THE PROPERTY OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

CICERO'S WETOiIICAL THEORY APPLIED TO A MODERN CASE OF SPEAKING I N DEFZNSE

BY

Susan Marie art on

A thes i s submitted cn the Faculty of the University ~f Delaware in p a r t i a l ful.fillment of the req-uirenents for the degres of Masr~r of Arts in Speech-Co~munication.

June 1975

CICERO'S RHETORICAL THEORY APPLIED TO A MODERN CASE OF SPEAKING I N DEFENSE

BY

Susan Marie Barton

Approved :

Approved:

Approved : -

ABSTRACT

The past seven years have witnessed a renewed in-

terest in apologia, or speaking in self-defense. During

this time four major articles have appeared in communication

journals which have attempted to categorize or characterize

apologia as a genre, separate and distinct from all other

forms of public address. However, as of yet, searches of

the literature have not revealed studies of classical rhet-

orical theory being applied to the contemporary practice of

speaking in defense .

Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-43 B. C.) was considered

the greatest orator of his time, and was considered to be

the most eminent pleader at the Roman bar. Cicero is not

renembered solely for his ability as an orator, however, but

also for the development of a comprehensive written digest

of rhetorical theory. In his work - De Oratore, Cicero sets

forth guidelines for speaking in defense. These rec-

ommendatians can be grouped under three headings: the

iii

proof of the speaker's allegations, the winning of the

hearer's favor and the arousing of feelings or emotions.

The purpose of this study is to restate ~icero's

rhetorical theory of speaking in defense and to use these

guidelines in analyzing Senator Edward Kennedy's address

to the people of Massachusetts, July 25, 1969. This

analysis will then be compared to and contrasted with

other studies of the speech, as an example of modern

apologia, in order to determine the extent of the appli-

cation of this classical theory to contemporary speeches

of self-defense.

Acknowledgements

This thesis owes a debt to many people without whose

patience and encouragement it wo~ld not have been possible:

To Dr. Ray E. Keesey xho has given up a great deal

of his own time to work with me on the writing of this

thesis, and who has taught me the value of classical

rhetoric, as well as the value of painstaking effort which

is necessary to achieve a feeling of satisfaction with a

final product;

To Professors Judith Runkle, Malthon Anapol and

Edmund Glenn who have been supportive and encouraging in

their criticisms ;

To Mr. and Mrs. John McNees, Marianne and Peggy who

have kept faith in m e and helped me to keep faith in myself;

To my mother and father whose love and understanding

have kept Ee going, and whose belief that I could succeed

in spite of any obstacles made what I thought were in-

surmouzl.table catastrophes appear to be minor inconveniences;

To 'Marilyn without whose support and reassurance I

v

vi

could never have made it this far;

And finally to Bob whose love, empathy and inex-

haustable patience has given me the courage and inspiration

to struggle on and finish my master's degree.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER

I ~ntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Recent Studies on Apologia . . . . . . . . . 4

I1 Ciceronian Rhetorical Theory . . . . . . . . . . 16

Ciceronian Guidelines for Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in Defense

111 The Chappaquidick Incident . . . . . . . . . . . 30

IV Analysis of Kennedy's Address . . . . . . . . . . 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . Proof of Allegations Arousal of Feelings . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . Winning Men's Favor

V Comparisons and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 76

. . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Studies Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . .

Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Appendix I

Diagram of the Scene of the Accident . 102

Appendix I1

. . . . . . . . . . Edward Kennedy's Address 103

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Speaking i n defense of one ' s s e l f ( a p o l o g i a ) , has

been recognized a s a major form of p u b l i c address s i n c e

t h e e a r l i e s t days o f r h e t o r i c . It was i n t h e P l a t o n i c

d i a l o g t h e Apology t h a t Soc ra t e s a t t empted t o j u s t i f y

h i s a c t i o n s t o t h e Athenians , and i n doing s o , t o c l e a r

h i s name and p r o t e c t h i s honor, even though he saw h imse l f

a s a t a r g e t of a p u b l i c v e n d e t t a . Soc ra t e s knew he would

be found g u i l t y , no t because he had committed any cr ime,

but because p u b l i c sen t iment had been swayed a g a i n s t him.

The Apology was no t s o much an a t t empt t o prove h i s inno-

cence o f any s i n g l e a c t i o n a s i t was an a t t empt t o make

c l e a r h i s l o y a l t y t o t h e people o f Athens and h i s h igh

r ega rd f o r t h e i r we l l -be ing .

Two thousand y e a r s have passed s i n c e Soc ra t e s spoke

t o t h e Athenians t r y i n g t o p r o t e c t h i s honor. S ince t h a t

t i m e , i n American h i s t o r y we have had such famous people a s

John Brown, Susan B. Anthony and Eugene V . Debs, a l l

prominent figures of political controversies who were inna-

cent of criminal intent, and guilty only of trying to help

their fellow citizen. But, like Socrates, they found them-

selves accused of crimes, and tried, not only by a court of

law, but also in the minds and hearts of their countrymen.

And, like Socrates, they addressed themselves directly to

the people and spoke in their own defense.

In more recent years, another prominent American

political figure had accusations leveled against him.

Senator Edward Kennedy was involved in a struggle to main-

tain his position. His future had been endangered by an

action which turned public sentiment against him--leaving

the scene of a fatal accident. He found himself being

"tried" for what he felt to be grossly exaggerated charges

involving the circumstances of the incident before a jury,

not of a few select peers, but of a whole population.

Over two thousand years after Socrates pleaded his

historical defense, Kennedy chose much the same method in

attempting to clear his name. He took his case directly to

the people, without any lawyers accompanying him, and spoke

in his own defense.

Apologia, although certainly not new, seems to be

experiencing a rebirth as a recognized form of public

-3- , '

address . It i s t h e purpose of t h i s s tudy t o examine a modern

example of apo log ia i n terms of t h e c r i t e r i a s e t f o r t h by an

e a r l y mas te r of r h e t o r i c , and t o e s t a b l i s h which, i f any, o f

t h e c r i t e r i a have c a r r i e d i n t o t h e contemporary American

scene.

This s tudy w i l l begin w i th an examination of f o u r

r e c e n t a t t empt s t o d e s c r i b e and e v a l u a t e t h e a p o l o g e t i c

genre a s a phenomenon. It w i l l r e s t a t e some c l a s s i c a l

c r i t e r i a , drawn from t h e e a r l y development of r h e t o r i c a l

theory , t h a t may be used t o s tudy speeches of defense , and

i n t h e f i n a l s e c t i o n s use t h e s e c r i t e r i a i n ana lyz ing

~ e n n e d y ' s address t o t h e people of Massachuset ts , Ju ly 25,

1969, and compare t h i s a n a l y s i s wi th p rev ious ana lyses of

t h e same speech. A f t e r comparing and c o n t r a s t i n g t h e

f i nd ings of t h i s s tudy w i t h previous conc lus ions , an a t -

tempt w i l l be made t o determine t h e u se fu lnes s of t h e ap-

p l i c a t i o n of t h i s c l a s s i c a l theory t o contemporary speeches

of defense .

Recent S t u d i e s On Apologia -

Over t h e p a s t seven yea r s t h e r e appears t o have

been a renewed awareness o f a p o l o g i a . During t h i s t ime,

four a r t i c l e s have been w r i t t e n which a t t emp t t o ana lyze

Speaking i n s e l f - d e f e n s e a s i t a p p l i e s t o contemporary

American pub l i c a d d r e s s . The f i r s t a r t i c l e was w r i t t e n by

Lawrence W . Rosenf ie ld i n 1968.

Rosenf ie ld examined two speeches o f s e l f - d e f e n s e :

Richard ~ i x o n ' s "Checkers" speech, fo l lowing t h e accusa-

t i o n t h a t he had accep ted i l l e g a l campaign c o n t r i b u t i o n s

whi le running f o r v i c e - p r e s i d e n t , and Harry rum an's speech

r ega rd ing one of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s , Harry Dexter White, who

was accused o f Cclnmunist c o n s p i r a c i e s whi le i n o f f i c e .

From t h e s e two speeches , Rosenf ie ld evdeavors t o draw o u t

some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which might s e r v e a s a b a s i s

f o r e v a l u a t i n g ot 'her speeches o f s e l f - d e f e n s e . He r e f e r s

t o t h e s e two speeches a s ca se s o f "mass media apo log i a . r r l

The main t h r u s t o f t h e Rosenf ie ld a r t i c l e i s a n

a t t empt t o i d e n t i f y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f what appears t o

him to be a newly emerging genre. -

The identification of similar qualities in the two messages suggests to the critic certain constants operating in an otherwise undefined form--use o f in- stantaneous electronic media to answer accusations .... Where we discover simil- arities in the messages, we have grounds for attributing those qualities to the situation or the genre rather than to the individual speaker. 2

Rosenfield. identifies four similarities between

the two speeches that "represent constants in the apolo-

r r 3 getic equation . The first, is that both speeches, as well as the

conflicts they represented "were part of a short, in-

tensive, decisive clash of views".4 Both Nixon and Truman

took their cases straight to the public, via television.

Both conflicts centered around the accusations with which

these men were confronted; and in both cases the contro-

versies brought about by these accusations were terminated

by the speeches. Little or nothing was said about either

incident after Nixon and Truman brought their cases to the

people.

The second similarity between the speeches of Nixon

and Truman is that both used the same overall forensic

- 6 -

strategy. Both accused their accusers or attacked t h m

while defending themselves. From this observation

~osenfield predicts that the speaker who finds himself

building his own defense "is unlikely to limit himself to

defensive remarks. In all probability he will take the

opportunity to engage in some form of invective. 115

The third cormnon element Rosenfield finds in the

speeches is that they are divided into three sections and

that the majority of the facts in each case are found in

the middle section of the speech.

Finally, Rosenfield finds that both speakers re-

assembled arguments that they had used in previous state-

ments to the public or to the press. .They gathered these,

added some further evidence or documentation, and presented

them to the public in the form of a televised address.

The four elements Rosenfield found that he felt

could be considered "constants" in speeches of self-defense

were the brevity of the controversy, the accusing of their

accusers, the placement of the documentation in the middle

section of the speech and the tendency to repeat previous

arguments rather than to initiate new ones.

The second article examining contemporary American

apologia was w r i t t e n by David A . Ling and appeared i n t h e

summer of 1970. Ling took an approach d i f f e r e n t from t h a t

taken by Rosenf ie ld . F i r s t , Ling focused h i s examination

s o l e l y on Senator Edward Kennedy's address of July 25, 1969,

t h e speech which fol lowed Kennedy's involvement i n t h e i n -

c iden t on Chappaquidick I s l a n d r e s u l t i n g i n t h e d e a t h of

Mary Jo Kopechne. Secondly, whereas Rosenf ie ld examined

Nixon and Truman's speeches i n terms of t h e f a c t o r s gen-

e r a t e d by t h e speeches themselves, Ling used a prede-

terinined form of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . A s he s t a t e s , h he

p r i n c i p l e t o o l used f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i c . a w i l l be t h e

I Dramatic Pentad ' found i n t h e w r i t i n g s of Kenneth Burke. "7

Ling exp la ins t h i s form of Burkian a n a l y s i s i n t h e fo l lowing

passage.

Burke argues t h a t whenever a man d e s c r i b e s a s i t u a t i o n h e provides answers t o f i v e ques t ions : "What w a s done, ( a c t ) , when o r where i t was done (scene), who d i d i t ( agen t ) , how he d i d i t (agency), ancl why (purpose)." Act , scene, agent , agency and purpose a r e t h e f i v e terms t h a t constitute t h e ''Dram- a t i c Pentad." A s man d e s c r i b e s t h e s i t u - a t i o n around him, he o r d e r s t hese f i v e e l - ements t o r e f l e c t h i s view o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . 8

Ling examines Kennedy's speech i n l i g h t of t h e s e

f i v e f a c t o r s , and, al though he does n o t ' d r a w any conclusions

-8-

about apologia as a whole, he does draw some conclusions

about this particular case of speaking in defense which

might give some insight into apologia as a genre.

Ling finds, first, that Kennedy portrays himself as

a victim of circumstances, and in both sections of the

speech--his description of the facts and in his putting

his fate into the people's hands--it is the scene which

dominates.

The second conclusion which Ling draws is that

"the Pentad, in suggesting that only five elements exist

in the description of a situation, indicated what alter-

native descriptions were available. l l 9 In other words, by

accepting the analysis that only these five elements exist

in a given situation, one can .examine the defense of a

certain action on the basis of what element dominated the

situation and what lines of defense were available to the

speaker.

If one were to examine a large sampling of speeches

of defense, it is possible that some strategies might

emerge as being particularly successful under certain cir-

cumstances. However, no study to date has been taken far

enough to set the background for this type of judgement.

-9-

So, a l though t h i s pen tad i c a n a l y s i s may e v e n t u a l l y have

some use fu lnes s i n c r i t i q u i n g and e v a l u a t i n g apo log ia , a s

of t h i s po in t i t has been used only i n t h i s one i s o l a t e d

i n s t a n c e , from which on ly t e n t a t i v e conclus ions can be

drawn.

The t h i r d a r t i c l e examining contemporary apo log ia

was w r i t t e n by Sherry Devereaux B u t l e r i n t h e Spr ing of

She e x p l a i n s t h e purpose of h e r a r t i c l e i n h e r

opening passage:

This a r t i c l e add res se s i t s e l f t o t h e f o l - lowing t h r e e ques t ions : What a r e t h e d i s - t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s of apo log ia s , pa s t and p r e s e n t , c r e a t e d f o r t h e mass media? What v a r i a b l e s e x p l a i n Edward ~ e n n e d y ' s r e c e n t f a i l u r e s t o succeed wi th t h i s gen re? What imp l i ca t ions does t h e S e n a t o r ' s f a i l - u r e have f o r f u t u r e r h e t o r i c a l d i s cou r se s of t h i s n a t u r e

The a r t i c l e begins w i t h a review of t h e f o u r s i m i -

l a r i t i e s found i n t h e Rosenf ie ld a r t i c l e , p r ev ious ly ex-

amined. She ther, ana lyzes ~ e n n e d y ' s 1969 address i n l i g h t

of t he se c r i t e r i a . She concludes t h a t , wh i l e two of t h e

s i m i l a r i t i e s , o r "cons tan t s , " were ev iden t i n t h e speech,

t h e o t h e r two were n o t .

