By Gregory K. Hollifield
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) defined rhetoric as "an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion." Under the heading of "artistic means" he included the character of the speaker as perceived by the audience based upon his speech (ethos), the emotional disposing of the listener in some way (pathos), and the argument itself (logos).
He identified the character of the speaker, i.e., his ethical appeal, as "the controlling factor in persuasion." 7 He said this not to depreciate the importance of logos but out of his observation that hearers are less likely to believe a speaker on disputed matters, regardless of how logical his arguments, if he exhibits a poor ethos. Similarly, he noted that hearers give differing judgments dependent upon their emotional state.
Having observed that "we do not give the same judgment when grieved and rejoicing or when being friendly and hostile," Aristotle instructed the speaker to seek to arouse those emotions that would favorably dispose his audience toward himself, his client, or his idea, or that would lead the audience to view his opponent with disfavor. The most obvious contemporary application of Aristotle's theory is when prosecutors and defense attorneys make their closing arguments to the jury. Each side deals with the same set of facts but from distinctly different points of view, hoping to move jurors accordingly.
The ancient rhetorician proceeded to discuss seven pairs of emotional reactions toward which a speaker might attempt to move his audience. His list, which should be taken as suggestive rather than exhaustive, included anger and calmness, friendliness and enmity, fear and confidence, shame and shamelessness, kindliness and unkindliness, pity and indignation, and envy and emulation.
To explain how the emotions might be aroused, Aristotle found it necessary to divide the discussion of each emotion under three headings. Illustrating how he would proceed, he said, "I mean, for example, in speaking of anger, what is their state of mind when people are angry and against whom are they usually angry, and for what sort of reasons; for if we understood one or two of these but not all, it would be impossible to create anger [in someone]." Staying with anger as an example, Aristotle taught that to provoke anger within an audience (the "subject") the speaker must make them feel slighted (the "reason") by a person (the "object") who unjustifiably belittled, injured, or showed contempt for members or friends of the audience.
Aristotle contended that intensity of emotion depended upon proximity. The nearer the "object" or more direct the personal involvement, the more intense the emotional response will be.
Haddon W. Robinson once said, "Exegesis and hermeneutics should . . . be reflected in the sermon's mood. While the emotion of a writer may be more difficult to pin down than ideas and their development, every passage has a mood. . . . A true expository sermon should create in the listener the mood it produced in the reader." 8