Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen is an example of sophist rhetoric in its clever argument absolving Helen of any responsibility for her abduction by Paris. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes in the section on Protagoras that “the term ‘sophist’ gradually acquired the negative connotation of cleverness not restrained by ethics.” Gorgias’ proposition is that Helen was abducted by Paris by the will of the gods or fate, by force, by, words, or by love. “I wish, by giving some logic to language, to free the accused of blame,” Gorgias says. I ask: is Gorgias not abandoning the classical Greek belief that humans can reason and use logic?
His second argument is that if she was assaulted, she has suffered. I ask: if she was so assaulted and insulted, why did she not try to defend herself against Paris’ advances and make some attempt to escape?
Gorgias makes another argument that perhaps Helen was talked into following Paris – “was carried off by speech just as if constrained by force? Her mind was swept away by persuasion.” I ask: was Helen so empty-headed that she believed all she was told, never questioned Paris’ words, and fell under his spell without considering the consequences of her decisions and actions?
Gorgias’ final argument is that love caused Helen to fall for Paris. I ask: are you not placing Helen on a level with animals which react to natural impulses without thought or reason, for they are incapable of thought or reason?
Gorgias then concludes his speech by saying, “I have tried to refute the injustice of defamation and the ignorance of allegation. I wished to write a speech that would be Helen’s encomium and my own paignion.” Paignion is defined in the footnote as “plaything, amusement.” I ask: are we – the readers of this speech – being played for fools as you ask us to accept these arguments?
11 comments:
I do agree with your skepticism regarding Gorgias' portrayal of Helen as a sort of victim of circumstances. He is very subtle in how he first exalts her parentage--her mother being Leda, her father being Zeus--in order to instill a sense of reverence within an audience (at least in my view this seems the case). After depicting Helen as--in a real sense--not being of this earth (perhaps not being subject to the same standards--if any), Gorgias then refers to her many suitors as being "greatly minded for great deeds." Their advances (particularly Paris') are like one on the verge of a conquest, to paraphrase G.
Regarding the Proposition as to the causes of Helen's fleeing with Paris, you are again keen to note that G. does not allow for the possibility that Helen has the capacity for agency (and perhaps for thought)--instead, she--like others mentioned later in the Proof--is simply subject to *being persuaded*. G. again is very careful not to attempt to explain how persuasion occurs, simply that it occurs as certain drugs have certain effects when injected into a body. He makes no real proof as to anything other than building on the initial portrayal of Helen (and people) as being swayed toward, or against, an opinion or action without any recourse to reason.
Though Gorgias himself was a professional rhetor as Sicilian ambassador and founded a school of rhetoric in Athens, we must scrutinize this particular text to appraise whether it is sophistic in the sense of public oration for the courts, and clearly it is not, having no direct relation to matters legal or historical.
Furthermore, Gorgias’ Encomium is certainly not sophistic in the atavistic sense of pre-Socratic philosophy, for the speech is not a philosophical treatise, despite the deployment of certain statements of a philosophical tenor. In my surmise, these philosophical observations are made by Gorgias just as Mark Twain might make them in one of his speeches, merely for the sake of a sententious effect, evoking the gravitas of an important oration in order to lampoon a sincere encomium. Thus the pronouncements about the polis, beauty, wisdom, the soul, virtue and truth in Gorgias’ prooemion are not to be taken simply at face value but rather as a set up for the bathos of Gorgias’ argument, which, based on my knowledge of Ancient Greek culture, his original audience would have found just as ridiculous as does our contemporary audience. As Gorgias indicates in his speech, Helen’s ill-repute in his culture was “univocal and unanimous”—Kennedy’s note cites an instance of paronomasia in Æschylus with Helen’s name equated to damnation; therefore, to demonstrate the good name of Helen would be tantamount to demonstrating black is white. In section 9, Gorgias’ definition of poetry has the ring of a philosopher discoursing on aesthetics, but his remarks are in the service of his ludicrous argument that being beset by persuasive speech absolves one from culpability. Gorgias’ philosophical comments, though sound if taken out of context, within the context function as the pejorative kind of sophistry, the “word-jugglery” decried by Isocrates.
The complete argument put forth by Gorgias is indeed sophistic in this sense. Being an eikos or argument from probability rather than an argument based on established facts, Gorgias’ encomium resembles most Sophistic arguments,which typically begin with hypothetical situations. Gorgias’ propositions actually constitute enthymemes: the implied premises are that those who act according to fate are not guilty, that those who are physically forced to act are not guilty, that those who are seduced into acting are not guilty, and that those who are induced by love into acting are not guilty. Of these premises, a contemporary audience generally would consider only the second unstated premise as meriting validity, and in a case such as Helen’s, the Ancient Greek patriarchal culture might not have even excused her on that ground. The Ancient Greeks certainly wouldn’t have regarded Œdipus’ crimes with impunity simply because he was a victim of the Fates, nor would they have pardoned Eriphyle’s treachery because she had been persuaded by Polynikes, nor Medea’s fratricide of Apsyrtos because she was seduced by Jason, nor Myrrha’s or Pasiphae’s perversions because they were induced by love. Gorgias’ propositions are in themselves absurd for his audience, and the proofs can only elicit further absurdity.
