Question

(b) analyze classical appeals. how does virgil’s opening to the aeneid use pathos, the appeal to emotion? how might an audience in ancient rome have felt when they heard these opening lines? does this emotional appeal modern audiences differently? explain.

Explanation:

1. *Virgil's appeal to tradition in The Aeneid: Virgil frames Aeneas' journey and the founding of Rome as the fulfillment of ancient, divinely ordained traditions (e.g., Jupiter's will, the legacy of Troy). He ties Rome's future glory directly to adherence to ancestral duty (pietas*), positioning the new Roman state as the rightful continuation of a sacred, long-standing heritage.
2. Ancient Roman audience reaction: Roman readers would have recognized and embraced this appeal, as pietas (respect for ancestors, tradition, and the gods) was a core Roman virtue. They would have seen themselves as part of this honored lineage, validating their cultural identity and imperial ambitions.
3. Modern reader difference: Modern readers, removed from the cultural context of Roman pietas and imperial ideology, often view this appeal to tradition with more distance. They may critique the framing of imperial expansion as a "divine/traditional duty" and focus instead on the human cost of Aeneas' adherence to this mandate, rather than accepting it as an unassailable moral truth.

Answer:

Virgil crafts The Aeneid to appeal to tradition by framing Aeneas' mission to found Rome as the fulfillment of ancient, divinely sanctioned Trojan and ancestral destiny, tying the new Roman state to a sacred, unbroken lineage rooted in the virtue of pietas (duty to ancestors, gods, and tradition).

Ancient Roman audiences, for whom pietas was a foundational cultural value, would have received this appeal positively: it validated their identity as heirs to a noble, divinely favored legacy, justifying Rome's imperial growth and their place within it.

Modern readers, however, engage with this rhetoric differently. Separated from the cultural context that centered traditional duty and imperial pride, they often approach the text with a critical lens, questioning the morality of framing conquest as a "traditional mandate" and focusing on the personal sacrifices Aeneas makes for this cause, rather than accepting the appeal to tradition as an unchallenged moral truth.