A Critical Analysis of Certain Aspects of Ethical Proof

Citation preview

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ETHICAL PROOF •'

Edward lawrence Prose

A d is s e r ta tio n subm itted in p a r t i a l f u lf illm e n t o f the requirem ents fo r th e degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy, in th e Department o f Speech, in th e Graduate College o f the S ta te U n iv ersity o f Iowa

July, 1942

ProQ uest Num ber: 10831781

All rights r e serv ed INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The q u ality of this rep ro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t u p o n the qu ality of the c o p y su b m itted . In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le t e m an u scrip t and there are m issing p a g e s , th e se will be n o t e d . Also, if m aterial had to be r e m o v e d , a n o t e will in d ic a te the d e le tio n .

uest P roQ u est 10831781 Published by ProQ uest LLC(2018). C op yrigh t of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved . This work is p r o tec te d a g a in s t u n a u th o rized c o p y in g under Title 17, United S tates C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

P9ie Co

V ?

AGMOWlMXimmtS

is N th e w r ite r w ishes to express h is indebtedness to Dr. F ranklin H. Knower fo r h is many k in d ly and v alu ab le su g g estio n s, and capable guidance throughout th e p ro g ress o f t h i s study; to S r. Clay Harehbarger fo r h is counsel on r h e to r ic a l m a tte rs , and fo r th e loan o f an in v alu ab le re c o rd -p la y e r; and to Dr. Wendell Johnson fo r h is kindness in suggesting and c la r if y in g th e use o f c e r ta in h e lp fu l s t a t i s t i c a l techniques * And X should express more than common thanks and a p p re c ia tio n fo r the lo y a l and u n rem itt­ ing a s s is ta n c e o f my w ife , M arguerite K. Prose* SC)

\

1

I

S t a t e Univ .

—ii —

7 0 0

i . -c

iow a

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I II

PAGE B m O D U C T M .................................

1

AN ANALYSIS OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION OF ETHICAL

PROOF................... * ................................................

7

In tro d u c tio n ..................... » * • • * « • • • • »

7

E th ic a l Proof - Based on th e R h eto rics . . . .

8

C h aracter, I n te llig e n c e , and Goodwill As

Treated in Other Works of A ristotle * • . • Moral C haracter I n te llig e n c e

Goodwill

........................ « • • • • • • • • • • * • • • •

. . . .

.................................

a

mmmmTim

19 22

. * .

D is tin c tio n s Between Ethos - Pathos - Logos

m

17

•

23 28

o f th e p r in c ip le s and tech n iq u es

OF ETHICAL PROOF AS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SPEECH..............................................

32

A Composite O u tlin e o f th e P rin c ip le s and Tech­ niques o f E th ic a l Proof As they Bfay Be U tiliz e d in th e Subject M atter o f th e Speech IV

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

. . . . . . . . ......................

36 55

The A ttitu d e to be Studied

55

The A ttitu d e Scale • • • . * « . . . * * « * •

60

the Speeches

67

» . . . * . * • . . • « • * • •

Recording th e Speeches •

The Audiences

• • • « . . » » .

74

.

76

Experim ental Procedure . . . • • • • • • • • •

78

S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment

• • • • • « . * • • ■ .

82

Major Purposes of the Study • * • • • • ♦ • •

83

-H i-

CHAPTER V

^G E RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . * ...................................... Plan o f A nalysis

• • • • • • • • • • • • • *

C ontrol S ubject Data

• • • • • • • • • • • •

88

88 88

S t a t i s t i c a l S ig n ific an c e o f th e S h if ts o f Opinion o f the Experim ental Groups • • * *

91

S ig n ific a n t S h if ts o f Opinion o f In d iv id u a ls

92

R elativ e E ffe ctiv e n e ss o f th e Speeches Based Upon S ig n ific an c e R atio s « * • « • • • * •

95

S h if ts o f Opinion As R elated to I n i t i a l A tti­ tudes • • • • • • « « • • • • • • • • • • •

99

S tr a ta D is trib u tio n o f I n i t i a l A ttitu d e s Upon R etest * • • • • • » • « * • » * • « * * •

105

Group S h if t o f Opinion As R elated to Sex

106

• •

In d iv id u a l S h if ts o f Opinion As R elated to Sex

no

S h if ts o f Opinion As R elated to In te llig e n c e

115

S h if ts o f Opinion in R elatio n to th e Speaker

115

Summary of Experim ental Design

114

• • • • • • »

Summary of Experimental R esults « *» «

• • •

115

In te rp r e ta tio n s and A pplication * • • »

« * •

321

. •

327

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. * . , * * ,

*.

Books on Rhetoric • • • • * • *.*»*♦ « * *

327

M iscellaneous Books » • • . . « . * « * «

329

• •

A rtic le s and Essays in P e rio d ic a ls and Publica­ tio n s o f Learned S o c ie tie s . . . . . . . .

329

th eses

151

* • • » * ' * * * » • • • • » • » • »

Newspapers

. * . .

....................

131

APPENDICES I

PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF ETHICAL PROOF -iv ~

. .

132

APPENDICES I (Conb.)

.

