Saturday, October 8, 2016

Enconium of Helen~ a Precis

Bailey Farren
GSI: Jerilyn

The 13th and 14th sections of Gorgias’ “Enconium of Helen,” hold the pinnacle conclusion of Helen’s defense, had she been persuaded by discourse.
In the introductive line of 13th section, the sophist formulates discourse as having the physical ability to “shape the soul” (Gorgias 13)  as it pleases. The manner in which Gorgias describes persuasive speech, shaping the soul “at will,” emphasizes a lack of consent experienced by the soul as it fails to resist discourse. Gorgias does not grant the soul any ability to defend itself against the shaping power and trickery of such sophistry.  As he continues through the section, Gorgias describes the three methods of persuasive speech and the physicality of discourse entwined within.  
The first method of soul-shaping discourse furthers this physicality by beginning with an instance of motion. Here, persuasive rhetoric is used by astronomers to “shift” aside one opinion, and in its place, make way for another to be built up. However, while discourse is used to clarify the “incredible and obscure things” experienced by the senses, (Gorgias 13) he does not place legitimacy or truth behind this clarification as being essential to the persuasiveness. Thus, whether or not these clarified obscurities embrace falsehood is irrelevant. Instead, he gives discourse the powerful role of enlightening and morphing the view of the listener, regardless of empirical reason or sound logic.
In the second method of persuasion, the thread of physicality is further entwined as speech “delights” the senses. Discourse is prepared in advance to convince an audience based on sheer beauty. Gorgias describes this speech as, “artfully written but not truthfully meant,” giving audience members an awareness of the artistic dishonesty behind the discourse they are presented with. However, while an audience member may be aware of the delightful purpose of argumentdevoid of necessary truthGorgias has already made it clear that discourse shapes the soul as it pleases. And while this artistic rhetoric is present in all 3 methods of persuasion, only in this second one does Gorgias demonstrate audience members’ foreknowledge of falsehood, based on the delightful style of discourse itself.
In the third role of persuasion, Gorgias once again highlights the power of motion. Here, the speed and reaction time of discourse plays a large role in the soul-shaping success of an argument.  Once again, Gorgias does not mention logic or empirical evidence as a means of persuasion. Instead, the speed at which an argument is made is the element used to convince an audience, rather that the argument itself. This speed of discourse is what Gorgius states to be the argumentative element that affects the “credibility of an opinion.” (Gorgias 13) There is no question of truth here, for that is not one of the aspects that persuades a listener, shapes the soul, or delineates credibility.
In the 14th stanza, Gorgias continues the physical analogy of discourse, but moves from the power of motion to a direct comparison between persuasion and drugs. He argues that discourse affects the soul in the same way that a pharmacopoeia changes the body itself. Analogizing discourse to drugs forces an audience member to analyze what the physical reaction to a drug would be and how that relates to an argument’s ability to shape the soul. Medicinal drugs cure bodily ailments, granting life and health; opiates distort and obscure reality; drugs of poisonous nature sicken the body, causing pain and horror; other drugs grant awareness and valour. This demonstrates the immense range of power held by speech, as Gorgias further demonstrates a direct correlation with these effects, stating of discourse, “some give pain, others delight, others terrify, others rouse the hearers to courage, and yet others by a certain vile persuasion drug and trick the soul.” (Gorgias 14) This comparison begins metaphorically, but Gorgias then conflates these effects with literality. By the end of this section, discourse does not simply act like a drug, it becomes one.  





No comments: