Abstract
Despite of its long tradition the research of classical rhetoric can provide many interesting perspectives even today, since through renewed readings of ancient works possible reinterpretations of certain concepts that belong to the ancient system of classical rhetoric are enabled. At the same time a detailed research of the classical rhetorical system offers one of the most useful starting points to refine our perception of its concepts and recognize the value of their application to the contemporary models of rhetorical and argumentative analysis. In this sense, one of the most interesting classical concepts appears to be rhetorical ethos, a strategy of (favorable) character presentation. Known and studied mostly either solely from Aristotle’s conceptualizations of pisteis entekhnoi or from the perspective of a moral character that comes from Isocrates and Plato, ancient rhetorical ethos in fact reveals a multifaceted nature that comes from different conception of the role of the speaker in Greek and Roman society. Based on this hypothesis, we present examples of different ancient conceptions of character presentation and propose two main interpretative directions that, only when joined together, fully constitute a complex concept of classical rhetorical ethos. Considering some contemporary notions of ethos that can be identified within modern rhetorical and argumentative theoretical models (e.g. Amossy, Poetics Today, 22(1):1–23, 2001; Inform Logic, 29(3):252–267, 2009; van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004; Leff, Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’. In: van Eemeren FH, et al (eds) Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 255–268; Argument 23:301–311, 2009; Tindale, Rhetorical argumentation: principles of theory and practice. Sage, London, 2004), we also demonstrate how such elaborated understanding of rhetorical ethos can contribute to modern rhetorical or/and argumentative analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
All translations of Aristotle’s Rhetoric by G. A. Kennedy (1991). All Greek parentheses are ours (JŽ).
- 2.
See especially Tindale’s study of rhetorical model of argumentation (1999). Together with contemporary logical, dialectical and pragmatic views on argumentation Tindale tries to develop a comprehensive model of argument that is fundamentally rhetorical and founded on Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric.
- 3.
LSJ lists the following classical meanings of a Greek adjective epieikês: I. in Homer: fi tting, meet, suitable; II. after Homer: (1) of statements, rights, etc.: (a) reasonable, specious ; (b) fair, equitable, not according to the letter of the law (opp. dikaios); (2) of persons: (a) able, capable; (b) in moral sense, reasonable, fair, good; (c) with social or political connotation, the upper or educated classes. For epieikeia we can fi nd the following meanings: (1). reasonableness; (2) equity, opp. strict law; (3) of persons: reasonableness, fairness ; also, goodness, virtuousness.
- 4.
The Greek parentheses are our addition (JŽ).
- 5.
Translated by G. Norlin (1963). Greek parenthesis is our addition (JŽ).
- 6.
This stands out in the Roman treatises as well, since they present rhetoric as an already standardized system. Cf. Quintilian’s treatment of ethos and pathos as two degrees of emotion, namely as leniores and vehementes affectus (6.2.8-9).
- 7.
Anaximenes presents many examples, where a speaker’s character presentation is a part of precise instructions for composing prologues. Goodwill is discussed in 1436a33-1438a42, where we can fi nd precise instructions for composing prologues in deliberative speeches. For judicial oratory see 1442a6-14 about winning goodwill of the friendly and neutral audience and 1442a20-1442b28 that describes the case of hostile audience. Cf. also 1445b39-1446a4.
- 8.
Cf. Rh. Al. 1428b29-32 for character presentation as a part of an argument scheme and 1431b9-19 for character presentation as a ready-made argument or a special type of authority argumentation. This view was particularly studied by Braet (1996, 2004), who showed that Rhetoric to Alexander contains a typology of argumentation schemes.
- 9.
Cf. especially a presentation of oratory of Marcus Antonius in Cicero’s discussions Brutus and De oratore.
- 10.
Translation by J. M. May and J. Wisse (2001). Latin parentheses are our addition (JŽ).
- 11.
Due to its complexity we shall not present Cicero’s conception of rhetorical ethos in this paper. For detailed study of ‘Ciceronian ethos ’ see especially Wisse (1989) and May (1988).
- 12.
The possible set of questions could be the following: What social relations and values in the given rhetorical discourse shape a speaker’s use of rhetorical ethos as a persuasive and/or argumentative strategy? What are the predominant discursive elements, which relate to these social relations and values, and constitute speaker’s trustworthy image in the given discourse? Are those elements to be found in the realm of speaker’s character presentation, which is mainly created within the discourse or is more based on his/hers preexisting authority?
References
Amossy, R. (2001). Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today, 22(1), 1–23.
Amossy, R. (2009). Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments. Informal Logic, 29(3), 252–267.
Aristoteles. (1957). Problems 2. Books XXII – XXXVIII/Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (With an English translation by H. Rackham & W. Stanley Hett). London/Cambridge, MA: Heinemann/Harvard University Press.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric. A theory of civic discourse (A newly translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices by G. A. Kennedy). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braet, A. (1992). Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. A reexamination. Argumentation, 6, 307–320.
Braet, A. (1996). The paradoxical case of the Rhetoric to Alexander. Argumentation, 10, 347–359.
Braet, A. (2004). The oldest typology of argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 18, 127–148.
Brinton, A. (1986). Ethotic argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3, 245–258.
Cicero, M. T. (1954/1999). Rhetorica ad Herennium (With an English Translation by H. Caplan). Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Cicero, M. T. (2001). On the ideal orator (De oratore) (Translated with Introduction, Notes, Appendixes, Glossary and Indexes by J. M. May, & J. Wisse). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enos, L. E., & Schnakenberg, K. R. (1994). Cicero latinizes ethos. In J. Baumlin & T. F. Baumlin (Eds.), Ethos. New essays in rhetorical and critical theory (pp. 191–209). Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1979). Aristotle’s Rhetoric on Emotions. In J. Barnes, M. Schofield, R. Sorabji (Eds.), Articles in Aristotle. 4. Psychology and Aestetics(pp. 133–153). London: Duckworth.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1988). Benevolentiam conciliare and animos permovere: Some remarks on Cicero’s De oratore 2. 178–216. Rhetorica, 7/3, 259–275.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1992). Aristotle on Persuasion Through Character. Rhetorica, 10/3, 207–244.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1994). Quintilian 6.2.8-9: Ethos and pathos and the ancient tradition. In W. W. Fortenbaugh & D. C. Mirhady (Eds.), Peripatetic rhetoric after Aristotle (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities VI, pp. 183–91). New Brunswick/London: Transaction.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1996). Aristotle’s Account of Persuasion through Character. In Johnstone, C. L. (ed.), Theory, Text, Context. Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory (pp. 147–168). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gill, C. (1984). The ethos/pathos distinction in rhetorical and literary criticism. Classical Quarterly, 34(1/2), 149–166.
Isocrates. (1963). Isocrates with an English translation in three volumes by George Norlin. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd.
Kennedy, G. A. (1963). The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kennedy, G. A. (1972). The art of rhetoric in the Roman world 300 B.C. – A. D. 300. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative Rhetoric. An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Leff, M. (2003). Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’. In F. H. van Eemeren et al. (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 255–268). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Leff, M. (2009). Perelman, ad hominem argument, and rhetorical ethos. Argumentation, 23, 301–311.
May, J. M. (1988). Trials of character. The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos. Chapel Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press.
May, J. M. (2002). Brill’s companion to Cicero: Oratory and rhetoric. Leiden: Brill.
Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars Topica. The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Berlin: Springer.
Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. London: Sage.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–161). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wisse, J. (1989). Ethos and pathos from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Žmavc, J. (2012). The Ethos of Classical Rhetoric: From Epieikeia to Auctoritas . In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4040-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4041-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)