The f i r s t c o n s t a n t , mass media apo log ia being p a r t

of a "short, intensive, decisive clash of views," was not

true in the case of ~ennedy's speech. As Butler states,

after the televised speech, he public continued to accuse

Kennedy; the press accosted Kennedy more viciously than ever

following his television speech; certain attorneys pressed

for an autopsy. "I2 She a l s ~ mentions that the inquest was

not held until the following January, when the whole case

came before the public again. And, as shown through recent

developments, the Senator has not yet heard the last of the

incident. 13

The second constant proposed by Rosenfield was that

the speaker would not limit himself to defensive remarks,

but would include in his speech some counter accusations.

Butler concluded that this was not true of the Kennedy

speech. She says that Kennedy had no clear opposition and

could only address himself to "rumors," not to his accuse-rs,

as he had no way of knowing who they were. Therefore, no

counter charges, according to the author, were possible.

Rosenfield's third characteristic of apologia was

that speakers tended to reassemble previously used argu-

ments, rather than construct new ones. Butler said that

this characteristic held true in ~ennedy's case. Although

-11-

the Senator made only one public statement previous to his

televised address, Butler feels that this address was only

an elaboration of the information provided by his first

statement, and that no new facts were introduced.

The final constant identified by Rosenfield was

placing the majority of the facts in the middle section of

the speech, At this point Butler states that Kennedy ad-

hered closely to the expl-anation he had given earlier,

altering it only by adding more detail. The first section

of the speech was basically an ethical appeal, while the

last portion was essentially an emotional appeal, leaving

the majority of the factual presentation of data to the

middle third of the speech.

Butler concludes that Rosenfield's "constants" were

not all found in ~ennedy's speech. While the reassembling

of arguments and the positioning of the facts were both

comparable to Nixon and Truman's speeches, in Kennedy's case

the conflict was not brief, and he did not accuse his ac--

cusers. It is on this basis that Butler projects that

"~uture apologiae, nationally broadcast will not be decisive

features in any major controversy," and that "future a-

pologists will hesitate to rely on strictly defensive

-12-

appeals. She concludes, although one "constant" may be

lost forever, the other may very well reappear.

The last article analyzing contemporary apologia

appeared in October, 1973, and was coauthored by B. L. Ware

and Wil A. Linkugel. l5 They view apologia as a legitimate

rhetorical ger.re, and they "attempt to discover those factors

which characterize the apologetic form. "16 They also look

for subgenres by seeking patterns of combinations of

factors used in speeches of self-defense.

Ware and Linkugel identify four characteristics of

verbal self-defense. The first factor is denial. Denial

can be used only to the extent that it does not seriously

contradict known facts. One might, however, deny the intent

where it is not possible to deny the action itself.

The second factor is bolstering. "The bolstering

factor is best thought of as being the obverse of denial.

Bolstering refers to any rhetorical strategy which rein-

forces the existence of a fact, sentiment, object or re-

lationship. ''I7 The authors draw both the difference as well

as the similarity between denial and bolstering.

Denial is an instrument of negation; bolstering is a source of identifica- tion. Finally, strategies of bolstering

and denial are refornative in the sense that they do not alter the aud- ience's meaning of the cognitive elem- ent involved.

The authors then proceed to the other two elements,

differentiation and transcendence. Differentiation is the

separation for the audience of facts, sentiments, objects

or relationships from "some larger context'' of which they

seem part. The speaker tries to draw the charge as being

something particular and distinct from any larger scene.

Transcendence, on the other hand, is the connecting of the

charge with a broader spectrum. The speaker, in this case,

attempts show the audience that his actions are part of

a larger context, drawing a relationship which the audience

has not previously seen. Ware and Linkugel also see these

two factors as having an obverse relationship. Where dif-

ferentiation splits actions apart, transcendence draws them

together. These factors are transformative in nature be-

cause they alter the audience's perception of the situation.

After discussing these four factors, Ware and

Linkugel conclude :

The student must necessarily determine whether the rhetor is denying, bolster- ing, differentiating, or transcending

through the strategic use of language, for these are the only rhetorical choices available to him in the apolo- getic situation. 19

In the second section of the article, the authors

discuss what they call "posture of verbal self-defense."

These are again four in number: absolution, vindication,

explanation, and justification. These postures result from

combining the original four factors

ample, absolution would result from

into pairs.

the use of

For ex-

differen-

tiation a.nd denial. The speaker would separate his actions

from broader context and then the action. In this

way, he would be seeking absolution for his actions from

the audience.

Ware and Linkugel their contributions

study of apologia:

This conceptualization of the apolo- getic genre into subgenres should assist the critic in comparing the rhetorical use of language occurring across some- what different apologetic situations. The act is not, in and of itself, criti- cism, just as the categorizing of strat- egies into factors does not complete the critical act. Such classification taken alone lacks an evaluative criteria. 20

to the

The four recent studies on apologia take two

forms. In one form they extract factors characteristic

of the genre by comparing two or three speeches of self-

defense, and draw out the similarities which appear to

be constants. 21 In the other form they borrow some

criteria for examining patterns of speech from a type of

public address other than apologia and apply them to

speaking in defense. 22 These are the only articles that

could be found that treat apologia as a separate genre.

As of yet, searches of the literature have not revealed

studies of classical rhetorical theory being applied to

the contemporary practice of speaking in self-defense.

Rhetorical theory which lends itself to the study

of contemporary American apologia, may be found in clas-

sical rhetoric, by examining criteria set down by one of

the masters of defensive speaking. For the purpose of

this study the thecry of defensive speaking developed and

I

practiced by Marcus Tulius Cicero has been chosen. The

, next chapter will be devoted to a restatement of some

guidelines drawn from Ciceronian rhetorical doctrine

that may be used to study speaking in defense.

CHAPTER I1

CICERONIAN METORICAL THEORY

Cicero was, himself , a g rea t o r a t o r . 'Warcus

Tulius Cicero, the g r e a t e s t of Roman o r a to r s and the chief

master of the La t in prose s t y l e , was born a s Arpinium,

January 3, 106 8. c."' H e s t a r t e d h i s upward climb a t a

f a i r l y e a r l y age. '"He began h i s ca ree r as an advocate a t

the age of twenty-five, and almost immediately came t o be

recognized not only a s a man of b r i l l i a n t t a l e n t s but a l s o

a courageous upholder of j u s t i c e i n the face of p o l i t i c a l

2 danger." Within t he f i r s t t en years of h i s c a r ee r , Cicero

was acknowledged a s the bes t q u a l i f i e d fo rens ic speaker i n

the Roman cour t s . "At t h e age of t h i r t y - s i x (Cicero) was

recognized a s the most eminent pleader a t the Roman bar . 113

Cicero was accepted by many a s the g r ea t e s t speaker

of h i s e ra .

To h i s contemporaries Cicero was p r i - mari ly the g rea t fo rens ic and p o l i t i c - c a l o r a t o r of h i s time, and t he f i f t y - e igh t speeches which have come down t o

us bear testimony to the skill, wit, eloquence and pa sion which gave him his preeminence. z In his introduction to - De Oratore, the translator,

H. Rackman, recounts one of the more famous instances

giving witness to ~icero's standing as an orator.

In 63 B. C. the oligarchical party had been glad to make use of his legal and oratorical talents in the suppression of the conspiracy of Catiline; but they were not willing to make any sacrifices in order to repay him for his services, and in 58 8 . C. they allowed Clodius to procure his banishment in punishment for the alleged illegality of his procedure in the Catilinian affair. A year later Pompeius, finding Clodius more dangerous, again required Cicero's assistance, and procured his recall from exile. 5

Cicero was acknowledged as the most able orator of his

time , by his contemporaries and by his opponents the

arena of the Roman courts, and also by the leading polit-

ical figures the time . Cicero is not remembered solely for his ability as

an orator, however. He also developed a comprehensive

digest of rhetorical theory as it applied to the art of

speaking in defense. "Of all Roman orators none devoted so

much thought and study to oratory as Cicero. H e had a long

per iod of educa t ion , was f a m i l i a r with t h e l i t e ra tu re of

r h e t o r i c and himself c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e theory of t h e

s u b j e c t . "6 Baldwin p l aces Cicero i n pe r spec t ive as being

a t leas t as eminent a r h e t o r i c i a n as he was an o r a t o r .

"Cicero remains a f t e r two thousand yea r s t h e t y p i c a l o r a t o r

w r i t i n g on o r a t o r y . " Baldwin f u r t h e r p o i n t s o u t , ba he most

eminent o r a t o r of Roman c i v i l i z a t i o n , he wrote more than any

o t h e r o r a t o r has ever w r i t t e n on r h e t o r i c ; and h i s t o r i c a l l y

he has been more than any o t h e r an i d e a l and model. "7

Baldwin f e e l s t h a t what Cicero d i d was t o c l a r i f y , t o e l ab -

o r a t e on and t o apply the t h e o r i e s which had been developed

by h i s predecessors , and, i n doing t h i s , he l e f t behind him

a system of r h e t o r i c a p p l i c a b l e t o hunan a f f a i r s .

But (Cicero) i s no t c r e a t i v e . H e c l a r - i f i e s t h e thoughts of o t h e r s and b r ings them t o bear .... What he says of r h e t o r i c , f o r i n s t a n c e , o t h e r s have s a i d before him; he says i t b e t t e r , more c l e a r l y , more v i v i d l y . It wi tnes ses no t only h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y command of d i c t i o n , but a l s o h i s cons t an t awareness of human i m p l i c a t i o n s . 8

Since Cicero, more than most o r a t o r s o r r h e t o r i c i a n s

provides a p r a c t i c a l , working system of r h e t o r i c he becomes

-19-

his involvement in, and concern for, defensive speaking, a

large portion of his writing has been devoted to apologia.

The next section of this study will be an examination of his

writings on speaking in defense.

Ciceronian Guide l ines - For Speaking - In Defense

It i s i n D e - Oratore , p r i m a r i l y i n t h e l a t t e r h a l f of

Book 11, t h a t Cicero focuses on t h e a r t of speaking i n de-

f ense . He o u t l i n e s h i s own procedure f o r s e t t i n g up what

he cons ide r s t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e approach.

But t o r e t u r n a t l e n g t h t o my own plan. A s soon then a s I have rece ived my i n - s t r u c t i o n s and c l a s s e d t h e ca se and taken t h e m a t t e r i n hand, t h e ve ry f i r s t t h i n g I determine i s t h a t po in t t o which I must devote a l l such pa rc of my speech a s be- long p e c u l i a r l y t o t h e i s s u e and t h e v e r - d i c t . Next I contemplate w i th t h e utmost c a r e t hose o t h e r two e s s e n t i a l s , t h e one involv ing t h e recommendation of myself o r my c l i e n t s , t h e o t h e r designed t o sway t h e f e e l i n g s of t h e t r i b u n a l i n t h e de- s i r e d d i r e c t i o n . Thus f o r purposes of persuas ion t h e a r t of speaking r e l i e s wholly upon t h r e e t h ings : t h e proof of our a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e winning o r our h e a r e r s ' f avour , and t h e rous ing of t h e i r f e e l i n g s t o whatever impulse our ca se may r e q u i r e . 10

C ice ro ' s recommendations f o r speaking i n defense w i l l be

examined under t h e t h r e e headings l i s t e d above i n t h e o rde r

i n which Cicero develops them w i t h i n - D e Oratore : proof of

our a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e rous ing of f e e l i n g s , and t h e winning

-20-

of the hearers' favour.

The first heading to be considered is the proof of

allegations. This is best done within the framework of ar-

rangement outlined by Cicero for the presentation and sub-

stantiation of arguments in support of the speaker's pro-

position.

For to make some prefatory remarks, then to set out our case, afterwards to prove it by establishing our own points with arguments in their favour and refuting our adversary's points, then to wind up our case and so to come to our conclusion-- this is the procedure joined by the very nature of oratory; .... E f

Cicero also advises that the speaker must include a nar-

ration of the circumstances surrounding the occasion for

the speech. He outlines the arrangement to prove alle-

gations, and gives a detailed account of what should be in-

cluded in each section, and how to use every part of the

speech to best advantage.

He advises that the introduction or prefatory re-

marks should be unhurried.12 This part of the oration

I I should have a subtle character about it. The opening pas-

sage of a speech ought not as a rule be o-f a forcible,

subdued, "For the opening passage contains the first im-

pression .... and this ought to charm and attract the hearer straight away. 1114

Cicero also suggests certain guidelines as to what

should be included in the introduction. First, "The open-

ing passage in a speech must not draw from some outside

source but from the very heart of the case. "15 Secondly,

the opening section should either introduce the listener to

the subject matter of the case, or set the tone for the pre-

sentation.

Every intrzlduction will have to contain either a statement of the whole of the matter that is to be put forward, or an approach to the case and a preparation of the ground, or else to possess some element of ornament and dignity; .... 16

Once the speaker has made his opening statement, the

facts of the case must be narrated to the audience for the

sake of clarity and to lay the groundwork for the statement

of the case or the presentation of arguments which are to

follow, for as Cicero states, "the narrative is the fountain

head from which the whole remainder of the speech flows. 111 7

This narration is sometimes considered part of the intro-

duction, and other times considered a separate division

between the prefatory remarks and the statement of the case.

An extensive narration of the background of the

case may or may not be necessary, depending on how much

the audience already knows about the situation, and what

statements have been made by the opposing party.

But when to use and when not to use narrative is a matter for consideration: narrative should not be employed if the facts are known and there is no doubt what occurred, nor yet if they have been narrated by our opponent, unless we are going to refute his account of them; .... 18

There are two occasions, therefore, in which one should em-

ploy narration. The first is to provide unknown informa-

tion. The second is to introduce the account of the facts

given by the opponent in order to refute it.

Cicero further advises that if one employs narration

it must be clear and precise. The purpose of narration is

to clarify and explain issues, not to obscure them. Clarity

can be achieved if the narration J'employs ordinary language,

and if it keeps to the chronological order of events and it

is not broken by digression. 1119

Once the circumstances surrounding the speech have

been established in the minds of the listeners, ttre case

must be stated. This is the third division of the address

under the proof of allegations. Circero advises that one

should first set forth the proposition to be proven.

Next comes the statement of the case, a section i.n which the precise point at issue must be envisaged; and then the case must be supported by proofs, which is effected by conjointly demolishing your oppo ent's arguments and establishing your own. 90

At this point the speaker must decide whether to

emphasize the construction of his own arguments or the

refutation of those of his opponent to provide the best

support for the speaker's allegaticns.

The chief thing in a case of this kind is, if my speech can be stronger in re- futing our opponent than in proving our own points, for me to concentrate all my shafts on him, but if on the contrary our points can be more easily proven than his can be refuted, to aim at draw- ing off their attention from our oppo- nent's defense and directing it to our own. 2 1

Cicero further adds 'When I encounter a troublesome or

difficult argument or topic, occasionally I make no reply

at all:. .. . 112 2

In the statement of the case Cicero also suggests

that one always put the strongest point first.

In arrangement of the speech the strong- est point should come first . . . while col- lecting into a general medley in the mid- dle any points of moderate Lnportance-- bad points must not be given a place any- where . 2 3

In setting forth the statement of the case, Cicero

also recumends some guidel-ines for style. "As a rule

you should conceal the intervals between successive proofs,

to prevent them from being counted, so that, though separate

in fact, they seem blended in statement. 1124

The conclusion of the speech, like the opening

passage, should be unhurried. "The opening of a speech is

unhurried, and none the less its closing should also be

Lingering and long drawn out. ,125

As in the introduction, one ought also to strive for

subtlety in the conclsuion. The speaker should Lead the

listener to the desired conclusion, without actually stating

it for him. "~ften it is better not to formulate expressly,

but to make it plain, by affirming the underlying principle,

what the formulation would have been;.... 112 6

The second heading under defensive speaking Cicero

outlines is the arousing of feelings or emotion. . He dis-

closes the means whereby a speaker might further strengthen

his position. Cicero suggests that this may well be the

most successful weapon the orator can use to win his case.

Now nothing in oratory ... is more im- portant than to win for the orator the favour of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse or emotion, rather than by judgement or deliberation. For men decide far more problems by hate, or love, or lust, or rage, or sorrow, or joy, or hope, or fear, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, or authority, or any legal standarda70r judicial precedent or statute. L 1

To arouse emotions or feelings in the listeners,

Cicero advises that the speaker must first determine the

attitudes and predispositions of the audience. He must

then decide in what direction he wants the audience to be

swayed. Finally, he must reflect the emotion himself if

he is to convey it to the audience adequately.

Moreover it is impossible for the lis- tener to feel indignation, hatred or

ill-will, to be terrified of any-thing, or reduced to tears of compassion, un- less all those emotions, which the ad- vocate would inspire in the arbitrator, are visibly stamped or rather branded on the advocate himself. 28

Since the arousing of emotions can be such a potent

factor in in£ luencing leis teners , Cicero advises that it

should never be done unwisely. It should be reserved for

those occasions which truly merit such an approach. In

the following passage, Cicero explains how he approached

the decision of whether to use this appeal in his orations.

My own practice is to begin by reflecting whether the case calls for such treatment; for these rhetorical fireworks should not be used in petty matters, or with men of such temper that our eloquence can achieve nothing in the way of influencing their minds, .... 29

As to including emotional appeal in the presentation, !

Cicero suggests that the most appropriate place for these

portions of the speech "that in spite of proving no point I I

by means of argument, nevertheless have a very great effect

in persuading and arousing emotion," is either in the pre-

t fatory remarks or in the conclusion. However, he also ad- ! i I vises that "it is often useful to digress from the subject

one has put forward ... for the purpose of arousing emo- tion. l J

30 So, although the arousal of emotions seem more

appropriate in the introduction or conclusion, it can also

be used effectively when interspersed with arguments sup-

porting the speaker's proposition.

The third heading in defensive speaking is the

winning of the hearer's favor by establishing the credibil-

ity and good character of the speaker. This, again, Cicero

advises, is an extremely important factor in persuading the

audience.

A potent factor in success, then, is for the characters, principles, conduct and course of life, both of those who are to plead the cases and of their clients to be approved, and conversely those of their opponents condemned; . . . . 31

Cicero explains the attributes that help establish

credibility and good character and thereby win men's favor.

1 l Now feelings are won over by a man's merit, achievements

, or reputable life, . . . . ,132 However, there are also certain

1 characteristics that should be evident in the actual delivery

of the oration. These include: "a mild tone, ... modesty, L,

I gentle language, and the faculty of seeming to be dealing

-29-

In addition to these traits he says that it is also helpful

to display "the tokens of good-nature, kindness, calmness

and loyalty. "33 The opposite of all these characteristics

should, whenever possible, be ascribed to one's opponent.

cicerors recomendations for speaking in defense

fall under three headings: proof of allegations, arousal

of emotions and the winning of men's favor. To prove his

allegations, the speaker must provide the audience with a

proposition and enough proofs to support this proposition,

through the use of unknown facts as well as the refutation

of his aversary's points. To do this, the speaker should

begin with some prefatory remarks, then narrate the cir-

cumstances surrounding the situation, advance his case by

establishing arguments in his favor and refuting those of

his opponent, and finally lead the audience to the desired

conc lus ion.

The arousing of emotions and the winning of men's

favor are two potent weapons a speaker has at his disposal

and they should be used with care and discretion. These

three divisions will form the basis for the study of

Kennedy ' s address .

CHAPTER 111

THE CHAPPAQUIDICK INCIDENT

I n t h e p rev ious c h a p t e r C i c e r o ' s g u i d e l i n e s gov-

e rn ing speaking i n defense were d iv ided i n t o t h r e e a r e a s :

proof of a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e rous ing of f e e l i n g s and t h e win-

n ing of favor . I n t h e two d i v i s i o n s under n a r r a t i o n , i t

can be seen t h a t both a r e based on t h e knowledge t h e au-

d ience has r ega rd ing t h e f a c t s of t h e ca se . F i r s t , r e l -

evant f a c t s which a r e n o t y e t known t o t h e audience should

be inc luded , and secondly , t hose " f a c t s " which a r e known t o

t h e audience but a r e t o be r e f u t e d by t h e speaker should be

inc luded .

The degree t o which t h e s e c r i t e r i a a r e r e f l e c t e d i n

Edward ~ e n n e d y ' s speech of J u l y 25, 1969, n e c e s s i t a t e s a

look a t t h e account of t h e acc iden t a s t h e audience had

heard i t up t o t h e t ime of t h e speech. Therefore , t h i s

s e c t i o n w i l l be a review of t h e f a c t s , a l l e g a t i o n s and

specu la t i ons about t h e acc iden t of J u l y 18, 1969 invo lv ing

Edward Kennedy and r e s u l t i n g i n t h e dea th of Mary J o

Kopechne. 1

-30-

The first reports of the accident from a1.l sources

were vague and-sketchy. The general reaction, at the time

of these first reports, seems to have been one of grief

coupled with a sense of relief that the Senator himself had

not been seriously injured. The headline of the -- New York

Times, on July 20, 1969 read: "Woman Passenger Killed,

Kennedy Escapes crash."' (See Appendix I for diagram of

the scene of the accident).

Phillip M. Kadis, of the Boston Globe reported the

reaction of many congressmen to the accident. 'wash-

ington--Initial reaction is one of shock and sympathy to

news of Senator Edward M. ~ennedy's auto accident and the

accompanying death of Mary Jo Kopechne. " He quotes several

senators including Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and

Jacob Javits, as well as Representative Mike Mansfield as

expressing their condolences for Miss Kopechne and their

relief that the Senator was not seriously injured. Although

there was a general feeling of sympathy, he concludes that,

I 'Most of Washington officialdom, however, appeared to with-

hold judgment on how the accident might affect Kennedy's

future. 11

Although most people appeared to be shocked and

relieved, there seemed to be an air of secret speculation

(hinted at by ad is) as to what impact the accident would

have on Kennedy's political career.

The Senator was not physically injured in the accident. But his political career may have been gravely dainaged. Nearly nine hours went by before Kennedy-- "exhausted and in a state of shock," according to his statement--walked into police headquarters at Edgartown on Martha' s zineyard to report what had happened.

Newspaper accounts as they emerged on July 20th,

were that Kennedy, following a sailing regatta, held a

barbeque party for some of the late Robert ~ennedy's

campaign workers on Chappaquidick Island, near Martha's

Vineyard. Estimates of the number of people present ranged

from ten to twenty. The wives of Senator Kennedy or of the

other men present were not included. According to Kennedy,

he was taking Miss Kopechne to the ferry when he made a

wrong turn and the car went off a narrow unlit bridge and

landed upsidedown in the water. He said that he did not

remember how he was able to free himself, but he did re-

member making repeated efforts to free the girl, after which

he lay on the beach "exhausted and in a state of shock" for

an undetermined length of time, according to his police

report. The report of the accident, however, was not made

until the following morning, sons nine hours after the

accident was estimated to have occurred. It was reported

by someone on the island who had noticed the car in the

water, before the accident was reported by Kennedy himself.

The facts surrounding the accident were vague and

puzzling. There were several inconsistencies or omissions

in the story as Kennedy had told it to the Edgartown police.

"Several aspects of the case remained unexplained last

night. There is no explanation, for example, of the nine

hour lapse between the time the accident occurred and

~ennedy's first contact with police. J 15

That Kennedy was seen at his motel following the

accident added another piece to the developing puzzle.

According to Kennedy, the accident happened shortly after

ll:l5 p.m. After the accident he had returned to the house

where the party was being held, and had gone back to the

scene of the accident with two friends -who had made several

attempts to locate the girl. All of these actions could not

have taken place in less than an hour, however:

The Senator's statement did not relate

how or precisely when he returnea to Edgartown, where he was staying at the Shiretown Inn. There are 20 ferries from Chappaquidick Island to art ha's Vineyard, a few hundred yards acros a channel, from midnight to 7:30 a.m. f!

According to ~ennedy's own story, he could not possibly

have made that last ferry, yet he was later seen at the

Shiretown Inn.

As the week dragged on, more questions and incon-

sistencies arose. Several reports of unusual behavior on

~ennedy's part emerged. That Kennedy was not on the last

ferry was confirmed by Jerry Grant, who owns and was op-

erating the ferry Friday night. No account was given by

Kennedy as to how he returned to Edgartown. His only

comment on the case was that it was not yet time for him to

make a statement.

A report of a mysterious appearance at the Chappa-

quidick ferry landing Saturday morning also became known.

Senator Kennedy, accompanied by his cousin Joseph F. Gargan, and Paul Markham, a former United States At- torney for New England, crossea over on the ferry to Chappaquidick Island from Edgartown. The three men waited at the landing for about twenty minutes. 7

According t o t h e f e r r y crew, the Senator a c t u a l l y

made two appearances on t h e i s l a n d Saturday morning--wear-

ing d i f f e r e n t s h i r t s - - b e f c r e he went t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n

t o r e p o r t t h e acc iden t .

Dick Hewitt , ope ra to r of the Chappa,- quidick f e r r y , r epor t ed t h a t he brought Kennedy and two o t h e r men from Edgartown t o Chappaquidick I s l and s h o r t l y before 9 a.m. on Saturday p r i o r t o Kennedy's appearance a t t he Edgartown po l i ce s t a t i o n . Hewitt s a i d t h a t a s t h e t h r e e men stood on the i s l a n d a f r i e n d of ~ e w i t t ' s who had come from the medical examiner 's o f f i c e approached him and t o l d him t h a t a c a r r e g i s t e r e d t o Kennedy had been involved i n an acc iden t . He t o l d h i s f r i e n d hat's t h e Senator over t h e r e , " Hewitt s a i d , and then went up t o Kennedy and h i s two com- panions and asked i f they knew about t h e acc ident . He s a i d one of the men s a i d , "Oh yeah, we j u s t heard about i t . "8

Although t h i s apparent ly accounts f o r p a r t of Kennedy's

ac t ion dur ing t h e n ine hour de lay , i t r a i s e s some ad-

d i t i o n a l ques t ions . What was Kennedy doing a t t he f e r r y

landing? And more impor tan t ly , why d id the men r e p l y t h a t

they had j u s t heard of t h e a c c i d e n t ?

A f u r t h e r ques t ion evolved a s t o how Kennedy had

come t o be on the br idge i n the f i r s t p lace . The br idge i s

on Dike Road, a narrow d i r t s ide-road t h a t l eads only t o a

-36-

small beach. In order to reach the bridge, Kennedy had to

turn off Main Street, a wide, well-marked, paved road leading

to the ferry landing. Kennedy had stated that he simply made

a wrong turn, however:

The geographical facts stand out sharply to an observer who retraces the route that Kennedy took on the night of the tragedy. And they con- found investigators who are trying to piece together the circumstances of the accident that Kennedy says he barely remembers. 9

Further inconsistencies arose between ~ennedy's

account and the reports from other sources. According

to Kennedy's statement he and Mary Jo left at 11:15 to

catch the last ferry off the island, and the accident hap-

pened shortly after that time. Other sources disagree.

It was learned today, however, that the police here have a statement from a witness who says that he saw a black ~ldslnobile he now believes to have been the senator's car more than an hour later, about 12:40 a.m. Reliable sources identified the wit- ness as Charles Look, Jr . , a Duke 's County deputy sheriff .lo

Another complicating factor was added by the discovery that,

ÿÿ he wi tness (Look), was quoted by f r i e n d s a s saying t h a t

t h e c a r was occupied by one man and two women." 11

A s t h e days passed, more and more ques t ions about

t h e acc ident were r a i s e d , whi le Kennedy maintained h i s s i -

lence. Why d id Kennedy go back t o the pa r ty i n s t e a d of

seeking he lp f o r Mary J o ? "To r e t u r n . . . t o the c o t t a g e

where h i s f r i e n d s were, he had t o pass a t l e a s t f i v e houses

wi th te lephones . Two of t h e s e , both w e l l l i t , were about

f i f t y yards from t h e br idge . ,112

Had Kennedy been d r ink ing , and i f so , how much had

he had t o d r i n k ? I n t o x i c a t i o n might account f o r i r r a t i o n a l

behavior on t h a t n i g h t . By the time Kennedy r epor t ed the

acc iden t , t h e r e would no longer have been any way of de-

t e c t i n g the presence of a l c o h o l i n the blood, because too

much time had e lapsed . l3 This problem was compounded by the

behavior of t h e c h i e f of p o l i c e who admitted t h a t t h i s pos-

s i b i l i t y had not been and would not be explored.

Arena was asked i f he had inves t iga t ed t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t he acc ident was r e l a t e d t o d r ink ing a t t h e p a r t y and r e p l i e d : "I d id not a sk t h a t ques t ion of t h e Senator . There was no o t h e r phys ica l evidence a t t he scene t h a t t h e r e might have been dr ink ing involved. 1 ' m not pursuing t h a t l i n e a t a l l ...

I'm still standing on the fact that there was no negligence involved. 14

Exactly what charges were being brought against

the Senator? Arena maintained that Kennedy would be char-

ged only with leaving the scene of an accident. There were

several possibilities, however.

