gorg encomio retor.pdf

7/29/2019 gorg encomio retor.pdf

1/17

Gorgias' "Encomium to Helen" and the Defense of RhetoricAuthor(s): John PoulakosSource: Rhetorica, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 1-16Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20135003Accessed: 31/07/2009 13:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Rhetorica.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20135003?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20135003?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/17

John Poulakos

Gorgias7 Encomium toHelenand the Defense of Rhetoric

rom the time of Isocrates1 to the present, Gorgias' EncomiumtoHelen has puzzled, intrigued, or disappointed its readers.Of the many readings it has received, those by Croiset,2 vanHook,3 Untersteiner,4 Segal,5 Vers?nyi,6 Guthrie,7 Kennedy,8 and Rob

1Although Isocrates praises Gorgias for having written of Helen, he faults himfor not observing the distinction between encomium and the apologia: "(pr|G? (lev yap?yKCouiov yeypacp?vai rcepi auTTJ?, xuyx?ve? ?' ?7ioA,oyia eipr|K(?? im?p xr?v ?Keivn7C87cpay|X6vc?v. ?cra 8' ouk ?k tc?v ai)T?>v l?ec?v ou?? rcepi xcbv auxr?v ?pycov ?Xoyo?, ?Xk? rc?v TODvavxiov' ?rco^oye?aoai \i?v y?p TtpoofjKei rcepi x v ??iice?vaixiav 6%ovtc?v, ?Tcaive?v ?e to?? en' ?yaG?) tivi ?iacp?povxa?/' Helen 14-15. Fromwhat we know about Gorgias, it does not seem likely that he was unaware of thedifference between the two genres. Thus, Isocrates' explanation that Gorgias "jcepietaxOev" is difficult to accept.2A. Croiset characterizes the Encomium toHelen as "un des plus anciens et desplus curieux monuments de la prose grecque savante." See "Essai de restitution d' unpassage de Y ?loge d' H?l?ne attribu? ? Gorgias" inMelanges Graux (1888), p. 128.3Larue van Hook calls it "an epideictic, or display, composition," and "a brillianttour de force." Isocrates, vol. 3, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 54.4Mario Untersteiner states: "The defense of Helen ... represents in the structuralframework of the myth the dramatic process of knowing." See The Sophists, trans.

Kathleen Freeman (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954), p. 102.5 Charles Segal regards it as "a mythological showpiece of rhetoric" and "an

epideictic encomium." See "Gorgias and the Psychology of the Logos," Harvard Studiesin Classical Philology, 66 (1962), p. 100.6 Laszlo Vers?nyi argues that "it is certainly not a serious work as far as its

ostensible purpose is concerned." He also adds: "There is another aspect, however,under which this defense or eulogy is by no means a playful exercise: most of HelensEncomium deals with the nature and power of logos." See Socratic Humanism, (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1963), p. 44.7W.K.C. Guthrie sees in it "a school exercise in rhetoric, sophistic in every sense."

? The International Society for The History of Rhetoric.Rhetorica, Vol. 1, No 2 (Autumn, 1983).

1


3/17

2 RHETORICAinson9 stand out as the most representative. But despite the positivecontributions made by these and other authors, the reader of theHelen is still faced with at least two crucial questions. First, is thiswork an encomium or an apologia? If it is an encomium, how can weexplain that so much of it is devoted to the defense of Helen? If, onthe other hand, it is an apologia, why does its author call it anencomium? Second, how seriously are we to take this work? If it is aserious piece, what are we to make of Gorgias' disclosure that thespeech is a trifle? If it is a trifle, does it deserve even a secondthought?The above questions persist partly because the various interpretations of the Helen have resulted from readings too literal to providesatisfactory answers. While these interpretations are helpful to theliterary historian or the classical philologist, they offer little or noinsight to the student of rhetoric. By focusing on either the historicaldimension or the formalistic aspects of the preserved texts,10 theyleave out of account the most crucial rhetorical issue, the issue of

purpose. Why did Gorgias write this work? What is the centralquestion the Encomium toHelen is seeking to answer? What is the

major challenge to which Gorgias is responding? Whom is hechallenging in turn? To be sure, these question raise a host of issuesthe examination of which is beyond the scope of this essay; however,they are significant because, if permitted to guide our reading, theydisallow yet another interpretation gravitating toward either historical or formalistic preferences. Assuming that an author's purpose is afunction of the author himself and his cultural environment, both of

