A common saying is the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, George Savile, in his essay in memoriam of King Charles II of England, somewhat disagrees. In his essay, Savile uses variety of rhetorical strategies to portray the king as neither the devil incarnate nor a perfect figure but rather as a human, whose flaws are prevalent in every person in an attempt to have his audience view Charles as a human, rather than an elevated figure. To begin his essay, Savile starts with an appeal to human decency. Rather than be like an “angry philosopher” and “call lewdness” on his most minute of faults, we should rather not “have an exact memory,” because if everyone who shared those vices attended his funeral, “never …show more content…
He further establishes this point by stating that “the defects laid to his charge are such as many claim indulgence from mankind.” This repetition of the one idea helps reinforce the idea that King Charles was the same as the author’s audience, and it is asinine for the people to hold up Charles to a standard they cannot reasonably hold themselves to. In his essay, Savile appeals to human mercy to try and attempt the audience to see Charles as nothing more than a human. By characterizing virtue as “crabbed and unsociable,” and redefining the king’s flaws as “an overflowing of good nature,” the author presents a portrait of a king who should not be viewed as an elevated figure because he was plagued by the same problems that plague everyone. Through this repetition of this single point, the author effectively build a point almost entirely based upon the bandwagon fallacy: because every person has flaws, we should not hold the king accountable for that