Examples Of Ethos Pathos Logos

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

Between the three rhetorical devices, ethos, pathos, and logos, I believe that the most influential and effective technique is pathos. This is because both ethos and logos rely on the idea that the audience has equal or similar moral standards or thought processes. Pathos appeals to the deepest emotions humans feel, whether they be positive or negative, and makes them seem even stronger. While ethos and logos build good arguments, pathos makes those arguments seem irrefutable, even if they are objectively weak.

One appeal that Prose makes to logos is when she discusses how unlikely it is that a student exposed to only middlebrow writing will strive to read anything more or write anything better than mediocre (para 17). Here, Prose is trying to express why high school literature should be more decisively picked. If high schools lazily pick weak literature for students to learn from, then it logically follows that students will learn to read and write like that. Another appeal that Prose makes to logos is when she describes the inadequacy of Angelou’s I know Why the Caged Bird Sings saying, “To hold up this book as a paradigm of memoir, of thought--of literature--is akin to inviting doctors convicted of malpractice to instruct our medical students”

The discussion between the two as a whole is a deliberative and judicial rhetoric battle, but both make use of epideictic rhetoric to strengthen their positions.

Before Augustus came to power, Civil war had ravished the basic principle of the Roman people. Piety, the warning to “fulfil our duties towards our country, our parents, or others connected with us by ties of blood” was undermined by faction. The duty towards country, parents and relatives was less of a bond because faction determined duty rather that Pietas. Thus Rome, a city founded in pietas, was that foundational principle. internal faction undermined the principles of pietas and corrupted its role in the city. Rome needed a moral reform towards pietas; Rome needed a refocus on the roots of the empire, its duty towards its ancestors, and unity based in pietas. Commissioned by Augustus, Virgil constructs the Aeneid so that it portrays the cruciality of pietas by redefining Greek epic heroism to include pietas. Each comparason of aeneas to another greek hero emphasises the pietas within him, showing how he is better because of it and combining the heroism of all the Greek heroes into Aeneas. By doing this, virgil shows that to unify Rome through pietas is to harness Rome’s power. Thus, Virgil reveals to the Romans a virtue which allows the individual Roman citizen embody and partake in the glory of Rome.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

Chapter 6 is entitled The Creation of the Roman Empire. The main subject of this chapter is that the financial and social tension created by the cost to maintain the military force needed to defend the expansive Roman Empire ultimately led to its collapse. The authors’ purpose in this chapter is to argue that the strain of paying for such a large army as well as outfitting them with sufficient supplies led to financial collapse and plunged the Roman Empire into decades of civil war.1 One piece of key evidence that the authors’ use to support their case is the deathbed advice emperor Septimius Severus gave to his sons’ Caracella and Geta “stay on good terms with each other, be generous to the soldiers, and pay no attention to anyone else,”

William V. Harris, an American professor/historian from Columbia University who specializes in ancient Greece and Rome, seeks to analyze Roman attitudes towards war through his book, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (1979). Since warfare was an integral part of life in the Roman Republic, Harris attempts to provide the reasoning behind their desire to continuously engage in battle as seen through the use of primary sources, such as Polybius, and archeological evidence. Specifically, in the first half of Chapter One entitled, “Roman Attitudes Towards War,” Harris looks at the aristocracy and their general feelings towards war. Overall, Harris claims throughout the work that Rome was a militaristic culture; yet, specifically were more ferocious, violent, and frequent in their warfare than other polities. This is due to the Roman emphasis on military efforts to win prestige and honor that would benefit soldiers for various political and social reasons. Thus, Harris analyzes with regards to the aristocracy in Chapter One, that war was the main avenue for men to garner political opportunities and to gain prestige, fame, and glory. While other scholars, such as Raaflaub and Eckstein, may contend that Rome was simply going to war for money, or engaged in war as a norm of the era, Harris believes differently. The author notes the frequency of war was looked upon favorably by these men as expedient opportunities to prove their worth, and rise in prominence and office in Rome.

First century BC was marked by great political violence and social turbulence for the Roman History. In his article “Cicero and the Age of Extremes”, Philippe Rousselot refers to Cicero’s century as one marked by war, violence, and proscriptions. Amidst such moral and political decline, Cicero composed De Oratore to not only depict the perfect orator, but also to take the opportunity to portray himself as an honorable leader of the Republic. It is in this dialogue that Cicero blatantly expresses his justification of violence as a viable means to sustain the Republic, despite the disdain for violence he had expressed throughout his life. In fact, even when Cicero was growing up and his family urged him to obtain a successful career in politics,

During the Iron age, war was no foreign concept to the civilizations of the Mediterranean world, however no civilization was as familiar with war as the Romans. The success and brutality of Rome’s manipulus has inspired many historians to write on the topic. Some historians, however, disagree on the use of Rome’s military might. William V. Harris and Kurt A. Raaflaub both leaned toward the position that Rome used their military for personal gain, however Harris believes there was a more bloodthirsty aspect in addition to the civil and economic boon. Craige Champion and Arthur Eckstein on the other hand, defend the position that Rome’s military might was no greater or more vicious than other comparative polities of the era, and that it was mainly used for personal defense or peacekeeping. Of these four authors, Harris makes the most succinct points, cleanly explaining why the Roman desire for a strong military went beyond that of their neighbors, with evidence of a feedback loop between military service and civil advancement. Comparatively, Champion and Eckstein attempt to draw ties between Rome and her neighbors, muddying the waters to downplay Rome’s savagery without actually addressing Rome’s frequent bloodthirst.

For the general population in Ancient Rome, there was the battle between the distinctive classes of individuals. Not every person was honored to be a rich national in Rome, despite the way that Rome had the most current innovations, government, open works of the time and weapons. Moreover, not every person had the benefit to be a subject too.

Rome, the city of love, is a dreamed destination for many. Yet beneath this picturesque spot lies an adamant root from the past that dominated a certain era in the history of the world. Dating from some 500 B.C., Rome stamped its territory as an example for many. As a matter of fact, the Roman was under the influence of monarchy until the Patricians and the Plebians fought their way to freedom (Morey W.C., n.d.). That’s when the disparities between those two classes got highlighted. Today we will attempt to accentuate those differences politically and economically speaking and we will prolong our thinking on the emergence of the Plebians revolt.

Despite having fallen several centuries ago, the Roman Empire continues to be one of the most celebrated ancient civilizations. From the rise and fall of Julius Caesar to the devastating destruction of Pompeii, Roman history continues to fascinate (“Ancient Rome”). Roman legends were so captivating that even in the early 17th century, playwrights like William Shakespeare explored their iconic use of a republic. In the Roman form of government, citizens elected tribunes into power and therefore had a say in the way the empire was run (“The Roman Republic”). However, despite this perceived empowerment of the common citizen, there was the constant question of whether or not the tribunes were truly representative of the people’s interests. In the play Coriolanus, the tribunes’ use rhetorical devices to express their contempt of Coriolanus as well as to manipulate the Roman citizens for their selfish desires, despite their supposed role as the ‘voice’ of the people.

Before Augustus’ reign began, Civil war had ravished the basic principles of the Roman people. Piety, the warning to “fulfil our duties towards our country, our parents, or others connected with us by ties of blood” was undermined by faction. The duty towards country, parents and relatives was less of a bond because faction determined duty rather that Pietas. Thus Rome, a city founded in pietas, was that foundational principle. internal faction undermined the principles of pietas and corrupted its role in the city. Rome needed a moral reform towards pietas; Rome needed a refocus on the roots of the empire, its duty towards its ancestors, and unity based in pietas. Commissioned by Augustus, Virgil constructs the Aeneid to portray the cruciality of pietas by redefining Greek epic heroism to include pietas. Each comparison of aeneas to another greek hero emphasises the pietas within him, showing how he is better because of it and combining the heroism of all the Greek heroes into Aeneas. By doing this, virgil shows that to unify Rome through pietas is to harness Rome’s power. Thus, Virgil reveals to the Romans a virtue which allows the individual Roman citizen embody and partake in the glory of Rome.

When discussing the Romans and their qualities it is impossible to overlook their military might. Ancient Rome had one of the most powerful and virtually undefeated military forces of their time. Their massive expansion of the Roman Empire attests to this fact. At the height of their Empire the Romans had conquered multiple countries throughout Western Europe. Thanks to their advance military Rome became head of the world. The importance of their military force is seen throughout our readings. Both texts by Suetonius and Plutarch offer extensive examples of how the Romans were first and foremost soldiers. The examples in Plutarch’s Lives are so numerous