The gist of his (Edgartown prosecutor, Walter ~teele's) remarks, however, was that authorities were considering the possibility of three violations in the aftermath of the accident. One is leaving the scene of an accident, the misdemeanor with which Kennedy has been charged by Arena. A second pbssible violation might be driving under the influence of alcohol--a claim that Arena says he has no evidence to support. A third charge might be 'banton and reck- -

less" negligence--an accusation that Steele said has been ruled out"for all practical purposes on the basis of exist ing evidence. 1115

Steven Kurkjian of the Boston Globe added two more

items to the now mounting list of unanswered questions re-

garding the accident. First, he asked, "Why were the

nunlber plates removed from Senator ~enned~'s car after it

was removed from the pond?"--something which he had not

found to be routine practice--while officials were claiming

that no attempt was being made to protect the Senator or to

treat him differently than any other offender. Second, he

asked, "Why wasn't an autopsy perfcrmed on Hiss ~opechne's

body?" There were no answers to these questions by either

Kennedy or the local police.

An article in Time magazine summed up the major

questions about the accident.

According to Teddy's statement, he left the Dike Bridge in shock and on foot, wet and minus one passenger. Why Teddy told no one about the accident and did not seek help for the girl, why no one called for a doctor or even asked Kennedy what happened--and indeed how he got back to his hotel--are questions that must now puzzle not only the police, but also Ted Kennedy and his nationwide constituency. 17

During the week of July 20th, the questions, puz-

zles, ambiguities and speculations mounted, as Edward

Kennedy continued to refuse to make any public statement;

staying secluded in his home with only his family and a

few close advisers.

On the morning of July 25th, a hearing was held

on the charge against Kennedy for leaving the scene of an

accident. Kennedy pleaded guilty to the charge; and it

I was on that same evening that he made his televised state-

I ment about the accident. (See Appendix 11)

-40-

In this speech Kennedy answered some of the

charges made against him during the previous week. He

attempted to explain his involvement in and his innocence

regarding the accident. He admittzd his guilt to the

charge of leaving the scene of the accident, but, attempted

to put his actions in a context which would make it seem

probable that anyone in his position, under the same cir-

cumstances, would have acted in a similar manner. He

begged the forgiveness of his constitutency, and placed

his political future in the hands of the people of Massa-

chusetts who had elected him.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF KENNEDY'S ADDRESS

At the time that Edward Kennedy made his televised

address, the majority of the facts about the accident re-

mained unclear. The air was filled with speculation about

the details of the accident, and about the effect that the

whole incident would have on the Senator's career.

As previously stated, the address was an attempt to

explain both his involvement in the accident and to safe-

guard his political future. Whether or not his attempts

were successful does not fall within the scope of this

study. What is significant for this study is the manner

in whish Kennedy went about these attempts. Therefore,

this section will be an analysis of ~ennedy's address

under the headings reconmended by Cicero in speaking in

defense: proof of allegations, the rousing of feelings,

and the winning of the hearer's favor.

Proof Of Allegations

In analyzing Kennedy's speech1 along the guidelines

found in ~icero's - De Oratore, the first step is to look

at the speech in terms of how he attempts to prove his al-

legations, or his case. This will be done within the frame-

work outlined by Cicero for speaking in defense: the open-

ing passage, the narration of the facts, the statement of

the case, and the conclusion.

The opening passage, Cicero advises, should be un-

hurried and of a somewhat subtle or subdued nature. The

introduction is meant to charm and attract the hearer.

Considering the tragedy preceding ~ennedy's speech, it

would seem appropriate that a speech dealing with this

matter be unhurried and subdued; however, it would not seem

as appropriate that Kennedy should try to "charm" listeners.

Kennedy makes reference to the recent tragedy in

his opening statement. He is direct and concise. He

states that before his appearance in court it would have

been "improperH for him to "comment on these matters. "

-42 -

His language and style in the opening passage add, as

Cicero advised, an element of dignity to the speech. The

introduction is not ornate. Kennedy states simply that,

"tonight I am free to tell you what happened and say what

it means to me. I I

The opening passage reflects several of the guide-

lines set forth by Cicero. Although it may not "charm and

attract the hearer," it does serve to set forth the purpose

of the speech, and to introduce the listener to the subject.

It also sets the tone and adds an element of dignity to it.

The second division of the speech is the narration

of the facts which are unknown or which will be refuted.

Under facts not yet known to the audience, it appears that

seven questions, or areas of ambiguity had emerged at the

time of the speech:

1) Why would Kennedy not make a statement? 2) How did he make the wrong turn? 3) Had he been drinking? 4) Why did he not seek help for the girl? 5) How did he get back to his motel? 6) Why were the plates removed from his car? 7) Why was there no autopsy?

The first question is answered by Kennedy in a

direct, straight forward manner: "Prior to my appearance

-44-

in court it would have been improper for me to comment on

these matters." The validity or plausability of this state-

ment is reinforced by the fact that Kennedy did make a pub-

lic statement at the first opportunity following his court

appearance, that same evening.

The second question is unanswered. In fact, no re-

ference is made to it in the speech. Kennedy states:

"~ittle over one mile away, the car I was driving ... went 11 off a...bridge. From the context of the speech one would

assume that Kennedy was indeed on the road to the ferry,

which was, according to his testimony, his intended destin-

ation. However, going back to the newspaper accounts of the

accident, it was known that he had made the turn onto Dike

Road, and that Dike Road led not to the ferry, but only to

a small beach. Furthermore, it was also known that in-

vestigators were puzzled as to how such a wrong turn could

have been made in light of the physical geography of the

intersection, That Kennedy did not provide the additional

information to clarify the circumstances of his error, and

to further support his case,is one variance from the guide-

lines Cicero had set up for a good defense.

The third question is answered directly. Kennedy

-45-

states, "Nor was 1 driving under the in£ luence of liquor. "

He does what Cicero suggests--providzs a piece of previously

unknown information which strengthens his position.

The next question--why he did not seek help for the

girl?--is answered in two ways. First, it is answered in a

fairly direct manner through a narration of the circumstances

immediately surrounding the accident. "My conduct ... during the next several hours . . . make no sense at all .... Doctors in- formed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion as well as

shock." He had sustained injuries which he infers affected

his behavior. Further he adds that he lay "exhausted in

the grass for an undetermined time. " Again, by implication

it was his physical condition which prevented hiin from

seeking aid immediately after the accident occurred.

However, he answers this question in another way,

that he did, in fact, make several attempts to save the girl

and that he did eventually seek other help for her.

I walked back to the cottage ... and requested the help of two friends . . .and directed them to return irn- mediately to the scene with me... to dive down and locate Miss Kopechne.

He, t h e r e f o r e , answers t h e ques t ion i n two ways,

t h a t he made an immediate a t tempt t o save he r and l a t e r r e -

turned wi th more h e l p , and t h a t i t was h i s phys ica l con-

d i t i o n which de ta ined him i n seeking t h i s a d d i t i o n a l a i d .

The f i f t h question--how d i d he ge t back t o h i s

mote l ? - - i s answered d i r e c t l y , a l though not w i th an answer

people were l i k e l y t o have a n t i c i p a t e d . he f e r r y having

shut down f o r t he n igh t I suddenly jumped i n t o t h e water

and impulsively swam a c r o s s , n e a r l y drowning once i n t h e

e f f o r t , ....I1 This answer could e a s i l y be seen a s con-

s i s t e n t w i th known f a c t s . The channel was known t o be a

few hundred yards wide, a d i s t a n c e which would be p o s s i b l e

t o s w i m . Some time had e lapsed s i n c e the a c c i d e n t , poss ib ly

reducing the s e n a t o r ' s degree of exhaust ion, a l though he

does say t h a t he nea r ly drowned once. F i n a l l y , he had a l -

ready e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t due t o t h e concussion and s t a t e o f

shock h i s a c t i o n s dur ing the n i g h t were i r r a t i o n a l . It seems

poss ib le then, t h a t Kennedy r e tu rned t o h i s h o t e l , as he

s t a t e d , by swimming t h e channel .

The l a s t two ques t ions a r e never answered i n any

way. This would seem accep tab le , however, a s they r e f e r t o

ac t ion o r i n a c t i o n on the p a r t of the po l i ce , and no t any

action taken by Kennedy himself. Kennedy would, therefore,

not have had any control over or responsibility for the re-

moval of the plates or the lack of an autopsy.

Looking back over the questions or facts unknown to

the audience, the majority of the questions were answered

satisfactorily by Kennedy in the speech. The last two

dealt with actions beyond his control. Only the question

of how Kennedy made the wrong turn onto Dike Road in the

first place remains unanswered.

The second area of narration to be examined is that

of known facts to be refuted. At the time of the speech,

four "facts1' about the case which could have had some ser-

ious repercussions for the Senator had emerged:

1) No wives were present at the party, although most of the men--including Kennedy--were married. All the girls were relatively young and single.

2) Deputy Sheriff Look claimed to have spotted the car at 12:40 a.m.--over an hour after Kennedy claimed the accident occurred.

3 ) There was at least a nine hour delay in ~ennedy's reporting of the accident.

4) Kennedy appears on the island twice Saturday morning before reporting the accident to the police.

According to Cicero's guidelines, facts should be

introduced into a speech only if they are not yet known,

or if the speaker is going to refute them, and in doing

so, strengthen his case. On this basis Kennedy should have

mentioned these four items only if he was also going to re-

fute them.

Kennedy reacts to the first item in the speech.

He does not deny the absence of his wife. He does, how-

ever, explain the reason for her absence and flatly denies

the insinuations and speculations which had accompanied her

absence. He states first, "Only reasons of health pre-

vented my wife from accompanying me." He then establishes

the character of Miss Kopechne and her relationship to the

family. She was "such a gentle, kind and idealistic person"

who, according to the Senator, "had a home with the Kennedy

family." The implication of his statement is that Mary Jo

was not simply a campaign worker, but a friend of the family,

as close to Mrs. Kennedy as she was to the Senator. There

is also a subtle suggestion that, had Mrs. ~ennedy's health

been better, the three might have attended the party to-

gether.

Finally, Kennedy squelches the insinuations of im-

moral conduct with a direct, unequivocal denial:

There is no t r u t h , no t r u t h what- ever , t o t h e widely c i r c u l a t e d susp ic ions of immoral conduct t h a t have been l e v e l e d a t my behavior and he r s regard ing t h a t evening. There has never been a p r i v a t e r e - l a t i o n s h i p between us of any k ind .

I know of no th ing i n Mary J o ' s con- duct on t h a t o r any o t h e r occasion-- t h e same i s t r u e of t he o t h e r g i r l s a t t h a t p a r t y - - t h a t would lend any substance t o such ugly specu la t ion about t h e i r c h a r a c t e r .

Kennedy circumvents t h e second 'If a c t , I ' however.

He n e i t h e r denies i t , nor t akes cognizance of i t i n h i s

speech. He r e t u r n s t o t h e s ta tement he had made i n t h e

beginning of t he week, before ~ o o k ' s observa t ion was d i s -

covered, and main ta ins t h a t he and Mary Jo had l e f t t h e

p a r t y a t 11:15 p.m. t o c a t c h t h e midnight f e r r y . I f Look's

s tatement were t r u e , they could no t have been heading t o

ca t ch t h e l a s t f e r r y . Kennedy does not t u rn t h e time of

t h e acc ident i n t o an i s s u e , however. He s t a t e s t h a t they

l e f t a t 11:15, and then quickly moves t o another i s s u e , no t

al lowing t h e audience any time t o ponder the d i sc repanc ie s

between the two s ta tements .

Although Cicero s t a t e s t h a t f a c t s should not be i n -

troduced, e s p e c i a l l y i f they go a g a i n s t your case , u n l e s s

-50-

you a r e prepared t o r e f u t e them, i n Kennedy's case i t could

not have been avoided. I n order t o s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s case ,

he had t o exp la in why the two of them were i n the c a r to -

ge ther . To exp la in t h i s , he had t o i n d i c a t e t h a t they

were t r y i n g t o ca tch the f e r r y , and he was t h e r e f o r e , forced

t o e s t a b l i s h the time. H e does n o t , however, r e f e r t o

Look's s t a t e n e n t , and so , only i n c i d e n t a l l y r a i s e s the

i s sue .

The next "fact1 ' known t o the publ ic was t h a t the re

occurred a n ine hour delay between the time of the acc ident

and the r e p o r t i n g of i t . This i s something which had been

f i rmly es t ab l i shed i n t h e minds of the audience, and some-

th ing which Kennedy could not deny a s f a c t . Kennedy admits

h i s g u i l t i n t h i s regard. I n t h e opening of h i s speech, he

s t a t e s t h a t he pleaded g u i l t y i n cour t t o the charge of

leaving t h e scene of an acc iden t . La te r i n the speech,

however, he complicates the "black and white1' appearance of

h i s g u i l t y p lea . He makes r e fe rence t o the f a c t t h a t he

suf fered from a concussion and shock and may t h e r e f o r e have

been a c t i n g i r r a t i o n a l l y , but qugckly adds, "I do not seek

t o escape r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r my a c t i o n s by p lac ing t h e

blame e i t h e r i n the phys ica l , emotional trauma brought on

-51-

by the accident o r on any one e l se . ' ' To t h a t statement he

adds, "I regard a s inde fens ib le the f a c t t h a t I d id not

r e p o r t the accident t o the po l i ce i m e d i a t e l y . " However,

i f one i s t o be l ieve h i s reasons f o r not seeking he lp f o r

the g i r l immediately, i t would seem t o follow t h a t t h i s same

physical condi t ion which prevented him from seeking a i d

should a l s o have prevented him from r e p o r t i n g the acc iden t ,

a t l e a s t i n i t i a l l y .

What Kennedy does i s two-fold. On the one hand, he

implies a physical and temporary mental condi t ion which

precluded h i s taking proper ac t ion , and, on the o the r hand,

makes an immediate d e n i a l t h a t he t r i e s t o make any such

implicat ion. This produces an i n t e r e s t i n g e f f e c t . Kennedy

brought up the charge aga ins t himsel.f, and admitted t o i t ,

while a t the same time, implying t h a t he could no t , nor could

anyone e l s e i n h i s s i t u a t i o n , have ac ted any d i f f e r e n t l y .

This nakes him appear an innocent v ic t im of circumstance,

noble enough t o accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t i o n s over which

he had no con t ro l . I n t h i s way, he makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r

the audience t o blame him f o r not having repor ted the ac -

c ident . In e f f e c t , al though he does not r e f u t e the t r u t h of

the charge aga ins t him, he does deny the impl ica t ion of

-52 - wrong-doing t h a t had been connected wi th i t .

The l a s t f a c t f ac ing Kennedy was h i s two mysterious

appearances a t t h e f e r r y landing on t h e i s l a n d , before r e -

po r t ing t h e acc iden t t o t h e po l i ce . Kennedy, a t one po in t

i n the speech, admits t h a t he was on the i s l a n d a t l e a s t

once t h a t morning, al though i n doing so , he seems t o imply

t h a t h i s reason f o r being t h e r e was t o use a pub l i c phone.

