#pathos
So I have been kicking around this theory for a while and I think I’ve finally made enough of a breakthrough about it to go on about it.
There’s a device in rhetoric known as the Modes of Persuasion. These are certain modes that are used to help appeal to an audience in order to persuade them to agree with your argument or any other factor that you are looking to achieve. In this case, we’ll be using it in terms of achieving the goal of leadership and change.
The three main modes are - Ethos, Logos & Pathos. Ethos is the appeal to authority/credibility. Example being a dentist’s testimonial about the effectiveness of a toothpaste. Pathos is the appeal to emotions/feelings. Example being basically any of those animal rescue ads with Sarah McLachlan. Logos is the appeal to logic/facts. Example being any sort of charts and figures proving a point. Or just any sort of factual evidence of sorts.
Anyways, so in regards to Fire Emblem: Three Houses, you’re probably wondering what the hell am I talking about? Well here’s the thing - in regards to the three main lords (Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude), they are all lacking in one of these appeals and that is why their methods/paths end up failing without the influence of Byleth for they are the one who helps instill that side of them.
Let’s start off with Edelgard. She has both Ethos and Logos. What she is lacking without Byleth is the Pathos. For her, this is all business. She uses her authority of position to assume power and the facts/figures (church corruption, nobility corruption) to bring forth her own vision. Without Byleth, we see that her path has too much bloodshed as the slaughtering of innocents is seen more as just a part of the war than something that can be avoided. With Byleth, there’s more of a humanity there and the goal is given much more of an emotional impact, especially considering Byleth’s origins.
Now with Dimitri. He’s got Pathos and Ethos. He’s lacking in Logos. He’s got feels for days and the whole being a future king deal is quite a big authority to say the least. His sense of logic, however, has been skewed as we see how he has a serious mental break due to his emotions and goes completely batshit. Without Byleth, he stays in that batshit state and ends up meeting his end in an unfortunate way. With Byleth, he’s able to find the logic necessary (granted it takes time) to become a great leader. He’s able to rein in his emotions for the good of the people.
And finally, onto Claude. As you know how this argument goes, he’s got the Pathos and the Logos. It’s Ethos that he’s missing. He’s known as the Master Tactician and he’s able to come up with schemes and is quite brilliant at it. He’s also got enough of a humanity that when he avoids as much bloodshed as he can (as evidenced by his poison that would only inconvenience someone for a couple days). However, despite being made a legit heir of House Riegan, he does not have enough authority around. People find him deceiving and manipulative. They don’t think he has the credibility and it shows even in the timeskip. With Byleth, he gains that authority and credibility he so seeks to be able to lead. Without Byleth, we see that he ends up pretty much just saying “Peace out” and takes off for his own homeland (or gets killed depending on if you spare him or not in Edelgard’s route)
Of course this does not mean that the lords are lacking in their missing mode. Edelgard does have emotions of sorts, Dimitri does have logic of sorts, and Claude does have authority of sorts. It’s just that without Byleth, those qualities are not able to develop enough to become a viable asset in order for them to succeed in their path.
Maybe this isn’t the most sound theory and maybe I’m just grasping at straws, but I found it very interesting. Feel free to expand upon this if you’d like.
Nah, this is actually pretty well-thought out analysis! I commend you!
It’s always a delight when someone can contrast them while being fair to all of them without oversimplifying them. Indeed I couldn’t put it into such a precise framework as you did, but I did always think that Byleth does sort of balance out all their leadership styles.
Hubert immediately puts them in charge of morale at the temporary encampment the moment he’s sure of their loyalty, he and Edelgard know that they’re not exactly…approachable, PR is not her strength and she tries to be but she struggles to get out of boss mode so with Byleth involved there’s more trust and comradery between her and the others.
They are very much the brains of the operation in Azure Moon (otherwise Dimitri will walk off a cliff and everyone else will follow him), they’re the one who puts a stop to the suicide commando and effectively fills in as the de-facto leader while poor Dimitri is… compromised. Rodrigue and Gilbert frequently ask Byleth what to do & confer with them regarding plans.
And in Verdant Wing Byleth kind of fills out as the presentable figurehead while Claude acts as a mastermind in the back. That’s very clear in their dealings with the church, or flying the crest of flames flag so as not to piss off the Alliance lords for example. Otherwise, Claude is seriously hampered by the fact that ppl just plain don’t trust him and he doesn’t trust them. In AM that contributes to the Gronder fiasco, and in CF Edelgard takes him out in a preemptive strike so he doesn’t try anything while she’s going for her real target - VW is the only route where Lorenz stays loyal to him, for example.
This goes both ways tho Byleth’s an exemptional executive leader both in the strategy and the HR department, but they never really had a cause or vision before meeting [insert favorite house leader]
Interestingly enough, there’s two approaches known as kairos which is the appeal to timeliness and telos which is appeal to purpose. If we put in the hidden route of Seteth as the lord for the SS route, he’d probably be lacking in the kairos mode? I mean he is older and the Church of Seiros seems to be sitting on their hands for a hero to rise.
