Allison Zhou

Professor Carrico, GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

Rhetoric 103A, Discussion 103

8 October 2016                                                    

Homeric and Sapphic Frameworks of Beauty

            The particular passage of focus is Fragment 11 from Sappho, a poem entitled “A company of soldiers.” Although Sappho appears to denounce figures of beauty associated with the Homeric tradition and, in turn, offer her own framework for the judgement of beauty through love, the poem conjoins both modes of discerning beauty: the Homeric and the Sapphic—insisting that beauty is not intrinsically vested in the objects perceived as beautiful, but is rather produced through an object’s relation to another, in the intermediary, and associative space between them.

            The poem opens mocking Homeric images of beauty. Sappho postulates that “some say that the most beautiful sight upon earth’s/Dark soil” (1-2) are “a company of soldiers on horse” (3), “a line of soldiers on foot” (5), or “a fleet of ships” (6). According to Sappho, what has traditionally been perceived as beautiful have been stately, noble images of objects associated with war and destruction culled from scenes in Homeric epics, a text directly referred to by the phrase “dark soil” (2) in the poem. The beauty of such dignified, military scenes seems to arise out of the objects themselves, and are beautiful in and of themselves, independent from any external forces for the guarantee of its beauty.   

            However, in lines 7-8 of the poem, Sappho proffers her own framework for the judgment of beauty, which she locates in the realm of love. Sappho explains: “Ah, but for me/This honour belongs to whoever one loves” (7-8). By insisting that beauty resides in the one who one loves, Sappho produces an ambiguity regarding the exact location from whence beauty arises, which she demonstrates through her example of Helen. According to Sappho, “its easy to see why” (9) is beautiful, and it is because “the most gorgeous woman on earth, Helen/Abandoned her man/Most excellent of all men!/And made sails for Troy!” (11-14). Here, it is unclear whether Sappho finds Helen beautiful because she abandoned her man, or whether she sailed to Troy. The exact source of Helen’s beauty is indeterminable, unlike the form of beauty which is believed to be intrinsically rooted in noble objects of war of the Homeric tradition: soldiers, carriages, and ships. Instead, Helen is conferred beauty through her actions, or her decisions to abandon her husband and sail away—beauty is accorded through an object’s relationality to another, and actions upon each other, it is not a ready-made substance that exists within objects themselves. The space that produces beauty that Sappho hereby refers to as love, is the intermediary, liminal space of association and connection that exists between objects.

            After delineating the differences between the Homeric formulation of beauty and her own, Sappho fuses both frameworks of beauty and insists on reconciling her own conception of beauty with traditional Homeric modes of thought through images that combines stately, grand Homeric elements with the criteria of her own conception of beauty: relationality, association, and mediation. At a first glance, Sappho appears to be denigrating Homeric scenes of beauty in the opening lines of the poem, but upon more careful reading, Sappho has already imbibed traditional Homeric images of beauty with relationality through the repetitive syntactical structure of “object+on+object.” The three, opening, Homeric scenes of beauty: “company of soldiers on horse” (3), “line of soldiers on foot” (5), and “a fleet of ships” (6), all abide by the common structure of having an object, followed by “on,” and another object. The “object+on+object” structure already encodes a disconnect between the supposed object of beauty, the “company of soldiers (3), “line of soldiers” (5), or the “fleet” (6), with the second object that it is in beautiful relation with: “the horse” (3), “on foot” (5), or “the ships,” (6). That is, the company of soldiers are only beautiful in relation to the horses that they are on, and the line of soldiers are only beautiful because they are on their feet. Each counterpart does not achieve beauty independently of the other, and their beauty is only formed through the union of both units in the formula.

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.  

Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War: An Ethic of Facticity and the Realness of Exemplary Horror

Russell Zych

Rhet 103A, Sec. 102 (Tu 5-6)

Dale Carrico, Kuan Hua

  

In the early parts[1], of Thucydides’ written history of The Peloponnesian War, he explains the tenets of his historical method. By creating his own method of facticity and imparting on his reader what it takes to make a text believable as well as working to ascribe this believability onto the facts before him, Thucydides constructs his own ideal of reality. The following paragraphs will explicate how he defines this reality and how the application of reality, as wielded by Thucydides, changes the cultural importance war for Greek society and humanity at large.

Thucydides defines his very own historical method as one against both the epic tradition of oral poets like Homer and the fabulist composites of Herodotus. Instead of those, he finds that, “having proceeded upon the clearest data, and having arrived at conclusions as exact as can be expected in matters of such antiquity,” there should be only one satisfyingly clear and definitive account, one that has been whittled down, sharpened, and polished into an obvious truth. It is a method more objective than a compilation due to its rejection of clearly fantastical or false data, and more truthful through editing and intervention—in short, a method of reality through construction, a more valid account. It is through a refutation of other historical texts’ validity and believability that he affirms his ethic of sharpened realness with his readers. An ethic of skepticism and rhetoric of realness or facticity, not style or exaggeration, mark Thucydides’ claims of grandeur. He takes pride in an, “absence of romance in [his] history,” conceding that while it may, “detract somewhat from its interest,” the pared down factual method is far more useful for “those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past.” His writing is “not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.” Far less interested in pleasing audiences than he is creating facts and accounts that are primarily believable regardless of whether or not they are boring. In fact the separation from Homer and Herodotus assures readers that the dry aspects of this work guarantees its factuality, its commitment to an ideal or realness. By announcing the intentions and scope of his project out right, Thucydides gives more than a description of his method; he imposes on his readership a description of what truth and true, factual history looks like. His historical method creates an ethic of believability that necessitates data, proofs, and above all nothing worthy of applause. This disapproval of a beautiful or fantastic history makes the relationship between humans, war, and reporting of violence in the case of the Peloponnesian war far more solemn than exciting, more horrifying than tragic.