I n t h e morning, w i th my mind some- what more l u c i d , I made an e f f o r t t o c a l l a family l e g a l a d v i s e r . . . from a pub l i c telephone from t h e Chappaquidick s i d e of t h e f e r r y and b e l a t e d l y r epor t ed t h e acc iden t t o t h e Martha 's Vineyard p o l i c e .

Kennedy r e f l e c t s what Cicero descr ibed a s h i s own

p r a c t i c e when confronted wi th an argument which he could

not r e f u t e ; he made no r ep ly . Kennedy r a i s e s the i s s u e of

h i s presence on the i s l a n d , thus reminding t h e audience of

h i s unusual behavior , but o f f e r s no explana t ion f o r h i s

a c t i o n s . The way i n which Kennedy in t roduces the i n c i d e n t

allows f o r favorab le specu la t ion , t h a t he was j u s t c a l l i n g

h i s lawyer. It i s poss ib l e t h a t ~ e n n e d y ' s case might have

been s t r o n g e r i f he had not r a i s e d t h e i s s u e , r a t h e r than

r a i s i n g i t and leav ing i t hanging.

-53-

Regarding the narration of the facts known to the

audience, Kennedy follows Cicero's advice in a strict sense

in only the first case. In the others--the time factor and

his presence on the island--he raises the issues and leaves

them hanging. Although Cicero admits that on occasion he

left arguments unanswered, he does not recommend that a

speaker follow his example. In the remaining instance, the

delay in reporting the accident, he admits to the action in

fact, but subtley refutes the association of wrong-doing

with which it had been attached.

The narration also reflects Cicero's other recom-

mendations for this section of the speech. Kennedy uses

ordinary language as Cicero suggested. The narration flows

easily and naturally, having a conversational tone to it.

Furthermore, the narration follows the chronological order

of events, although it is also broken at several points by

digressions, contrary to ~icero's advice.

The next division of the speech is the statement of

the case. In this section the speaker must formulate the

proposition and provide supporting proofs. In ~ennedy's

speech the main proposition is that he was totally innocent

regarding the accident itself, and should be allowed to

-54-

remain in office. This is a two-pronged proposition that

is reflected in the construction of the speech. The pro-

position is never stated explicitly but is rather implicit,

and it serves as the conclusion to which Kennedy leads the

audience. The proposition per se is never found in the

speech.

The next area of the statement of the case is the

support of the proposition, made up of arguments in one's

favor and the refutation of the arguments of the opposition.

The arguments or facts which were unfavorable to ~ennedy's

case have already been examined in the second section of the

narration. Kennedy does, however, build a rather intricate

case to support his proposition.

The proposition can be viewed as being similsr to

an "if ... then" hypothesis, ~ennedy's right to remain in

office hinges on his innocence. His lack of any wrong

doing, other than not reporting the accident immediately

after it occurred needs to be established before he can

justify his plea to retain his office.

~ennedy's support of his innocence can be broken

into four major lines of defense: lack of motive, lack of

negligence, his attempts to rescue Mary Jo and his inability

-55-

t o do any more than he d i d t o save he r .

Kennedy imp l i e s f i rs t t h a t t h e r e was no motive t o

do harm t o Miss Kopechne. As has a l r e a d y been shown, he

considered he r a "gen t l e , k ind and i d e a l i s t i c person, I '

no t t he type of person anyone would want t o h u r t . Sec-

ondly, he p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e Kennedys cons idered h e r p a r t

o f t h e i r fami ly . F i n a l l y , he s t a t e s , " the g r i e f we f e e l

over t h e l o s s of a wonderful f r i e n d w i l l remain wi th u s t h e

r e s t of our l i v e s . ' ' From these s t a t emen t s , i t would be

l o g i c a l t o conclude t h a t Kennedy would no t i n t e n t i o n a l l y

have done any th ing t o h u r t t h e g i r l , t h u s , t h e r e was no

motive f o r any wrong doing.

This r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f how r e s p o n s i b l e

Kennedy w a s f o r the a c c i d e n t . Was he i n f a c t g u i l t y of

negl igence. Kennedy imp l i e s t h a t he was n o t . F i r s t , he

den ies d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . He a l s o

reduces h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d r i v i n g t h e c a r o f f t h e

br idge by d e s c r i b i n g t h e hazardous cond i t i ons o f t h e

b r idge . Kennedy exp1a i . n~ t h a t t h e b r idge was on "an u n l i t

road," "narrow," l ack ing of g u a r d r a i l s and " b u i l t on a l e f t

angle t o t h e road. ' ' It can be assumed t h a t under t he se

condi t ions t h e acc iden t could very w e l l have occurred

-56-

without any con t r ibu to ry negligence on Kennedy's p a r t .

The t h i r d l i n e of defense t h a t Kennedy developes

i s t h a t he d i d , i n f a c t , a t tempt t o rescue the g i r l . "I

made immediate and repea ted e f f o r t s t o save Mary Jo." To

t h i s he adds t h a t he brought Gargan and Markham back t o the

scene with him, t o make another e f f o r t , "undertaken a t some

r i s k t o t h e i r own l i v e s , " t o save he r . He e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t

two sepa ra t e e f f o r t s were made t o rescue Miss Kopechne.

I n the l a s t argument, Kennedy shows t h a t he is

innocent of any wrong doing regard ing the acc iden t ; he d i d

everything wi th in h i s phys ica l power, but because of t h e

condi t ions surrounding and r e s u l t i n g from the a c c i d e n t , he

was powerless t o do any more. He po in t s o u t , f i r s t , t h e

11 s t rong and murky c u r r e n t f 1 he was faced wi th i n h i s e f f o r t s

t o dive back down and save Mary J o , which r e s u l t e d "only i n

increas ing my u t t e r s t a t e of exhaust ion," and then how h i s

exhaustion was s o g r e a t t h a t he was compelled t o l i e down

f o r some undetermined l eng th of t i m e before he was a b l e t o

make any f u r t h e r e f f o r t s t o seek a i d . H i s e f f o r t s were made

more d i f f i c u l t by h i s concussion and s t a t e of shock t h a t p re -

vented r a t i o n a l a c t i o n . F i n a l l y , he adds, an element of

Uncontrollable f a t e , by asking 'Lwhether some awful cu r se

-57-

r e a l l y d i d hang over a l l the Kennedys," sugges t ing t h a t t h i s

may have been a m a t t e r over which he could not have e x e r c i s e d

any element of c o n t r o l . I n t h i s way, Kennedy cons t ruc t ed

f o u r l i n e s of defense f o r h i s innocence regard ing t h e

acc iden t .

The second p a r t of h i s p r o p o s i t i o n is t h a t he should

be allowed t o remain i n o f f i c e . Again, he c o n s t r u c t s sev-

e r a l l i n e s of defense . The f i r s t i s conta ined i n t h e pro-

p o s i t i o n t h a t he was innocent o f any wrong-doing r ega rd ing

t h e acc iden t i t s e l f . K e was g u i l t y of l e a v i n g t h e scene o f

t h e acc iden t . This a c t i o n occurred a f t e r t h e acc iden t and

presumably had no e f f e c t on i t s outcome.

Second, l eav ing t h e scene of an acc iden t i s a m i s -

demeanor, more i n t h e n a t u r e of a motor v e h i c l e v i o l a t i o n

than a "criminal" a c t i o n . It i s a charge t h a t should have

no bear ing on h i s con t inu ing t o f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y i n

o f f i c e . However, Kennedy goes one s t e p f u r t h e r . He s t a t e s ,

"Today ... I f e l t mora l ly o b l i g a t e d t o p lead g u i l t y . " He i s

implying t h a t he d i d s o because he i s a man of high moral

conv ic t ion and honesty , p r e c i s e l y t h e type o f man one would

l i k e t o have i n pub l i c o f f i c e .

Kennedy uses s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l l i n e s of suppor t .

He refers t o his background, being a Kennedy. He mentions

both h i s l a t e b ro the r Robert and h i s l a t e b ro the r John,

both remembered a s men of g r e a t i n t e g r i t y .

Kennedy a l s o r e f e r s t o t h e t r i a l s and t r i b u l a t i o n s

I I of h i s p a s t . You and I s h a r e many memories--some of them

have been g l o r i o u s , some of them have been very sad." He

seems t o be r e f e r r i n g t o t h e a s s a s s i n a t i o n s of h i s b ro the r s .

He comments, ''The s t o r i e s of pas t courage cannot supply

courage i t s e l f . " Presumably t h e r e fe rence i s t o h i s own

courage. He g ives t h e image t h a t he and t h e v o t e r s have

s t ruggled through hardsh ips toge the r before , and t h a t t h i s

i nc iden t i s j u s t one more storm they w i l l weather t o g e t h e r .

F i n a l l y , he p o i n t s ou t what he s t ands t o l o s e i f he

does not r e t a i n h i s o f f i c e : "the l o s s of f r i e n d s , h i s f o r -

tune, h i s contentment, even t h e esteem of h i s f e l low men. I I

I n l i g h t of h i s innocence regard ing the acc ident i t s e l f ,

and the f a c t t h a t h i s only wrong-doing was no t r e p o r t i n g

t h e acc ident inmediately, such punishment would appear t o

be excess ive .

Although the p ropos i t i on i s i m p l i c i t r a t h e r than

e x p l i c i t a s Cicero suggested, ~ e n n e d y ' s support of t he pro-

pos i t i on i s ex tens ive , both i n proving h i s innocence and i n

-59-

making a n appea l t o r e t a i n h i s o f f i c e .

Cicero f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e a d v e r s a r y ' s p o i n t s

should be r e f u t e d . I n h i s de fense , Kennedy r e f u t e d some

p o i n t s such a s t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t he had been d r ink ing .

I n Kennedy's ca se t h e r e is no c l e a r c u t opponent, however,

t 1 and s o t h e r e i s no c l e a r case" a g a i n s t him. He t h e r e f o r e

o p t s f o r ~ i c e r o ' s s t r a t e g y of focus ing on h i s own arguments

i n an a t t empt t o draw a t t e n t i o n away from t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d

by what might be cons idered t h e o p p o s i t i o n .

I n o rgan i z ing t h e s ta tement of t h e c a s e , C icero

adv i se s t h a t t h e s t r o n g e s t p o i n t should be put f i r s t . I n

~ e n n e d y ' s c a s e , h i s s t r o n g e s t argument appears t o have been

t h a t he d i d a l l he cou ld t o save Mary Jo . Th is p o i n t does

no t come f i r s t , however. The f i r s t p o i n t Kennedy makes i s ,

i n s t e a d , h i s innocence of any immoral conduct .

Looking c l o s e l y a t t h e speech o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t can

be seen t h a t t he body of t h e speech i s broken i n t o two

p a r t s . F i r s t , Kennedy r e l a t e s t h e f a c t s surrounding t h e

i n c i d e n t . I n t h e second s e c t i o n Kennedy s e t s o u t h i s

p o s i t i o n a s an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l and d i s c u s s e s t he e f f e c t

t h i s i n c i d e n t could have on h i s p o s i t i o n . Because he i s

a t t empt ing t o e x p l a i n h i s involvement i n t h e a c c i d e n t , he

must explain the events as they occurred. The purpose of

the speech requires organizing the first part into a time

sequence so that the audience may undezstand the events as

they occurred. Thus, in this case, Cicero's strategy of

putting the strongest point first is set aside, and his

recommendation of using a chronological order, in reference

to the narration, is used instead.

With regard to the statement of the case, Cicero

advises that one should conceal the intervals between suc-

cessive proofs. Kennedy does this masterfully. He

smoothly disguises the interval between proofs by using

a pattern of associating ideas to move from one area to the

next. As has been shown in the discussion of the proof of

allegations, Kennedy uses a fairly large quantity of sup-

porting data, and he does so without overwhelming the au-

dience or overstating his case. The entire speech has an

air of subtlety about it which is aided by smooth tran-

sitions and the intertwining and overlapping of ideas.

The following passage is a good example of how

Kennedy moves from one idea to another. "I know of nothing

in Mary JO'S conduct ... that would lend any substance to ugly speculations about (her) character. Nor was I driving

-61-

under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f l i quo r . " One might e a s i i y a d d t h e

phrase "speaking o f ug ly s p e c u l a t i o n s , " between t h e two

sen t ences . The two s t a t e m e n t s are n o t u n i t e d i n s u b j e c t

matter, however, t h e y appea r t o have a common e lement , t h e y

a r e bo th i n f e r r e d t o be ug ly s p e c u l a t i o n s .

It i s t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n of b o t h s u b j e c t s w i t h t h e

i d e a o f ug ly s p e c u l a t i o n which j o i n s them and provides con-

t i n u i t y i n t h e t r a n s i t i o n from one i d e a t o t h e o t h e r . Now

t h a t Kennedy has r e t u r n e d t o d r i v i n g , by t h e r e f e r e n c e t o

n o t d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d , he con t inues h i s d e s c r i p t i o n

of t h e even t s by e x p l a i n i n g how t h e c a r he w a s d r i v i n g

went o f f t h e b r i d g e , and i n t h i s way each s u c c e s s i v e proof

flows e a s i l y from t h e p reced ing one.

I n t h e conc lu s ion Cice ro ma in t a in s t h a t , l i k e t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n , i t should be unhur r ied , drawn o u t , l i n g e r i n g .

This i s t r u e o f ~ e n n e d ~ ' s speech. The conc lu s ion i s n e a r l y

t h r e e t i m e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n . H e a s k s f o r

t h e suppor t o f t h e people o f Massachuset t s . i n f i v e sep-

arate r e f e r e n c e s Kennedy speaks o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e

d e c i s i o n f a c i n g him. H e g i v e s t h e aud ience t i m e t o d i g e s t

what he has s a i d . H e a l s o n a i n t a i n s t h e a i r o f so lemni ty

-62 - that has been carried throughout the speech, eliding as be

began, with references to the tragic death of Mary Jo

Kopechne.

Cicero also states that the speaker should lead the

listener to the desired conclusion, but that he should let

the listener draw it for himself, rather than have the

speaker draw it for him. Kennedy does this very well. His

proposition was that he did nothing wrong and should retain

his office. In the speech he has placed the decision in the

people's hands, saying that it is necessary that the people

be represented by a man in whom they can put their trust

and confidence. Kennedy implies that he is such a man.

"It has been written that a man does what he must in spite

of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers

and pressures, and that is the basis of all human morality."

