Rereading Gorgias' Helen

Gorgias' Encomiwm of Helen (hereafter Helen) is a text that has earned a

central place in the reviva1 of interest in Sophistic and Neosophistic rhetorical
studies in the late twentieth century. Based on its composition style alone, the
speech has been the object of considerable controversy.' Descriptions and
assessments of the theoretical content of the text are equally diverse. Scholars
h d evidence in the text of a psychological theory of logos (Segal 1962), a
magical account of discourse (de Romilly 1975)~ an incipient ccpostmodern"
theory of epistemology (Enos 1976; Gronbeck 1972; Untersteiner 1954)~ a
thinly veiled defense of the art of Rhetoric (Poulakos 1983b; Wardy 1996),
and a nonrepresentational theory of language and meaning (Mourelatos 1985;
1
Kerferd 1984). Despite the great interest the text has generated, there is re-
markably little agreement even over the most rudimentary interpretive issues
concerning the text, such as the genre to which it belongs, the role it played in
fifth-century B.C.E. rhetorical practice, and its theoretical significance. ResoIu- 1
tion of al1 of these issues is unnecessary and perhaps even undesirable. None
Rereading GorgUls' Helen I 15
S, 1 believe that recent developments in the historiography of the Sophists
a space from which to consider and visit the text anew.
S chapter offers a predisciplinary historical description of Gorgias' fa-
speech. 1 caii the description "predisciplinary" to indicate the belief that
xts of fifth-century Greek writers, especially those by the figures com-
referred to as the Older Sophists, ought to be approached with the
ess that certain ccdisciplines" were not yet formalized either in theory or
ctice. In particular, the dichotomy often used to distinguish between
sophical and Rhetorical discourse s simply not evident in the texts of the
century that describe Sophistic education. As maintained earlier, fifth-
ry texts concerning logos - such as Gorgias' Helen - differ substantially
fourth-century texts concerning Rhetoric (rh8torikZ) - such as Plato's
Alkidamas' On Tbose Writing Written Speecbes, the Rhetoric to
er, and Aristotleys Rhetoric. Prior to the fourth century, one rarely
distinction between the art or skill of producing discourse that seeks
' and the art or ski11 of producing discourse th$t f eeks persuasion.
dingly, a predisciplinary description attempts to a*id the vocabulary
ssumptions about discourse theories and rhetorical practice imported
the fourth century when analyzing fifth-century texts.
S my contention that certain persistent questions about Gorgias' Helen
different answers once the speech is repositioned as a predisciplinary
is chapter 1 will revisit three questions: What is the speech's purpose?
e its contributions to fifth-century discouse practices? What are its
tions to fifthtentury theory? 1 offer five arguments: identifying Gor-
len as an "epideictic" speech is a somewhat misleading character-
the speech is not a veiled defense of the Art of Rhetoric; Gorgias
ve inaugurated the prose genre of the encomion; Gorgias advanced
century B.C.E. "rationalism" by enacting certain innovations in prose
sition; the Helen's most signhcant "theoretical" contribution is to offer
ar account of the workings of logos- an aGcount that functioned as an
lar for later theorists.
I. Scholars as diverse as Dodds (1959, g), Cole (1991a, 73)' Jebb (1893, cxxiv), and
Van Hook (1945, 122) condemn Gorgias' stylistic "excesses" while scholars such as
Barrett (1987), de Romilly (1975)' Crowley (1989)' and myself (see chapter 6 ) praise his
artistry and creativity. 1
'
What 1s the Speech's Purposes'
'
Because the speecb makes no reference to contemporary events, there is
confident way to date the text with precision; estimates range from before
to 393 B.C.E. (Blass I 887, I: 72-75). The speech is written in the Attic
ct, a choice that suggests the text was designed for oral performance in a
~f venues (Norlin 1928, z: 348-49n; see also Cole 19g1a, 74-75).
stated goal of the speech is to exonerate the legendary Helen of the
m.
I I 6 Gorgias cand the Disciplfning of Discourse Rereading Gorgias ' Helen 11 7
charge of deserting her husband, Menelaus, and running away with Paris-
rowess, most commentators believe, was to attract more students
the act precipitating the farnous Trojan War. The topic was a familiar one, as
arguments back and forth about Helen's culpability can be found throughout
tion of Helen as predisciplinary problematizes, though does not
early Greek literat~re. ~ Some have supposed that Gorgias' account may have
ject, such a conclusion. To begin with, it is not at al1 clear that
been an wwe r to Euripides' or vice versa, but as D. M. MacDowell argues,
nt texts ought to be limited by the apparently mutually exclusive
"There is no resemblance in detais, and no strong reason to link GorgiasY dis-
ilosophy or Rhetoric. Certainly in the past the Helen has been
cussion of Helen with anyone else's" (1982,12; see also Blass 1887,1:5 6-s7).
in just such a limiting fashion. Though often cited in histories of
Gorgias begins with a clear statemmt of purpose: his task is to remove,
Helen is rarely, if ever, mentioned in histories of Greek philoso-
through reasoning (logismos), the mjust blame that Helen has received (I-4. ed earlier, categorizing texts from the fifth century B.C.E. exclu-
After providing a brief account of her birth, personal qualities, and marriage
toric or Philosophy often risks anachronism. The question is,
(3-S), GoEgias posits a list of four posible causes behind Helen's departure to
rgias' speeches supposed to accomplish? Were they "display"
Troy: chance and the gods, physical force, persuasion by logos, or passion (6). nded solely to entertain? Were they intended to be, at least in
He then addresses the four causes in u n , arguing that each is such a powerful
es, efforts to theorize about issues later labeled "philosophical"?
force that Helen should not be blamed for her behavior. The amount of space
S of the text that privilege one feature of the text over the other
he spends o-n each cause is noteworthy: Gods and chance are dealt with in one e obvious answer that Gorgias' texts - like anyone else's - po-
paragraph (6), as is force (7), whde logos is addressed in seven (8-14) and
multiple functions. Locating the text as predisciplinary gives us
passion in five (15-19). He then concludes by summarizing the causes and
sitate before describing and assessing it wj$ specific, disciplinary
suggesting that he has accomplished his purpose (20-21).
Beyond Gorgias' stated agenda, for what purpose was the discourse com-
le, 1 believe that it is inappropriate to confine Helen to the Aristo-
posed and performed? Most commentators categorize the Helen as epideictic
f epideictic rhetoric. Even though one can refer to a ~erformance
rhetoric. The verb epideiknarnai is typicaiy translated as "to displaym or "to
rgias as an epideixis, and despite the morphological link be-
show)J> and epideixis denotes a particular exhibirion or demonstration. Since and epideiktikz, identifying Gorgias' Helen as an "epideictic"
ancient wnters refer to Iie1.m as an epideictic address, it is commonly assumed
ewhat misleading. Assignment of fifth-century texts to a specific
that the purpose of Hel m was primariy to show off Gorgias' oratorical abil-
urse may presume a greater degree of genre-related composi-
ities. Segal calls it a "mythological showpiece of rhetoric" and an "epideictic
tions than were the case during Gorgias' career. Aristotle's well-
encomium" (1962, IOO), John Robinson dubs it a "display piece" (1973,s 3 1, efold taxonomy of Rhetoric was not codified until his lectures,
Poulakos says that Gorgias in the Helen "indulges in the delights afforded by
es after Gorgias' death (Kennedy 199 1, 299-305 ). Accordingl~,
epideictic rhetoricn (1986, ~ o I ) , and Van Hook deems it an "epideictic . e
m with characterizing Helen as epideictic is that a discrete genre of
~OUI de force" (1945, 54). Jarratt classifies the Helen as "epideictic" and
,rhetoric is not clearly identified as such until well into the fourth
says that Gorgias "exploits the latitude offered by a rhetorical
,E. Aristotle's conceptual formulation of epideictic rhetoric is al-
(1991,591. Scott Consigny argues that al1 of Gorgias' speeches are categorized
inly original. The earliest extant use of the word epideiktikd is in
properly as epideictic and that Gorgias "uses the epideictic primarily to adver-
hist (224b5), where it is used to describe "the art of display" that
tise his own rhetorical skiiis" (1992,291). The purpose of Gorgias' display of e the profession of the Sophists. The Sophist was one of Plato's
es, however, and the prior absence of the word suggests that it is
2. Frank J. Groten's study (1955) of various treatm- of the Helen legend in Greek
fourth-century Sophists and has been applied only with hind-
literatute makes it clear that Gorgias was not the first to argue that Helen was blarneless.
of the previous century. Epideiktik might have been yet another
Fuahermore, the rnany previous sympathetic treatments of Helen cal1 into question the
claim that Gorgias' Helen was an unprecedenred effoa to "radically reconstruct" historY
of Plato's original construction of an -ik word to designate a s~ecific
to "dislodge a mythic source for misogynism" (Jarratt 1991, 74). For a reading that ii (Arnmann 1953; Chantraine I ~ s ~ , ~ ~ - I s I ) .
argues Gorgias' Heien "reiterates in oratorical disco- the general trend toward f udf l ntends that the word "epideictic" is part of a later developed stan-
subjugation of women" in ancient Greece, see Biesecker (1990'77). inology that has its roots in the "preanalytic stage" of the history of
a,di&wh
11 8 Gorgias ami the Disciplining of Discourse
rhetoric. He suggests that what marks a speech as an epideixis is that it is
written to be presented rather than that it has the quaiity of "showing off."
Epideictic oratory will then be, in origin, what epideixLs is in Xenophon's
account of Prodicus: not the showing off of one's talents, but the displaying or
revealing (orally) of what was already in existence beforehand-in the form
of a prememorized piece. . . . And its ultimate use as a designation for cere-
monial rather than judicial or political oratory wiIl be a natural result of the
fact that ceremonial occasions were the only ones at which recitation of a
mitten (or prememorized) text would have been considered acceptable by a
fifth-century audience. (rgg~a, 89)
Cole's clairn may be supported by the foilowing speculative morphologicai
argument. 1 noted earlier that epideiknunui is typically translated as "to dis-
play" or "to show." 1 should add that the same is true of shorter verb deik-
nunai. Other meanings include "to bring to light" and "to show forth." The
noun deikdon can designate a specific exhibition. The meaning of the preposi-
tion epi- varia; it lacks the sort of core meaning that some prefixes have. its
sense depends on context and case; possible meanings include: upon, at, to-
ward, and against. The question becomes: Why was the preposition epi- com-
pounded with dekmnai to create epideknunai? It is difficuk to say. Even in
English, one can find prefkes that at one poht might have conveyed an active
sense of position or motion, but that later becarne a dormant appendage: One
can cede or concede a position. One can limit or delimit. One can splay or
display a banner. We may conjecture plausibly that originally epideiknunai
designated a special sort of "showing." It is possible that, with respect to
discourse, it had to be written in order for it to be some thing that codd be "di-
splayed" or re-presented. If CoIeYs argument is correct, then what later would
be called epideictic speech originated with the recounting or recitation of an
"exhibit" or "specimen" of written prose discourse.
Whether Cole is correct or not about the original sense of epideixis before
the formalization of Rhetoric in the fourth century, the redescription of Gor-
gias' Helen as predisciplinary leads to important insights. The most obvious
implication is that there sirnply were not the same sort of formal, generic
expectations for prose compositions of the fifth century that are found a cen-
tury later. Gorgias would not have felt any tension between writing a theoret-
ical "versus" an epideictic speech, because no one had yet felt a particular need
to distinguish prose texts on the basis of instructional versus entertainment
aspirations. An epideixis - or "demonstration" -codd strive for both. While
there is no doubt that he intended his distinctive style to entertain, there is no
reason to doubt that he also wanted to instruct- just like oaer early Greek
RereaBng Gorgias- naen
-
rhetorid goals and forms of corhposition that soon would be sepa-
by l at a prose writers. Isocrates' comment (Helen 14-1 5 ui Van Hook
) argues that epideictic rhetoric played an important
nt Greek culture. The funeral oration (epitaphios),
edge for its participants, generating a saong sewe of community, and
behavior toward accepted norms. Similarly Perelman and Olbrechts-
the adherence to values held in c o m n by the
and speaker" (19 59, 52). There is no evidence tly&-a~y of these
that would be conducive to perbrming ritualistic functions. Rather
cluding that Gorgias is somehow a "failed" epideictic speaker, as
to epideictic's formalization by Aristotle-
have been expected to ncrease adherence to
that presume Rhetoric was a discrete disci-
w1y demarcad body of literature are anachronistic. The clearest
is dubious history on three counts. First, the avalable
the Greek word for Rhetoric-rh8torikZ- had not yel
rrs, including "phiiosophers" such as Parmenides, Empedocles, and Hem-
s. Gosgias adapted and transformed poetic styles and genres of compmi-
and in the process created texts that m w appear to us as r h e t d a l
~rids." Gorgias' innovation was not so much suetching a given set ofp~lose
es as much as taki. certain poetic forms and creating texts that embody
r, 67) ahout the competing needs of apologia and encomia would ha%
wcular, is credited with creating an "exuaordinary," transcendent
b-suggest that the functi& of epideictic rhetoric is not to change beliefs
- - - -
kves are (phsued by Gorgias through the He&, at leasK& in the sense
k v e a are explained by Carter or Perelman and Olb~dts-Tyteca. And
no evidence 'that Heien was ever given in anytbing approaching a
psuggests (1887, 1:68), a description of He& as predisciplinary chal-
k&ty values.or perform ritualistic functions.