Thucydides uses the ethic of realness established by his method to assert the Peloponnesian war’s solemn importance and exemplary destructiveness. Earlier in his passage he qualifies, “despite the known disposition of the actors in a struggle to overrate its importance… an examination of the facts will show that it was much greater than the wars which preceded it.” Because it is an examination of facts that prove the greatness of The Peloponnesian War rather than prose, style, or tradition, the importance of war can only refer to its material impact on society not its spiritual impact or its glory. This is why Thucydides doesn’t mention any positive qualities of the war but rather that it, “was prolonged to an immense length, and, long as it was, it was short without parallel for the misfortunes that it brought upon Hellas.” The legacy of the war as he sees it is far from impressive; it is destructive and haunting. For him the, “old stories of occurrences handed down by tradition, but scantily confirmed by experience, suddenly ceased to be incredible,” after this gritty and harrowing experience due to, “earthquakes of unparalleled extent and violence… great droughts in sundry places and consequent famines, and that most calamitous and awfully fatal visitation, the plague.” For Thucydides, the sheer horror and great destructiveness of these consequences make any poetic, fantastical, or composite record deceptive and all too immaterial. In order to feel the true terror of these events, one must read a “true” account, no matter how constructed or manipulated the true-ness of which may be. His ethic of realness, facticity, and believability thereby leaves the more shocking moments history with due dignity and didactic value.

While historical poetry may be beautiful and in many cases uplifting, for Thucydides history has a didactic and humbling purpose; it is supposed to bring its readers a self-proven and believable account that is only as important as its material or functional impact on society.  To speak of the past factually is to vanquish doubts about bring the experience of others onto a status of incontestability. Thucydides’ historical method uses a stubborn ethic of facticity to make his audience materially accept, feel, and revere the exemplary horror of The Peloponnesian War.

---

[1] The passage I am using for this Précis is the last four paragraphs of Chapter One of Book One of Thucydides’ History of The Peloponnesian War, Beginning from “Having now given the result of my inquiries…” and ending at the chapter mark.

Precis 

In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias takes on the role of defending Helen’s actions and character against the notoriety that had encompassed her name due to her representation in many poetic works. Though seemingly a defense of Helen and placement of blame upon the potency of discourse, it is the defense itself that functions implicitly as a lauding of the power of rhetoric and perhaps thereby Gorgias himself. The argument he makes, “by means of words, inspired incantations serve as bringers-on of pleasure and takers –off of pain. The incantation’s power, communicating with the soul’s opinion, enchants and persuades and changes it, by trickery” (10), emphasizes the seductive potency of rhetoric and as a byproduct dissolves Helen’s own agency.

The explicit message is that the “persuasive discourse deceived [Helen’s] soul,” which makes it easy to “absolve her of responsibility” for the tragedy of the Trojan war since, as Gorgias’ expounds, “discourse is a great potentate, which by the smallest and most secret body accomplishes the most divine works” (8). Gorgias makes the argument that all blame is to be taken away since it was simply the powerful, compelling discourse that deluded her soul and caused her to do what she did. Gorgias goes on in his text by listing the captive, hypnotic, and seductive power of not just discourse, but its most captivating forms as well, which include poetry with meter. Gorgias’ words rhymed and set up structural parallels and echoes, which often repeated and doubled back on itself. Within his text, i.e. when he says “for discourse was the persuader of the soul, which it persuaded and compelled to believe the things that were said and to agree to the things that were done” (12), Gorgias utilizes words, sounds, and rhythms of words as a style of oration, a kind of rhetorical tool, as a way of captivating and persuading his engaged audience.

Gorgias suggests that the tricky, persuasive power of such discourse would obviously work on anyone just as it has on Helen. Therefore, Gorgias expects his audience to understand and realize that they are being persuaded all the same by his adept performance of rhetoric. With such mirroring of content, between the explanation in describing rhetoric used on Helen and his own utilization of rhetoric towards his audience, Gorgias’ makes the texts’ implicit argument that rhetoric is a worthwhile and praiseworthy profession and practice, deserving of Athenians’ patronage. Such paralleling of content in style is most obvious when Gorgias says, “He who persuaded (as constrainer) did wrong; while she who was persuaded (as one constrained by means of the discourse) is wrongly blamed” (12). Gorgias explains how Helen’s volition was undermined by “false speech” since she was persuaded by the assumed truth of Paris’ speech, thereby suggesting that it was the words used on Helen that were to be blamed since it was what took control of her mind. Moreover, in this text, rather than explicitly placing the blame on Paris, Gorgias simply refers to Paris as “the who has persuaded” and Helen as, “she who was persuaded.” By using such style of inferring rather than explicitly stating names, Gorgias indirectly made the case for rhetoric: whether or not his arguments were valid, they are presented in such a convincing manner that the audience falls under the influence of Gorgias’ “incantations”. 