A r is to tle

•

152

B la ir

157

B rigance and Immel

• • « » • * • • • • «

158

Campbell C icero

FAGE

158 • • * • » * • « * * * • • • • • •

189

Crocker * » • « • * * • • • * • * • * « •

140

Monro©

140

» . . + • » • » • • » • • • • • •

O liv e r

^

0 * N e ill and Weaver Qrr

i

•

141

# * • * * « • •- • • •

141

• » • • • # « • * • • • « • • • • » *

Q u in tilia n

341

« « • * • • • • • » ♦ • * • *

141

Sandford and Yeager » • • » . . . « • • •

145

Whately * • • ♦ • • * - • • • • • * * • •

145

Winans

146

t * « • • • < > • * » * * * • * •

*

U

SPORTS ATTITUDE SCALE « * • • » » « * * • •

147

III

SPORTS ATTITUDE SCALE ANSWER SHEET . . . * •

160

XDNG HON-ETHICAL SPEECH

151

IV V VI

. . . . . .

* . ♦ .

SHORT OT-ETHTCAL SPEECH W

ETHICAL SPEECH

155 .

158

VII

SHORT ETHICAL SPEECH * * * » • • » » • * • •

362

V III

BilSSOlUCTICUS WA» AID «*B» TO SPEAKER * * * .

165

«»v—

INDEX OF TABLES TABLE I II HI IV V

VI VII TOI

rx

X’ XI

XII

X III

XIV

*

PAGE STUDENT REACTION TOWARD SIX CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

59

CHARACTER. AND QUAUTX OF THE ETHICAL PROOF USED ................. IN TUB EXPERIMENTAL SPEECHES . . »

72

CONTROL SUBJECT DATA SCALE REXIABILITIES

89

. . .

*

CRITICAL RATIOS BASED ON ORIGINAL VS. POST* STIMULATION SCORES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

INDIVIDUAL SHIFTS OF OPINIO* IN ALL SPEECHES SHOWING THOSE GREAOt THAN 1 .0 AND 2.58 STANDARD ERRORS OF MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . .

95

COMPARISONS OF THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPEECHES BASED UPON DIFFERENCES IN MEAN CHANGE

96

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF ATTITUDES BEFORE AND AFTER ORAL STEMUIATION FOR ALT, KMillENTAL GROUPS

100

DISTRIBUTION OF INITIAL ATTITUDES OF THE CONTROL GROUP AND THE iTHCAL AUDIENCES M oREAND AFTER SPEECH STBtUUTlCH . . . . . . . . . . .

102

COMPOSITE OF THE INITIAL ATTITUDES OF THE SEVEN TTPICAL AUDIENCES BEFORE AND AFTER STIMULA­ TION ........................

104

DIRFCTOT OF SIGNIFICANT SHIFTS OF OPINION . . . .

105

COMPARISONS OF THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPEECHES UPON MBN AND V M BASED UPON DIFFERENCES B MEAN SHIFT . . . . . . . . . . .

107

INDIVIDUAL SHIFTS OF OPINOT OF USX AND WOMEN SHOW­ ING THOSE GREATER THAN 1 .0 AND 2.58 STANDARD ERRORS OF MEASUREMENT •

109

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMPOSITE PERCENTILE SCORES ON THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA FRESHMAN PLACEMENT mi&MTICN AND SHIFTS OF O PBICN .........................

Ill

COMPARISONS OF THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RECORDERS BASED UFCN DIFFERENCES IN MEAN CHANGE

112

-V i-

CHAPTER I HfTRODUCTIOH Xt i s d i f f i c u l t i f n o t im possible to conceive o f a c i v i l i s a ­ tio n in which every man accepted th e opinions o f ev ery o th e r member o f th a t so ciety #

Conversely, i t i s even more d i f f i c u l t to v is u a liz e a

s o c ie ty in which no man accepted th e opinions o f any o th e r member o f h is s o c ia l group*

F o rtu n a te ly , i t i s n o t n e ce ssa ry to e n v isio n such a

c iv iliz a t io n , fo r s in c e th e dawn o f recorded h is to r y one can fin d ample evidence th a t men d id acc e p t and b e lie v e the opinions o f some in d iv id u a ls and r e j e c t those o f others*

T his phenomenon was so apparent th a t men

have long sp ecu lated a s to th e n a tu re o f th e fa c to rs th a t led to t h i s discrim ination#

With the m aturation o f the a n c ie n t Greek c u ltu re the

study o f the n a tu re o f b e l i e f became le s s th e o r e tic a l and more p r a c tic a l, S k lH In th e techniques o f in c u lc a tin g b e l i e f won r ic h awards fo r I t s p o ssesso rs, and schools were e sta b lis h e d f o r th e teaching o f those s k ills * The a b le s t o f th e Greek p h ilo so p h ers, A r is to tle , "th e fa th e r o f rh e to ric 0, made a th re e -fo ld d iv is io n o f th e means o f p ersu asio n , namely; lo g ic a l p ro o f, or persuasion e ffe c te d by argument; p a th e tic p ro o f, o r persuasion by an ap p eal to th e em otions; and e th ic a l p ro o f, or b e l i e f which proceeds from th e l i s t e n e r ’s estim atio n o f the speaker’s c r e d ib ili ­ ty ,^

