Middle Course Like Menenius example essay topic

History offers an abundance of information about how people and societies behave. An exclusive reliance on current data would needlessly handicap efforts to understand the world. History provides a terrain for moral contemplation. Studying past individuals's tories and situations allows one to test his or her own moral sense.

History teaches by example. Historians seek to educate others so that people today can learn from the mistakes and successes of yesterday. Inevitably, authors' biases influence what they communicate. Like all teachers, they only present the information that they believe is important from a greater, broader truth.

In addition to selective omission, emphasis of particular information strengthens its perceived importance and thus shapes the reader's understanding of the truth. This is the art of presentation and persuasion. This is rhetoric. It has the ability to lead the minds of audiences to particular beliefs and actions.

Rhetoric is Dionysius' most powerful tool in convincing his audience that moderation is critical to society. After Coriolanus' death Dionysius says, "In the case of Marcius, at any rate, it was nothing else but his passion for exact and extreme justice that drove him from his country and deprived him of the enjoyment of all his other blessings. For when he ought to have made reasonable concessions to the plebeians, and by yielding somewhat to their desires to have gained the foremost place among them, he would not do so, but by opposing them in everything that was not just he incurred their hatred and was banished by them" (5.179). Moderation's importance is confirmed by Marcius' death. Lacking temperance and becoming enraged by all injustices, Marcius welcomes the oppositional rage that leads his enemies to murder him. Yet Dionysius does hold Coriolanus entirely responsible for his death; he acknowledges that injustices are committed.

However, Marcius should deal with them moderately, because a society cannot live harmoniously without compromise. The theme of moderation is introduced immediately by introducing Menenius only five pages into the book. He is "a person of superior wisdom" who "pursued the middle course, being inclined neither to increase the arrogance of the aristocratic party nor to permit the people to have their own way in everything" (Book 4, 5). Menenius is the embodiment of moderation, and his role, however brief, is central to the purpose of the book.

Dionysius needn't inform the reader that Menenius is impartial and respectable. His words and actions make this indisputable. Menenius begins, "A speech of some length is necessary to show those among you who are opposed to the accommodation that they contradict themselves if, while intending to frighten you by playing on your fear of those difficulties that are most trivial and easily corrected, they at the same time neglect to consider the evils that are greatest and incurable" (Book 4, 5). Menenius regrets that he must dedicate such a sizable amount of time to this argument, yet he doesn't hesitate to begin speaking; we must conclude that what he will relate is critical.

The people must be "shown" why they need to support an accommodation, and using facts, not force, is the most effective means of achieving this. Menenius's peech is only necessary because the patricians are so imbalanced. He laments, "when judging what is expedient they (the patricians) do not use reason but rather passion or frenzy" (Book 4, 7). Emotions obstruct their view of reality. Menenius stresses that reason must supersede emotions and that current, ephemeral problems must be dealt with at later times.

The aristocrats concern themselves with the effect of the plebeians's e cession: their farms are pillaged, their fortunes are lost, and Rome is weak against foreign invasion. These things can only be remedied by treating the cause of the secession, namely, the lack of representation and respect afforded to the common people. The patricians act as if the plebeians will magically become submissive, and decided that if they do not, they can simply recruit an entirely new populace. This attitude is unbelievably unrealistic. Rome needs the lower class, this lower class, to provide it with vital services.

This must be understood, and the patricians must be willing to compromise. Contrary to what they think, compromise is both of their best interests. Menenius maintains diplomacy and impartiality while identifying with the nobility's contempt for the common people. He reaches them by appealing to their frustration, making statements like, "you see how headstrong the people are grown; though they themselves are the offenders" (Book 4, 21).

Nevertheless, Menenius acknowledges that "they thus far hear words from the senate but see no act of kindness or moderation following the words" (Book 4, 23). Again, his argument reflects his "pursuit the middle course", deriding the plebeians on the one hand, while empathizing with their plight on the other. Pragmatism and objectivity reign over self-interest and favoritism. Individuals typically prefer to draw conclusions themselves as opposed to being told what to think. Taking this into account, Menenius incorporates rhetorical questions into many of his dialogues, thereby indirectly leading his audience to understand issues as he does. This method is successful because his questions suggest obvious, yet overlooked answers, thereby enabling the nobles to maintain their pride.

For example, he is astounded by the patricians' impractical suggestion that Rome attract an entirely new plebeian class. Therefore he asks, "who are these people who will leave their won countries and remove to us?" (Book 4, 13). To substantiate his argument, he says, "do we still hope that the plebeians will become reconciled with us, even though we know it is in our own power to put an end to the sedition by a single decree?" (Book 4, 9) No one replies. Menenius is very wise; he is a master of persuasion. The words "moderation,"self-restraint", and "accommodation" resound throughout Menenius's peeches, thereby confirming and reinforcing their importance.

Menenius doesn't merely praise these virtues, he practices what he preaches. Particularly because he is introduced less than five pages into the book, the reader adopts an early understanding of what a moderate citizen says and how a moderate citizen acts. Therefore, subsequently introduced characters' unwillingness and resistance to compromise is considerably more evident than it would be without a model, Menenius, for comparison. The emergence of factions immediately after Menenius's peech and subsequent characters's peeches reflects dissention's pervasiveness in society.

Some individuals staunchly oppose assertions, some are in strong support of them, and others are indifferent. The statement, "Some were in the opinion that... but others advised not... ". appears repetitively, particularly referring to the patricians. The dominant group considers the plebeians "the headstrong and ignorant multitude" of "bold and insufferable madness". These men oppose the few moderates whose actions reflect use of reason as opposed to biases and emotions.

Moderation requires tolerance, a degree of humbleness, and a true desire to come to resolution. Unfortunately, many patricians are more concerned with exerting and maintaining "superior power" than with settling disagreements. Many plebeians are discontented with any resolution including terms different from their own. Whether disputes are between two patricians, two plebeians, or one member from each group, they can easily be resolved if individuals are willing to be objective and "pursue a middle course" like Menenius.

Dionysius makes citizens' factions and immoderate behavior integral to his narrative; they cannot be overlooked. Their struggles are continuous, cyclical, and therefore predictable. While the details vary, in each case there is chaos, not compromise, and issues remain outstanding. One group and one view prevail, and a disappointed party grows resentful. The repetition of these situations purposely evokes the audience's frustration. This frustration impresses readers with an understanding of the fact that compromise is necessary; problems do not solve themselves.

The commonwealth suffers unless the common good is the goal. As the ruling class in Rome, the patricians consider the commonwealth entirely their own construction. Therefore, they consider it absurd to suppose that the commonwealth should commonly serve both patricians and plebeians; without them, the plebeians would have no commonwealth. What the patricians do not realize is that without the common people, they will lose control of their commonwealth. For the sake of Rome, the two groups must come to a common ground..