He also says that "These declamations might be simply rhetorical exercises on mythicalthemes, designed to show how, with skill and effrontery, the most uncompromisingcase could be defended." See The Sophists, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1971), p. 50 and 42 respectively.8George Kennedy states: "Gorgias' speech for Helen shows all the wildness of hisjingling style, but it is also a masterful illustration of the apagogic method." Later, headds: "It is playful in mood, but it also has a serious purpose in demonstrating a

method of logical proof." See The Art of Persuasion in Greece, (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1963), p. 169 and 168 respectively.9 John Robinson sees the Helen as "a display piece" and "an occasion for showingby example 'the incantatory power which by its witchery enchants, persuades, andchanges the souls of men/ " See "On Gorgias" in Edward N. Lee et al. eds., Exegesis and

Argument, (New York: Humanities Press, 1973), p. 53.10 For a discussion of the two best manuscripts of the Encomium to Helen, seeDouglas MacDowell, "Gorgias, Alkidamas, and the Cripps and Palatine Manuscripts,"Classical Quarterly, 55 (1961), pp. 113-124.


4/17

Gorgias' Encomium toHelen and the Defense of Rhetoric 3

which are reflected in the text, the Helen must be approached both inhistorical and textual terms. In what follows, I will argue that ananalogical reading of the Helen iswarranted and can help us answersatisfactorily some of the above raised questions.11

Generally, speaking, the available interpretations of the Helenmay be classed into two categories: the "model" and the "pretext."The first looks at the work as a model speech, the kind Gorgias'students were supposedly expected tomemorize and recite. This viewis apparently informed by Aristotle's testimony likening the practicet?v rcepi xo?? ?puraico?? ^oyou? uiaGapvouvxcov

to that of Gorgias(On Sophistical Refutations 183b-184a). But Aristotle does not give us acomplete account of Gorgias' instructional practices; nor does he saythat memorization and recitation were the only methods Gorgiasendorsed. 12As such, Aristotle's remarks do not establish that the

Helen was amodel speech; they merely suggest a possibility. But evenas a possibility, the "model" interpretation is difficult to accept.Assuming that the speech indeed ends the way the available textsindicate, the last clause (e?oi)A,T]0T)V ... Tia?yviov) means that one of

Gorgias' "model" conclusions endorsed the use of the very unrhetorical "?ji?v ?? 7ca?yviov" (21). But even the beginner rhetor knows, ifonly commonsensically, that one does not close a speech with acomment that might be interpreted by one's listeners as telling them"You've been had." Were it not, then, for the last clause, the "model"interpretation might have been more plausible. Some of the advocates of this interpretation argue that the Helen shows by example theuse of "a method of logical proofs and illustrates that "evensomething unbelievable is demonstrable when one has the skill."14But the apagogic method of proof is as useful or as effective as theparticular arguments used allow; and of the four arguments Gorgiasemploys, only one (Helen is not blameworthy for her actions becauseshe was overcome by physical force) has merit; the rest are quiteweak and unconvincing. Had Gorgias wanted to illustrate how toargue apagogically, he could have chosen stronger, more ingenious

11Untersteiner holds the same view but for different reasons. See The Sophists(note 4 above), p. 123; also n. 106, p. 131.12For a discussion of the various instructional methods employed by the Sophists,see G.B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1981), pp. 28-34.13Kennedy, p. 169.14Vers?nyi, p. 47.


5/17

4 RHETORICAarguments;15 and had he wanted to demonstrate something unbelievable, his claim would have been that Helen did not elope with Paristo Troy.The second category of interpretations regards the Helen as a"pretext" for Gorgias' real purpose. Vers?nyi, for example, points outthat "There is no reason to suppose that Gorgias cared much whetherHelen was vindicated or not, and Helen is obviously merely a pretextfor his argument."16 Vers?nyi's point is well taken but it fails toestablish why Gorgias needs a pretext to argue that logos "might havenothing to do with knowledge, intellect, reason, but move in analtogether different realm."17 The same can be said about alternativepurposes suggested by other commentators supporting this view: ifGorgias wanted "to glorify his own art,"18 or discuss "certain generalideas that are deserving of attention,"19 or conduct "an epistemological inquiry,"20 he could have done so without a pretext?just as hedid in the nepi xoG UT| ovxo? f\ rcepi cpuaecoc. As will appear below,the reading I am proposing favors the "pretext" interpretation butoffers a need for it.

An analogical reading of the Helen is justified on both historicaland textual grounds. First, the speech was written at a time21 duringwhich mythological constructs were still an important part of thecultural consciousness of the Greeks. Mythical themes seem to haveprovided the poets, the playwrights, the Sophists, and the philosophers with the fertile soil in which they could plant the seeds of theirmessage;22 in turn, mythological examples must have made the worksof the intelligentsia of that period more palpable to the generalpublic. Second, Gorgias iswell known for his affinity for metaphorical expression and figurative language (DK A2). That Helen mayhave served as the personification of rhetoric is not unlikely if one ac

15Consider, for example, Gorgias' use of the apagogic method in his Defense ofPalamedes.16Vers?nyi, p. 44.17 Ibid., p. 45.18Thomas Duncan, "Gorgias' Theories of Art," The Classical Journal, 33 (1938), p.405. 19Robinson, p. 53.20Untersteiner, p. 117.2i

Segal, p. 100.22Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, vol. I, trans. Gilbert Highet(New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 374.


6/17

Gorgias7 Encomium to Helen and the Defense of Rhetoric 5

cepts the evidence from Gnomologium Vaticanum according to whichGorgias alluded to a similar analogy between Penelope and philosophy (DK B29);23 and his reported belief that ? ?naxf\caq ?ncaioxepo?xo? |xf) ?7caxf|aavxo? (DK B23)24 lends additional support to theHelen-rhetoric analogy?we normally do expect one's works toreflect one's beliefs. Gorgias' choice of Helen to personify rhetoric isparticularly apt if one takes into account the common characteristicsthe two share: both are attractive, both are unfaithful, and both havea bad reputation.When Gorgias arrived in Athens, the general attitude towardrhetoric was ambivalent. On the one hand, rhetorical education washighly desirable; on the other, formal attacks against it were wellunder way?Aristophanes' The Banqueters was shown for the firsttime the same year Gorgias arrived. That rhetoric was made especially attractive during the Sophistic era is generally accepted. For his

part, Gorgias is said to have held that rhetoric is the queen of all thearts and "?rc?oac x?? ?uvqiei? ai)M,a?ouaa ?cp' a?xf| exei" (Gorgias456a). In response to this and other enticing claims, ambitious upperclass youths aspiring to become political leaders of the future wereflocking to rhetorical schools seeking to acquire the enabling skill of81) ^?yeiv. Gradually, rhetorical ability was coming to be perceivedboth as a prerequisite to the practice of effective statesmanship and a

means of acquiring power, fame, wealth, and intellectual wisdom.Just as Helen, ia?0eov K?Xkoq embodied, noXk? a?jiaxa auvfiyayev?v?p v 87ci jieya?xn? ji?ya cppovo?xcov (4), rhetoric was now attracting many men, all in anticipation of great accomplishments. The

promises of the teachers of rhetoric, the attractiveness of the art ofdiscourse, and the aspirations of the would be rhetors aside, what, inmore descriptive terms, were the aims of rhetorical education?Gorgias' example suggests an affinity for ?uvajiiv (ppaGXiKT)v (DKA2) and an aversion to x? e ?,a xe Kai TtoX?aKi? eipr|U?va (DK A24).Rhetoric did not require exact knowledge of a recognized subject orinquiry into dated and much discussed issues; rather, it involved the

development of the ability to speak according to the elastic criteria ofkairos and to prepon.25 The observance of these criteria meant, among

23Of course, both cpi?oaoipia and pT|xopiKf| are feminine nouns.24 For an insightful discussion of Gorgias' notion of arc?rn see Thomas Rosenmeyer, "Gorgias, Aeschylus, and Apate," American Journal of Philology, 76, (1955), pp.225-260.

25 For a discussion of Kairos see W. S?ss, Ethos, Studien zur alteren griechischen


7/17

6 RHETORICAother things, that faithfulness to a fixed philosophical stand or loyaltyto a permanent ideological position had to be, at best, a secondaryconcern. In the public domain, where uncertainty, contingency, andfluctuation reign supreme, supporting a position one day andattacking it the next was to be expected from a rhetor. But theunfaithfulness of rhetoric extended beyond ideology. In the eyes ofpeople like Aristophanes, rhetorical education was not a form ofsocial innovation but an instance of cultural iconoclasm threateningto uproot traditional institutions and values. By particularizing andsubjectivizing the world, rhetoric was essentially weakening thosebonding forces that hold a culture together, thereby leading to itsutter disintegration. Just as Helen had betrayed her husband and hercountry, rhetoric was now betraying the founding traditions of thepast. For their respective betrayals Helen and rhetoric had acquired abad reputation.

Apparently, Gorgias is interested in helping xf|v K(XK(?)??xko?oi)oav (2). But as Robinson has remarked, "Gorgias does not care in theleast whether Helen is guilty or innocent."26 The same, however,cannot be said about Gorgias' attitude toward his techn?. Rhetoric wasunder fire from many groups: the aristocrats, whose privilegedposition in the State was being undermined by an upcominggeneration of "logocrats;" the conservatives, who saw its destructiveinfluence on the culture and its corrupting effects on the young; theoligarchically minded, who must have been dismayed to witnessincreased instances of democratization; the poor, who, like Socrates,could not afford "fifty drachmai lectures" (Cratylus 384b) or thehigher fees for rhetorical instruction; the envious, who must haveresented the Sophists' popularity;27 and finally Socrates, the champion of dialectic. Faced with this state of affairs, Gorgias could havehardly remained indifferent?every time the reputation of one's artand profession are at stake, one naturally comes to their defense.