Kennedy is implying that he is ready to face the "obstaches,"

"dangers, " and "pressures" of remaining office, thus making

him a man of high moral character, the type of person who

is needed to fill his office. In addition he states, "I

hope that I shall have (sic), be able to put this most re-

cent tragedy behind me and make some further contribution

to our state." He has led the audience to the conclusion

-63-

he desires, and is now giving them the opportunity to

arrive at it themselves. He established his innocence,

put his fate in the people's hands, implied that he was

willing to accept any and all consequences of remaining

in office and now asks for that opportunity. He has done

precisely what Cicero suggested in the strategy of allow-

ing the audience to make the final decision and come to

the conclusion on their own without having it drawn for

them.

. ., i'-i' riS<C,~,

&? 'zi- ti.

Arousal - Of Feel ings

The t h i r d a rea of defensive speaking o u t l i n e d by

Cicero was the a rousa l of f e e l i n g s , o r emotional appeal .

As Cicero pointed o u t , t h i s i s a powerful weapon, a s more

men a r e swayed by t h e i r emotions than a r e swayed by l o g i c

and argument. Cicero a l s o advises t h a t emotional appeal

must be used cau t ious ly and t a c t f u l l y . Kennedy makes use

of t h i s persuasive t o o l .

The occasion of t h e speech, t o begin wi th , i s a

highly emotional one. A t t h e time of t h e address , l e s s

than a week had elapsed s i n c e the t r a g i c dea th of Mary Jo

Kopechne. Kennedy reminds t h e audience of t h i s i n h i s

f i r s t s ta tement , thus s e t t i n g a solemn tone f o r the oc-

casion. References t o Mary J O ' S death , and the t r a g i c l o s s

f e l t by Kennedy, a r e found throughout t h e speech. This

f e e l i n g of personal l o s s i s f u r t h e r r e in fo rced by a r e -

ference t o the dea th of h i s b ro the r Robert e a r l y i n t h e

speech, and l a t e r i n t h e speech t o the dea th of h i s b ro the r

John .

-65-

Kennedy also draws on other emotions throughout the

speech. While relating the events immediately surrounding

the accident, he recreates for the audience, the feelings

of shock and panic which he had experienced. he water

entered my lungs and I actually felt the sensation of

drowning. But somehow I struggled to the surface alive.''

He follows this by instilling in the audience the same

feelings of extreme exhaustion which he felt after his

attempts to rescue Mary Jo.

Throughout the middle section of the speech,

Kennedy paints a picture of confusion and bewilderment

brought on by the accident. '!My conduct and conversation

during the next several hours ... make no sense at all." This he seems to attribute to shock and the suffering of

a concussion. He draws the image very vividly. "All kinds

of scrambled thoughts--all of them confused, some of them

irrational ... went through my mind during that period." He

follows up on this statement with the fact that the con-

fusion was "reflected in the various inexplicable, in-

consistent and inconclusive things I said and did." In

his confusion he thought that perhaps Mary Jo also escaped

from the car. He concludes the narrative of the scene of

-66-

the accident by stating, "I was overcome, 1 ' m frank to say,

by a jumble of emotions, grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion,

confusion, panic and shock." The scene, as Kennedy de-

scribes it, was such an intensely emotional situation for

him, having lost a close friend, and having nearly lost his

own lffe as well, that he was governed by his emotions

rather than his intellect. This feeling is reflected in

his narration.

In the second segment of the speech, the emotional

climate changes dramatically. He is now in full possession

of his mental faculties and is appeaiing to the audience on

an ethical and moral level. A different set of emotions

come into play. He appeals to the loyalty and responsi-

bility of his listeners. He engages their aid in making

the difficult decision facing him. In essence, he is

saying that he has always done everything in his power to

benefit the people and now he challenges them to make a

fair and honest decision as to whether he should remain in

office.

Kennedy also makes an appeal to the pride and pa-

triotism of the listeners. He lists the noble people who

have represented Massachusetts in the past: John Quincy Adams,

-67-

Daniel Webster, Charles Sumner, Henry Cabot Lodge, and

John Kennedy. At this point, ~ennedy's action strongly

reflects the advice given by Cicero to "digress from the

subject one has put forward ... for the sake of arousing emotion." That Massachusetts has been represented by these

great men has no bearing on Kennedy's case, but mentioning

their names arouses a feeling of pride in the fine men who

came from that state.

Kennedy uses emotional appeal in several ways,

first, to set the atmosphere for his speech, second, to

invoke the empathy and forgiveness of the audience. He

suffered a serious emotional trauma, and as a result of

this and the suffering of physical injuries, he was ren-

dered temporarily incapable of making rational judgements,

and he appeals to the audience not to hold him responsible

for his actions during this time. Finally, he appeals to

the listeners' loyalty and pride, as well as their gratitude

to him for what he has done for them during his period in

office. Through these appeals Kennedy attempts to sway his

audience to forgive this one small transgression of his.

He plays dcwzl the point that he has broken the law, and,

through the arsusal of emotions he permits the sympathy

-68-

of t h e l i s t e n e r s t o overshadow h i s wrong doing.

Winning en' s Favor

The last area of speaking in defense outlined by

Cicero is that of ethos, or roughly, the establishing of

credibility and good charccter on the part of the speaker.

This, Cicero advises, is an extremely potent factor in

winning men's favor.

First, Cicero points out that "feelings are won

over by a man's merit, achievement or reputable life."

Kennedy makes a few subtle references to his status. The

speech itself was made from the home of his father, Joseph

P. Kennedy. This, in itself, is a subtle reminder that

Edward was only one member of the almost legendary Kennedy

family. One is irmnediately reminded of the greatness of

his two brothers, John and Robert, who were heroic political-

figures to large sements of the population. The reference

is one of reputable life and good character by association.

Kennedy makes only a passing reference to his

achievements. Although he was one of the more active

senators, author of many bills to benefit the aged,

-70-

t h e poor, and o t h e r s who could not h e l p themselves--a

"champion of t h e common manJ' i n Congress--no mention i s

made of t hese acconplishments. The only a l l u s i o n t o h i s

achievements i s t h a t he sha re s wi th t h e people many mem-

ories--"some of them have been g l o r i o u s , some have been

very sad ." No o t h e r r e f e rences a r e made t o what he has

done f o r t h e people.

A s has been s t a t e d e a r l i e r , Kennedy uses s e v e r a l

methods t o r e v e a l h imself a s a man of h igh moral char -

a c t e r . That he f e l t "morally ob l iga ted" t o plead g u i l t y

i n cou r t shows t h a t he i s a man of good conscience. That

he t akes f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r no t r e p o r t i n g t h e a c c i d e n t ,

under circumstances which seem t o have precluded him from

doing s o , and t h a t he i s w i l l i n g t o l e a v e h i s o f f i c e i f t h e

people f e e l he can no longer adequate ly se rve them, make

him appear t o be a noble person, w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s

of h i s people a t h e a r t . He impl ies t h a t he i s w i l l i n g t o

put t h e i r we l f a re above h i s own needs and d e s i r e s .

Cicero a l s o adv i se s t h a t t h e speaker should use a

mild tone and g e n t l e language i n t h e d e l i v e r y of t h e speech.

Kennedy does t h i s throughout most of t h e speech. There a r e

at the ugly speculations about Miss ~opechne's character

and the intensely emotional narration of the accident

itself. For the most part, however, his language reflects

dignity and mildness.

Furthermore, Cicero suggests that the speaker

should seem "to be dealing reluctantly with something you

are really anxious to prove." This Kennedy appears to have

done very well. It is impossible to determine just how

anxious Kennedy was to tell his story. It is fairly clear

from the reports leading up to the speech that he had a

great deal at stake. His political futurz was severely

threatened by the questions and speculations arising from

the vague statement he had made earlier in the week to the

police. During that week, as has been shown earlier, it be-

came eminently clear that if ~ennedy's political future

were to be saved, it could only be by means of explaining,

in detail, his involvement in the unfortunate incident

resulting in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Assuming Kennedy wished to protect his career, he

must have been eager to see the matter cleared up. The

speech, however, does not reelect th.is eagerness. Through-

out the speech the impression is given that it is difficult

and even painful for Kennedy to recall and relive the tragic

events of that night. Although, in light of the political

consequences of maintaining his silence, it appears evi-

dent that Kennedy must have strongly desired the opportunity

to clear himself, his posture in doing so is calm, collected,

and with the exception of a few emotional outbursts, solemn

and subdued-- scarcely what could be considered eager to

talk about so recent a tragedy.

Cicero also says that it is helpful to display

"the tokens of good-nature, kindness, calmness and loyalty. t 1

It has already been shown that he exhibited calmness.

Furthermore, his good-nature and kindness are also reflected

in the speech. Kennedy displays these qualities while

describing the relationship between his family and Miss

Kopechne.

Mary Jo was one of the most devoted members of the staff of Senator Robert Kennedy. She worked for him for four years and was brcken up over his death. For this reason. ..all of us tried to help her feel she still had a home with the Kennedy family.

Through this statement Kennedy gives an impression of his

warmth and feeling toward Mary Jo who was suffering a great

loss.

Loyalty can be seen in the latter part of the

speech, that part dealing with his political future. In

this section Kennedy glves the impression of putting the

welfare of the citizens before his own. His loyalty to

his constituency can be seen in the following passages.

If at any time the citizens of Massa- chusetts should lack confidence in their senator's character or his abil- ity ... he could not in my opinion ade- quately perform his duty and should not continue in office. The people of this state ... are entitled to represen- tation.. .by men who insure their utmost confidence. For this reason I would understand full well why some might think it right for me to resign.

I The last point Cicero makes is that the opposite of

1 all those characteristics which establish credibility should,

1 whenever possible, be ascribed to one's opponent. In this

I situation, it can be seen that Kennedy had no clearly de-

1 fined adversary. The threat to his political career came,

1 not from any one individual or group, but from rumors and

1 innuendos. The newspapers were raising questions and fomu-

1 lating some of the issues, however, and political figures

1 were involved, some of whom were attempting to use this

incident to discredit the Senator. The scope of this in-

volvement cannot be measured, but it can be shown that some

politicians, as well as the press, could be considered as

opponents.

There are signs that the Nixcn Admin- istration in far off Washington has developed considerable interest in the case. White House aide H. R . Haldeman is said to have been calling newspaper- men to urge them not to "down-playJ' the Kennedy affair. A nember of the cabinet --George Romney, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--told reporters in Chicago today that he was not satis- fied with Kennedy's explanation of the accident. 2

Due to the absence of a clearly definable ad-

versary, it would be difficult for Kennedy to attribute

damaging qualities to his opponent in this case. He could

not be positive just who his opponent was. Kennedy does,

however, make some attempt to discredit or berate those

who were perpetrating the rumors, without any specific re-

ferences to who they might be. He refers to the question of

Miss ~o~echne's character as "uglyJ1 speculation. This

statement carries with it the implication that not only the

speculation, but che speculators as well, were to be con- I L

-75-

statement about citizens losing confidence in their

senator, with or without justification. Here Kennedy

draws attention to the point that none of the speculations

has been proven, and in fact, many have been disproven or

denied, and implies that those who would have him ousted

from office would be doing so unjustly. Although Kennedy

cannot attack his opponents directly, he implies that

those who are speculating about misconduct on his part,

are not only unjustified in doing so, but are also showing

a lack of character.

As far as it seems possible to do so, ~ennedy's

speech reflects the guidelines set by Cicero for establish-

ing the good character and credibility of the speaker and

for using the ethos of the speaker to win men's favor

while speaking in defense.

CHAPTER V

COKPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the previous chapter, it has been seen that the

majority of the elements outlined by Cicero for speaking in

defense are found in ~ennedy's address. Although the basic

arrangement of the statement of the case suggested by Cicero

is not followed by Kennedy, many of the other guidelines

for arrangement can clearly be seen. Kennedy also uses

both emotional and ethical appeals in the manner outlined

by Cicero. Whether by accident or design, most oE the

criteria of classical rhetorical theory set down by Cicero

two thousand years ago can be found in this recent case of I

American ap~logia.

The last section of this study is a comparison of

the findings of this method of examining the speech with

the conclusions drawn by those who studied the speech using

other methods. Finally an attempt will be made to draw some

conclusions about the relative usefulness of this method of

analysis compared with those previously used.

Comparison - Of Studies

Two of the studies examined in the first chapter

took the same form. In this form they attempted to identify

factors characteristic of the apologetic genre by comparing

two or three speeches of self-defense. The object of the

analysis is to use each speech as a tool for examining the

other speech or speeches in such a way as to draw out ele-

ments common to all the examples of the genre. Rosenfield

reasons that there are three advantages to be gained.

First, by using the speeches as criteria for evaluating

each other, rather than some criteria developed by the

critic, the study has a greater element of objec.tivity.

Secondly, this method aids the critic in the identification

of comnlon characteristics which ~osenfield concludes can be

attributed to tke situation or genre. Finally, the critic

will be alerted to the distinctive qualities of each of the

speeches.

The central concern of the Rosenfield study is the

characteristics identified as constants. They are four in

-78-

number: the speech is part of a brief, intense, contro-

versy, the speaker makes counterattacks on his opponents,

the documentation Fs concentrated in the middle section

of the speech, and the speakers reasssmble arguments rather

than initiate new ones. These four constants were determined

on the basis that they are found in both speeches examined

by Rosenfield.

The study conducted by Butler uses these constants

outlined by Rosenfield to examine ~ennedy's address. In

doing so, however, she concluded that only the last two of

the four constants were found in the speech. If ~utler's

conclusions are accepted as accurate, her work points to

at least one problem with the Rosenfield study. Those

characteristics alledged to be constants of apologia, al-

though found in the first two cases, were not necessarily

present in other speeches of this genre. When they were

compared to one other speech of defense, half of Rosenfields

constants were eliminated. Rosenfield recognizes that

these constants may have been accidental similarities of

the two speakers rather than genuine characteristics of

. apologia. Butler's study raises some doubts as to whether

-79-

and generalizing about the genre on this basis can be done

with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

A close examination of the constants which Rosen-

field identified reveals that there may be more than co-

incidence at the base of these similarities. There ap-

pears to be a fairly direct relationship between the ele-

ments isolated by Rosenfield and the guidelines developed by

Cicero. As ~icero's guidelines were developed through a

study of the reasonableness and the anticipated or obser-

ved effectiveness of different variables of public speaking,

it would seem to be more than by chance or accident that

they are reflected in contemporary speeches of self-defense.

The first similarity--the brevity of the contro-

versy--may be the result of several causes. Butler notes

that although both the Nixon and Truman controversies were

brief and quickly resolved, ~ennedy's was not. This may

have been a result of the nature of the charges, or the

manner in which the controversies were dealt with, or both.