Gorgias’ claim that Helen was persuaded and unable to defend herself, similar to his own enrapt audience, places her (or her as a figure) in his own rhetorical toolkit, a device by which he can accomplish his own rhetorical, self-promotional goals. Following that Gorgias’ defense and performance are effective, Helen’s identity and her existence as a figure determining her own choices and legacy are subordinate to him. As a piece of writing that purports to defend Helen from all vile conceptions of her, the Encomium of Helen also examines of the power of persuasion as Gorgias, through his own rhetoric, abducts his audience the way Paris abducted Helen.

David Javidzad, Précis

David Javidzad

Rhetoric 103A; Professor Carrico

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

8 October 2016

Précis:

Corcyra’s Argument to Athens in The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

            In the first book of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, the Corcyraeans make an argument to Athens in order to convince them to form an alliance with them and give aid to them to fight Corinth, instead of Corinth themselves who desire aid to fight Corcyra. The first sentence, which introduces the argument, plays the role of a subsidiary conclusion: “in the event of your compliance,” say the Corcyraeans, “you will congratulate yourselves in this request having been made to you.” In other words, the Athenians will not regret, rather they will benefit from, having accepted the Corcyraeans’ offer. Here, the Corcyraeans are drawing a conclusion that appeals to Athens’ potentially benefitting from the alliance, and to Athens’ sense of self-interest.

This claim is supported by four premises that follow it, and the claim itself, is, in turn, used as support for the argument’s main conclusion: that Athens ought to accept Corcyra’s proposal, establish an alliance with them instead of Corinth, and form plans against Corinth. The premises and their implications, which support the subsidiary conclusion, and the subsidiary conclusion itself, all employ the appeal to Athens’ benefit in order to make the argument persuasive: the Corcyraeans do not make claims about their own profiting, their own expansion, or their own benefitting from the proposed alliance, and omitting these points is part of the argumentative and rhetorical strategy that makes their argument compelling to the Athenians, who end up complying with their request.

            The first premise proceeds by appealing to the Athenians’ sense of morality. The Corcyraeans assert that if the Athenians’ comply with their request for aid, the Athenians would be assisting the party victimized by their opponent’s injustice. By explaining that Athens would be helping the underdog, the Corcyraeans make a strategic argumentative move, showing that Athenians can be seen as a benevolent power, an important reputation for a powerful nation to have if they are to amass more power and further gain and expand. This premise has appeals to Athenians’ benefit in public image and reputation.

            The second premise follows from the first, in that it also expresses that as a consequence of the alliance with the Corcyraeans the Athenians will gain a reputation, image, and positive feeling of having goodwill. This is a separate premise because it mentions a different way in which the Athenians would achieve this goodwill; namely that they mention the Corcyraeans’ own projected gratitude for the Athenians. This, they say, will be proof of Athenian goodwill, and it is also mentioned with an implication that Corcyra will, in one way or another, be indebted to Athens— another way in which Athens will gain from the alliance.

            The Corcyraeans elaborate on the third premise the most, because its implications appealing to Athens’ benefit are the most quantitatively apparent, explicitly pragmatic, and economical for Athens. The argument in its entirety being based on this appeal, this premise carries the most weight for them, and helps logically lead to the main conclusion— that their request be complied with. They contend that their naval power is greater than any other state in the Hellas, and that by forming an alliance with Corcyra, “without danger and without expense,” Athens would gain a “high character in the eyes of the world” and “a great accession of strength for [Athens].” Clearly, they are conveying that the cost to Athens would be low, and the benefit high. By expressing that their naval power is great, they are implying that as a consequence of the alliance, Athens’ presence on the sea will be strengthened and feared. This projected benefit for Athens is enticing, because it plays on Athens’ desire to lead all the Greeks.

            Finally, the Corcyraeans contend that Corinth’s main purpose in planning to attack Corcyra is to eliminate the unification of Corcyra and Athens and therefore to keep Athens weak enough for Corinth to attack them afterwards. This figures into the argument’s persuasion interestingly: it rhetorically describes the proposed alliance as absolutely necessary. The implication here is that the proposed alliance would be extremely valuable to Athens, so much so, that it is the exact thing that adversaries are hoping they do not do; it would, in the adversaries’ eyes, make Athens too powerful— the ultimate appeal to Athens’ benefit.

            These four premises support the argument’s subsidiary conclusion that Athens will be more than satisfied with the results of establishing an alliance with Corcyra. That intermediate conclusion, in turn, is used as logical support for the main conclusion that Athens ought to establish the alliance. The argument employs a strategic sense of appeal that ultimately gets Corcyra what they want.