Rhetorik, Leipzig 1910, p. 17 ff. For a discussion of to prepon see M. Pohlenz,Nachrichten der k?niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, G?ttingen 1933, p. 53 ff; alsoJaeger (note 22 above), p. 165 f? Untersteiner discusses both notions in The Sophists(note 4 above), pp. 195-199.26Robinson, p. 53.27At least for Nietzsche, Plato heads the list of the envious. On this matter,

Samuel Ijsseling writes: "Nietzsche asks: 'How should one understand Plato's battleagainst rhetoric?' and he answers: 'He was envious of their influence.' (Werke, III, p.337.)" See Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976), p.107.


8/17


But if Gorgias wishes to defend rhetoric, why conceal hispurpose? Why not entitle his work 'Yrc?p pT|TOpiKT|??rcoAoy?a andwrite a treatise in support of rhetoric? Once again, we must attempt ahistorical explanation. Gorgias must have been aware of the Athenianpractices of intolerance; frequent banishments and condemnations,the burning of books in public, and excommunications by exile musthave dictated that he approach his task indirectly.28 Artists havetraditionally found that the use of allegory satisfies well the demandsof indirection: and just as a comic playwright can mask his intentionwith frogs, wasps, or birds for artistic purposes, a rhetor mayartfully29 avoid being explicit for political reasons.30 A delicate andpotentially explosive issue must be handled carefully and cautiously.I submit that this is precisely why Gorgias entitles his workEncomium toHelen and calls it a Tcaiyviov. After all, what danger canthere be in a work whose author finds diversion in praising amythical figure? Gorgias' discourse must have seemed perfectlyharmless and non-threatening to the forces of the establishment,which tend to take things literally, anyway. Thus, Gorgias' wish todefend rhetoric without antagonizing a powerful status quo, and

thereby endangering himself, is fulfilled.Thus far, I have argued that there are historical grounds justifying the claim that Gorgias wishes to defend rhetoric. To show that heindeed does so in the Helen, I will now turn to the text. For the

purposes of analysis, the speech may be divided into two sections: thefirst, (6)-(7), ismore argumentative while the second, (8)-(19), ismore

descriptive and explanatory in nature. Each section advances twoarguments and is accordingly divided into two parts?(6) and (7) forthe first and (8)-(14) and (15)-(19) for the second. Before discussingeach, a few words about Gorgias' statement of purpose are in order.

Early in the speech, Gorgias announces that he wants xi|V [levKaic?)? (XKOUouaav rca?aai xf|? aixia?, xo?? 8? |i?|i(po|i?voi)? ...jca?aai xf|? ?jiaGia? (2). Of the two things he wants to accomplish,

28On this point, E.R. Dodds observes that "the evidence we have is more thanenough to prove that the Great Age of Greek Enlightenment was also, like our owntime, an Age of Persecution?banishment of scholars, bunkering of thought, and even(if we can believe the tradition about Protagoras) burning of books." The Greeks and theIrrational, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951), pp. 189-190.29Gorgias' phrase "x?^vn ypcKpei?, ouk ?XnOeict Xex^&K' (13) mav be helpfulhere.

30Regarding the sophistical practice of concealing one's work "to escape malice,"see Protagoras 316c-317c.


9/17

8 RHETORICAthe second ismore complicated because it involves 1) exposing xo??|i6|X(po|i8VOU? as \|/6U?O|X6VOD?and 2) putting forth the truth (?ei?a?x?Xr|06?). Read in conjunction with his concluding remarks, Gorgias'statement of purpose becomes more sharply focused: at issue are theinjustice of blame (ji(b(iOD ??iK?a) and the ignorance of opinion(8o?r|? ?jxaoia) (21). The two issues seem to be casually linked: thelatter has caused the former. Because the accusers hold uninformedopinions, they blame unjustly; that is, their accusations lack a factualbasis. Explaining the truth of the matter, which Gorgias promises todo, will hopefully have one of two positive results: it may informxo?? |i8|X(po|x?voD? thereby keeping them from making unfoundedallegations, or, what is more realistic, it may inoculate the publicthereby keeping them from believing the accusers. In either case, thepresent injustice will be arrested.

