"Silence in the Court! Charles Darnay had yesterday pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment denouncing him (with infinite jingle and jangle) for that he was a false traitor to our serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth, prince, our Lord the King, and...assisted Lewis, the French King, in his wars against our said serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth...and wickedly, falsely, traitorously, and otherwise evil-adverbiously reveled to said French Lewis...[important information]."
Rhetoric is inescapable. From the pathos of a dramatic fiction novel to the logos of a legal document, rhetoric is the vessel which all types of writers use state their points. In A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens uses a plethora of pathos especially to convey his points. Dickens is also successful at portraying the type of rhetoric that characters of the time period he writes about would have used in their day to day life as well. For example, in the beginning of Book 2 of A Tale of Two Cities Dickens describes an English court case dealing with the accusation that a man, Charles Darnay, committed treason by giving valuable information to the French King about the English military. The Attorney General, who makes the above speech in argument that Charles Darnay is guilty, uses diction, ethos, and pathos to support his point. Using an abundance of stately words like "illustrious" and "adverbiously", the Attorney General attempts to build ethos with the Jury by showing them that he is a man of great knowledge who should be trusted. These words also serve as a use of pathos since the appellations like "excellent" and "serene" that describe the King, who all citizens of England should love and be loyal to, build up the repute of the King, and in extension the Attorney General, who uses the name of the King to help support his own point. The majesty and importance of being loyal to the King (who may not even know about the situation at all) helps distract citizens the fact that there may not be any concrete facts to support the Attorney General's claim.
This method of persuasion is an interesting contrast to many modern standards for arguments on court, which are supposedly based on facts. More in line with current law cases, the lawyer defending the prisoner Darnay instead appeals to logos in his argument that Charles Darnay is not the man guilty since he could have been confused with the real culprit. To support this claim, the lawyer points to a member of the counsel, and points out to everyone the striking resemblance that the counselman and the prisoner share. When the whole room is surprised by this, the lawyer then states "So if this occurs, doesn't that mean it could happen again?" This tactic of syllogism connects incomplete witness testimony to a visual, tangible fact in order to support a counterclaim. However, though much more in line with the style of a court's proceedings today, even the lawyer appealing to logos lacks the real facts that many in court today would find more comforting that an appeal to ethos or logic.
This method of persuasion is an interesting contrast to many modern standards for arguments on court, which are supposedly based on facts. More in line with current law cases, the lawyer defending the prisoner Darnay instead appeals to logos in his argument that Charles Darnay is not the man guilty since he could have been confused with the real culprit. To support this claim, the lawyer points to a member of the counsel, and points out to everyone the striking resemblance that the counselman and the prisoner share. When the whole room is surprised by this, the lawyer then states "So if this occurs, doesn't that mean it could happen again?" This tactic of syllogism connects incomplete witness testimony to a visual, tangible fact in order to support a counterclaim. However, though much more in line with the style of a court's proceedings today, even the lawyer appealing to logos lacks the real facts that many in court today would find more comforting that an appeal to ethos or logic.
I like the connection to the modern court system. How do you think pathos is perceived in a court of law? Is there any place for it? SHOULD there be any place for it?
ReplyDeleteIn the modern court of law, pathos is allegedly something that courts are supposed to steer clear from (in order to make unbiased and accurate decisions). However, over and over you see and hear cases of lawyers appealing to pathos anyways. This is because pathos, or human emotions, are an inherent part of human nature; no matter how much you may try, it is hard- especially for the average american, or jury member- to suppress it. Besides, total suppression of pathos would be bad- we do not want our courts, which make some of the most important decisions regarding human lives, to be robotic and devoid of human emotion or compassion. So, while pathos should not be the main driving point in court cases, (since, as this quote shows, it could be persuasive of untrue facts) it is impractical and unfavorable to expect the courts to be devoid of pathos.
ReplyDelete