D espite the f a c t th a t t h i s a n a ly s is was e n tir e ly em p irical i t has

s u c c e ss fu lly w ithstood the t e s t s o f c e n tu rie s , and provides a s ta r tin g p o in t fo r r h e to r ic a l a n a ly s is to th i s day*

I n t e r e s t in the phenomenon

o f b e lie f did n o t d ie w ith the d e c lin e o f th e a n c ie n t c iv iliz a tio n s * True, a t c e rta in p erio d s o f h is to ry i t became extrem ely dangerous fo r

1 lan e Cooper, tr a n s la t o r , The R hetoric o f A r is to tle . 1356a, —1—

!

speakers o r w r ite r s to attem p t to in flu en c e b e l i e f c o n tra ry to the w ishes o f tem poral and s p i r i t u a l r u l e r s , but those v ery r u le r s were fo rced to i n s t i l l b e lie f in o rd er to remain in a u th o rity .

The a b i l i t y to secu re

b e lie f has been e te r n a lly p riz e d by man, and con v ersely , th e r ig h t to r e j e c t the b e lie f s advanced by o th e rs has been a p riv ile g e held sacred in dem ocratic s o c ie tie s * The amount o f tim e, money, and e f f o r t expended in a modem s o c ie ty to convince men and move them to a c tio n i s t r u l y amazing*

Even

in s ta t e s wherein b e lie f i s in c u lc a te d , in some in s ta n c e s , by th e whip, the f ir in g squad, or w orse, th e re a re c e a se le ss e f f o r t s made to secure /

/'

a v o lu n tary acceptance o f th e ideology o f th e ru lin g p a rty or clique* In th is n atio n m illio n s o f d o lla r s a re spent annually by a d v e rtis e rs in an e f f o r t to secu re b e lie f*

In le g is la tiv e h a lls m illio n s o f words a re

expended fo r a s im ila r purpose.

The a b i l i t y to secure a g re a te r degree

o f b e lie f than o n e 's com petitor has meant an a c c re tio n o f power to th e in d iv id u a l o r h is cause* Yet in s p ite o f th ese f a c ts a contemporary s o c ia l p sychologist epitom izes th e p re sen t s ta tu s o f knowledge concerning th e concept o f be­ l i e f in these words s "In s p ite o f th e prevalence o f behavior c a lle d b e l i e f , th e circum­ ference o f th e term i s alm ost im possible to d e fin e * •*• the frin g e s o f th i s im portant f i e l d have b a re ly been exposed. There i s a need fo r cooperative endeavor so th a t the o b je c tiv e ly determined fa c to rs in b e lie f can be u tili z e d b e t t e r to p o rtra y the psycho­ lo g ic a l s tru c tu re o f b e lie f p a tte rn s ." Another w r ite r e x p lain s th e f a c t t h a t e a rly psychology tended to push the phenomenon o f b e lie f in to the background by th e statem ent j "The methods c h a r a c te r is tic o f the work o f e a r ly s c i e n t i f i c

2

C harles B ird, S o c ia l Psychologyr pp* 208-822.

5 psychology were n o t e a s ily adapted to the problem; and dev ices which made p o ssib le the q u a n tita tiv e d e s c rip tio n o f the n a tu re o f b e l i e f o r a tt i t u d e changes evolved slo w ly . 11 5 However, w ith in the l a s t decade s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t s have developed new techniques which perm it experim ental a tta c k upon, problems o f s o c ia l behavior*

The experim ental determ ination o f th e f a c ts th a t b e l i e f s , a s

a tt i t u d e s , may be q u a n tita tiv e ly measured by such devices a s a tti tu d e s c a le s ; and th a t argum entative stim u la tio n w i l l produce changes in a ttitu d e have made f o r marked p ro g ress . 4

s ig n if ic a n t

O ther stu d e n ts have

in v e stig a te d th e r e la tiv e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f lo g ic a l and p ersu asiv e argu­ ment, and in g e n e ra l th e ir fin d in g s re v e a l th a t bo th forms o f proof a re c about e q u ally e ffe c tiv e in producing changes o f a t t i t u d e , though t h i s p o in t I s n o t s e tt le d beyond dispute.® E th ic a l ap p ea l, o r persuasion due to p e rs o n a lity , has n o t been subjected to o b je c tiv e a n a ly s is to th e same degree a s have th e o th e r two fo m s o f proof*

However, some s tu d ie s have had bearing upon t h is f a c t o r .

C la s s ic a l r h e to r ic has designated th re e g e n eral methods or sources o f e th ic a l proof*

The lis t e n e r may form h is estim ate o f the speaker *v

1

c r e d ib ility from th e c h a ra c te r and re p u ta tio n o f the sp eak er, from th e p e rs o n a lity and conduct o f th e speaker a t th e time o f making the speech, or from s p e c ia l devices o r forms o f statem ents contained in th e s u b je c t

5 F . H* Shower, "Experim ental S tudies o f Change in A ttitu d e s 1* A Study o f th e E ffe c t o f O ral Argument on Changes o f A ttitu d e , 11 Jo u rn al o f S o c ia l Psychology. 71 (1955), pp. 315-547. 4 The evidence upon th ese p o in ts has become overwhelming, but a good d iscu ssio n o f th e problem and an extensive b ib lio g rap h y o f many o f the v a lu ab le s tu d ie s i s found in B ird, o c .c i t . . pp. 14&-2E8. 5 mower, l o c . e i t .g W illiam Ssfa-Ching Chen, "The In flu en ce o f O ral Propaganda M a te ria l upon Students* A ttitu d e s ,” A rchives o f Psychology (1935), No*150. 6 G. W. Hartmann, *A F ie ld Experiment on th e Comparative E ffe ctiv e n e ss o f 1Emotional* P o l i t i c a l L e a fle ts in Determining E lectio n R e s u lts ," Jo u rn a l o f Abnormal and S o c ia l Psychology. XXXI (1956), pp. 99-114.

4 m atter o f the speech i t s e l f *

Various s tu d ie s d ealin g w ith p re s tig e and

s u g g e s tib ility have made i t e v id en t t h a t th e e x te n t to which o p in io n s may be changed v a rie s according to th e p re s tig e o f th e stim u li*

For

exam ple, th e p re s tig e o f th e m a jo rity tends to produce a g re a te r s h i f t

o f opinion than does th e p re s tig e o f experts*

7

From t h i s experim entation

i t appears reasonable to conclude th a t the preconceived conception o f the c h a ra c te r and re p u ta tio n o f th e speaker i s a v i t a l elem ent in d e te r­ mining M s a b i l i t y to in flu en c e b e lie f* The r e la tio n between th e p e rs o n a lity and conduct o f the speaker a t the time o f making the speech and th e p e rsu asiv en ess o f t h a t speaker has n o t been exp erim en tally studied*

lik e w is e , e t h i c a l proof found in

s p e c ia l devices o r forms o f statem en ts contained in th e s u b je c t m atter o f th e speech has n o t been su b jected to o b je c tiv e measurement and a nalysis*

^he stu d en ts o f s o c ia l behavior have n o t been alone in th e ir

n e g le c t o f e t h i c a l proof*

Contemporary te x ts in p u b lic speaking have

n o t e n tir e ly excluded the m atter o f ethos from d isc u ssio n , b u t only in ra re in sta n c e s has any e f f o r t been made to make the stu d e n t r e a liz e th a t the concepts o f e t h i c a l p ro o f s c a tte re d throughout th e te x t re p re se n t an ' 8 organised, sy stem atic p rin c ip le o f persuasion*

7 A* C* Bowden, Floyd F* C aldw ell, and Guy A. West, "A Study in P r e s tig e ,1* t e a l f i i Sggj& toar, (19S4)> PP* 193-204; D aniel Hf Kulp, " P re s tig e , a s Measured by Single-E xperience Changes and Their Perma­ nency,” Jo u rn a l o f E ducational R esearch. XXVII (1954), pp. 665-672; M itchsl Saadi and Paul E* Farnsw orth, The Degress o f Acceptance of Dogmatic Statem ents and P referen ces fo r Their Supposed Makers," Jo u rn al fi£ AjMMOTfl and S o c ia l Psychology. XXIX (1954), pp. 143-}£0j Romona K esserschm idt, The S u g g e s tib ility o f Boys and G irls Between the Ages o f S ix and S ixteen Y ears,” Jo u rn a l o£ G enetic Psychology* XLIII (1955), pp* 422*457* 8 W, P* Sandford end 1 . H* Yeager, P rin c ip le s fif E ffe c tiv e Speaking. pp* 58-51, do have a chapter w ith e t h i c a l p ro o f, b u t i t lias bean popularized and i s by no means complete*

5 The v a rie d emphasis and even more v a rie d tr© e ta sn t accorded e th ic a l proof in re c e n t r h e to r ic a l w ritin g s provide in te r e s tin g ground fo r sp ecu latio n and comment» I t appears to the w r ite r th a t th is e n tir e m atter o f e t h i c a l p roof p re se n ts a challenge to th e modern s tu d e n t o f speech.

This form o f proof r ^presents one o f the major c l a s s i c a l methods

of p ersu asio n ,

l e t we cannot d e fin e i t s meaning and i t s a t t r i b u t e s or

pronounce judgment upon i t s e ffic a c y w ith much more r e l i a b i l i t y khan could A r is to tle over two thousand y e ars ago*

I t seems s u rp ris in g th a t no

system atic experim entation has been undertaken by stu d e n ts o f speech to e s ta b lis h th e v a lid ity o f commonly accepted concepts o f e th ic a l proof* Perhaps the answer to th i s om ission l i e s in the seem ingly fundam ental soundness of th e se concepts*

Thus, i t would seam obviously tru e th a t th e

audience g iv es credence to th e speaker who has a re p u ta tio n fo r p erso n al honor and in te g rity *

l e t r e f le c tio n upon t h i s p o in t and many s im ila r

statem ents aro u ses sp ec u la tio n in th e mind o f th e w rite r* sp ec u la tio n th a t in some in sta n c e s becomes a c tiv e doubt#

Another p o ssib le ex p lan atio n

fo r th is n e g le c t might re s id e in the premise th a t modern speakers no longer employ th is form o f proof*

th e lu d icro u sn ess o f t h i s e lu c id a tio n i s made

evident by a r h e to r ic a l a n a ly s is o f alm ost any speech o f F ranklin D, 9 Roosevelt* An exam ination c.f contemporary speeches found in the magazine V ita l Speeches o r any comparable source re v e a ls th a t ex ten siv e use o f ethos I s n o t p e c u lia r to the President*