However, as Gorgias points out, the story of Helen (her beauty,her origins, her actions, etc.) is well known to most people (oi)Ka8r\kov oi)?? ?AAyo??) (3). Reference to their familiarity with some ofthe factual aspects of the story is also made in (4), where Gorgiaspromises to refrain from X?yeiv xoi? eiS?cuv a ?aaai. This means thathis notion of x


10/17


give man this gift, presumably to help him facilitate his communallife. This view is in line with the poetic tradition, the Platonic versionof Protagoras' mythical account of the rise of human civilization(Protagoras 320c ff), and Isocrates' later eulogy of logos (Nicocles 5-9).On the second level, Gorgias argues that responsibility for whatHelen did must be placed not on Helen but on those who used her.Helen is not guilty because she was literally used by the gods as aninstrument for their purposes (Helen herself argues this point in theTrojan Women 919-950). Similarly, responsibility for what rhetoricdoes must be placed not on the art itself but on those who use it, itspractitioners. By not challenging Helen's actions or their contemptibility, Gorgias acknowledges implicitly that, when misused, rhetoricoften yields results that are indeed reprehensible. However, he insiststhat in such cases ?i;ioc aixi?aGai ? aixi?)|ievo?. On both levels ofthe argument the conclusion is that rhetoric is not reproachable.Viewed historically, this argument (preserved in Plato's Gorgias457a-c, Isocrates' Nicocles 1-9, and Aristotle's Rhetoric 1355b 1-5) issignificant because it marks the ending of the poeticoreligious andthe beginning of the rationalistic tradition in Greece. As Hegel hasobserved, the Sophists were among the first to challenge the value ofstrict adherence to a set of moral principles designed to legislate andguide individual behavior.32 Accordingly, they argued that evenreligious laws are not to be obeyed unquestionably but to besubjected to critical scrutiny. In effect, the Sophists urged that theindividual create his own religion. The dangers of this doctrine ofreligious relativism notwithstanding, one of its positive notes was theconscious effort to transfer responsibility for one's actions from theabstractly religious to the concretely personal level. If accurate, thisaccount stands in fundamental opposition to all four variations ofGorgias' central argument, i.e., Helen did not act of her own free will.An overly religious attitude, one which sees all events in the humansphere as figured in or caused by an all-encompassing divine planwhich human will cannot frustrate, would have to forgive Helen. Butthe spirit of the early rationalism of the late fifth century seems lessprepared to accept the argument that human misdeeds are the resultof divine orders. Hecuba, for example, rejects Helen's argument (Iwas used by the gods) and assigns all responsibility to her (Trojan

32 For a more extensive treatment of this point, see G.E Hegel, Lectures in theHistory of Philosophy, vol. IV, trans. E.S. Haldane (New York: The Humanities Press,1963), pp. 357-358.


11/17

10 RHETORICAWomen 969-1032). Ifwe regard Gorgias as amajor exponent of the Sophistic movement, and ifwe accept his reputed attitude "|Lif| x? et?o??Xk? xf|v ?o?av eiai noXkoiq yv?puiov xr)? yuvauc?c" (DK B22), wewould have to conclude that he, too, contrary to his stand in the

Helen, would have condemned her. Clearly, this opposition betweenthe historical and the textual accounts lends support to the view thatGorgias, although talking about Helen, is really referring to rhetoric.Further support for this view is provided as we turn to yetanother historical note. As the older tradition was yielding to thenewer, a profound change in the form, the sources, and the carriers ofthe word was taking place. Obscure prophetic riddles were beingreplaced by persuasive arguments,33 the temples by the agora, andthe poets and rhapsodes by the rhetors. Unlike anonymous oracularsayings, speech, although not entirely stripped of itsmagical powers,was now becoming tied to rational human agents, fully responsibleand accountable for their utterances and their consequences. In thisvein, it is instructive to recall that after the Sicilian expedition theAthenians turned against the rhetors who had persuaded them toundertake what turned out to be a disastrous adventure. Thus, whenGorgias argues that Helen should not be held accountable he isconfronting the accusers of rhetoric with two responses (one for eachof the aforementioned traditions): to the poetically and religiouslyinclined he says that rhetoric is a gift of divine origin; to the newwave of rationalists that their blame ismisplaced?it is not the art butits misusers that must be censured.

In the following argument, Gorgias points out that just as Helencould not have defended herself against her abductor's force, rhetoricnext to physical violence is helpless. In so doing, he singles out forblame the abusers of rhetoric who, by violating her, act illegally(?vojico?) and unjustly (?S?KC??).This section has strong overtones ofa political critique designed to expose the use of ?ia by the State.Influential rhetors have always been a class to be reckoned with by

33The following excerpt from Euripides' Helen illustrates the point (the messenger is speaking toMenelaus) 753-757:

xi ?f|xa navxeD?ueOa; xo?? Geo?ai %p?|O?ovxa? aixe?v ?yaG?, ?xavxeiac ?' ??v'?iou y?p ?Xki?q ???eap rj?p?Orixo?e,icouSei? ?7c?,ooxr|G'?u7c6poiaiv ?py?? ?)v*yvaixT] ?' ?piaxT) uavxi? f\ %'eu?ooXia.