W r consequence of redescribing &e speech as predisciplinary is that
$lik of such an interpretathn is that by J& Podakos, who argues that
@4en portrayed in 'Gorgias' speech is actually "the personification o1
B&' ' (1983b, 4). Recalling that Gorgias is said to have alluded to an
between Penelope and philosophiu, and noting that both rhtorikz
philompbia are feminine nouns, Poulakos suggests that Gorgias, "al.
t a h g about Helen, is really referring to rhetoric" (1983 b, 10). Ad-
an analogical reading of Helen as Rhetoric based on "historical and
ld grounds," he notes that "both are attractive, both are unfaithful, and
a v e a bad reputation" (1983 b, 4-5).
racn G ~ r g b dAih P&i@I%ng ofDknmrse Rereadi~g Gorgias' Helen 12 I
@.ti cained w h 6kx@s1 wot e Hdm (as discwed in ehapm 1). Or, even if actical Contributions of Gorgias' Helen
rb&mkw;as iai use* nt w ~ d d have k n so n o d at rbce &e a t o m&e pretext
tce the disciplinary expectations and nomenclature of classical rhetor-
unnecessary and the da&on mswcwful. Seco4 Psulrrkos' "ihistorical ex-
are set aside, Gorgias' role as an innovator in prose composition is
plaa1atiom" of &e n s d forpretezct an b&K o$ ;orgla$ k weak,<He claims that
*Gor@as IIIUS~ have been a- ol &e &&nian pr t ct hs of urtderance; fre-
orgias' Helen (Blass 1887,1:72; Duncan
qumt b a r r i s k ~ s an$ condemnatiatls, &e h'rriag of I h&s in public, and
). It is not until after Gorgias' death in the fourth century B.C.E. that
m~mr mmi ~t i ons ; by: d e rnw have dicta& that'he 'approach his task indi-
to Alexander describing "rules for the
mljy" (rp$3bi 77. Sqch a o h a r a ~ b a t i a n %~;essly eaaiggerate Athenian "in-
notes, "enkmion and enkmiazein are
toierance" andprcsumes that eertain pwdy attested hgtd8, as the burn-
century of formal praise in prose or verse, but in ifth-
filg of Pro@&ras9 b&ks, me' m e (see ' DoT~~' 1976; stone 19823, 23 1-47;
is especially a poem celebrating someone's victory"
Sckppa 1991% 144-&. Tiiird, if &re b d been srn mgent.need for pretext,
Gaig&d S& ~rt dci & would have fagd PouIah &$es the names of Aris-
). Such use is found in Pindar, Hesiod, and Aristophanes, but not
~ r i t e r . ~ Though it is posible that "encomium" was added to the
mphmed pkiq&vqpa l%k@s, aad 8hk &&wmpla @f&ea&tic masking of
at some later date, Gorgias explicitly calls his discourse "an en-
pc l npe > but &e= was no &~~ &@ p 4 ~ r i g h t ' s as anything
al sentence of the speech - a self-reference suggest-
&m a 1 - g @gdfi c p@&Iri&s nsd pdiikclim(Daver, 197%)-
gias was aware of the relationship between his speech and the
B e ~ w & M h& -m, hr mample, e;* ridSn1.d by hi ~ophanes even
robable inference is that Gorgias helped to inaug-
&*- p r h p s wen ka s e - elk.ob WI S s l h g in th.aiu&ence! Likewise,
tion of prose encomia that was infamous less than a c&y@ry later,
&e pwex of s-peeeb km expi5cIt &d develqd heme& &&ih. If there had
osigm (177a-c) that speeches of praise had been
beri h a d ' e i . ~ m e n ~ s ' l ~ ~ ~ b a t in A&eds,.k isph& ~mhkely that they
subjects as diverse as Heracles and salt. It does not really matter
w d km ~ s d &- ~ ~ o t g i a s "hamless and r i o n t h r w t ~ g simply be-
