“Moreover it is
impossible for the listener to feel indignation, hatred, or ill-will, to be terrified
of anything, or reduced to tears of compassion, unless all those emotions,
which the advocate would inspire in the arbitrator, are visibly stamped or
rather branded on the advocate himself” (p. 330, column I).
The appeal to
pathos has been a topic of discussion throughout previous readings, and I’m
sure it will continue to be. As we have seen already through other discussions,
different rhetoricians held varying opinions about the appeal to pathos, but it
was always a focus just like ethos and logos. As I read the above quote I had
to agree with the fact that I am more likely to believe what someone is saying,
or a point being made, if the tone of the oratory matches the emotion(s) being
portrayed. “The orator must bring considerable knowledge to the rhetorical
situation, even knowledge well beyond what the particular situations calls for”
(p. 35). Knowing how to persuade an audience through pathos, as well as ethos
and logos, is a way of bringing considerable knowledge to the rhetorical situation.
From the
readings we have done I do understand the importance of ethos and logos, but
for me I find I can relate to pathos more. Maybe that is because as a human I
am forced to feel emotions whether I want to or not and am easily persuaded by
my emotions. But as an “ideal orator” my response to the rhetoricians’ approach
to pathos would be desirable.
I think it's very interesting the focus on pathos within Cicero's discussion when he, in fact, never tried to appeal to emotions within the dialogue. He spoke so clearly on pathos, yet, tried to prove himself through ethos the majority of the time. I would agree with you, I feel that the most powerful way to persuade other people is through the emotions. Though being a credible source is important, if a non-credible source has a fantastic use of logic and creates an emotional response, the majority of audiences will have a high chance of persuasion.
ReplyDeleteI also found Antonius's argument that the orator needs to exhibit the same emotions he wishes to incite interesting. It seems that it would be difficult to maintain control of discourse in the event of emotional extremes, but there is an alternative: you can fake it or prepare to exaggerate it.
ReplyDeleteAntonius himself dances around this point soon after the passage you cite, speaking of his experience at plays where "the actor-man's eyes seemed to me to be blazing behind his mask" (Cicero 330). However, he seems to think that the actor does feel the emotion he is portraying (Cicero 331). But does he? After all, he's probably played the same part many times. Maybe he can conjure up emotion on cue. If we can fake emotion, we're suddenly in possession of a tool that allows for the clear-headed manipulation of emotions in others. That's a pretty diverse capability.