12/17

Gorgias' Encomium to Helen and the Defense of Rhetoric 11

those in power. As Thrasymachus' fragment of The Constitutionillustrates, rhetors are formidable challengers of the ill-advised policies and corrupt practices of the ruling class.34 History has shown thatthe more tolerant rulers respond to rhetorical attacks by issuingexplanations or counterattacks. But should their rhetoric fail and thechallenge persist, they become less tolerant and resort to variousforms of force in order to silence the voices of opposition. When thishappens, rhetoric suffers, justice becomes the justice of the stronger,and the unwritten law dictating that communal differences be settledthrough discourse is violated. Branding outspoken political opponents "the enemies of the State," arresting them illegally, and exilingthem are all examples of what Gorgias would call ?ap?apa 67U%eiprpaxa Kai X?yco Kai v?|icp Kai epyco. But no example betterillustrates the point than the measure of the Thirty Tyrants thatoutlawed rhetorical instruction altogether (Xenophon's Memorabilia I,2.31).35 Unlike rhetoric, which for Gorgias "rc?vxa y?p ?)(p' a?xf|8o?A,a ?Y 6K?VXC0V,?Xk' ou ?i? ?iac rcoio?xo" (Philebus 58a), bia is notinterested in securing people's agreement to what is being proposed;36 rather, it ignores the laws, eliminates dissent, and imposes itsviolent will.Thus far, Gorgias has argued that the bad reputation of rhetoric isdue to her accusers' failure to distinguish between the art herself andher misusers and abusers. Following the same argumentative strategy, he next attempts yet another shift in the direction of blame: itmust be directed against logos (? ji?v o?)V rce?aac (b? ?vayKaaa???iKe?) and away from rhetoric (?) ?? cb? ?vayKaoOe?aa xco ?oyco|i?xr|v (XKO?ei KaK(??) (12). This argument, however, is overshad

34DK 85 Bl.35Regarding this measure, Stanley Wilcox has remarked: "Of course Xenophonexplains the law as resulting from Critias' personal grudge against Socrates, but theoligarchical rulers of Athens needed no such general law to cloak their hatred of an individual. Rather, they shrewdly discerned that trained speakers meant men capable ofarousing the people, an aroused people meant a revival of a democratic party, and ademocratic party organized and united by effective speakers might mean the end oftheir oligarchical power. Recognizing that oratory is the life-blood of democracy, theyshut off the flow at the source, the schools of rhetoric/' 'The Scope of Early RhetoricalInstruction/' Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 53 (1942), p. 155.36 In the Palamedes, Gorgias stresses that the other's consent is an essential

prerequisite to persuasion. This can be inferred from the defendant's argument that hecould not have persuaded the barbarians because they would not have wanted to bepersuaded (ofcxe y?p ?Keivoi 7CEia9r)vai ?ouXoivx' ?v) (14).


13/17

12 RHETORICAowed as Gorgias turns to an analytical discussion of the nature oflogos and its effects on the human psyche.37 Along with this

discussion, he offers a rather technical account of the variousprocesses and components that make up the complex phenomenon ofrhetorical peitho (i.e., doxa, terpsis, pistis, apate).In this section, (8)-(14), Gorgias gives an "official" version ofwhat rhetoric is, "a kind of formal profession of the aims andmethods of his art, a kind of advertisement like the 87i?yyeA|ia ofProtagoras."38 By giving what he must have regarded as a correctaccount of the basic parts of the rhetorical act (rhetor, logos, listeners)and their interaction, Gorgias does his duty (kz^ox xe x? S?ov ?p0?)?)(2) as a professional rhetorician and fulfills his initial promise to showxa?r)0??. And although he does not, strictly speaking, prove theaccusers of rhetoric liars, he renders their familiar claims (rhetoric is amethod of winning false arguments and supporting unjust causes, itteaches how to turn the old into the new and vice versa, it disregardsthe truth and concentrates on probability, etc.) at least questionable.

