 |
| A depiction of the Third Estate carrying the other two on its back. |
The overall tone of the assembly's report was fairly moderate, but the comments were somewhat tongue-and-cheek. First, they assert that they can continue the proceedings and have the right and responsibility to make decisions, because they represent 96 percent of the population of France. In fact this assertion was brought a few times in the report. This assertion is an appeal to logos because of its attempt to rationalize further decisions, but the repetitions and tone stress an appeal to pathos. The repetition appears to try to legitimize them even more.
A follow-up point is definitely much more emotionally charged. Since the other representatives did not show up, they have no say in the proceedings of the assembly. They claim that the topic at hand is so pressing that it is their duty to discuss and make decisions instead of waiting for the other representatives. However, they do not despise the other estates, and express hope that they will all assemble at some future date. There seems to be some sarcasm because they express willingness to treat the others exactly opposite to the way that they were treated.
Because I neither read the section nor know a lot about historical France, I'm not sure I fully understand the kairos or plot of this writing. But, from what you have written, the rhetoric used seems to be very effective. Because the third estate essentially took every measure to ensure fairness but was ignored, they actually have all the authority in this situation. From what you explained, it seems like they used mostly logos and Ethos to get their point across.
ReplyDelete