Isocrates, in the introduction to his own Helen (3), lumps Gorgias in with others whom he identifies as making absurd propositions and uttering “claptrap,” and most importantly classifies Helen herself as a “mythological personage,” citing Herodotus in support of this (6). If, then, the Ancient Greeks of Gorgias’ time supposed Helen’s very existence to be fabulous then they certainly would have taken any sort of defense of her as tongue-in-cheek. Ultimately, Gorgias himself admits that his encomium is a paignion, which Kennedy translates as “plaything, amusement.” It appears that a speech such as this was something like the vaudeville comic routine of its day. One might say that it goes beyond sophistry in the sense of a deceitful cleverness to a self-conscious parody of sophistic methods.
I agree with the idea that the Encomium of Helen was meant more as an exhibition piece than a serious argument. In composing this piece, Gorgias was showing off his talents as an orator. The topic of Helen, as well as the stance he takes on her, was carefully designed to bring in the largest crowd possible. It is human nature to want to investigate the absurd and unexpected. Hearing this speech performed in ancient Greece would have been like hearing someone on campus today claiming that Hitler’s actions were the result of persuasion and trickery and he had no choice to act as he did—utterly absurd, yet compelling enough to draw you in just for novelty value.
Beyond novelty, Gorgias’ Encomium was also designed to lure possible students to the study of rhetoric. By exhibiting his skill with absurdity, Gorgias was also exhibiting an underlying talent for more serious debate. In this way he could demonstrate various rhetorical skills and devices and how they functioned. As a major focus of civic life, the ability to speak well was a sought after talent. Gorgias’ ability to exhibit a clear skill for argument, in addition to a flair for entertainment, must have seemed a double-edged weapon for students seeking knowledge.
The choice of the absurd, in addition to being entertaining, also allowed Gorgias and his students to focus on craft rather than content. Helen’s innocence was improbable enough that students could ignore the actual conclusion of the argument and instead focus on how it was put together. I can easily see similar examples, based on current issues of the time, failing due to the inability to give an objective analysis. Taking ideas to the absurd was not absurdity in itself in those times, but a strategy to allow the contemplation of a core concept.
I agree that Gorgias used the Ecomium as a showcase for his speaking (and composing) abilities. One of the telling lines is “By speech I have removed disgrace from a woman” (emphasis on the word speech). By composing and orating a stylistic speech that followed the prevailing form and was organized using a certain logic (which I assume the Greek audience was familiar with), Gorgias was able to (pseudo) refute and (pseudo) persuade his audience that one thing they held as an absolute truth (the guilt of Helen) was in fact not true simply by means of his speaking and composing abilities. So I agree with Alyssa: the speech is an advertisement. Gorgias is saying, look, by my excellent speaking abilities and literary agility I can convince you that the sky is not blue but yellow. If I can convince you, noble Greeks, that Helen was virtuous through speech alone, think of the power you will have, to move the assembly, protect and defend your property, legislate your neighbor, etc. etc. So pay me to be your teacher and I can make you what I am. You, too, can have rhetorical power which can be translated into material power.
Another tell is the somewhat gloating line, “I wished to write a speech that would be Helen’s encomium and my own paignion.” Here he clearly admits his glee in his own abilities to manipulate language (and therefore a crowd, an assembly, etc.). And, from my somewhat limited understanding of the term, in some readers’ eyes, this condemns him to sophistry in the most pejorative sense. I have less trouble with Gorgias’s sophistic language-playing methods because he clearly owns his manipulation. He says (in a sense), “I did this for fun, to show you that it is possible through language to convince you that the sky is yellow.” I have little sympathy for those that would actually believe that Helen is innocent or that the sky is yellow when he has so clearly stated that he was going to try, through language, to make the audience change its perception. We should be on guard immediately that he is going to be manipulative. What could be troubling is to take this attitude forward, resulting in an author, speaker, politician, advertising exec, using language to persuade us without our permission or knowledge. Which leads me to this question: did everyone already know that language was used in such a fashion or did some guy from the provinces show up in the assembly and believe everything he heard? Did he know that what he heard (and was responsible for) contained, most probably, artifice and that he, in order to show/maintain/improve his own position would need to respond accordingly? If everyone knew this, then it was a culturally accepted game. And if so, it definitely continues to this day. The politicians and lobbyists wrangle around with language and policy, trying to convince each other (and the populace) that they sky is yellow. They still manipulate language and we still accept the status quo even if or as we condemn it. But the usage of language for the good or ill is always determined by the ethics or morality of the person doing the speaking or writing and it is the responsibility of the listener/reader to discern and distinguish the author's intention. And, as usual, I find myself concluding that the answer is education. Hmmm. Possibly my own bias appears.