9 For example* not® R ooseveltfs use o f p e rso n al pronouns fo r e th ic a l appeal# ^ h is i s w e ll dem onstrated in C h arlo tte P if f e r S c h rie r, k SfisaarAsaa. f it O ral S ty le of F ran k lin K oosevalt in R epresentative C M lsio n a l and Campaign Speeches. Unpublished M.A, T hesis. S ta te U niversity o f lowa^ . ^ 8 4 -6 5 *

6 A th ir d p o ssib le explanation f o r th e n e g le c t o f e th o s may re s id e in th e fe e lin g th a t i t i s too ephem eral, too i llu s o r y , too in ­ ta n g ib le to perm it a c c u ra te d e fin itio n and a n a iy s is in accordance w ith modem o b je c tiv e methods*

There i s some j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s p o in t

o f view, b u t th e se d i f f i c u l t i e s do n o t seem insurmountable* I t i s th e purpose o f th is study to fa c e th e se problems and attem p t an o b je ctiv e study o f th e opinion-changing e ffic a c y o f e t h ic a l proof a s employed in s p e c ia l d ev ices and forms o f statem en ts contained in th e s u b je c t m atter o f th e speech*

the problem i s th u s two-foldg

1) A determ ination o f what c o n s titu te th e p rin c ip le s and techniques o f e th ic a l proof a s contained in th e s u b je c t m atter o f th e speech, 8) An evaluation o f th e opinion-changing potency o f c e rta in o f these p rin c ip le s and techniques in v aried audience s itu a tio n s *

Since opinion, defined as 10 a v e rb a lise d a tt i t u d e , i s c lo se ly re la te d to b e l i e f i t i s reasonable to

assume th a t techniques which change opinion must n e c e s s a rily in flu en ce b e lie f*

10 B ird, op,* c l t *f pp* 208-209

CHAPTER I I AN ANALYSIS OP ARISTOTIE’S CQNCEPTIOE OF ETHICAL PROOF Ihtaroductiea, I t i s n o t f e a s ib le in t h i s stu d y to a ttem p t a d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f the varying views cm eth o s a s e n te rta in e d by a l l th e g re a t r h e t­ o ric ia n s o f th e past*

However, b a s ic to a l l o f t h e ir w ritin g s a re th e

works o f A r is to tle , and n o ta b ly h is R h e to ric s* A survey oP th ese works perm its two o b je c tiv e s to be pursued! f i r s t , an attem p t to g a in an under­ standing o f the p rin c ip le s o f eth o s a s promulgated by A ris to tle $ and second, an a p p re c ia tio n o f the major r h e to r i c a l problems which a re in ­ volved in t h i s concept* Of the th ree c l a s s i c a l modes o f persuasion as o u tlin e d by A ris­ t o t l e , none i s more e s o te r ic than th e kind w hich, “ *♦• depends cm the personal c h a ra c te r o f th e sp eak er *11 An examination o f those passages in the R hetorics which d e a l w ith e t h i c a l p roof su p p o rts t h i s view*

In only

two b r i e f passages does A r is to tle d ir e c tly and p o s itiv e ly d iscu ss th is aspect o f persuasion * O ther re fe re n c e s a re s c a tte r e d , and a re open to speculation a s to the proper in te r p r e ta tio n o f meaning*

From a stu d y o f

these passages th e s tu d e n t may w e ll r a is e s e v e ra l questions*

Among the

most p e rtin e n t o f th ese a re the follow ings 1* What conclusions m y be drawn from A r i s t o t l e 's views on ethos a s expressed in th e R h e to ric a l 2* Do the o th e r works o f A ris to tle throw fu r th e r lig h t upon h is conception o f eth o s? 3* Are em otional, lo g ic a l, and e t h i c a l proof to be conceived as

m utually e x c lu siv e , o r, conversely, as so c lo se ly i n t e r ­ r e la te d a s to perm it no s e p a ra tio n ? 4# I f th e forms o f p roof a re n o t m utually e x c lu siv e , what fu n c tio n a l d if f e r e n tia tio n can be made between them? E th ic a l Prgfift - Baaed On th e “Rt|g-toiSa." To attem pt an answer to th e f i r s t and th ir d o f th ese q u eries l e t us examine those passages in th e R h eto rics d ealin g w ith e th ic a l proof•

In Book I A r is to tle p o in ts out that*

^Persuasion 1© achieved by th e speaker’ s p erso n al c h a ra c te r when the speech i s so spoken as to make us th in k him credible* We b e lie v e good men more f u ll y and more re a d ily than others***« This kind o f persuasion*** should be achieved by what the speaker says**#* C haracter may ^ alm ost be c a lle d the most e ffe c tiv e means o f persuasion#*»#n The second type o f persuasions n*»* may come through the h e a re rs , when th e speech stir© th e ir emotions#*** T hirdly, persuasion i s e ffe c te d through th e speech i t s e l f when we have proved a t r u t h o r an apparent tr u th by means o f the persuasive arguments s u ita b le to the case in q u esticn * ”2 To comnand these th re e means o f e ffe c tin g persuasion the o ra to r must be a b le to reason lo g ic a lly , to understand human c h a ra c te r and goodness g in th e ir various form s, and to understand the emotions* At f i r s t glance th is passage seems p e rfe c tly clear*