And in regards to telos, perhaps Byleth is lacking the telos which the other lords are able to give?
So I have been kicking around this theory for a while and I think I’ve finally made enough of a breakthrough about it to go on about it.
There’s a device in rhetoric known as the Modes of Persuasion. These are certain modes that are used to help appeal to an audience in order to persuade them to agree with your argument or any other factor that you are looking to achieve. In this case, we’ll be using it in terms of achieving the goal of leadership and change.
The three main modes are - Ethos, Logos & Pathos. Ethos is the appeal to authority/credibility. Example being a dentist’s testimonial about the effectiveness of a toothpaste. Pathos is the appeal to emotions/feelings. Example being basically any of those animal rescue ads with Sarah McLachlan. Logos is the appeal to logic/facts. Example being any sort of charts and figures proving a point. Or just any sort of factual evidence of sorts.
Anyways, so in regards to Fire Emblem: Three Houses, you’re probably wondering what the hell am I talking about? Well here’s the thing - in regards to the three main lords (Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude), they are all lacking in one of these appeals and that is why their methods/paths end up failing without the influence of Byleth for they are the one who helps instill that side of them.
Let’s start off with Edelgard. She has both Ethos and Logos. What she is lacking without Byleth is the Pathos. For her, this is all business. She uses her authority of position to assume power and the facts/figures (church corruption, nobility corruption) to bring forth her own vision. Without Byleth, we see that her path has too much bloodshed as the slaughtering of innocents is seen more as just a part of the war than something that can be avoided. With Byleth, there’s more of a humanity there and the goal is given much more of an emotional impact, especially considering Byleth’s origins.
Now with Dimitri. He’s got Pathos and Ethos. He’s lacking in Logos. He’s got feels for days and the whole being a future king deal is quite a big authority to say the least. His sense of logic, however, has been skewed as we see how he has a serious mental break due to his emotions and goes completely batshit. Without Byleth, he stays in that batshit state and ends up meeting his end in an unfortunate way. With Byleth, he’s able to find the logic necessary (granted it takes time) to become a great leader. He’s able to rein in his emotions for the good of the people.
And finally, onto Claude. As you know how this argument goes, he’s got the Pathos and the Logos. It’s Ethos that he’s missing. He’s known as the Master Tactician and he’s able to come up with schemes and is quite brilliant at it. He’s also got enough of a humanity that when he avoids as much bloodshed as he can (as evidenced by his poison that would only inconvenience someone for a couple days). However, despite being made a legit heir of House Riegan, he does not have enough authority around. People find him deceiving and manipulative. They don’t think he has the credibility and it shows even in the timeskip. With Byleth, he gains that authority and credibility he so seeks to be able to lead. Without Byleth, we see that he ends up pretty much just saying “Peace out” and takes off for his own homeland (or gets killed depending on if you spare him or not in Edelgard’s route)
Of course this does not mean that the lords are lacking in their missing mode. Edelgard does have emotions of sorts, Dimitri does have logic of sorts, and Claude does have authority of sorts. It’s just that without Byleth, those qualities are not able to develop enough to become a viable asset in order for them to succeed in their path.
Maybe this isn’t the most sound theory and maybe I’m just grasping at straws, but I found it very interesting. Feel free to expand upon this if you’d like.
So, continuing on in Vol. 3 of MYS, immediately following the chōka + hanka of my last post, there’s this Hitomaro poem… that is just… wow. The pathos, the immediacy of it–there’s nothing I love more than a poem that speaks across the centuries in profound ways like this one does. Of course I’m not gonna use a photo of a corpse… but I thought one of these ground-level shots from my Yongmunsan trip went will with the image here of a body, simply collapsed on the mountain path. Perhaps it’s almost the perspective of the corpse?
