Rhetoric 103A

Professor Carrico

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

10.8.16

Precis

Gorgias Encomium of Helen

            Gorgias’ fifth century text, Gorgias, Encomium of Helen, demonstrates the power of rhetoric by evoking the story of Helen of Troy, and examining the use of language within this text highlights the power of persuasion. Gorgias’ speech references the Iliad and the epic war between Troy and the Greeks. Helen’s story is central to understanding the Encomium. In the Iliad, Helen is abducted and becomes the prize possession of Troy. Gorgias’ speech references the popular belief that Helen was responsible for both her own abduction and the consequential war between Troy and the Greeks. In the Encomium, Gorgias presents himself as a character within his own text, and in this story he delivers a speech in which he attempts to “absolve [Helen] from responsibility [,]” public ridicule, and the dishonor which has historically been associated with her reputation. Gorgias advances four arguments which illustrate how language leverages the power to exonerate Helen’s reputation. Despite liberating her from guilt and responsibility, Gorgias’ use of rhetoric perpetuates the notion that Helen is a prize possession under the control of language.

            Gorgias uses rhetoric to demonstrate that Helen is blameless in regards to divine providence. His argument attempts to illustrate that Helen cannot be blamed for that which is under the direct control of a superior power. He is suggesting that she is neither responsible for the war or her own abduction. Gods are to blame. The opening argument posits that, “the will of a god cannot be hindered by human forethought” (6). This passage highlights that Helen has no control over the enveloping circumstances of her life. Additionally, she does not possess the capability to foresee the will of the gods and cannot therefore prepare accordingly. Gorgias’ rhetorical approach shifts the blame from Helen and onto a higher power. Gods become responsible for the infamy associated with Helen. The shift in blame is achieved through rhetorical praxis. He employs the power of language to elevate her from blame. This section of the text creates a tension between the power of language and the system of control which Gorgias is attempting to liberate her from. Gorgias demonstrates that his power of language removes and deposits responsibility, and he performs sophistry in the ways in which she cannot. Helen is no longer responsible for divine providence, but her reputation remains under the rhetorical control Gorgias.

            In his second argument, Gorgias employs the power of rhetoric to illustrate that Helen is the victim of power. His argument attempts to highlight that blaming a victim for their own victimization is a product of flawed reasoning. He references the fact that Helen was abducted by the character Paris. He states that, “it is clear on the one hand that the abductor [Paris], as victimizer, committed injustice” (7). His statement creates the notion of victimization in relationship to power. This passage states that she is the victim of an abduction and therefore should not be indicted for her circumstances. This section of his argument suggest that proper reasoning would demonstrate that Helen is blameless. He states that, “it is accordingly fair to pity her and hate him” (7). This passage elevates the reasoning of a sophist and further demonstrates his rhetorical abilities. Gorgias is attempting to demonstrate that his reasoning is aligned with his rhetorical training, and he further employs his rhetorical abilities over Helen. She is unable to be liberated from the control of Gorgias’ speech. He places her in a position of victimization in order demonstrate that his method of rhetorical analysis has supremacy within the schools of logic.

Gorgias uses comparisons to create a relationship between persuasive characteristics of rhetoric and preternatural power of rhetoric. These comparisons attempt to legitimate the persuasive force of rhetoric. In his third argument in the vindication of Helen, Gorgias suggests that Helen should not be blamed for her situation. Gorgias argues that if Paris’ rhetoric persuaded Helen to follow him to Troy, then she should be excused of guilt due to language’s ability to effect the inner most workings of an individual. He states that, “And if persuasive discourse deceived her soul, it is not on that account difficult to defend her and absolve her of responsibility, thus: discourse is a great potentate” (8). Gorgias illustrates the comparison between the power of a great ruler and the power of language. Additionally, this passage underscores a preternatural power of language. Here Gorgias has compared rhetoric with a great ruler who has the ability to deceive the soul of the listener. Rhetoric has transformed its method of control. This comparison allows Gorgias to utilize language in new ways. He is now making an argument which suggests that Helen is bound to her captor, and language compels her to act in accordance with the mandates of speech. Speech exerts control over the Greek queen. Although she is free from the political accusation associated with the war, she is bound by the power of language, and Gorgias uses this argument to further legitimate and leverage power over her.

            In his fourth argument vindicating Helen’s reputation, Gorgias draws a relationship between love and fate. He suggests that if Helen were to have fallen in love with Paris, then she is free of blame due to love being a product of divine fate. Helen has no control over that which affects her soul and possesses preternatural power of persuasion. Gorgias says that, “If Love <being> a god, <has> the divine power of gods, how could the weaker being have the power to reject this and to ward it off?” (19). This passage returns to the argument that there exists a power superior to Helen. She is free of guilt, but Gorgias has placed her under the control of another entity through his discourse. He is returning to the argument that, “Either by the wishes of the Fortune and plans of the gods…or abducted by force, or persuaded by speeches, or conquered by Love” (6). This highlights four arguments for why Helen is not responsible for the infamy which society has placed upon her. However, she is under constantly the object of control through his sophist discourse. Her objectification through rhetorical analysis creates moments of tension throughout his arguments. Gorgias seems to only vindicate Helen by simultaneously illustrating that he is in control of her reputation through his method or argument.

            Gorgias concludes his speech by further asserting his rhetorical influence over Helen. He uses a prolific and controversial character in order to give credibility to his skill in argument. In the final lines of his speech, he states that, “I tried to put an end to the injustice of blame and ignorance of opinion; Helen’s encomium and my plaything” (21). This passage highlights both his notions of distinguished reason and his treatment of Helen. Gorgias is combating public opinion through the construction of persuasive discourse. He posits that the traditional opinion of Helen is inferior to that of his own method. Using Helen allows him to practice his method against a well-known and contentious historical character. Additionally, he admits that Helen has become a plaything whereby he is able to practice his dominant form of speech. Gorgias develops four of the most convincing approaches to illustrate the innocence of Helen, but he does so at the cost of relegating her importance second to his rhetorical abilities.