A ris to tle

i s t e l l i n g xm th a t the f i r s t element o f persuasion i s th e speaker him­ s e lf,

I t i s probably s ig n if ic a n t th a t A r is to tle placed ethos in the

i n i t i a l p o s itio n in h is c la s s ific a tio n *

^o re open to sp ecu latio n are

1 W, Rhys Roberts, tr a n s la t o r , R h eto ric s, in the Works g f A risto tle ., ed ite d by D* Rose, V ol. XI, 1556a ( H ereafter c ite d , R het. )♦ 2

Ib id *

the th re e fa c to rs which the speaker must command in order to u t i l i z e th ese modes*

Does A r is to tle mean t h a t in o rd er to, achieve eth o s the

speaker must understand human c h a ra c te r and goodness, or does he imply th a t a b i l i t y to reason lo g ic a lly and to understand the passions a re a lso n ecessary? At the very o u ts e t one i s thus faced w ith th e problem o f whether A r is to tle means th a t th e th re e modes o f p ro o f a re m utually exclusive*

I t may be noted th a t in th e f i r s t q u o tatio n c ite d above the

th re e forms o f p roof were* 1) e th o s, 2 ) p ath o s, 5} lo g ic a l proof; whereas In h is statem ent regarding th e u t i l i z a t i o n o f th ese th e o rd er was: 1) lo g ic a l reasoning, 2) understanding o f human c h a ra c te r and goodness, S) understanding o f emotions*

The reason fo r th is in v ersio n in th e

l a t t e r in sta n c e may have been th a t A r is to tle recognized t h a t w hile the primary fa c to r in persuasion was the sp eak er, y e t th e most im portant element in th e speech i t s e l f was lo g ic a l argument*

P ro fesso r Baldwin

comments on t h i s passage and s ta t e s : “A r is to tle i s t e l l i n g us th a t rh e to ric a s an a r t i s to be approached from these th re e d ire c tio n s and in t h is o rd e r* .* , f i r s t , the speaker h im self; secondly, the audience; and f in a lly # .» the speech.” ^ P a re n th e tic a lly , i t may be added th a t Baldwin f e l t th a t the th ree forms of proof were n o t m utually exclusive* The second and f i n a l comprehensive treatm en t o f ethos i s found in the opening paragraphs o f Book 11*^ A ris to tle p o in ts o u t th a t in Book X he has d e a lt w ith the s u b je c t m atter fo r enthymemes in each o f the th re e kinds o f o ra to ry .

Somewhat a p o lo g e tic a lly he admits th a t

n o t only must the o ra to r make th e argument o f h is speech dem onstrative

4 C harles S ears Baldwin, A ncient R hetoric and P o e tic , p * .11# 5 Rhet*. 1377b~1578a,

10 and c re d ib le , b u t, " • • • he must a ls o make h is oun ch arac te r look r ig h t and put h is h earers* .* in to the r i g h t frame o f mind.8 An o r a to r ’s c h a ra c te r i s d e lin e a te d as o f g re a t moment in p o l i t i c a l o ra to ry , and only a l i t t l e le s s so in courtroom o ra to ry .

Three th in g s a re held

e s s e n tia l in order to in s p ire confidence in th e o r a t o r 's own c h a ra c te r. These ares good sense, good moral c h a ra c te r, and goo d w ill.

Various

tra n s la tio n s d i f f e r in th e ir in te r p r e ta tio n s o f th e se th ree

f a c to r s .

Thus, "good sense* has been rendered a s “sa g a c ity ”, “p r a c tic a l wisdom", and " in te llig e n c e 111 "good moral ch aracter* has been tra n s la te d as "ch aracter" and “v ir tu e " .

A ll the w r ite r s consulted agree on "goodwill"

as a c o rre c t in te r p r e ta tio n .

s

The speaker who i s thought to have a l l

th re e o f th e se q u a litie s w i l l in s p ire t r u s t in h is audience.

To e s ta b lis h

th a t one i s s e n s ib le and m orally good he i s advised to o b tain h is argu­ ments from those o u tlin e d in Book I under o c ca sio n al o ra to ry , f o r , as A ris to tle s ta t e s in h is d iscu ssio n o f e p id e ic tic o ra to ry , "The ways In which we'make them (our a u d ito rs ) t r u s t the goodness o f o th er people are a lso the ways in which to make them t r u s t our own."

