Ethos

Ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος; plurals: ethe, ἤθη; ethea, ἤθεα) is a Greek word originally meaning "accustomed place" (as in ἤθεα ἵππων "the habitats of horses/", Iliad 6.511, 15.268),[3] "custom, habit", equivalent to Latin mores.

Ethos forms the root of ethikos (ἠθικός), meaning "morality, showing moral character".[4] As an adjective in the neuter plural form ta ethika.

In modern usage, ethos denotes the disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, organization, culture, or movement. For example, the poet and critic T. S. Eliot wrote in 1940 that "the general ethos of the people they have to govern determines the behavior of politicians".[5] Similarly the historian Orlando Figes wrote in 1996 that in Soviet Russia of the 1920s "the ethos of the Communist party dominated every aspect of public life".[6]

Ethos may change in response to new ideas or forces. For example, according to the Jewish historian Arie Krampf, ideas of economic modernization which were imported into Palestine in the 1930s brought about "the abandonment of the agrarian ethos and the reception of...the ethos of rapid development".[7]

In rhetoric, ethos (credibility of the speaker) is one of the three artistic proofs (pistis, πίστις) or modes of persuasion (other principles being logos and pathos) discussed by Aristotle in 'Rhetoric' as a component of argument. Speakers must establish ethos from the start. This can involve "moral competence" only; Aristotle, however, broadens the concept to include expertise and knowledge.[8][9] Ethos is limited, in his view, by what the speaker says. Others, however, contend that a speaker's ethos extends to and is shaped by the overall moral character and history of the speaker—that is, what people think of his or her character before the speech has even begun (cf Isocrates).

According to Aristotle, there are three categories of ethos:

• phronesis – useful skills & practical wisdom
• arete – virtue, goodwill
• eunoia – goodwill towards the audience

In a sense, ethos does not belong to the speaker but to the audience and it's appealing to the audience's emotions. Thus, it is the audience that determines whether a speaker is a high- or a low-ethos speaker. Violations of ethos include:

• The speaker has a direct interest in the outcome of the debate (e.g. a person pleading innocence of a crime);
• The speaker has a vested interest or ulterior motive in the outcome of the debate;
• The speaker has no expertise (e.g. a lawyer giving a speech on space flight is less convincing than an astronaut giving the same speech).

Completely dismissing an argument based on any of the above violations of ethos is an informal fallacy (Appeal to motive). The argument may indeed be suspect; but is not, in itself, invalid.

The ways in which characters were constructed is important when considering ethos, or character, in Greek tragedy.[23] Augustus Taber Murray explains that the depiction of a character was limited by the circumstances under which Greek tragedies were presented. These include the single unchanging scene, necessary use of the chorus, small number of characters limiting interaction, large outdoor theatres, and the use of masks, which all influenced characters to be more formal and simple.[24] Murray also declares that the inherent characteristics of Greek tragedies are important in the makeup of the characters. One of these is the fact that tragedy characters were nearly always mythical characters. This limited the character, as well as the plot, to the already well-known myth from which the material of the play was taken. The other characteristic is the relatively short length of most Greek plays.[25] This limited the scope of the play and characterization so that the characters were defined by one overriding motivation toward a certain objective from the beginning of the play.[26]

However, Murray clarifies that strict constancy is not always the rule in Greek tragedy characters. To support this, he points out the example of Antigone who, even though she strongly defies Creon at the beginning of the play, begins to doubt her cause and plead for mercy as she is led to her execution.[27]

Several other aspects of the character element in ancient Greek tragedy are worth noting.[28] One of these, which C. Garton discusses, is the fact that either because of contradictory action or incomplete description, the character cannot be viewed as an individual, or the reader is left confused about the character.[29] One method of reconciling this would be to consider these characters to be flat, or type-cast, instead of round. This would mean that most of the information about the character centers around one main quality or viewpoint.[30] Comparable to the flat character option, the reader could also view the character as a symbol. Examples of this might be the Eumenides as vengeance, or Clytemnestra as symbolizing ancestral curse.[31] Yet another means of looking at character, according to Tycho von Wilamowitz and Howald, is the idea that characterization is not important. This idea is maintained by the theory that the play is meant to affect the viewer or reader scene by scene, with attention being only focused on the section at hand. This point of view also holds that the different figures in a play are only characterized by the situation surrounding them, and only enough so that their actions can be understood.[32]

Garet makes three more observations about a character in Greek tragedy. The first is an abundant variety of types of characters in Greek tragedy. His second observation is that the reader or viewer's need for characters to display a unified identity that is similar to human nature is usually fulfilled. Thirdly, characters in tragedies include incongruities and idiosyncrasies.[33]

Another aspect stated by Garet is that tragedy plays are composed of language, character, and action, and the interactions of these three components; these are fused together throughout the play. He explains that action normally determines the major means of characterization. For example, the play Julius Caesar, is a good example for a character without credibility, Brutus. Another principle he states is the importance of these three components' effect on each other; the important repercussion of this being character's impact on action.[34]

Augustus Taber Murray also examines the importance and degree of interaction between plot and character. He does this by discussing Aristotle's statements about plot and character in his Poetics: that plot can exist without character, but the character cannot exist without plot, and so the character is secondary to the plot. Murray maintains that Aristotle did not mean that complicated plot should hold the highest place in a tragedy play. This is because the plot was, more often than not, simple and therefore not a major point of tragic interest. Murray conjectures that people today do not accept Aristotle's statement about character and plot because to modern people, the most memorable things about tragedy plays are often the characters.[35] However, Murray does concede that Aristotle is correct in that "[t]here can be no portrayal of character [...] without at least a skeleton outline of plot".[36]

One other term frequently used to describe the dramatic revelation of character in writing is "persona." While the concept of ethos has traveled through the rhetorical tradition, the concept of persona has emerged from the literary tradition, and is associated with a theatrical mask.[37]^: 389 Roger Cherry explores the distinctions between ethos and pathos to mark the distance between a writer's autobiographical self and the author's discursive self as projected through the narrator.[37]^{: 397–401} The two terms also help to refine distinctions between situated and invented ethos. Situated ethos relies on a speaker's or writer's durable position of authority in the world; invented ethos relies more on the immediate circumstances of the rhetorical situation.[38]

Ethos, or character, also appears in the visual art of famous or mythological ancient Greek events in murals, on pottery, and sculpture referred to generally as pictorial narrative. Aristotle even praised the ancient Greek painter Polygnotos because his paintings included characterization. The way in which the subject and his actions are portrayed in visual art can convey the subject's ethical character and through this the work's overall theme, just as effectively as poetry or drama can.[39] This characterization portrayed men as they ought to be, which is the same as Aristotle's idea of what ethos or character should be in tragedy. (Stansbury-O'Donnell, p. 178) Professor Mark D. Stansbury-O'Donnell states that pictorial narratives often had ethos as its focus, and was therefore concerned with showing the character's moral choices. (Stansbury-O'Donnell, p. 175) David Castriota, agreeing with Stansbury-O'Donnell's statement, says that the main way Aristotle considered poetry and visual arts to be on equal levels was in character representation and its effect on action.[40] However, Castriota also maintains about Aristotle's opinion that "his interest has to do with the influence that such ethical representation may exert upon the public". Castriota also explains that according to Aristotle, "[t]he activity of these artists is to be judged worthy and useful above all because exposure of their work is beneficial to the polis".[40] Accordingly, this was the reason for the representation of character, or ethos, in public paintings and sculptures. In order to portray the character's choice, the pictorial narrative often shows an earlier scene than when the action was committed. Stansbury-O'Donnell gives an example of this in the form of a picture by the ancient Greek artist Exekia which shows the Greek hero Ajax planting his sword in the ground in preparation to commit suicide, instead of the actual suicide scene (Stansbury-O'Donnell, p. 177). Additionally, Castriota explains that ancient Greek art expresses the idea that character was the major factor influencing the outcome of the Greeks' conflicts against their enemies. Because of this, "ethos was the essential variable in the equation or analogy between myth and actuality".[41]

• Nicomachean Ethics
• Ethopoiein
• Rhetoric (Aristotle)
• Poetics (Aristotle)
• Logos
• Pathos
• Volksgeist

• Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (transl. W. D. Ross). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 0199213615.
• Aristotle. On Rhetoric (Transl. G. A. Kennedy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN 9780195305098.
• Barthes, Roland.L'Ancienne rhétorique. Communications, Vol. 16, Nr. 1 (1970), Seuil: pp. 172–223.
• Bjork, Collin. "Plato, Xenophon, and the Uneven Temporalities of Ethos in the Trial of Socrates." Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 54, No. 3. (2021), pp. 240–262.[1]
• Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric. Praeger, 1989.
• Castriota, David. Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens. London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.
• Chiron, Pierre. Aristotle: Rhétorique. Paris: Flammarion, 2007. ISBN 2080711350
• Fraser, Nancy. "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of the Actually Existing Democracy." Social Text 25.26 (1990): 56–80.
• Gandler, Stefan "The quadruple modern Ethos: Critical Theory in the Americas." APA Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy, Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association/University of Delaware, vol. 14, núm. 1, fall 2014, pp. 2–4. ISSN 2155-9708.
• Garton, C. "Characteristics in Greek Tragedy." The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 77, Part 2. (1957), pp. 247–254. JSTOR.
• Garver, Eugene. Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. ISBN 978-0226284255
• Givone, Sergio. Eros/Ethos. Turin: Einaudi, 2000. ISBN 978-8806155490.
• Grazia, Margreta. Hamlet without Hamlet. New York, NY: Cambridge, 2007. ISBN 978-0521690362.
• Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991.
• Halliwell, Stephen. Aristotle's Poetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0226313948.
• Halloran, S. Michael. "Aristotle's Concept of Ethos, or if not His, Someone Else's." Rhetoric Review, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Sep. 1982), pp. 58–63. JSTOR. .
• Jarratt, Susan, and Nedra Reynolds. "The Splitting Image: Contemporary Feminisms and the Ethics of ethos." Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory. Eds. James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1994. 37–63.
• LeFevre, K.B. Invention as a Social Act. Southern Illinois University Press, 1987.
• Lundberg, Christian O. and Keith, William M. "The Essential Guide to Rhetoric". 2nd Eds. Bedford/St. Martin's: Macmillan Learning, 2018.
• McDonald, Marianne; Walton, J. Michael (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theater. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0521542340.
• Meyer, Michel. La rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, coll. «Que sais-je? n° 2133», 2004. ISBN 2-13-053368-X.
• Müller, Jörn. Physics und Ethos: Der Naturbegriff bei Aristoteles und seine Relevanz für die Ethik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2006.
• Höffe, Otfried (ed.). Aristoteles. Poetik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009.
• Hyde, Michael J.; Schrag, Calvin O. (eds.). The Ethos of Rhetoric. Columbia (SC): University of South Carolina, 2004. ISBN 978-1570035388.
• Miller, Arthur B. (1974). "Aristotle on Habit and Character: Implications for the Rhetoric". Communication Monographs. 41 (4): 309–316. doi:10.1080/03637757409375855.
• Murray, Augustus Taber (1916). "Plot and Character in Greek Tragedy". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 47: 51–64. doi:10.2307/282827. JSTOR 282827.
• Oddo, John. (2014) "The Chief Prosecutor and the Iraqi Regime: Intertextual Ethos and Transitive Chains of Authority." In Intertextuality and the 24-Hour News Cycle: A Day in the Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell's U.N. Address, pp. 45–76. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
• Paris, Bernard. Character as a Subversive Force in Shakespeare: the history and Roman plays. London: Associated University Presses Inc, 1991. ISBN 978-0838634295
• Pittman, Corretta. "Black Women Writers and the Trouble with Ethos: Harriet Jacobs, Billie Holiday, and Sister Souljah." Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 37 (2007): 43–70.
• Proscurcin Jr., Pedro. Der Begriff Ethos bei Homer. Beitrag zu einer philosophischen Interpretation. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2014. ISBN 978-3-8253-6339-0.
• Rapp, Christof. Aristoteles: Rhetorik. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002.
• Reynolds, Nedra (1993). "Ethos as Location: New Sites for Discursive Authority". Rhetoric Review. 11 (2): 325–338. doi:10.1080/07350199309389009. JSTOR 465805.
• Ronald, Kate. "A Reexamination of Personal and Public Discourse in Classical Rhetoric." Rhetoric Review 9.1 (1990): 36–48.
• Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg (ed.). Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0520202283
• Schmertz, Johanna. "Constructing Essences: Ethos and the Postmodern Subject of Feminism." Rhetoric Review 18.1 (1999): 82–91.
• Vergnières, Solange. Éthique et Politique chez Aristote: Physis, Êthos, Nomos. Paris: PUF, 1995.
• Warner, Michael. "Publics and Counterpublics." Public Culture 14.1: 49–90.
• Woerther, Frédérique. L'èthos aristotélicien. Paris: Librairie Philosophique Vrin, 2007. ISBN 978-2711619177.

• The dictionary definition of ethos at Wiktionary
• Media related to Ethos at Wikimedia Commons