MYS 3:426
柿本朝臣人麻呂見香具山屍悲慟作歌一首
One verse composed by Kakinomoto no Asomi Hitomaro, as he grieved deeply upon seeing a corpse on Kaguyama
草枕 羈宿尓 誰嬬可 國忘有 家待<真>國
草枕旅の宿りに誰が嬬か国忘れたる家待たまくに
kusamakura/tabi no yadori ni/ta ga tuma ka/kuni wasuretaru/ipe matamaku ni
Grass for a pillow/stopped for lodging on his journey/whose spouse might he be?/he has forgotten his home/while his household surely awaits his return…
The first thing that strikes me here is that the kotobagaki (preface) is absolutely essential to an understanding of the poem… knowing that Hitomaro is reciting this upon seeing a corpse makes the impact here considerably more profound - he is not composing on a fellow traveler, himself, or even a stag or the like… and so when he speaks of “having forgotten his home” [”kuni wasuretaru”] and “household surely awaits him” [”ipe matamaku”], we know there is an implicit negation of the possibility of that waiting being fulfilled, that forgetting being reversed. As a fellow traveler, Hitomaro cannot help but be drawn in to sympathize - after all, journeys were truly dangerous then, and there was real possibility of death (although, to be honest, Kaguyama is right near the capital so it’s a bit of an exaggeration to think of it as a true “journey,” but Hitomaro nevertheless evokes the word “tabi,” leading into it with the makura kotoba/epithet “kusamakura” grass for a pillow; in any case, dying away from home was probably more or less considered the equivalent of dying on a journey - and the move to create a connection between himself and the corpse necessitates an appeal to the idea of “journey” as that is what they have in common - both are/were travelers along the mountain path - and in any event, the poem here thrives on the contrast between “journey” and “home” and their incongruence). Hitomaro, seeing the corpse lying in the mountains, immediately equates him with a traveler having stopped for the night, but one that can never return home - because he has forgotten his “home” (’kuni’ is essentially referring to his home village) in laying to rest here. He cannot return, and yet Hitomaro imagines those at home awaiting him in vain - and he cannot help but see the utmost tragedy and pathos in not only his having died here, alone, unable to make it home, but the lack of knowledge of that reality of the people at home, who can only continue to wait. Moreso than the corpse himself, the “ipe” [household] is cast as pitiable here, as the “mu” suffix (plus +ku to nominalize) creates the sense of speculation on Hitomaro’s behalf but also indefinite continuation, from the present into the future. This man - he must be someone’s husband [”ta ga tuma”], Hitomaro reasons, and it is that someone who is to be pitied in this situation, for she shall remain unaware of his fate, forever waiting for his return - he, having forgotten her as he laid to rest away from home.
Now, detractors like Ebersole would be sure to note here that there is more going on that Hitomaro simply empathizing with the plight of the anonymous corpse’s wife, and he would be right. There is certainly and necessarily a ritualistic aspect here - because corpses were considered polluting “kegare” - and were to be avoided at all costs - but death could simply not go unrecognized, either. And so it is perfectly reasonable to see Hitomaro’s poem as part of a ritual of placating the dead and the accompanying pollutant effect on the living of their presence - and also probably purifying the mountain, which was, after all, one of the three sacred mountains of the Asuka area/the Fujiwara capital. In other words, once noticed (見), the corpse needed to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, and this poem was probably part of that. However, the pathos infused in Hitomaro’s verse surely goes beyond mere ritual, in imagining him as not just a body but a person, who has left behind home and family in dying far away form them. This act of personifying the corpse and imagining those left behind is an astonishingly human reaction to death, one that even betrays a bit of self-insertion on the poet’s behalf, and goes above and beyond what was probably necessary for the purification of the precincts where he died. Hitomaro felt general emotion for this poor fellow, unable to make it home to die. How lonely for both he and his family - what a pathetic fate, one so illustrative of the cruel ways of the world. There may be no Buddhist message about the impermanence of human existence here yet, but there is a comparable almost existentialist subtext - where life and death alike are clearly “unfair” - having no inherent logic or reason to them. In any case, the emergence of a deep “pathos” in Japanese poetry, where the poet empathically reacts to sights and sounds of the world, can be seen here even in what may have been arguably a ritual context. Emotion and empathy are indeed also a part of ritual, but there is something about the pathos that echoes in Hitomaro’s voice here that seems fresh, even new in its moment, and moves a reader even 1300 years later to tears over this poor man’s wife who would never see her husband again, he having died by the wayside, alone, on a journey.
1249/2000
JLPT: N1
School Grade: Junior high school
This character is a combination of 衣 clothing and 口 mouth. There are multiple theories for the origin of this character. One is that it represents covering the mouth with a cloth, or, in a figurative sense, “covering/stifling one’s (sad) feelings/thoughts and keeping them inside one’s heart.”
Post link
The Torment (Flaying) of Marsyas - 1st or 2nd century Roman copy of 3rd century BC Hellenistic sculpture
Post link
Tra chi pensa solo ai soldi e chi solo alle modo ogni città è sempre più piena di persone vuote, dammi un dieci e lode per la falsità che tra tutti i miei discorsi ancora ho un tocco di normalità.
“Credo nella musica così come certe persone credono alle favole.”
Mezzosangue
Il fatto non é più “cosa ho da perdere?” Ma é “avere quanto cazzo costa?”
Wonderland
“Scordati di tutto ciò che sai, se vuoi partire per ricominciare”
Wonderland - Mezzosangue
“Nel viaggio della disperazione apatica in sta pagina, un'anima venduta al demonio per qualche lacrima, un odio che si radicalizza verso il contesto, cercavo di trovare me stesso e mi sono perso.”
Stirpe - Tutto ok
“Abbiamo brutte cere, frutto di emozioni contrastanti
Di rimpianti, di bugie da mettere a tacere
Ok, piacere, conosciamoci di nuovo
In ogni modo cerco di nasconderti l'amore che non provo.”
Claver Gold - Crepa
