Ethos, Logos and Pathos in Julius Caesar

Ethos, logos and pathos are three persuasion tools used by Shakespeare in Mark Antony’s funeral oration over Caesar’s body. Ethos is appeal based on the character of the speaker, Logos is appeal based on logic or reason and Pathos is appeal based on emotion. Antony uses these elements to turn the Roman crowd against the conspirators with a highly convincing speech. These three persuasion tools and structure and diction are the key elements of the effectiveness of Mark Antony’s famous speech.

The most convincing use of ethos in Antony’s speech is in the first line of the speech; “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! ” This shows that Mark Antony is trying to get in to the Roman crowd’s hearts with his status as a trustworthy man. He uses rhetorical irony throughout the speech constantly questioning the ethos of Brutus. Brutus uses ethos heavily in his speech, he was considered very honourable a by the Romans, and basically anything that came out of his mouth had to be correct.

Mark Antony targets the questionable character of Brutus several times saying: “And Brutus is an honourable man. ” Antony then sums his speech up by using “I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke. ” This line once again outlines the irony used by Antony and this is where the trustworthy character of Mark Antony persuades the crowd to turn on the crowd, without Antony actually saying that what the conspirators did was the wrong thing. Logos can be facts that are used to persuade someone.

Mark Antony uses a lot of facts throughout the course of his speech. One of the key facts in his initial speech is; “When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept. ” To use this is very logical by Mark Antony since most of the people that he is trying to persuade aren’t the richest bunch of folk in Rome. So when he uses ‘poor’ as the type of people that Caesar cried for, the crowd thinks that it is wrong to brutally murder someone who cared so much for them that…

Ethos, Logos and Pathos in John Saul’s and Miller’s Articles

Canadian Identity: A Rhetorical Analysis Essay In this essay, the articles ‘Listen to the north’ by John Ralston Saul and ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom? ’ by J. R. Miller will be analyzed, specifically looking at each authors argument and his appeal to ethos, logos and pathos. In the first article, ‘Listen to the North’, author John Ralston Saul argues that current Canadian policy when it comes to our north, and the people that reside there, is out of date and based on southern ideals that hold little bearing on the realities that face northern populations.

He suggests instead that the policies and regulations should be shaped by people who know the territory and it’s needs, namely people who live there. In the second article, ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom? , Author Jim Miller discuses conventions in recording native history, focusing on an area he refers to as native-newcomer history. He discusses topics such as who should be recording said history, and for whom it should be intended, as evidence in the title.

Both of these articles provide arguments that appeal to ethos, logos and pathos, but it is my opinion that John Ralston Saul makes a more convincing argument to his audience in ‘Listen to the north’ than Jim Miller makes in ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom? ’. The First appeal that John Ralston Saul makes is to ethos, and while credentials such as being the president of PEN International, various awards and being a well respected professional in his field all give credit to his name, he also shows that he has first hand knowledge in the specific topic he is covering.

He does this through the use of a personal anecdote about his experience in the north, as well as mentioning the several times he has travelled to the north in his later career. Considering Saul’s audience, namely readers interested in reform of policies and practices in the north, I believe that this makes a stronger argument than Jim Miller does in his article.

This would be due to the fact that Miller does not provide any indication as to his experience in the field on which he is writing, and though he dose have impressive credentials himself, including a doctorate, being a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, and having a Canadian research chair position, the lack of said mention would provide a weaker argument to his audience, consisting of people interested in or researching about methods of recording native history.

The next convincing argument that John Ralston Saul makes is his appeal to logos, it makes logical sense that a person who lives and works in the north would know best what is needed for northern people. This means his argument that northern people should be instrumental in creating northern policy makes a strong logical point, and a strong argument to his audience, who will most likely be able to see the logic in this. One example he uses is the current state of military presence in the north, the rangers.

He talks about the uniform given to these men and women, which consists of a hooded sweatshirt and a baseball cap. John Ralston Saul states that “You can’t wear this outfit outside ten months of the year” (4), and it would make logical sense that a person who lives in the north would not choose such an outfit, as it would be too ineffective in day to day use. Miller also uses logos in his argument when he discuses the fact that native-newcomer history should be reported by both native and non-native historians.

Again, this appeals to the logical side of his readers, who would be able to follow the train of thought stating that if a history involves two separate groups of people, then both sides of said history should be examined, and doing such will give you a much more complete picture of events. Where is argument falls short in contrast to ‘Listen to the North’ is the fact that though Miller makes the logical point of the recording of said history should be shared, he does not go on to provide as strong examples to his point, where Saul does.

The last appeal that was made in ‘Listen to the north’ was the appeal to pathos. The author shares a sense of how ridiculous it is that northern peoples have less of an influential role in planning policy and regulation in the north. Using the example of the snowmobiles that rangers have to urinate on to get started in the cold north, Saul portrays a sense of the almost comical nature of having persons who live far away from the real life issues and hardships form policies. The reader then feels the same way the author does, which defiantly advances his argument.

Miller also makes his appeal to pathos in ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom? ’, but again, I believe that it is a less effective argument, and appeals less to the emotions of his audience. Millers argument is more based off a feeling of ownership he tries to create in his audience, the native-newcomer history belongs to both parties, not one exclusively, this creates a feeling of entitlement, as well as a feeling of being included. At the end of the article, Miller states “Which ‘Native’ history? Native-newcomer history. By whom?

Any and all students who are qualified and willing to carry out its methods. For whom? All Canadians” (35). I think that this is less effective then the feeling portrayed by Saul, one of ridiculousness of the current state of affairs, since persons would more likely agree with him if they also believe the current policy is foolish, as to not look foolish themselves. While both articles make strong points using the argumentative techniques of ethos, logos and pathos, it is still my opinion that John Ralston Saul makes a stronger argument in ‘listen to the north’ than Jim Miller does in ‘Which ‘Native’ History?

By Whom? For Whom? ’. Saul’s use of personal connection to the topic, a stronger logical standpoint, and a more effective use of his readers emotions means that he by far has a stronger argument than his counterpart J. R. Miller. Works Cited: Miller, Jim. “Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom. ” Canadian Issues. Fall 2008 33-35. Saul, John Ralston. “Listen to the North. ” Literary Review of Canada. 17. 8 (2009): 3-5.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking

Briefly, ethos is considered the personal appeals of the speaker. The simplest translation is credibility although ethos is much more than that. Pathos relates to tapping into or stirring the emotions of the audience, the emotional appeals. Logos is then the use of evidence and reasoning to communicate the message. It refers to the structure of the argument, focusing on the message. Subsequently, the inartistic proofs, such as facts, statistics, and testimony can all be used to create artistic proofs. It is how we use them which created the specific proof, and the proofs are often blended together. They are interwoven.

In the fourth century B.C., Aristotle identified five inartistic proofs: laws, contracts, witnesses, torture, and oaths. Some believe that, if Aristotle were alive today, he would likely have replaced tortures with photographs and added statistical surveys, experiments, and government documents. Statistics, for example, are facts- inartistic proofs. “One out of every two marriages in the United States ends in divorce.” It is sterile information.

Now if you use this statistic, inartistic proof, in a speech, it can then be used to build credibility or ethos by saying, “The U.S. Census has been reporting for some time that 50% of all marriages will end in divorce.” Showing that you have done research and can cite credible sources contributes to your audience’s perception of you as credible. It can also be used to gain pathos by appealing to emotions: “Turn and look at the person sitting next to you.

One of the two of you will likely get a divorce.” The statistic can also be used for logos by using reasoning: “Because one out of every two marriages here in the United States ends in divorce, it is imperative we reform the court system to be fair to both men AND women.” And Lastly, the same statistic can be blended together to contribute to all three, building ethos, pathos, and logos: “The U.S. Census reports that half of all marriages end in divorce. That means that one out of every two marriages are not successful. It could be yours, it could be the person sitting next to you. And, if you are a woman, your chances of a fair settlement are far lower than if you are a man. Therefore, we must reform our court system.”

Aristotle said that every speech must have all three artistic proofs, and they must be in balance with each other, and that’s why you may also see these three proofs displayed as the rhetorical triangle. If a speech is more heavily weighted with pathos and logos, you will end up with a speech that is emotionally arousing but nothing substantial for the audience to remember. A speech focused on logos, however, that does not get the audience involved is very boring. Finally, many scholars believe that Aristotle felt the most important of all three of these modes of proof was ethos. If we don’t truth the speaker, we wont accept the premise of the speech- indeed we may not even listen to it. Poor ethos and the other two modes, logos and pathos, are useless.

Frederick Douglas Ethos Pathos Logos

Ethan Holmes Professor Hohmann ENG 101 9/25/11 Frederick Douglass is trying to persuade his audience by using number of charismatic traits, such as ethos, pathos, and logos. Douglass starts out his essay by expressing what the Fourth of July is to slaves in comparison to the rest of America: “What have I , or those I represent, to do with your national independence”(Douglass 480)? Douglass has credibility because he was a slave(486).

He states: “Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them”(480). If Douglass was never a slave, the quote wouldn’t had been as powerful in its deliverance. Douglass uses pathos to describe an emotional event that anyone can relate to; since everyone agrees that children are so innocent. Suddenly you hear a quick snap… your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the centre of your soul”(486). Douglass is a very good writer and speaker, he does argumentative description very well. The thought of someone cruel enough to whip the flesh off of a woman’s back while she’s caring her baby, is chilling. Douglass uses a lot of descriptive writing mixed with pathos throughout his essay, and its astonishing how effective it is.

The argument itself, or logos, is slavery. Douglass illustrates his argument throughout the essay. For instance, “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him”(482). Again, at the end of his essay: “There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery”(487). Frederick Douglass was a master of persuasion, with ethos, pathos, and logos, in his arsenal of charisma.