Literary Devices In Inherit The Wind

The play Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert e lee explores both sides of the controversial topic; evolution. Taking place in a small town, a character by the name of Bertram Cates is being put on trial for challenging the towns’ beliefs and teaching Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to a group of school children. This action was considered to be a heinous crime, so the town was forced to bring in two experienced, well known lawyers, Matthew Harrison Brady and Henry Drummond to bring the case to court.

The prosecutor, Mr. Brady comes into town exuding his winning tactics right off bat. From the moment Brady enters the town of Hillsboro he has everyone wrapped around his finger. With his open and friendly demeanor he fits right

in with all of the other civilians. Brady does this by coming at everyone with a strong pathological appeal going as far as to address the crowd that gathered to see him upon his arrival as "friends" and complements their "city of Hillsboro" he even calls the crime committed by Cates "a wicked attack from the big cities of the north!..." Brady tries to connect with the people and show that he is not on my there to defend the law but that he truly stands by it. "...if my own brother challenged the faith of millions as Mr. Drummond is doing I would oppose him still!" When Brady says this, the people of Hillsboro believe/see that he takes these beliefs against evolution very seriously and will not stand for anyone attempting to challenge that. Taking these tactics into the courtroom it is what makes the court and jury sway in his favor for a majority of the trial. Brady's act of persuasion was sort of like his golden ticket to the case. When Brady gets Rachel to testify against Cates and begins to bagger her with questions the jury is like putty in his hands.

However, although Brady did end up winning the case against Cates and Drummond, his pathetic appeals to the court room weren't always enough. While connecting with the townspeople works in favor for Mr. Brady because the town was on the side of the law anyway, it was all he had to truly go off of. This being the case for Brady, it opened the doors for fallacies and concessions in his argument as well as leaving him lost for words when there was no pathetic window to grab hold of. As we see this just so happens to be the case, Brady behinds to throw around objections to keep his opponent from speaking. "Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel..." when Brady has lost the court and his pathetic appeals no longer have much of an effect and Drummond has gotten the upper hand on both him and the court, he resorts to reciting the books of the Bible in a trance like state. He continues on with this until he finally breaks. He does this because he simply cannot accept defeat.

The defendant, Mr.

Drummond carried his case solely based on the fact that he had all of the facts and the character that e felt he needed. In part this is what caused him to lose his case. Prior to his arrival, Drummond was a bit of a buzz among the townspeople but not in the same way that his opponent Brady was. The people of Hillsboro called Drummond things such as “a vicious, godless man!” and “an agent of darkness.” So his reputation among the people of the town was already slightly tarnished and coming in as the defense and shying away completely from any pathological appeals weakened his argument a great deal. In the courtroom, Drummond tried to get through to the jury and the rest of the townspeople by using a logical appeal, stating facts and trying to explain why they people in the court were wrong in the way that they were dealing with Bertram’s case. But, each time he had tried to do so he was either interrupted or questioned, cut off by a firm “objection” by Brady that was always denied. Drummond’s argument was weak because he simply could not get anything through to the

court.

Even though Drummond could hardly get through to the court, his tactics were strong.

To try and defend his client, Drummond uses a logical and slightly ethical appeal to the court. He does not try to make good with the people of the town and instead focuses more on trying to win a case. When Drummond brings Howard to the stand, he asks him if learning about evolution ever hurt him. This is an example of him coming at the jury in a very sarcastic way that further helps his logic and position involving the case. By Drummond asking simple questions like these he gets a bit of a rise out of Brady—which was something he had shown though out the play to be rather good at—(getting a rise out of the general public/courtroom) because Brady then asked “Ask him if his holy faith in the scriptures has been shattered—” By getting under the skin of his opponent with simple questions such as the one stated above, he creates a space for a wining argument by showing the weakness of argument the opposing side

presented.

Between both lawyers, the defendant, Henry Drummond had the best and strongest argument in regards to the case. The reason being is because Drummond was more so focused on the facts of the case and educating the jury on the facts if evolution and not to befriend them to suede them to his side. Although he was shot down many, many times during his argument and he did lose the case, he was able to deliver much more convincing reasons as to why teaching evolution was no true crime and Cates was only allowing the children a different and new way to view the world. Nearing the end of the trial, Drummond calls Brady as an expert “…on the bible and its teachings…” to the stand after being quite unsuccessful in having his own witnesses brought to the stand as well as having his own evidence denied to the court. After asking Brady a series of questions about his knowledge of the bible and then asks him, “how in perdition do you have the gall to whoop up this holy war against something you don’t know anything about…” in reference to Brady saying that he knew nothing about the Origin of Species. The logical tactics that Drummond uses all though out his argument are what get the court to side with him toward the end his lack of pathetic appeal actually makes his argument more effective.