Gorgias' analysis continues in the next section, (15)-(19), wherethe discussion focuses on the affective power of the iconic and formalaspects of visual perception (odxco? encova? xa>v ?poji?vcov Tcpayjx?xcov ?| o\|/i? 6v?ypa\|/6V ?v xa) (ppov?)|iaxi) (17). Having explainedthat the plastic arts create naturally epcoxa Kai 7t?0ov (18), he arguesthat Helen was unable to defend against what she felt when she sawAlexander's body. The merit of this argument aside, Gorgias has

completed his discussion by pointing out that persuasion is a matterof both sound and sight. As Segal has remarked, "It is Gorgias'achievement to have perceived and formulated as a techne that theformal structure of the logos (in qualities such as metron) evokesemotional forces, and to have generalized this formulation (at least interms of the effects, if not of formal analysis) to include both thelinguistic and the visual arts."39

Assuming that rhetorical discourse is purposeful, that it constitutes a response to a challenge and is itself a challenge invitingresponses, I have attempted to show that from an analogical point ofview the central issue in the Encomium to Helen is the tarnished

37 The most comprehensive treatment of this discussion, as well as that of the(15)-(19) section, is provided by Segal (note 5 above). Segal's treatment is so thoroughthat itmakes any original observations very difficult.38 Ibid., p. 102.39 Ibid., p. 133.


14/17


reputation (?UGK?eia) of rhetoric. Gorgias indicates that this dyskleiahas been caused by amathia and is an example of adikia. Consistentwith his surface argument (Helen's accusers must examine thepossible causes of her action before assigning blame), he attacks thecause of the problem, not its effects. Thus, his defense takes the formof an educational mission. First, Gorgias asks his audience to considerthe divine origin and human practice of rhetoric, and to accept thatsome people use it improperly. Second, he invites a comparison ofrhetoric and bia as two ways of settling human differences.40 Third,he discusses logos as the rhetorical medium whose nature admits ofartistic manipulation by the learned rhetor. Because logos in itsvarious manifestations (prose, poetry, incantation) affects peoplepsychologically, and because people's actions are determined to alarge extent psychologically, the study of rhetoric is the study of thelinguistic influence of human action. In connection with his third

point, Gorgias' fourth line of defense is an allusion to people'ssusceptibility to the contents of their visual perceptions. Like sound,sights can affect people's thoughts and actions profoundly. In thissense, rhetoric includes the study of creating persuasive images.

Gorgias' defense of rhetoric shifts the focus of the issue as definedby the enemies of rhetoric. Essentially, he does not want to play theirgame. And although he would have refused to accept that rhetoric isbad, he does not attempt to refute their charges and establish that sheis good?in this regard, Isocrates is right: he does not praise in thespirit of an encomium.41 But it does not appear that Gorgias isinterested in praising rhetoric?at least not explicitly;42 rather, hewants to inform amisinformed public by setting the record straight.In so doing, he lifts the issue of rhetoric out of the sphere of ethicsand places it in that of theory.43 The accusers of rhetoric are sayingthat rhetoric is bad because they know that some people are usingeloquence for evil purposes successfully. But have they sought to

40 Gorgias alludes to the same distinction in the Palamedes when he has thedefendant ask: "Tteiaa? f\ ?iaaajievoc;" (14).41See note 1 above.

42 Yet, he seems to hint that rhetoric is praiseworthy when he implies that the?fiapx?a of the accusers of rhetoric falls into the category of p.?|i(p6a9ai x? ?Tcaivex?(1). 43As Segal has pointed out, Gorgias' comments

are "not to be construed as a signof a systematic metaphysics." Rather, they must be seen as "relevant to a theory ofcommunication and persuasion." p. 102.


15/17

14 RHETORICAdiscover what is prior to the effects they disapprove of? Gorgiasseems to think that they have not?just as they have not thoughtabout the causes of Helen's actions. For Gorgias, the debate whetherrhetoric is good or bad is beside the point; and the point, at least inthe Helen, is the nature of rhetoric: What is it?What can it do? Howdoes it do what it claims it can do? What must a rhetor know in orderto be effective? Having answered these questions (some more completely than others), Gorgias seems to conclude that blaming the art(rhetoric), its medium (logos), or people's psychological responses tolinguistic creations is as absurd as blaming medicine, drugs, orpeople's physiological reactions to medicinal treatment. Gorgias,then, defends rhetoric not by demonstrating its goodness or discussing its technological aspects but by defining it, clarifying its functions, and explaining itsworkings.From a less analytical perspective, the Helen-rhetoric analogyhelps explain why rhetoric in its earliest years became the object ofcelebration and condemnation, and why to this day it oscillates fromadmiration to accusation. As Aphrodite's protegee, Helen representsthe unsurpassed beauty Paris preferred over the offers of dominionover Asia and victory in war. Paris' choice did not surprise Isocrates,for whom beauty "aeuvcbxaxov Kai xuxicbxaxov Kai Gei?xaxov x v?vxoov ?ax?v" (Helen 54). Similarly, Gorgias is not surprised byHelen's response to Paris' handsome figure: "ei o?v x? xoi) 'A^ec^?v?pou a jiaxi x? xf|? 'E?,8vr]? ?jijia f|a9?v 7ipo9i)u?av Kai ?jiiAAav?pcoxo? xf| \|A)%f| Ttap?ScoKe, x? Gauuuax?v;" (19). But in the eyes ofHelen's accusers the issue is her deed and its evil consequences, nother person or her beauty?even they would grant that she is real andbeautiful. Hecuba, for example, tells Menelaus at one point inEuripides' Trojan Women:

