Stories can be powerfully persuasive. Stories can move us to
feel, to think, to act. Storytellers, then, may be rhetoricians of sorts.
Homer was a storyteller, an author. He was not a rhetorician
in title. Yet his stories, particularly The
Iliad and The Odyssey have
survived for thousands of years. Perhaps Homer’s use of the persuasive appeals
is a contributing factor to his success. And to his influence in
rhetoric.
First, Homer had ethos. Not much is known about Homer today,
but he has an obvious legacy. And he did back then, too. In his Republic, Plato portrayed Homer
as the “first teacher,” “leader of Greek culture,” and “teacher of all Greece.” Also, Homer gave examples of ethos in his characters as
well. As we discussed in class, in Book 2 of The Iliad, King Agamemnon had more ethos than the soldier Thersites
and thus one’s message was received well and the other’s was not.
Second, he used logos. Homer appealed to logic and to the
reason of his audience as a speaker/writer and he gave examples in his stories.
As mentioned in other essays, The Iliad
and The Odyssey have examples of
Homer’s use of topics of invention.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Homer appealed to his
audiences’ pathos. I think pathos is a primary reason stories are so
persuasive. Homer understood his audience. He knew that they knew the stories
about the Trojan War. They knew the myths. Perhaps Homer’s goal initially was
to just entertain them with a great retelling of these stories. But then by appealing to his audience’s emotions, he persuaded them to
feel the story and act in someway—even if it was just to remember his words.
Again, he also had examples of his characters displaying pathos. Like in Book 2
of The Iliad when the Lying Dream and
Iris appealed to the emotions of Agamemnon and the watchman.
Homer’s purpose may not have been to persuade, but his
stories were persuasive and full of persuasion. Perhaps one of the reasons his
work is considered in the history of rhetoric is because he used and gave
examples of the three persuasive appeals which are fundamental in rhetoric.
Essay 5
Politics and rhetoric go hand in hand. Rhetoric is the art
of persuasion. Today that seems to be a kind of dirty word in politics. We
think about how politicians are always trying to persuade others and push
agendas. Usually that has a negative connotation. However, persuasion in
politics might not be so bad.
Rhetoric was key in Greek politics. The Greeks had a
government that was “ruled by the people.” It was democracy: everyone (that is,
free white male) had a say on just about everything and they were expected to
speak up.
The lecturer at Electra
explained that in Greek politics, there was debate. Individuals would often
debate two sides of an issue, trying to persuade the other and the other
members in attendance.
Let’s take a law, for example. In order to pass a law, the legislating
body would have to made a decision as a collective whole. There could be many
sides, or just two: do we go to war or do we stay home? Without
rhetoric—persuasion—the sides could not be debated and decisions could not be
reached. Rhetoric was key for progression.
Naturally, individuals with more ethos (like the Great
Pericles) would be taken more seriously than those without credibility or much
of a reputation. When individuals spoke, their argument (arrangement, logos,
invention) and their presentation (delivery, style, and pathos) would affect
whether or not they were successful in their appeals. Thus, their rhetoric was connected
with their success.
Persuasion is not bad. In Greece, many ideas were presented
in political environments. Perhaps that is part of why the Greek ideas of
government were different and lasting—with so many ideas and discussion, some success
was inevitable.
We credit much of our current political ideas and practices
to the Greeks—from democracy to legislation to courts. Perhaps it’s not so bad
if we model our rhetoric after them as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment