Gorgias' "Encomium to Helen" and the Defense of Rhetoric Author(s): John Poulakos Source: Rhetorica, Vol. 1, No.

2 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 1-16 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20135003 Accessed: 31/07/2009 13:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://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 that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

John

Poulakos

Gorgias7

Encomium

to Helen

and the Defense

of Rhetoric

rom the time of Isocrates1 to the present, Gorgias' Encomium its readers. toHelen has puzzled, intrigued, or disappointed Of the many readings it has received, those by Croiset,2 van Hook,3 Untersteiner,4 Segal,5 Vers?nyi,6 Guthrie,7 Kennedy,8 and Rob
1 Although for not observing ?yKCouiov Xoyo?, aixiav Isocrates for having encomium written and of Helen, he faults him

praises Gorgias between the distinction

the apologia:

rcepi auTTJ?, xuyx?ve? yeypacp?vai 7C87cpay|X6vc?v. ?cra 8' ouk ?k tc?v ai)T?>v ?Xk? rc?v TODvavxiov' ?Tcaive?v

?' ?7ioA,oyia l?ec?v ou??

"(pr|G? (lev yap eipr|K(?? im?p xr?v ?Keivn ?pycov ? rcepi xcbv auxr?v

v ??iice?v TtpoofjKei rcepi x \i?v y?p ?rco^oye?aoai From 14-15. Helen tivi en' ?e ?iacp?povxa?/' ?yaG?) to?? 6%ovtc?v, of the it does not seem likely that he was unaware about Gorgias, what we know that Gorgias Isocrates' the two genres. between difference Thus, "jcepi explanation to accept. etaxOev" is difficult 2 A. Croiset et des as "un des plus anciens to Helen the Encomium characterizes d' un savante." See "Essai de restitution la monuments de curieux grecque prose plus Graux (1888), p. 128. inMelanges attribu? ? Gorgias" passage de Y ?loge d' H?l?ne 3 Larue van Hook or display, and "a brilliant calls it "an epideictic, composition," Harvard tour de force." Isocrates, vol. 3, (Cambridge: Press, University 4 ... of Helen states: "The defense Mario Untersteiner represents 1961), p. 54. in the structural

trans. See The Sophists, of knowing." the dramatic of the myth framework process Freeman Kathleen 1954), p. 102. (New York: Philosophical Library, 5 Charles and "an of rhetoric" it as "a mythological showpiece regards Segal Studies of the Logos," Harvard See "Gorgias and the Psychology encomium." epideictic in Classical Philology, 66 (1962), p. 100. 6 Laszlo as far as its not a serious work that "it is certainly argues Vers?nyi is "There also another He adds: is concerned." ostensible however, aspect, purpose a playful or eulogy exercise: most of Helens is by no means this defense under which Encomium Haven: deals with the nature Press, sees and power of logos." See Socratic Humanism, in every (New sense." Yale University 7 W.K.C. Guthrie 1963), p. 44. in it "a school exercise

in rhetoric,

sophistic

? The Rhetorica,

International 1, No

Vol.

Society 2 (Autumn,

for The History 1983).

of Rhetoric.

RHETORICA

inson9 stand out as the most representative. But despite the positive contributions made these and other reader the of the authors, by is still faced with at least two crucial questions. Helen First, is this or an apologia? If it is an encomium, work an encomium how can we so to much of it is devoted the defense of Helen? that If, on explain it is an apologia, why does its author call it an the other hand, encomium? Second, serious piece, what is a trifle? speech how seriously are we to take this work? If it is a are we to make of Gorgias' disclosure that the even a second If it is a trifle, does it deserve

thought? The above questions persist partly because the various interpreta tions of the Helen have resulted from readings too literal to provide are helpful answers. While to the these interpretations satisfactory or or no historian little the classical offer literary philologist, they on to the the student of rhetoric. either historical By focusing insight or the formalistic dimension texts,10 they aspects of the preserved leave out of account the most crucial rhetorical issue, the issue of did Gorgias write this work? What is the central purpose. Why to to is the answer? is the Encomium Helen What question seeking major to which is responding? Whom is he challenge Gorgias a in turn? To be these raise host of issues sure, question challenging the examination of which is beyond the scope of this essay; however, to guide our reading, they if permitted because, they are significant

toward either histori disallow yet another interpretation gravitating that an author's purpose is a cal or formalistic preferences. Assuming both of function of the author himself and his cultural environment,

He

also says that "These declamations on mythical be simply rhetorical exercises might to show how, with skill and effrontery, the most uncompromising themes, designed case could be defended." See The Sophists, Press, University (Cambridge: Cambridge 1971), p. 50 and 42 respectively. 8 states: "Gorgias' shows all the wildness of his George Kennedy speech for Helen illustration of the apagogic method." Later, he jingling style, but it is also a masterful "It is playful of

method

a in mood, in demonstrating but it also has a serious purpose in Greece, See The Art of Persuasion Princeton (Princeton: logical proof." Press, 1963), p. 169 and 168 respectively. University 9 sees the Helen as "a display for showing John Robinson piece" and "an occasion 'the incantatory its witchery and enchants, power which by example by persuades, " the souls of men/ in Edward N. Lee et al. eds., Exegesis and See "On Gorgias" changes Press, 1973), p. 53. (New York: Humanities Argument, 10 For a discussion of the two best manuscripts see of the Encomium to Helen, adds: Douglas Classical MacDowell, Quarterly, "Gorgias, Alkidamas, 55 (1961), pp. 113-124. and the Cripps and Palatine Manuscripts,"

Gorgias'

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

which

historical

are reflected in the text, the Helen must be approached both in I will argue that an and textual terms. In what follows, can help us answer is and the of Helen warranted analogical reading some the above of raised questions.11 satisfactorily

the available of the Helen interpretations Generally, speaking, two the into and the be "model" classed may categories: "pretext." as a model the kind Gorgias' The first looks at the work speech, students were supposedly and recite. This view expected to memorize is apparently informed by Aristotle's testimony likening the practice to that of Gorgias t?v rcepi xo?? ?puraico?? ^oyou? uiaGapvouvxcov (On Sophistical Refutations 183b-184a). But Aristotle does not give us a instructional practices; nor does he say complete account of Gorgias' the only methods that memorization and recitation were Gorgias remarks do not establish that the endorsed. 12As such, Aristotle's a even But Helen was a model speech; they merely suggest possibility. as a possibility, to the "model" is difficult interpretation accept. texts that the speech indeed ends the way the available Assuming that one of indicate, the last clause (e?oi)A,T]0T)V ... Tia?yviov) means
Gorgias' "model" conclusions endorsed the use of the very unrhetori

rhetor knows, if a a with only commonsensically, speech comment 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" have been more plausible. Some of the advo interpretation might cates of this interpretation that the shows Helen argue by example the use of "a method and illustrates that "even of logical proofs one is unbelievable demonstrable when has the skill."14 something ?? 7ca?yviov" But the apagogic method of proof is as useful or as effective as the used allow; and of the four arguments Gorgias particular arguments one is not blameworthy for her actions because (Helen employs, only she was overcome has the rest are quite merit; force) by physical weak to illustrate how to and unconvincing. Had Gorgias wanted he could have chosen argue apagogically, stronger, more ingenious

cal "?ji?v

(21). But even the beginner that one does not close

11Untersteiner

holds

the same

view

but

for different

reasons.

See

The Sophists the Sophists, Press,

(note 4 above), p. 123; also n. 106, p. 131. 12For a discussion of the various instructional see G.B. Kerferd, 1981), pp. 28-34. 13 Kennedy, 14 Vers?nyi, The Sophistic Movement,

methods

employed

by

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

p. 169. p. 47.

4
arguments;15 and had he wanted to demonstrate

RHETORICA
something unbeliev

able, his claim would have been that Helen did not elope with Paris to Troy. The second category of interpretations regards the Helen as a for real for example, points out purpose. Vers?nyi, "pretext" Gorgias' that "There is no reason to suppose that Gorgias cared much whether or not, and Helen a pretext is obviously merely Helen was vindicated is well taken but it fails to point argument."16 Vers?nyi's a to needs that argue pretext why Gorgias logos "might have to do with but move in an reason, intellect, knowledge, nothing same can The be said about realm."17 alternative different altogether establish this view: if supporting by other commentators suggested or own wanted discuss "to his "certain art,"18 general Gorgias glorify ideas that are deserving of attention,"19 or conduct "an epistemologi a pretext?just as he cal inquiry,"20 he could have done so without purposes did in the nepi xoG UT| ovxo? f\ rcepi cpuaecoc. As will appear below, but favors the "pretext" the reading I am proposing interpretation offers a need for it. An analogical reading of the Helen is justified on both historical at a time21 during and textual grounds. First, the speech was written constructs were still an important part of the which mythological of the Greeks. Mythical themes seem to have cultural consciousness the Sophists, and the philoso the poets, the playwrights, provided in which could with the soil fertile they phers plant the seeds of their must in have made the works turn, mythological examples message;22 to the general of that period more of the intelligentsia palpable is well known for his affinity for metaphori public. Second, Gorgias and figurative cal expression (DK A2). That Helen may language if one ac have served as the personification of rhetoric is not unlikely for his

15 use of the apagogic method in his Defense for example, Consider, Gorgias' Palamedes. 16 p. 44. Vers?nyi, 17 Ibid., p. 45. 18Thomas of Art," The Classical Journal, 33 (1938), Duncan, "Gorgias' Theories 405. 19 Robinson, p. 53. 20 Untersteiner, p. 117. 2i Segal, p. 100. 22 Werner Jaeger, Paideia: (New York: Oxford University

of

p.

The Press,

Ideals of Greek Culture, 1970), p. 374.

vol.

I, trans. Gilbert

Highet

Gorgias7

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

to which the evidence from Gnomologium Vaticanum according a to similar between and Penelope philoso Gorgias alluded analogy phy (DK B29);23 and his reported belief that ? ?naxf\caq ?ncaioxepo? to the xo? |xf) ?7caxf|aavxo? (DK B23)24 lends additional support cepts
Helen-rhetoric analogy?we normally do expect one's works to

to personify reflect one's beliefs. Gorgias' choice of Helen rhetoric is one common if account the into takes characteristics apt particularly the two share: both are attractive, both are unfaithful, and both have a bad reputation. When in Athens, the general attitude toward arrived Gorgias was rhetoric ambivalent. On the one hand, rhetorical education was on the other, formal attacks against it were well highly desirable; The Banqueters was shown under way?Aristophanes' for the first
time the same year Gorgias arrived. That rhetoric was made especial

era is generally the Sophistic ly attractive during accepted. For his to is said have held that rhetoric is the queen of all the part, Gorgias arts and "?rc?oac x?? ?uvqiei? ?cp' a?xf| exei" (Gorgias ai)M,a?ouaa 456a). In response to this and other enticing claims, ambitious upper to become political class youths aspiring leaders of the future were skill of flocking to rhetorical schools seeking to acquire the enabling 81) ^?yeiv. Gradually, to be perceived rhetorical ability was coming to the practice of effective statesmanship both as a prerequisite and a
means of acquiring power, fame, wealth, and intellectual wisdom.

ia?0eov K?Xkoq embodied, noXk? a?jiaxa Just as Helen, auvfiyayev v 87ci jieya?xn? ji?ya cppovo?xcov (4), rhetoric was now attract ?v?p all in anticipation of great accomplishments. The ing many men,
promises of the teachers of rhetoric, the attractiveness of the art of

in discourse, and the aspirations of the would be rhetors aside, what, more the aims of rhetorical education? terms, were descriptive for ?uvajiiv (ppaGXiKT)v (DK example suggests an affinity Gorgias' an aversion to x? e ?,a xe Kai TtoX?aKi? eipr|U?va (DK A24). A2) and Rhetoric did not require exact knowledge of a recognized subject or into dated and much discussed the issues; rather, it involved to of the ability development speak according to the elastic criteria of inquiry
kairos and to prepon.25 The observance of these criteria meant, among

23Of course, both nouns. and pT|xopiKf| are feminine cpi?oaoipia 24 For an see Thomas notion discussion of of Rosen arc?rn insightful Gorgias' and Apate," American 76, (1955), pp. Journal of Philology, meyer, "Gorgias, Aeschylus, 225-260. 25 For a discussion of Kairos see W. S?ss, Ethos, Studien zur alteren griechischen

RHETORICA

to a fixed philosophical other things, that faithfulness stand or loyalty to a permanent to at had be, best, a secondary ideological position concern. In the public domain, where uncertainty, and contingency, a one fluctuation supreme, reign supporting position day and was a next to it the from rhetor. But the be attacking expected of rhetoric extended beyond In the eyes of unfaithfulness ideology. was a form of not like rhetorical education people Aristophanes, social innovation but an instance of cultural iconoclasm threatening to uproot traditional and values. By particularizing institutions and was the rhetoric those world, essentially subjectivizing weakening forces that hold a culture together, thereby bonding leading to its utter disintegration. Just as Helen had betrayed her husband and her was now betraying rhetoric traditions of the the founding country, past. For their respective betrayals Helen and rhetoric had acquired a bad reputation. oav is interested in helping xf|v K(XK(?)? ?xko?oi) Apparently, Gorgias (2). But as Robinson has remarked, "Gorgias does not care in the is guilty or innocent."26 The same, however, least whether Helen cannot be said about Gorgias' attitude toward his techn?. Rhetoric was the aristocrats, whose under fire from many groups: privileged in the State was undermined being position by an upcoming of "logocrats;" the conservatives, who saw its destructive generation on effects on the young; the influence the culture and its corrupting must to witness have been who minded, dismayed oligarchically the poor, who, like Socrates, increased instances of democratization; not afford "fifty drachmai lectures" could (Cratylus 384b) or the fees for rhetorical the envious, who must have instruction; higher the resented and finally Socrates, the champi Sophists' popularity;27 on of dialectic. Faced with this state of affairs, Gorgias could have time the one's art remained of reputation indifferent?every hardly are at stake, one naturally comes to their defense. and profession
see M. of to prepon 1910, p. 17 ff. For a discussion Pohlenz, Rhetorik, Leipzig Nachrichten der Wissenschaften, der k?niglichen Gesellschaft 1933, p. 53 ff; also G?ttingen in The Sophists both notions discusses Jaeger (note 22 above), p. 165 f? Untersteiner (note 4 above), pp. 195-199. 26 Robinson, p. 53. 27 At least for Nietzsche, Samuel against 337.)" 107. Ijsseling rhetoric?' writes: and he

Plato

heads asks:

the 'How

list of should

the one

envious. understand influence.'

On

this matter, Plato's (Werke, battle III, p. p.

"Nietzsche answers:

'He was in Conflict,

envious

of their

See Rhetoric

and Philosophy

(The Hague:

Martinus

Nijhoff,

1976),

Gorgias'

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

to defend if Gorgias wishes conceal his rhetoric, why not entitle his work purpose? Why 'Yrc?p pT|TOpiKT|? ?rcoAoy?a and write a treatise in support of rhetoric? Once again, we must attempt a historical explanation. Gorgias must have been aware of the Athenian and condemnations, practices of intolerance; frequent banishments the burning of books in public, and excommunications by exile must But his task indirectly.28 Artists have approach that the use of allegory satisfies well the demands can mask his intention just as a comic playwright or birds a rhetor may for artistic purposes, for A reasons.30 avoid delicate and political artfully29 being explicit must issue be handled and potentially carefully cautiously. explosive I submit that this is precisely entitles his work why Gorgias Encomium toHelen and calls it a Tcaiyviov. After all, what danger can a there be in a work whose author finds diversion in praising must discourse have seemed mythical perfectly figure? Gorgias' dictated found traditionally of indirection: and with frogs, wasps, to the forces of the establishment, harmless and non-threatening to which tend to take things literally, anyway. Thus, Gorgias' wish a rhetoric without status defend and quo, antagonizing powerful is fulfilled. there are historical grounds that argued justify to defend rhetoric. To show that he the wishes claim that ing Gorgias I will now turn to the text. For the indeed does so in the Helen, the of into two sections: the purposes analysis, speech may be divided more while is the first, (6)-(7), second, (8)-(19), ismore argumentative nature. two in Each and section advances descriptive explanatory is two into and divided and (7) for arguments accordingly parts?(6) the first and (8)-(14) and (15)-(19) for the second. Before discussing thereby endangering Thus far, I have himself,
each, a few words about Gorgias' statement of purpose are in order.

have

that he

that he wants Early in the speech, Gorgias announces xi|V [lev ... (XKOUouaav rca?aai xo?? 8? |i?|i(po|i?voi)? xf|? aixia?, Kaic?)? two wants to the he Of jca?aai xf|? ?jiaGia? (2). things accomplish,
this point, E.R. Dodds we have that "the evidence observes is more than to prove that the Great Age of Greek Enlightenment was also, like our own enough of scholars, bunkering of thought, time, an Age of Persecution?banishment and even the tradition about Protagoras) of books." The Greeks and the (if we can believe burning of California Irrational, (Berkeley: University Press, 1951), pp. 189-190. 29 be helpful Gorgias' phrase (13) mav "x?^vn ypcKpei?, ouk ?XnOeict Xex^&K' here. 30 the sophistical one's work "to escape malice," practice of concealing Regarding see 316c-317c. Protagoras 28On

8 the second

RHETORICA

is more complicated because it involves 1) exposing xo?? as and forth the truth (?ei?a? 2) putting |i6|X(po|i8VOU? \|/6U?O|X6VOD? remarks, Gorgias' x?Xr|06?). Read in conjunction with his concluding statement of purpose becomes more sharply focused: at issue are the and the ignorance of opinion seem to be linked: the (8o?r|? ?jxaoia) casually latter has caused the former. Because the accusers hold uninformed that is, their accusations lack a factual they blame unjustly; opinions, to the truth of the matter, which Gorgias promises basis. Explaining one two of will have it results: inform do, may positive hopefully them from making unfounded xo?? |i8|X(po|x?voD? thereby keeping more is it inoculate the public what or, realistic, may allegations, accusers. the In either them from case, the thereby keeping believing injustice of blame (ji(b(iOD ??iK?a) (21). The two issues present injustice will be arrested. as Gorgias points out, the story of Helen However, (her beauty, to most people known her origins, her actions, etc.) is well (oi)K to their familiarity with some of a8r\kov oi)?? ?AAyo??) (3). Reference in (4), where Gorgias the factual aspects of the story is also made a to This means from that refrain eiS?cuv ?aaai. X?yeiv xoi? promises his notion of x<xXr)9?? in the context of the speech cannot be about common knowledge. is essentially Nor can x??T|0?? be equated what or arguing that she is innocent of the charges with praising Helen, a matter of as arguing the opposite is not necessarily against her?just are accusers about? Helen's then, lying Gorgias does not lying. What, the truth of the say. Nor does he make any statements revealing matter. his when remark, ?v?jieiva Thus, xcp concluding reading one is struck with his v?jLicp ?v 808UT|v 8V ?p%f| xo? X?jox) (21), he neither proves xo?? |i8jii(pojLi8VOU? \|/ei)8o|i8VOi)? inconsistency; nor shows xaXr)9??;31 he merely is not cites four reasons why Helen if the As I will show this below, seeming anomaly disappears guilty. as a defense of rhetoric. text is read analogically, to in (6) unfolds on two levels. His reference Gorgias' argument the gods raises the issue of origins and makes a case for the need to examine is prior to or stronger than Helen. Thus, he may that which be taken it is because to be saying that rhetoric is not blameworthy are ones comes their in the from the that who, gods. They something ... aocp?q), decided to superior wisdom (Ge?? 8' ?v6pd)7COU Kpe?aaov
31Kerferd for Gorgias p. 80. makes that the same point and adds that "This has led to the suggestion is by deception." in which upon opinion operates persuasion

the sole way

Gorgias'

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

to help him facilitate his communal give man this gift, presumably life. This view is in line with the poetic tradition, the Platonic version account of the rise of human of Protagoras' mythical civilization of 320c and Isocrates' later ff), (Protagoras eulogy logos (Nicocles 5-9). that responsibility for what On the second level, Gorgias argues Helen 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 an instrument for their purposes (Helen herself argues this point in the Women for what rhetoric 919-950). Similarly, Trojan responsibility does must be placed not on the art itself but on those who use it, its actions or their contemptibi By not challenging Helen's practitioners. rhetoric that, when misused, lity, Gorgias acknowledges implicitly often yields results that are indeed reprehensible. he insists However, that in such cases ?i;ioc aixi?aGai On both levels of ? aixi?)|ievo?. is that rhetoric is not reproachable. the argument the conclusion Viewed this in Plato's Gorgias argument historically, (preserved and Aristotle's Isocrates' Nicocles Rhetoric 1355b 1-5) is 457a-c, 1-9, it the the because marks of and ending significant poeticoreligious the beginning of the rationalistic tradition in Greece. As Hegel has the Sophists were among the first to challenge the value of observed, to a set of moral principles to strict adherence designed legislate and guide individual behavior.32 Accordingly, that even they argued are not to laws to be but be obeyed religious unquestionably to critical In the that the effect, subjected scrutiny. Sophists urged create his own religion. The dangers of this doctrine of individual one of its positive notes was the religious relativism notwithstanding,
effort to transfer responsibility for one's actions from the

conscious

to the concretely level. If accurate, this personal abstractly religious account stands in fundamental to all four variations of opposition own not act Helen did central her free will. of i.e., argument, Gorgias' sees all events in the human An overly religious attitude, one which an as or in caused divine plan by sphere figured all-encompassing which human will cannot frustrate, would have to forgive Helen. But the spirit of the early rationalism of the late fifth century seems less are the result to accept the argument that human misdeeds prepared of divine was used orders. Hecuba, for example, rejects Helen's and all the by assigns gods) responsibility
extensive vol. treatment IV, trans. of this point, (New

(I argument to her (Trojan

in the Press,

32 For a more History of Philosophy, 1963), pp. 357-358.

E.S. Haldane

see G.E Hegel, Lectures York: The Humanities

10 Women

RHETORICA

Ifwe regard Gorgias as a major exponent of the So 969-1032). and ifwe accept his reputed attitude "|Lif| x? et?o? phistic movement, ?Xk? xf|v ?o?av eiai noXkoiq yv?puiov (DK B22), we xr)? yuvauc?c" to his stand in the that he, too, contrary would have to conclude this opposition between her. Clearly, Helen, would have condemned the historical and the textual accounts lends support to the view that is really referring to rhetoric. talking about Helen, Gorgias, although as we is provided turn to yet for this view support was note. As the older tradition to the another historical yielding newer, a profound change in the form, the sources, and the carriers of riddles were being the word was prophetic taking place. Obscure Further the temples by the agora, and replaced by persuasive arguments,33 oracular the poets and rhapsodes by the rhetors. Unlike anonymous sayings, speech, although not entirely stripped of its magical powers, was now becoming tied to rational human agents, fully responsible and their consequences. In this and accountable for their utterances to recall that after the Sicilian expedition the vein, it is instructive them to against the rhetors who had persuaded turned out to be a disastrous adventure. Thus, when that Helen should not be held accountable he is argues Gorgias accusers two rhetoric each of with for the (one responses confronting to the poetically of the aforementioned and religiously traditions): inclined he says that rhetoric is a gift of divine origin; to the new wave of rationalists is not the art but that their blame ismisplaced?it Athenians turned undertake what
its misusers that must be censured.

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

ger

33 The from Euripides' excerpt following to Menelaus) is speaking 753-757:

Helen

illustrates

the point

(the messen

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

Gorgias'

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

11

of The Constitution in power. As Thrasymachus' fragment are the ill-advised poli of formidable illustrates, rhetors challengers cies and corrupt practices of the ruling class.34 History has shown that to rhetorical the more tolerant rulers respond attacks by issuing or But should their rhetoric fail and the counterattacks. explanations less tolerant and resort to various persist, challenge they become forms of force in order to silence the voices of opposition. When this those rhetoric happens, and the unwritten the justice of the stronger, suffers, justice becomes that communal differences law dictating be settled is violated. discourse oppo outspoken through Branding political nents "the enemies of the State," arresting them illegally, and exiling them are all examples of what Gorgias would call ?ap?apa 67U%ei better Kai X?yco Kai v?|icp Kai epyco. But no example prpaxa illustrates outlawed the point than the measure of the Thirty rhetorical instruction altogether (Xenophon's for Gorgias "rc?vxa rhetoric, which 2.31).35 Unlike 8o?A,a ?Y 6K?VXC0V,?Xk' ou ?i? ?iac rcoio?xo" (Philebus to what in securing people's interested agreement that Tyrants Memorabilia I,

posed;36 rather, it ignores the laws, eliminates dissent, violent will. Thus far, Gorgias has argued that the bad reputation of rhetoric is due to her accusers' failure to distinguish between the art herself and
her misusers and abusers. Following the same argumentative strate

y?p ?)(p' a?xf| 58a), bia is not is being pro and imposes its

of blame: it gy, he next attempts yet another shift in the direction must be directed o?)V (? ji?v against rce?aac (b? logos ?vayKaaa? xco ?oyco ??iKe?) and away from rhetoric (?) ?? cb? ?vayKaoOe?aa is overshad however, |i?xr|v (XKO?ei KaK(??) (12). This argument,

34DK 85 Bl. 35 this measure, has Stanley Wilcox Regarding the law as resulting from Critias' personal explains

remarked:

"Of

course

no such general rulers of Athens needed of an in oligarchical dividual. that trained speakers meant men discerned Rather, they shrewdly capable of an aroused people meant a revival of a democratic the people, arousing party, and a democratic party their oligarchical shut off the flow Instruction/' 36 In mean and united the end of by effective organized speakers might that oratory is the life-blood of democracy, power. Recognizing they at the source, the schools of rhetoric/' 'The Scope of Early Rhetorical Studies in Classical Philology, Harvard 53 (1942), p. 155.

against Socrates, grudge law to cloak their hatred

Xenophon but the

the Palamedes, stresses that the other's consent is an essential Gorgias to persuasion. This can be inferred from the defendant's prerequisite that he argument could not have persuaded the barbarians because not have wanted to be they would (ofcxe y?p ?Keivoi persuaded 7CEia9r)vai ?ouXoivx' ?v) (14).

12
owed as Gorgias turns to an analytical discussion of

RHETORICA
the nature of

logos and discussion,

processes rhetorical peitho (i.e., doxa, terpsis, pistis, apate). In this section, of (8)-(14), Gorgias gives an "official" version what rhetoric "a kind of formal profession of the aims and is, methods of his art, a kind of advertisement like the 87i?yyeA|ia of Protagoras."38 By giving what he must have regarded as a correct account 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?)?) rhetorician and fulfills his initial promise to show (2) as a professional he does not, strictly speaking, the prove xa?r)0??. And although accusers of rhetoric liars, he renders their familiar claims (rhetoric is a method of winning and supporting false arguments unjust causes, it teaches how to turn the old into the new and vice versa, it disregards on probability, the truth and concentrates etc.) at least questionable. in the next section, (15)-(19), where Gorgias' analysis continues the discussion focuses on the affective power of the iconic and formal of visual perception Tcpay (odxco? encova? xa>v ?poji?vcov jx?xcov ?| o\|/i? 6v?ypa\|/6V ?v xa) (ppov?)|iaxi) (17). Having explained that the plastic arts create naturally epcoxa Kai 7t?0ov (18), he argues that Helen was unable to defend against what she felt when she saw of this argument Alexander's has aside, Gorgias body. The merit out that persuasion his discussion is a matter completed by pointing of both sound and sight. As Segal has remarked, "It is Gorgias' as a techne that the to have perceived and formulated achievement such as metron) evokes formal structure of the logos (in qualities to have generalized emotional this formulation forces, and (at least in terms of the effects, if not of formal analysis) to include both the linguistic and the visual arts."39 is purposeful, that it consti that rhetorical discourse Assuming tutes a response to a challenge and is itself a challenge inviting aspects to show that from an analogical point of I have attempted responses, view in to Helen is the tarnished issue the the central Encomium

on the human its effects with this psyche.37 Along a rather technical account he offers of the various and components that make up the complex phenomenon of

37 The most as well treatment of this discussion, comprehensive treatment is provided section, (15)-(19) by Segal (note 5 above). Segal's observations that itmakes very difficult. any original 38 Ibid., p. 102. 39 Ibid., p. 133.

as that of

the

is so thorough

Gorgias'

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

13

indicates that this dyskleia (?UGK?eia) of rhetoric. Gorgias reputation has been caused by amathia and is an example of adikia. Consistent
with his surface argument (Helen's accusers must examine the

causes of her action before assigning blame), he attacks the possible cause of the problem, not its effects. Thus, his defense takes the form of an educational mission. First, Gorgias asks his audience to consider the divine origin and human practice of rhetoric, and to accept that some people use it improperly. of Second, he invites a comparison rhetoric and bia as two ways of settling human differences.40 Third, nature admits of he discusses logos as the rhetorical medium whose artistic manipulation by the learned rhetor. Because logos in its various manifestations affects people incantation) (prose, poetry, to a actions are determined and because people's psychologically, extent is the of rhetoric the of the large study psychologically, study In influence human connection his of action. third with linguistic is an allusion to people's fourth line of defense point, Gorgias' to the contents of their visual perceptions. Like sound, susceptibility can and affect actions In this sights people's thoughts profoundly. sense, rhetoric includes the study of creating persuasive images. Gorgias' defense of rhetoric shifts the focus of the issue as defined by the enemies of rhetoric. Essentially, he does not want to play their game. And although he would have refused to accept that rhetoric is bad, he does not attempt to refute their charges and establish that she is good?in this regard, Isocrates is right: he does not praise in the an is of But it does not appear that Gorgias encomium.41 spirit interested in praising rhetoric?at least not explicitly;42 rather, he wants to inform a misinformed public by setting the record straight. In so doing, he lifts the issue of rhetoric out of the sphere of ethics and places it in that of theory.43 The accusers of rhetoric are saying that rhetoric is bad because they know that some people are using eloquence for evil purposes successfully. But have they sought to

40 to the same distinction in the Palamedes when alludes he has the Gorgias defendant ask: "Tteiaa? f\ ?iaaajievoc;" (14). 41 See note 1 above. 42 to hint that rhetoric is praiseworthy when that the he implies Yet, he seems of the accusers of rhetoric falls into the category of p.?|i(p6a9ai x? ?Tcaivex? ?fiapx?a (1). 43As are "not to be construed as a sign comments out, Gorgias' Segal has pointed to a theory of of a systematic be seen as "relevant Rather, they must metaphysics." communication and persuasion." p. 102.

14

RHETORICA

is prior to the effects of? Gorgias discover what they disapprove as they have not thought seems to think that they have not?just about the causes of Helen's actions. For Gorgias, the debate whether rhetoric is good or bad is beside the point; and the point, at least in is it?What can it do? How the Helen, is the nature of rhetoric: What it can do? What must a rhetor know in order these questions answered (some more com Having seems to the art conclude that than others), Gorgias blaming pletely or to its medium (rhetoric), responses people's psychological (logos), or as as is absurd creations medicine, blaming linguistic drugs, does it do what to be effective? it claims to medicinal treatment. reactions people's Gorgias, physiological or discuss not its rhetoric defends then, by demonstrating goodness its func it, clarifying aspects but by defining ing its technological its and tions, workings. explaining From a less analytical the Helen-rhetoric perspective, analogy in its earliest rhetoric years became the object of helps explain why to this day it oscillates from and condemnation, and why celebration to accusation. As Aphrodite's admiration represents protegee, Helen over Paris the offers of dominion the unsurpassed beauty preferred over Asia and victory in war. Paris' choice did not surprise Isocrates, ?vxoov Helen's x v Kai xuxicbxaxov Kai Gei?xaxov beauty "aeuvcbxaxov not is ?ax?v" (Helen 54). Similarly, by Gorgias surprised response to Paris' handsome figure: "ei o?v x? xoi) 'A^ec^?v jiaxi x? xf|? 'E?,8vr]? ?jijia f|a9?v 7ipo9i)u?av Kai ?jiiAAav ?pou a x? Gauuuax?v;" (19). But in the eyes of ?pcoxo? xf| \|A)%f| Ttap?ScoKe, accusers the issue is her deed and its evil consequences, not Helen's is that she and would real her person or her beauty?even grant they at one point in for example, tells Menelaus beautiful. Hecuba, for whom Euripides'
aiv?)

Trojan Women:
ae, Mev??a', ei Kxeve?? ?ajiapxa af)v

k?B?u ?p?v Se xf|v8e, (pe?ye, ?if)a' '?kr\ ??aipe? tio?si?, aipe? y?p ?v?pt?v ?p.uax', ' 8' O?KOU? C??'6%6lKT|Xr|uaxa 7C?jI7?pT|ai ?yd) viv oi?a Kai ero %oi TcercovGoxe?.(890-894) on what one chooses to Clearly, one's regard for Helen depends and her deed are all focal focus on. Her reality, her appearance, and ethical but each calls for metaphysical, aesthetical, points; the of considerations the course, true, beautiful, Ideally, respectively. to coexist in the same person. In actuality, and the good ought however, they are in conflict more often than not. That iswhy beauty

Gorgias'

Encomium

to Helen

and

the Defense

of Rhetoric

15

(appearance), despite its immense appeal, has always been suspect to it (reality). Gorgias must have been aware of those who look beyond to resolve by saying that "x? p,?v he attempts this conflict, which eivai ?(pav?? ji?| xd%?v xo? ?oKe?v, x? ?? SoKe?v ?aGev?? jxi) xux?v xo? e?vai" (DK B26). that the possibilities and suggests By analogy, Gorgias' Helen as known, limitations of an art are a function of its medium and applied by the artist. In the case of the art of manipulated, that what rhetoric can or cannot do depends on this means discourse, of the material he is working with, 2) his 1) the rhetor's knowledge artistic ability to shape the material into an appealing (persuasive) to use it properly. This threefold form, and 3) his disposition can that rhetoric be three suggests conceptualization approached on the basis of three corresponding and evaluated different ways criteria: logically (truth), formally (beauty), and ethically (goodness). of Gorgias seems to allude to this tripartite approach at the beginning ... his speech: "Kogjio? 5? Se ?,oyco ?A,?|6eia, a?jxaxi KakXoq, seldom rcp?y|iaxi ?? ?pexi)." But because truth, beauty, and goodness can always become coincide in rhetoric, the missing element the not at As it is that Plato for critical remarks. such, grounds surprising tacked the teachers of rhetoric for neglecting the ethics of persua that later on Aristotle is it surprising accused them of sion.44 Nor and rhetorical the logic (enthymemes) dealing with disregarding of the art (o? ?? rcepi ji?v ?0DUT||iax(?v ou??v "non-essentials" jxa xt|? maxeco?, ^?youaiv, ?rcep ?axi a nepi ?? x?>v ?^co xo? x? 7t^e?oxa 7tpay|iaxe?ovxai) (Rhetoric A 1.3). Gorgias' 7ipay|iaxo? to criticism Aristotle's Plato's and response might very well be that while beauty may not be worthier than goodness or reason, it ismore to ethical or than either. Further, beauty is not hostile primordial in fact, it can aid their cause. But if they lack in rational discourse; beauty, be used
an

they often prove impotent. Finally, the fact that beauty may to conceal unethical or irrational discourse does not constitute
against beauty.

argument

In this essay, I have argued that Gorgias' Encomium toHelen may be read as a defense of rhetoric. This reading is consistent with and supported by both our picture of the Greek culture during the latter texts of the Helen. part of the fifth century B.C. and the preserved

44 Plato ?p,rceipia

also attacked

rhetoric 463b.

by denying

it the status

of art (ouk ?cm

x?^vn,

?Xk'

Kai xpi?f]) Gorgias

16 Further,

RHETORICA

our sketchy portrait as a of Gorgias it is in line with even rhetorician. Whether the Helen-rhetoric analogy professional not be all that important. What is more crossed his mind may we can to the Helen infer is that of story important by tending of the I view rhetoric. of the contribution have Thus, reading Gorgias' some issues other is twofold: first, it helps us resolve proposed to address, and second, it offers us a readings have been unable glimpse
forces of

of the state of the art of discourse

systemization.

before

it succumbed

to the