aiv?) ae, Mev??a', ei Kxeve?? ?ajiapxa af)v?p?v Se xf|v8e, (pe?ye, ?if)a' '?kr\ ?B?uaipe? y?p ?v?pt?v ?p.uax', ??aipe? tio?si?,7C?jI7?pT|ai' O?KOU?

' C??'6%6lKT|Xr|uaxa?yd) viv oi?a Kai ero %oi TcercovGoxe?.(890-894)Clearly, one's regard for Helen depends on what one chooses tofocus on. Her reality, her appearance, and her deed are all focal

points; but each calls for metaphysical, aesthetical, and ethicalconsiderations respectively. Ideally, of course, the true, the beautiful,and the good ought to coexist in the same person. In actuality,however, they are in conflict more often than not. That iswhy beauty


16/17


(appearance), despite its immense appeal, has always been suspect tothose who look beyond it (reality). Gorgias must have been aware ofthis conflict, which he attempts to resolve by saying that "x? p,?veivai ?(pav?? ji?| xd%?v xo? ?oKe?v, x? ?? SoKe?v ?aGev?? jxi) xux?vxo? e?vai" (DK B26).By analogy, Gorgias' Helen suggests that the possibilities andlimitations of an art are a function of its medium as known,

manipulated, and applied by the artist. In the case of the art ofdiscourse, this means that what rhetoric can or cannot do depends on1) the rhetor's knowledge of the material he isworking with, 2) hisartistic ability to shape the material into an appealing (persuasive)form, and 3) his disposition to use it properly. This threefoldconceptualization suggests that rhetoric can be approached threedifferent ways and evaluated on the basis of three correspondingcriteria: logically (truth), formally (beauty), and ethically (goodness).Gorgias seems to allude to this tripartite approach at the beginning ofhis speech: "Kogjio? ... ?,oyco 5? ?A,?|6eia, a?jxaxi Se KakXoq,rcp?y|iaxi ?? ?pexi)." But because truth, beauty, and goodness seldomcoincide in rhetoric, the missing element can always become thegrounds for critical remarks. As such, it is not surprising that Plato attacked the teachers of rhetoric for neglecting the ethics of persuasion.44 Nor is it surprising that later on Aristotle accused them ofdisregarding rhetorical logic (enthymemes) and dealing with the"non-essentials" of the art (o? ?? rcepi ji?v ?0DUT||iax(?v ou??v^?youaiv, ?rcep ?axi a jxa xt|? maxeco?, nepi ?? x?>v ?^co xo?7ipay|iaxo? x? 7t^e?oxa 7tpay|iaxe?ovxai) (Rhetoric A 1.3). Gorgias'response to Plato's and Aristotle's criticism might very well be thatwhile beauty may not be worthier than goodness or reason, it ismoreprimordial than either. Further, beauty is not hostile to ethical orrational discourse; in fact, it can aid their cause. But if they lack inbeauty, they often prove impotent. Finally, the fact that beauty maybe used to conceal unethical or irrational discourse does not constitutean argument against beauty.In this essay, I have argued that Gorgias' Encomium toHelen maybe read as a defense of rhetoric. This reading is consistent with andsupported by both our picture of the Greek culture during the latterpart of the fifth century B.C. and the preserved texts of the Helen.

44Plato also attacked rhetoric by denying it the status of art (ouk ?cm x?^vn, ?Xk'?p,rceipia Kai xpi?f]) Gorgias 463b.


17/17

16 RHETORICAFurther, it is in line with our sketchy portrait of Gorgias as aprofessional rhetorician. Whether the Helen-rhetoric analogy evencrossed his mind may not be all that important. What is moreimportant is that by tending to the story of Helen we can infer

Gorgias' view of rhetoric. Thus, the contribution of the reading I haveproposed is twofold: first, it helps us resolve some issues otherreadings have been unable to address, and second, it offers us aglimpse of the state of the art of discourse before it succumbed to theforces of systemization.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marta-rojzman
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

gorg encomio retor.pdf

Documents