Good point Daniella. I too see the danger of people not being able to recognize wether or not Gorgias' words were intended for show or fact. Definately a reason why rhetoric can be seen as pejorative and manipulative. I think that even if it were a culturally accepted game, rhetoricians still needed to have caution. Truly, rhetoricians of the time did have power over other people, and I am not sure how much other people were aware of it. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that students were taught to use their language to manipulate without being taught to consider any concequences of that. Their main moral check seemed to be the understanding that their posession of rhetorical knowledge made them naturally predisposed to acting for the greater good.
I'm not sure we can analyze Helen's actions (if such they are--let's say those possible actions defended by Gorgias) through the lens of our contemporary sensibilities. What woman of 3,000 years ago would have believed she had a right to "defend herself?" Rape was a man's right. If Helen had been Trojan, brought by force to Athens and raped by her abductor, Gorgias would have sung his praises for plucking the plum of Trojan society.
But to defend Helen, Gorgias could only respond within the cultural mores familiar to his time and place. Even the most elevated women had little real power. They lived within a framework in which they might be queens one day, and slaves of a conqueror the next...the spoils of war.
Gorgias, then, as all the men of his day, would have believed that Helen was not human. So the answer to your first question would be "no." He is not abandoning the belief that humans are rational. He is exalting the belief that women are not human. And that plays directy into your critique of the final argument. Yes, I do believe that, in defending Helen as a sort of beautiful, mindless creature he is indeed placing her on the level of "animal" which men of his day would accept.
We aren't foolish to accept the form of his arguments, or even to agree with some of his reasons. Helen may have been very wise not to fight her captors, to work her beauty to her advantage in her marital situation (as women often do today), to command peace among her suitors--the city kings and warlords of Greece who had fought each other for centuries. We can imagine for her an intelligence and humanity Gorgias would never be allowed to proclaim. But we can't expect Gorgias to be a 21st century thinker.
Because of what I know of the historical conditions surrounding women, I have no problem believing that Helen was not viewed as being her own agent, therefore she would not have been expected to fight back, and in fact would have been subject to more infamy if she had been successful in doing so (Medea, for instance.) But to argue that language is so persuasive that it is irresistible is, on a certain level, an argument that nearly everyone that interacts with language (with the exceptions of a few exceptionable men, in this case) cannot help but be fooled by it. Gorgias, Socrates, even Isocrates make no bones of that fact that they are preaching to a very select choir. I am thinking here of Socrates' philosopher kings, Gorgias' discussions of audience and Isocrates' discussion of those who just cannot understand what he has to teach them. Gorgias has the distinction of being more blunt with his than the other two; while I hate the high-handed way he treats Helen, it is not uncharacteristic of either philosophers or (and let us hope present company excluded) sometimes the highly educated.
I want to start with Gorgias's last word, "paignion." According to the footnote, at least, he's telling the reader the Encomium (Enc) is a "plaything or amusement."
I think of the Enc as amusement because I have trouble suspending my disbelief in its content. We are reading Gorgias's argument concerning a myth. I thought rhetoric deals with real-world problems as opposed to philosophical ones.
So reading his argument or apology for Helen's fate, actions, or non-actions, I lost the Enc in a theoretical ether.
Rather than argue for Helen's benefit---to absolve her of responsibility, Gorgias seems to be making a larger case for the power of rhetoric. Enc seems less an argument for Helen's innocence and more for his professional area, exemplified through the his instrument, Paris.
I kept thinking about Phaedrus as I read this and Plato's distinction between rational and irrational behavior. And I thought about what little value Athenians placed on women. Unless I'm wrong they considered them little beyond bearers of children. I hesitate to call Gorgias a feminist, and Enc seems more like an overly sympathetic argument for Helen as victim.
Gerard, I strongly agree with your comment regarding Gorgias making a larger case for the power of rhetoric. As I read I made several notes in the margins. I noticed he relates language and power, with language one can obtain power. I was intrested in this point after reading your post and went back to my notes. What I found most interesing is Gorgias' idea that persuassion has power to do wrong. On page 254 he says "The persuader, as user of force, did wrong; the persuaded, forced by speech, is unreasonably blamed." I'm interested in the argument that although rhetoric has power, that power must be considered carefully as it can do as much harm as good.
Sarah, I agree with your point of Helen possibly being included in the 'spoils of war' and considered not quite human. Gorgias seems to refer to her that way, that she is weaker and was forced into it. But it is so ironic then that she blamed in the first place for the entire war. It seems that it would be hypocritical that people would not give women the rights of a man, yet blame women for things that would have not been in their rights or control. This leads me to believe that his comment about his speech being his own 'paignion'. Also, in the introduction it mentions that the speech might have written out and used by others, including his students, to mimic his stylist techniques and use of tropes. Without further context it is impossible to decipher his meaning.
Post a Comment