, especially of high political ranking, because of a rumor or false claim is unjust. If More did explicitly state that he did not regard the king as supreme then beheading him is just. However, General Rich made up the accusation that More denounced the king. The beheading of Thomas More is unjust, and he recognized that and told the audience before his death.
Sir Thomas More leaves the audience with a chilling quote, “... so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation.” This statement makes the audience aware of the idolatry that is tearing through the political system of England. Also, this bone-chilling sentence brings about feelings of remorse towards More because he acknowledges that he is going to die and will only see the rest of his friends in Heaven.
Sir Thomas More was executed in 1535 for treason against King Henry VIII, whom he eventually worked for as the Lord High Chancellor of England. His relationship with the King eventually grew tense and he asked to be relieved of his duties. Sir Thomas More very clearly did not approve of the King’s desire to annul his wife, Cathrine of Aragon, considering he was a deeply committed Catholic. Being a lawyer, More understood that he could be convicted if he verbally expressed his discontent with Henry’s decision, so he chose to remain silent. However, Solicitor General Richard Rich testified that during a conversation, More expressed that he in fact denied Henry’s supremacy. His denial led to his imprisonment at the Tower of England, where he was charged with high treason. His speech at his beheading included an apparent use of the stasis theory.
ReplyDeleteHis position on King Henry VIII’s annulment proved who he was as a Catholic man. It helped establish himself as a good man, who clearly has good morals. His appealed to the audience’s pathos by clinging to their passion for a good man. Through the stasis theory, he was able to prove to his audience specifically why he did what he did and that he did it in good reason. He understood that he could not change his actions but through his powerful choice of words, he was easily able to make his actions seem justified and, somehow, good.
Through the stasis theory, he was able to identify his argument for the issue at hand and acknowledge the fact that it could be justified because of his position as faithful Catholic. His intentions were not to go against the King, but rather to stand up for his faith.