The accusations against Nixon and Truman both stemmed from

alleged misconduct in office. Nixon was accused of having

a secret campaign fund. Truman was accused of promoting

Harry Dexter White, an alleged Communist spy, to a sensitive

-80-

government pos i t ion . They were i n essence p o l i t i c a l charges

of abuse of o f f i c e . The charges aga ins t Kennedy were of a

purely cr iminal nature t h a t necess i t a t ed a pol ice i n v e s t i -

gat ion, a s wel l a s a hear ing and an inques t , which i n and

of themselves kept the case open f o r a t l e a s t s i x months

a f t e r the inc ident a c t u a l l y occurred.

Nixon and Truman both answered d i r e c t l y t he char-

ges against them. Nixon i n h i s speech, revealed h i s per-

sonal f i n a n c i a l h i s t o r y , a move a b e d d i r e c t l y a t squelch-

i n g the a l l ega t i ons of a s ec r e t campaign fund. Truman, a l -

though no longer i n o f f i c e , r ep l i ed t h a t he had f i r e d White,

an ac t ion which he claimed had been taken as soon a s unfa-

vorable information about White reached him.

Although Kennedy answered most of the accusat ions

aga ins t him, the re were two d i s t i n c t d i f fe rences i n h i s

approach. F i r s t , he admitted t o having broken the l a w .

Secondly, he l e f t some loose ends hanging a f t e r g iv ing h i s

explanation of the inc iden t , such a s how he came t o be on

the road t o t he br idge i n the f i r s t place. On the su r face ,

i t appears t h a t both Nixon and Truman provided the unknown

f a c t s necessary t o c l e a r themselves. Kennedy d id no t . It

may be t h a t one of the reasons t h a t the Kennedy controversy

-81-

was not brief, as %ere the other two, is that Kennedy did

not include what Ci.cero advised one to provide for the

audience--a statement of the unknown facts which have a

direct relevance to the case being supported.

The second constant identified by Rosenfield is the

use of accusations or attacks against one's opponent or

accuser. This is an element clearly outlined by Cicero as

a useful technique in persuading the audience. Cicero ex-

plains t k t one niust establish himself as having high credi-

bility and good character, but he also advises that one

should ascribe unfavorable characteristics to one's opponent

whenever possible. Where Rosenfield identifies only the

accusing of one's accusers, Cicero suggests a two-way process

of building one's self up while tearing one's opponent down.

The third of ~osenfield's constants is the placing

of the documentation in the middle third of the speech.

This is precisely what Cicero advises as the best way of

arranging an oration by explaining that the opening passage

and the conclusion should be reserved for purposes other

than presenting evidence in favor of the case. Cicero also

sets guidelines for the arrangement of the documentation to

be included in the middle section of the speech.

i ~osenfield's last constant, the tendency to re-

assemble previous arguments would also seem to be con-

sistent with ~icero's advice to the orator. That Nixon

and Truman, and according to Butler, Kennedy, all re-

I assembled arguments they had used in previous statements

I seems reasonable if one assumes that all three were being

perfectly honest and had told the truth in their previous

I statements. If this were the case it would follow that

I they would continue to present these same arguments in

their televised statemsnts. Cicero advised that one should

provide unknown information which will support the case.

Rosenfield said that the speakers added some further sub-

stantiation and documentation to support the lines of

argument they had already advanced. Although Cicero's

guidelines would allow for additional supporting arguments

1 as well as for additional evidence, the characteristics of

I apologia identified by Rosenfield and Cicero appear to be

essentially the same.

The Ciceronian analysis of a speech of defense

I compared with the studies of apologia conducted by Rosenfield

-83-

if not identical to, the guidelines set by Cicero two

thousand years ago. Second, Cicero goes into far greater

detail in describing the essential elements of apologia,

and therefore, provides a broader base for the comparison

or speeches of defense. Third, by using Cicero's guide-

lines as a basis for comparison, it may be possible to

establish differences in the speeches which cause differ-

ences in the outcomes of the controversies. Furthermore,

the Ciceronian a~alysis also meets the other two advantages

which Rosenfield found to his method of study. By using

the guidelines set by Cic.ero, the critic still has s set

of objective criteria to use in the analysis of the speech,

thus retaining the objectivity gained by ~osenfield's study.

Finally, by using the criteria established by Cicero, and

by using these criteria to identify certain elements or

aspects of speeches which can be compared and contrasted,

the critic is still able to detect the distinctive qualities

of speeches of sel-f-defense.

Ling used Kenneth Burke's "Dramatic Pentad" in an-

alyzing Kennedy's address. The findings of his study can

be separated into two types, the strategy employed by

Kennedy in making the speech, and the possible future

implications of his address.

Ling concludes that Kennedy portrayed himself in

the first section of the speech as a victim of the scene

or of the circumstances, and in the second section as the

potential victim of the decision of his constituency as to

whether or not he should retain his position. Both of these

characteristics were identified in the analysis of the

speech done in this study. These characteristics were ex-

amined from two perspectives. First, in examining the

section of the speech concerned with proving the case, it

was detemined that ~ennedy's proposition was that he was

innocent of any willful wrong-doing and should retain his

office. As a means of supporting this proposition it was

suggested that Kennedy attempted to prove that it was not

negligence on his part, but rather the hazardous conditions

of the bridge, which caused the accident. This is con-

sistent with ~ing's conclusicn. He finds that ~ennedy's

statement of the hazardous conditions of the bridge "placed

Kennedy in a position of an agent caught in a situation not

of his own making. In both analyses it is concluded that

Kennedy was seeking to deny responsibility for the accident.

The characteristics of Kennedy's speech identified

-85-

by Ling were also examined in light of his use of emotional

appeal to sway the listeners. Here it was found that Kennedy

not only attempted to persuade the audience that he logically

could not control the situation, but that he also attempted

to reconstruct the intensely emotional climate surrounding

the accident and in doing so to create an empathy on the

part of the audience which would excuse his actions.

Ling's study has a second aspect to it, however;

he uses his method of analysis in an endeavor to examine the

possible implications of the defense delivered by Kennedy.

Having established Kennedy as a victim of the scene and

possibly of his constituency, Ling hypothesizes as to what

effects this might have. Ling suggests that Kennedy's

speech, although successful ia that he retained his office,

might have endangered his chances of running for the presi-

dency. Ling suggests three reasons for this. First, by

establishing himself as a victim oE the scene, he might

have been conceding that he would be unable to handle the

extraordinary pressures of the presidency. Second, that

Robert McNamara and Theodore Sorensen were with Kennedy

during his vigil of silence and presumably collaborated

with him on the speech, might suggest that ~ennedy's

-86-

explanation was not entirely his own, and that he might

have been hiding something. Finally, that he left questions

unanswered might suggest that he was indeed responsible for

the situation.

Although ~icero's outline for apologia can be used

to examine the strategy employed by Kennedy in the speech,

it does not provide a basis for predicting the effects of

the speech. One night reason that Cicero outlined his own

practices that were successful when he employed them. How-

ever, it may not accurately be concluded that if another

person's speech follows ~icero's guidelines to the letter

it will be successful, or, that if one strays from his

framework, the speech will fail. The criteria set down by

Cicero provide a basis for inquiry and examination, but not

for prediction. Just how solid a base the pentad provides

for prediction is questionable, but Ling reasons that it

does define the available choices, znd once this is done,

the critic is better able to speculate as to which choice

would be the wisest or most successful in a given situation.

In this sense, the pentad, although it perhaps does not pro-

vide as broad a base for examination, goes further in pro-

viding a base for speculation as to the results.

-87-

The last article is written by Linkugel and Ware.

The factors they used to study apologia are taken from

Robert I?. Abelson's "Modes of Resolution of Belief Di-

lemnas": denial, bolstering, differentiation and trans-

cendence. Rather than focus only on one or two speeches,

they survey over twenty examples of apologia, with a de-

tailed examination of Kennedy's address.

Linkugel and Ware conclude that Kennedy used a

strategy of bolstering, by which he tried to reinforce re-

lationships and sentiments. The authors outline ~ennedy's

strategy as an attempt to solidify, in the minds of the

audience, the close, personal relationship between Mary Jo

Kopechne and the Kennedy family, rather than just between

Mary Jo and the Senator. Once Mary Jo was seen as part of

the family, Kennedy tried to show that the Kennedy family

was inseparably linked to and firmly identified with the

State of Massachusetts. In this way he turned the whole

incident into a family matter--another tragedy for the

Kennedy family . The authors also see Kennedy as employing a strategy

of differentiation. After having told the people that he

had pleaded guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of

an accident, he attempted to convince the audience that the

Edward Kennedy who failed to report the accident was not the

same Edward Kennedy who served the people of Massachusetts

day in and day out as their senator. His injuries and his

emotional state had transfcrmed him into this other person.

These two strategies combine to form a posture of

verbal self-defense the authors termed explanative.

In the explanative address, the speaker assumes that if the audience understands his motives, actions, beliefs, or what- ever, they will be unable to condemn him. This seems to have been the hope of Ed- ward Kenne y in his "Chappaquidic~ Address". 9

Through the identification of the four basic fac-

tors of verbal self-defense and the combining of these fac-

tors into postures of verbal self-defense, Linkugel and

Ware have been able to outline the defensive strategy used

by Kennedy, and have also used these tools to compare

Kennedy's strategy with that used in other famous cases of

apologia. The authors explain that this is indeed the pur-

pose of their study.

This conceptualization of the apolo- getic genre into subgenres should assist the critic in comparing thc

r h e t o r i c a l use of language occur r ing ac ross somewhat d i f f e r e n t apologe t ic s i t u a t i o n s . 3

The au thor s go on t o say, however, t h a t t he n a t u r e

of the pos ture approach used i n t h e i r s tudy focuses t h e

a t t e n t i o n of the c r i t i c on t h e s t r a t e g y used by the speak-

er , and t h e r e f o r e l acks an eva lua t ive dimension. The c r i t i c

i s drawn t o the method of defense used by the speaker , a s

wel l a s the arguments, proofs and reasoning used t o sup-

po r t t he p o s i t i o n which has been taken. The c r i t i c i s no t

drawn t o t h e o t h e r elements of the o r a t i o n , except , perhaps,

i n an i n d i r e c t manner. The arrangement and the emotional

and e t h i c a l appea ls used by the speaker a r e examined only

a s they p e r t a i n t o the speake r ' s s t r a t e g y . They a r e not

examined i n t h e i r own r i g h t , a s a d d i t i o n a l weapons t h e

speaker has a t h i s command.

I n comparing t h e f a c t o r a l approach used Linkugel

and Ware t o the method used i n t h i s s tudy , i t appears t h a t

the f a c t o r a l approach goes much f u r t h e r i n s e t t i n g up a

framework f o r comparing s t r a t e g i e s used i n apologia . This

approach, however, i s one dimensional i n t h a t i t s g r e a t e s t

va lue l i e s i n using i t t o compare s t r a t e g i e s r a t h e r than t o

examine ind iv idua l speeches. Furthermore, i n focusing

-90-

solely on the posture of defense adopted by t h e speaker,

other factors previously mentioned, which contribute to

the overall effectiveness of t he speech are left virtually

untouched by t h e critic.

Conclusion

At the outset of this study it was stated that

through the application of classical rhetorical theory set

forth by Cicero to Kennedy's speech in defense of himself,

and through the comparison of this analysis to other anal-

yses of apologia, an attempt would be made to determine

the relative usefulness of the application of classical

theory to contemporary speeches of defense. To do this,

the findings of this study must first be briefly reviewed.

In applying ~icero's criteria to Kennedy's address,

it was found that in the areas of proof of allegations,

arousal of feelings and winning of favor, this speech

strongly reflected the guidelines and strategies set forth

by Cicero two thousand years ago. Whether by accident or

design, those theories on how to formulate the best possible

verbal defense can be seen in this recent address. Whether

~icero's guidelines can be traced through other recent

apologia cannot be determined by this study, but the possi-

bility that at least some of the elements would be found

-91-

does no t seem u n l i k e l y . This , i n i t s e l f , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n of c l a s s i c a l t heo ry t o contemporary apo log ia i s

u s e f u l , i n t h a t i t e s t a b l i s h e s a means of t r a c i n g t h e c l a s -

s i c a l t h e o r i e s through t h e development and e v o l u t i o n of

apo log ia . There a r e o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s of t he u s e f u l n e s s of

t h i s method, however.

I n comparing t h e method used i n t h i s s tudy to t h e

methods p rev ious ly used , i t appears t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of

c l a s s i c a l theory provided a broader base f o r s tudy , and

focused on a g r e a t e r number of a s p e c t s o f t h e add res s than

any previous method.

I n comparing t h i s s tudy t o those conducted by

Rosenf ie ld and B u t l e r , i t was shown t h a t t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s

o r c o n s t a n t s i d e n t i f i e d by the au tho r s have a d i r e c t con-

nec t ion t o , o r a Eirm base i n , Ciceronian theory . While

Rosenf ie ld and B u t l e r , i n some c a s e s , compared t h e e f f e c t s

of t he speeches , Cicero l a i d t h e b a s i s f o r examining t h e

s t r a t e g i e s which may have caused those e f f e c t s . F u r t h e r -

niore, ~ i c e r o ' s g u i d e l i n e s provide a b roader , o b j e c t i v e base

f o r t h e comparison of speeches of defense .

The conpar ison between t h i s s tudy and t h e Burkian

a n a l y s i s dcne by Ling r evea l ed t h a t t h e same b a s i c conc lus ion

about t h e s t r a t e g y used by Kennedy was reached i n each

s tudy , a l though w i t h t h e c l a s s i c a l method i t was examined

from more than one a s p e c t . It was a l s o found t h a t even

though ~ i n g ' s a n a l y s i s went f u r t h e r i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e e f f e c t

of t h e speech, i t examined t h e speech s o l e l y from t h e a s p e c t

of s t r a t e g y .

The s t u d y by Linkugel and Ware, compared t h e s t r a t -

e g i e s used by d i f f e r e n t speakers i n dep th , and aga in focused

on only t h i s one a r e a . The a u t h o r s had no means of compar-

ing o t h e r f a c t o r s such a s emotional o r e t h i c a l appea l ,

which may have played a more important r o l e i n some c a s e s

t han d id t he pos tu re of defense i n determining t h e e f f e c -

t i v e n e s s of t h e speech.

Having made t h e s e comparisons, i t appears t h a t ,

over a l l , none of t h e methods p rev ious ly used t o ana lyze

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e a p o l o g e t i c genre , have examined

speeches of s e l f - d e f e n s e from a s many d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s a s

could be examined through t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of c l a s s i c a l

theory . This method a l s o s u p p l i e s t h e c r i t i c w i t h o b j e c t i v e

c r i t e r i a by which he can examine and compare apo log ia .

Furthermore, a s i t has been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t many of t h e

-94-

and can be recognized in at least the address by Edward

Kennedy, it appears that the application of classical

theory may be beneficial in examining, characterizing

and comparing contemporary speeches of self-defense.

FOOTNOTES

Chapter I

1 L. W. Rosenfield, "A Case Study in Speech Criticism: The

Nixon-Truman Analog, " Speech ~ o n o ~ r a ~ h s , 35 (Nov. 1968) : 435-450.

2 Ibid., 435

3 Ibid. , 449

4 Ibid. , 449

5 Ibid., 449

6 David A. Ling, "A Pentadic Analysis of Senator Edward

~ennedy's Address to the people of Massachusetts," Central States Speech Journal, XXI (Summer 1970): 81-86. 7 Ibid., 81

6 Ibid., 81

9 Ibid., 86

losherry Devereaux Butler, "The Apologia, 1971 Genre, " Southern Speech Cormunication Journal, XXXVII (Spring 1972): 281-289. 11 Ibid., 281

12 Ibid., 283

13 "The Menl~ry That Would Not Fade, " -3 Time 104 (oc t . 7, 1974) :

31.

-95-

14 Butler, 288

158. L. Ware and Wil A. Linkugel, "They Spoke in Defense of Themselves: On the Generic Criticism of Apologia," Quar- terly Journal - of Speech, 59 (Oct. 1973): 273-283.

16 Ibid., 274

17 Ibid., 277

18 Ibid., 278

19 Ibid. , 282

20 Ibid., 283

21 See Rosenfield and also Butler

22 See Ling and also Ware and Linkugel. The latter article refers to factors drawn from Robert P. Abelson.'~ theory pertaining to the psychology of resolving belief dilemnas. 275.

Chapter I1

I E.S. Shuckburgh, introduction to Letters of Marcus Tulius

Cicero; Barvzrd Classics, (New York: P. I?. Zllier & Sons 1937, 5. 2 Ibid., 5

3 Tortsen Peterson, Cicero: A - Biography: (New York: Bilbo

and Tanner) 1963, 1. 4 Shuckburgh, 7.

J H. Rackman, Cicero; 111 (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press): 1967, x. 6 M. L. Clarke, Rhetoric At ,, Rome - 9 A Historical Study;

(London: Cohen and West, Ltd. ) 1953, 62.

I

Char les Sea r s Baldwin, Ancient - Rome -- arid Poe t ic , , (New York: The MacMil1an Co. ) 1924, 37.

8 I b i d . , 39.

9 The t r a n s l a t i o n used i s E. W . S u t t o n and H. Rackman, Leob

C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y , Cicero; Vol. 111 and I V Y - De Ora tore , (Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ) 1967. A l l n o t e s a r e from Book 11.

10 I b i d . , 114 ( r e f e r e n c e s a r e t o marg ina l pages)

11 I b i d . , 307

12 I b i d . , 213

1 3 I b i d . , 317

14 I b i d . , 315

1 5 I b i d . , 318

16 I b i d . , 320

17 I b i d . , 330

18 I b i d . , 330

19 I b i d . , 329

20 I b i d . , 331

2 1 I b i d . , 293

22 I b i d . , 294

23 I b i d . , 314

24 I b i d . , 1 7 7

251bid . , 213

26 I b i d . , 177

27 Ibid., 178

28 Ibid., 189

29 Ibid., 205

30 Ibid., 311

31 Ibid., 182

32 Ibid., 182

331bid., 182

Chapter 111

1 The major sources used for the content of this section

will be the -- New York Times, Washington - Post and Boston Globe. as Edward Kennedy was servin~ as a senator fro= - I

- ~p - - d "

Massachusetts at the time of the accident.

2 Although the accident occurred late Friday night, July 18, it was not discovered until the following morning and accounts of it did not reach the newspapers until Sunday, July 20.

3 Phillip M. Kadis, "Accident Shocks Senators," Boston Globe, July 20, 1969, 47.

4 Washington -9 Post July 20, 1969, A 1 5 Ibid. , A1

6 New York Times, July 21, 1969, 28.

7 Ibid., 28

8 Washington -3 Post July 21, 1969, A3.

9 Washington Post -9 July 22, 1969, A 3

10 Ibid., A 3

-99- 11 New York Times July 22, i.969, 18. - - --,

12 New York Times, July 21, 1969, 28. --

13 Washington Post -9 July 21, 1969, A3.

14 Ibid. , A3

15 Washington -J Post July 23, 1969, A3.

16 Stephen Kurkj ian, "The Kennedy Puzzle, " Boston Globe,

July 22, 1969, 12.

17 Time Magazine, July 25, 1969, 22.

Chapter IV

1 All the quotations from Edward Kennedy's speech are

taken from the New York Times, July 26, 1969, 10, in- cluded in Appendix 11. This is the text of the speech used by the authors of the articles on apologia, dis- cussed in Chapter I. 2 Washington J Post July 25, 1969, A3

Chapter V 1 Ling, 84

2 Linkugel and Ware, 283 3 Ibid., 283

4 Ibid., 283

BOOKS

Baldwin, Charles Sears. Ancient - Rhetoric -- and -- Poetic. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1924

Cicero, Marcus Tulius. De Oratcre. 2 vols. Translated by E. W. Sutton and Rackman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Leob Classic Library Series, 1967

Clarke, M. L. Rhetoric at Rome: A Histori.ca1 Study. -- London: Cohen and West ~ t d r , 1953

Petsrson, Tortsen. Cicero: A Biography. New York: Bilbo and Tanner, 1963-

ARTICLES

Boston Globe, 20 July - 25 July 1969. Butler, Sherry Devereaux, h he Apologia, 1971 Genre,"

Southern Speech - Comunication Journal W I I (Spring): - 281-289

Ling, David A. "A Pentadic Analysis of Senator Edward ~ennedy's Address to the People of Massachusetts-" - J

Central States Speech Journal XXI (Summer 1970): 81-86

New York Times, 28 July - 25 July 1969.

11 Rosenfield, L. W., A Case Study in Speech Criticism: The Nixon-Truman Analog, " Speech Mono~ra~hs 35 (Nov. 1968) : 435-458

Time Magazine, 25 Ju ly 1969. - Ware, 8. L., and L ink~zge l , Wil A . , "They Spoke in Defense

of Themselves: On the Generic Criticism of Apologia," Ouarterlv j o u r n a l of Speech 59 (Oct. 1973): 273-283

Washington -Y P o s t 20 Ju ly - 25 J u l y 1969.

APPENDIX I

Diagram -- of t h e Scene of t h e Accident - - .

Martha's Vineyard

1. S i l v a House--si te o f cook-out 2 . Lawrence Cot tage 3 . F i r e S t a t i o n 4. Dyke House

: l a n t i c ean

Bridge

APPENDIX I1

New York Times, July 26, 1969, p. 10. -- "Following is the text of a televised statement

last night from the home of Joseph P. Kennedy by Senator

Edward Kennedy, as recorded by the New York Times."

My fellow citizens:

I have requested this opportunity to talk to the

people of Massachusetts about the tragedy which happened

last Friday evening.

This morning I entered a plea of guilty to the

charge of leaving the scene of an accident. Prior to my

appearance in court it would have been improper for me to

c m e n t on these matters.

But tonight I am free to tell you what happened

and to say what it means to me.

On the weekend of July 18 I was on Martha's

Vineyard Island participating with my nephew, Joe Kennedy--

as for 30 years my family has participated--in the annual

Edgartown Sailing Regatta.

-104-

Only reasons of h e a l t h prevented my wife from

accompanying me.

&-I Chappaquidick I s l and , o f f Martha's Vineyard,

I attended on Friday evening, Ju ly I:), a cook-out, I had

encouraged and helped sponsor f o r a devoted group of

Kennedy campaign s e c r e t a r i e s .

When I l e f t the pa r ty , around 11:15 p .m. , I was

accompanied by one of these g i r l s , Miss Mary J o Kopechne.

Mary Jo was one of the most devoted members of the s t a f f

of Senator Robert Kennedy. She worked f o r him f o r four

years and was broken up over h i s death. ?or t h i s reason,

and because she was such a gen t l e , ki.nd and i d e a l i s t i c

person, a l l of us t r i e d t o he lp her f e e l t h a t she s t i l l had

a home with the Kennedy family.

There i s no t r u t h , no t r u t h whatever, t o the widely

c i r cu l a t ed suspicions of immoral conduct t h a t have been

leveled a t my behavior and he r s regarding t h a t evening.

There has never been a p r i va t e r e l a t i onsh ip between us of

any kind.

I know of nothing i n Mary J O ' S conduct on t h a t o r

any o the r occasion--the sane i s t r u e of the o the r g i r l s a t

the par ty- - tha t would lend any substance t o such ugly

-105-

s p e c u l a t i o n about t h e i r c h a r a c t e r .

Nor was I d r i v i n g under t h e i n f luence of l i q u o r .

L i t t l e over one m i l e away, t h e c a r I was d r i v i n g

on an u n l i t road went o f f a narrow br idge which had no

g u a r d r a i l s and was b u i l t on a l e f t ang le t o t h e road .

The c a r over tu rned i n a deep pond and immediately

f i l l e d w i th wate r . I remember th ink ing a s t h e c o l d wate r

rushed i n around my head t h a t I was f o r c e r t a i n drowning.

The wa te r en t e r ed my lungs and I a c t u a l l y f e l t

t he s e n s a t i o n of drowning. But somehow I s t r u g g l e d t o t h e

su r f ace a l i v e . I made immediate and repea ted e f f o r t s t o

save Mary J o by d i v i n g i n t o t h e s t r o n g and murky c u r r e n t ,

bu t succeeded on ly i n i n c r e a s i n g my s t a t e 0.f u t t e r ex-

haus t ion and alarm.

MY conduct and conve r sa t ion dur ing the nex t s e v e r a l

hours t o ' t h e e x t e n t t h a t I can remember them make no sense

a t a l l .

Although my doc to r s informed me t h a t I s u f f e r e d a

c e r e b r a l concusion a s w e l l a s shock, I do not seek t o e s -

cape r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r my a c t i o n s by p l ac ing t h e blame i n

t h e phys i ca l , emotionaltrauma brought on by the a c c i d e n t

o r on anyone e l s e .

-106-

I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not

report the accident to the police ipmediately.

Instead of looking directly for a telephone after

lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, I

walked back to the cottage where the party was being held

and requested the help of two friends, my cousin Joseph

Gargan, and Phil Markham and directed them to return im-

mediately to the scene with me--this was some time after

midnight--in order to undertake a new effort to dive down

and locate Miss Kopechne.

Their strenuous efforts, undertaken at some risk

to their own lives, also proved futile.

All kinds of scrambled thoughts--all of them con-

fused, some of them irrational, many of them which I cannot

recall and some which I would not seriously entertain under

normal circumstances--went through my mind during that period.

They were reflected in the various things I said and

did, including such questions as whether the girl might still

be alive somewhere out of that immediate area, whether some

wful curse really did hang over all the Kennedys, whether

there was some justifiable reason for me to doubt what had

happened and to delay my report, whether somehow the awful

-107-

weight of t h i s i n c r e d i b l e i n c i d e n t might i n some way pass

from my shoulders .

I was overcome, I ' m f r ank t o s ay , by a jumble of

emotions, g r i e f , f e a r , doubt , exhaus t icn , conEusion,

panic and shock.

I n s t r u c t i n g Gargan and Markham no t t o a larm Mary

J O ' S f r i e n d s t h a t n i g h t , I had them t ake me t o the f e r r y

c ros s ing . The f e r r y having shu t down f o r t h e n i g h t , I

suddenly jumped i n t o t h e wa te r and impuls ively swam a c r o s s ,

nea r ly drowning once i n t h e e f f o r t , and r e tu rned t o my

h o t e l about 2 A.M. and co l l apsed i n my room.

I remember going ou t a t one p o i n t and say ing

something t o t h e room c l e r k .

I n t h e morning, w i t h my mind somewhat more l u c i d ,

I made an e f f o r t t o c a l l a fami ly l e g a l adv i so r , Burke

Marshal l , from a pub l i c te lephone from the Chappaquidick

s i d e of t h e f e r r y and b e l a t e d l y r epor t ed t h e acc iden t t o

t he Martha 's Vineyard p o l i c e .

Today, a s I mentioned, I f e l t moral ly o b l i g a t e d t o

plead g u i l t y t o t he charge of l eav ing t h e scene of an

acc iden t . No words on my p a r t can poss ib ly express t h e

t e r r i b l e p a i n and s u f f e r i n g I f e e l over t h i s t r a g i c i n c i d e n t .

-108-

This last week has been an agonizing one for me and

the members of my family, and the grief we feel over the

loss of a wonderful friend will remain with us the rest of

our lives.

These events, the publicity, innuendo and whispers

which have surrounded them and my admission of guilt this

morning--raises the question in my mind of whether my

standing among the people of my state has been so impaired

that I should resign my seat in the United States Senate.

If at any'time the citizens of Massachusetts should

lack confidence in their Senator's character or his ability,

with or without justification, he could not in my opinion

adequately perform his duty and should not continue in

office.

The people of this state, the state which sent John

Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster and Charles Sumner and Henry

Cabot Lodge and John Kennedy to the United States Senate,

are entitl-ed to representation in that body by men who

insure their utmost confidence.

For this reason, I would understand full well why

some might think it right for me to resign. For me this

will be a difficult decision to make.

It has been seven years since my first election to

the Senate. You and I share many memories--some of them

have been glorious, some have been very sad. The op-

portunity to work with you and serve Massachusetts has made

my life worthwhile.

And so I ask you tonight, people of Massachusetts,

to think this through with me. In facing this decision, I

seek your advice and opinion. In making it, I seek your

prayers. For this is a decision that I will have finally

to make on my own.

It has been written that a man does what he must in

spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and

dangers and pressures, and that is the basis of all human

morality.

Whatever may be the sacrifices he faces, if he fol-

lows his conscience--the loss of his friends, his fortune,

his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--each

man must decide for himself the course he will follow.

The stories of past courage cannot supply courage

itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.

I pray that I can have the courage to make the

right decision. Whatever is decided and whatever the future

-110-

ho lds f o r m e , I hope t h a t I s h a l l have, be ab le t o pu t

this most recent t r agedy behind me and make some f u r t h e r

c o n t r i b u t i o n t o our s t a t e and mankind, whether i t be i n

p u b l i c cr p r i v a t e l i f e .

Thank you and good n i g h t .