Ethos, Pathos, Logos. These are three of the most well-known terms in rhetoric that most people don’t actually connect to rhetoric. During this week we used these artistic appeals to analyze very modern artifacts, namely the Super Bowl commercials of 2020. If Aristotle’s appeals can be applied to things today, they certainly can be applied to the most ancient of rhetorical artifacts. Rather than only looking for modern ways to apply the artistic appeals, I want to look back through history as well. That leads me to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to be one of, if not the oldest manuscript ever recorded. It is the story of Gilgamesh, a corrupt and powerful man who became a king, turned into a hero, and sought answers to life and death. It is undoubtedly one of the most significant pieces of writing in all of history.
I think the most appropriate Aristotelian artistic appeal to use for analyzing this work is Ethos. All of the appeals can certainly be applied, but Ethos is superior in my opinion because it applies best to the story’s content and subject.
The story begins with the people of the city Uruk complaining about Gilgamesh’s wickedness, and asking the gods for help. The gods respond by creating a man called Enkidu, designed to be Gilgamesh’s equal in strength. Gilgamesh befriended Enkidu instead, and the two became more inseparable than brothers. They work together to kill great creatures including the forest giant Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. Because they killed these heavenly creatures, the gods curse Enkidu, giving him a dream that he will die. Enkidu falls ill, and dies after several days of suffering. Gilgamesh becomes haunted by this, mourning his friend for two weeks before burying him. He is haunted by death from now on, knowing Enkidu died so easily despite his great strength. Gilgamesh then travels the world as a hunter, seeking the gods for answers. He eventually finds the home of the gods after traveling through twelve leagues of darkness, and they give him an answer to his question that he has been traveling for so long to ask. There is no immortality for men, no permanence. After all he has gone through, Gilgamesh must return to his home and learn to accept his mortality.
The author of the story quickly proves their knowledge of the story. In the prologue, the author describes how Gilgamesh was born, and expresses knowledge of the city of Uruk. After the prologue, the author stops using language referring to “I” or addressing the reader, focusing exclusively on telling the story. It’s clear that they wanted to place focus on the message, which is the human nature to question mortality, rather than the telling of the story.
An important portion of the Ethos appeal is the way Aristotle looked at virtues. He saw virtues as balance between excess and deficiency; Someone who is loving is virtuous, but an excess of love, to Aristotle, produces lust, a vice. Deficiency of love causes indifference. Gilgamesh, at the beginning of the book, clearly lives in excess. This is a case for his bad character, according to the virtue concept of Aristotle.
The Epic of Gilgamesh has valuable lessons within, and the narrator, or the rhetor who is telling the story, wants to share them. Lessons like “death comes for all people, and we must come to terms with it” and “Corrupt people have the potential to change and become good” are for the good of everyone who reads them. This is a staple of Ethos, the concept of goodwill. Because the Epic of Gilgamesh tells how even the greatest of men struggles with the same basic human problems, it is relatable to even today’s audiences. It shows how little humanity in essence has changed.
While Ethos is largely about why an artifact is worthy of belief, The Epic of Gilgamesh is certainly not a true story. Why, then, am I looking through the lens of Ethos at a story that is not true? As Aristotle believed, knowledge and belief are different. The author of this artifact likely believed in the gods that appear in the story. Today, it is likely that very very few people believe in these gods. However, that belief does not mean the author was wrong. Belief cannot be proven, and knowledge can. Regardless of the story’s content, the author wants to pass on the life knowledge they have found.
Craig R. Smith’s book Rhetoric and Human Consciousness has a lot to say about the Aristotelian artistic appeals. I believe there is one passage that describes the main message of the author very well, speaking of goodwill. It is the second paragraph on page 74 that includes the words, “Aristotle compares it to friendship, ‘wishing for someone things you believe to be good, for his sake and not for your own, and being ready to do these things to the extent possible.'” From my perspective, this is what the author wanted. They wished to pass down what good things they believe in, for the sake of anyone who reads the story even long after death. In a way, this mirrors the author’s story. By sending this message of goodwill for the future people, the author finds their own acceptance of death, just as Gilgamesh did in the end.
Buried Relic 