7

This sec tio n i s

e s s e n tia lly a summary o f moral n o b i lit y by d e f in itio n and comparison. Since Book I d e a lt w ith th e m a te ria ls f o r enthymematic pro o f,

ft

i t seems

reasonable th a t A r is to tle was implying th a t the speaker could use the enthymeme to e s ta b lis h h is in te llig e n c e and moral c h a ra c te r. A r is to tle considered the th ir d fa c to r o f eth o s, goodw ill, under

6 J .3 .C . Welldon, tr a n s la to r , The R hetoric of A r is to tle . 1578aj J . H. Freese, tr a n s la to r , k h e to ric a . in the Loeb C la s s ic a l lib r a r y , e d ited fey~E. Capps, e t a l* . 1578a; Edward M eredith Cope, The R hetoric of A ris­ t o t l e . e d ite d by John Edwin Sandys, V o l.II , p*5; Cooper, op.c it..1 5 7 8 a . 7 jfo s t.. 1566a-1568a. 8 As A r is to tle p u t i t , "We have now considered the m a te r ia l: bo be used . . . . those opinions w ith which our enthymemes d e a l, and out o f which they a re b u i l t . . . . * , I b i d . . 1577b.

the d iscu ssio n o f the emotions and rem arks, " • • • the way to e s ta b lis h your own goodness i s the same as the way to e s ta b lis h th a t o f o th ers* H Emotions were defined a s , %#* a l l those fe e lin g s th a t so change men as to e f f e c t th e ir judgments, and th a t a re a ls o attended by pain or 10 pleasure** A puzzling question now a ris e s # A r is to tle s ta te d , “Goodwill and frie n d lin e s s o f d is p o s itio n w i l l fo r a p a r t o f our d iscu ssio n o f the emotions*.**"

In the 1m g d isc u ssio n o f emotions th a t follow s what p a rt

or p a rts a re r e la te d to goodw ill?

Some a u th o r itie s and tr a n s la to r s

s p e c if ic a lly r e f e r to the sectio n d ealin g w ith frie n d s h ip and enmity; o th e rs do n o t commit themselves*

11

I s an understanding o f the ©motions o f

p ity , f e a r , in d ig n a tio n , and o th e rs n ecessary in o rd er to c re a te the im pression th a t th e speaker f e e ls k in d ly toward h is audience?

In the

w r ite r 1© opinion such an a p p re cia tio n i s n ecessary , b u t we have no way of knowing e x a c tly how A r is to tle stood on th is m atter# We a ls o face the problem o f whether the enthymerae can be used in e s ta b lis h in g ethos - in th i s in sta n c e goodwill#

One o f the most

acute of the modem stu d en ts of r h e to r ic has answered t h is question a ffirm a tiv e ly , and a s s e r ts th a t i t i s s u p e r f ic ia l to attem pt to sep arate the enthymeme from th e “n o n -lo g ic a l” methods o f persuasion*

He p o in ts

out th a t A r is to tle presented what he had to say about both e t h ic a l and p a th e tic persuasion in th e form o f to p ic s , and we a re e x p lic itly to ld th a t th e se to p ic s a re th e sources to which we may tu rn fo r the propo­ s itio n s to compose our enthymemes#

These prem ises, he concludes, may

be phrased in language designed to develop in the audience a confidence

9

R h e t.r 1578a*

11 I b id . . 1381a~1582a *

12 12 in the sp eak er, and to e s ta b lis h a conclusion as being a probable tr u t h . O ther s c a tte re d re fe re n c e s to eth o s in the H hetorica may now be discussed*

A r is to tle considers th e v ario u s types o f human c h a ra c te r in 15 r e la tio n to t h e i r em otional and m oral q u a litie s and fortunes* The purpose o f t h i s d e lin e a tio n , expressed in h is own words, i s as follows* “People always th in k w e ll o f speeches adapted to , and re f le c tin g , th e ir own c h a ra c te r: and we can now see how to compose our speeches so as to adapt both them and o u rselv es to our audiences#”

Cope in te r p r e ts th is

passage by sta tin g * “C ertain ages and conditio n s o f men a re marked by d if f e r e n t and p e c u lia r c h a r a c te r is tic s . A speaker i s always lia b le to be confronted w ith an audience in which one o r o th e r o f these c la s s e s forms th e preponderating element* In order to make a fav o rab le im pression upon them he must n e c e s s a rily adapt h is tone and language to th e sentim ents and h a b its o f thought p re v a ilin g amongst them, and the fe e lin g s and motives by which they a re u su a lly influenced* And fo r t h i s purpose he must stu d y t h e i r c h a ra c te r, and make him self acquainted w ith t h e ir o rd in ary motives and fe e lin g s and o p in io n s .”^ 1 Does A risto tle consider such an audience a n a ly s is valuable only to help the speaker e s ta b lis h th e f a c t th a t he f e e ls k in d ly toward hie audience (goodw ill), or does he suggest th a t through such an a n a ly sis the speaker w ill a lso dem onstrate h is good sense and moral c h arac te r?

A pparently

a l l th ree fa c to rs a re considered to be involved in such an a n a ly s is , fo r A ris to tle opens t h i s d iscu ssio n by say in g , "Det us consider th e v arious types o f human c h a ra c te r in r e la tio n to the emotions and moral q u a litie s 15 **•♦" This conclusion seems j u s tif ie d sin ce he had previously discussed

12

James H* McBurney, "The Place of th e Bnthymeme in R h eto ric al Theory," Speech Monographs. I l l (1956), pp. 49-74. IS R het. . 1588b-lS91b. 14 E* M* Cope, In tro d u ctio n to A r i s t o t l e ^ R h eto ric, fo o tn o te, p . 248, 15 Rhet*. 1369b*

13 “good sense*' and “high moral c h a ra c te r” under moral q u a l i t i e s , and "good­ w ill” under emotions#

I t must be observed th a t th is i s the f i r s t in sta n c e

in which a l l th re e of the a t tr i b u t e s o f ethos have been employed together# Cope ha® an in te re a tin g theory in regard to t h is point*

He m aintains th a t

th is passage c o n s titu te s a second kind o f eth o s - q u ite d i s t i n c t from th a t in which the speaker attem p ts to produce a fav o rab le im pression o f h is in te llig e n c e , v ir tu e , and good in te n tio n s# Cope argues th a t th is i s a 16 s o r t of " c o n c ilia to ry " ethos# The w rite r sees s lig h t b a s is fo r th is d is tin c tio n in the l i g h t o f th e te x t o f the R h e to ric s* Another re fe re n c e to eth o s i s c lo se ly r e la te d to audience analysis*

A r is to tle advised the use o f maxims f o r ,

i f the maxims

are sound, they d isp la y the speaker as a man o f sound moral ch aracter# ”

17

This use of eth o s appears c le a r ly to be designed to e s ta b lis h the second and th ird of A ris to tle * s th re e d iv is io n s o f ethos - moral ch aracter and goodwill*

He p o in ts out th a t the use o f maxims i s a p p ro p ria te only to IS e ld e rly men, and i s unbecoming to young men# I t appears u n lik e ly th a t old men would be o b lig ated to e s ta b lis h th e ir sagacity*

On the o th er

hand, i t i s re p e ate d ly brought out th a t p ro p e rly se le c te d maxims, "«#• IS w ill r a is e people *s opinion of our character**##" That maxims a ls o tend to c re ate goodw ill i s shown by the comment, " • • • people love to hear s ta te d in g e n e ra l terms what they alre ad y b e lie v e in some p a rtic u la r 80 connexion*#*#” In th is d iscu ssio n o f maxims A r is to tle makes i t c le a r th a t he does consider the e sta b lis h in g o f c h a ra c te r q u ite d i s t i n c t from

16 18 19 20

Cope, op*c i t *r pp# 108-118* R het, . 1395b* Ibid#.189Sa» Ibid* Ibid#

14 conveying an e f f e c t o f strong emotion, and c ite s two maxims to i l l u s t r a t e 81 th is d is tin c tio n * In Book I I I , 'under h is d iscu ssio n o f p o l i t i c a l speeches, another 22 re fe re n ce to maxims occurs* In such speeches A r is to tle a d v ise s a g a in st the use o f enthymemes in try in g to arouse the emotions o r in d e p ictin g c h a ra c te r f o r t tt*** the process o f dem onstration can express n e ith e r moral c h arac te r nor moral purpose. Maxims should be employed in the Arguments and in the N arratio n too - sin c e these do express c h a r a c te r.” 28 From statem ents th a t follow i t may be s tro n g ly argued th a t th is in ju n c tio n to keep eth o s and enthymematic argument se p a ra te a p p lie s only to p o l i t i c a l o ra to ry .

A r is to tle p o in ts o u t th a t th is i s th e most d i f f i c u l t o f a l l

types o f speaking, and th a t, u n lik e fo re n s ic and e p id e ic tic o ra to ry , th ere a re few pauses in th e main argument where e p is o d ic a l and extraneous m atter may be introduced*

He concludes, th e re fo re :

%cw i f you have proofs to b rin g forward, toping them forward, and your moral disco u rse as w ell} i f you have no enthymemes, then f a l l back upon moral discourse} a f t e r a l l , i t i s more f i t t i n g fear a good man to d is p la y him self as an honest fellow than as a s u b tle reasan er* ” 24 In th is d iscu ssio n A r is to tle c ite s one maxim which he f e e ls does express c h a ra c te r: HI have given him t h i s , though I am q u ite aware th a t one should 1T rust no man*” } and a second which appeals to the emotions: BI do n o t r e g r e t i t , though I have been vrongedj I f he has p r o f i t on h is 25 a id s , I have ju s tic e on mine*" Again i t seems e v id en t t e a t maxims a re u s e fu l to evince c h a ra c te r and goodw ill b u t n o t to dem onstrate good sen se.

21 R h e t.. 22 I b i d . . 28 Ib id . 24 I b i d . . 25 I b i d . .

1395a. 1416a. 1416b. 1416a.

The second o f th e above maxims i s e v id e n tly an attem p t to arouse the emotions# A r is to tle ad v ises th a t language be a p p ro p ria te to the c h a ra c te r o f the speaker and to the m atter under d iscu ssio n f o r , " . . . t h is way o f proving your s to ry by d isp lay in g th ese signs o f i t s genuineness expresses 26 your p erso n al c h a ra c te r." Cope co n sid ers t h i s a th ir d to p ic o f ethoss " I t i s a kind of p a in tin g or ornament, b u t a id s the p roof in some s lig h t 27 degree by im parting to the speech an a i r o f tru th fu ln e s s and f i d e l i t y . " However, I t may a lso be argued th a t th is i s sim ply one of the techniques whereby th e speaker dem onstrates h is good c h a ra c te r or in te llig e n c e . Much the same concept i s considered in A r i s t o t l e 's d iscu ssio n o f the n a rra tio n .

!