d now classify Gorgias' speech as apologia or a rhetorical "hy-
cause he ~mirted t k d ~'I&&~rk.'' k%er &, G&~c& )thc T mt ' s alleged
than as an encomium. It is not unusual for writers to contribute to
Es a& disc~ms k a r u c W is;. deseriM by byciphm a$ is prohibition of
genres in ways that they did not, and could not,
l o* h h d j &Whezdi ( H Q ~ X & 1 .&.a 1)"
Po&m,'&f co~r@e,~fs n ~ r thi d y m dxo hm r e d Hdw as being pri-
E ele en is also noteworthy for being an early and masterful example
m d y a:BOei2 Rfx~wic.3 %kde&xs' sli~&fs G~ g i a s anceptualized an
of argument by which an advocate enumerates a series
"qt of r k r i c " mand&at:i wmp4>s& H d e ~ &e analbe b e e n rhetoric
esses each in turn. Kennedy's description merits quota-
md "d-Ly pmpmd&&tes in &S mndw (I@I, r 1+6-17). And de Ro-
mf*, ktieves that HeIa"s dkfeme is a p r e t ~ fer a de$- of Gorgias' Artt
Wdder t k ~bf lHele~ p i r ~ a my pi de &&e Master of Rhet- in which Gorgias seeks to justify the choice of
O.MC.~SU& kr i pt i @ns ase &derdr~e%mind bythe q overemphasia raiseworthy and defend the maligned- he
and r n*dc ~h& OII~ o$ prurp,a~~s and wn.tnbutims of the text, w@
have yielded to Paris either through fate or the
t hq under;&mae Q:&~E posik,zgendas.
, or else she was ravaged by force or persuaded by words or
. ' ,
umed to exist. Each of those
3. To b fair, abr h&m offm explicitly "hi ~t t ~r i d' grom& for bis reading, he
trated by what Aristotle
m t s in his 9nc1t i si ~ ro &e pwi- tbit Iikk 7rmp be ru" as a definse @f
ple within the lirnits of probability that in each
rheqric, r ~ ( i 1 e s s of whether the Hdenlaet~ric a n w %en massed his [~orgia~'! ction. The most interesting discussion is
dnd" (1983b).
.), where Gorgias develops an analysis of psy-
4, *SOUS b justification d"Hielene pene un
de fiert du make de rhtorique
R o d y 1988, roj). Jan& L1oy.d tr@ates this as Wnder t k e w of justifying g~o~hanes , Clouds line 1205 (Rogers 1924, ~ 3 7 4 ) ; Hesiod, Works and Days
tj~entastw of rhetoric prdaims &p i e in Erisskifls" i d e R ~ &~ &0 6 7 ) . See a hlyn-White 1936,281; Pindar, O l ~ ~ k n 2.47, 10.77, 13.29; Pythian 10.53;
h d 4 y (93988,1081,8hpta (rgxti; 96-3 7): and -3r
t , ~ .
kza 1.7 (Sandys 1937).
%gY discernible. There are no extant examples of a prose composition
chological effects. The speech ends with a brief conclusion echoing the stpte-
mmts of the introduction. In four and a half pages Gorgias has given a vivid,
even UaforgettabIe, example of &e same logical method which he employd
hhi s famous dscussion of being. He refers to the lide work as a logismos o,
"reasoning" in section two, and this seems entirelp appropriate. . . . It is
playful in mood, but it also has a seriaus purpose in dernonstrating a method
of logid pmf . (1963,167-68)
It is easy to fixateon Gorgias' exotic style and his "magical" se of language
and, as a r d t , neglect his niore "rationalistic" side. Such negiect is a mistake,
There ii a cleir paralle1 iR anc&nt Greek discourse berween the transition from
poetic m prase st!yl$s and &e gradual proliferation of modes of reasoning
Because many texts 01 this era tend to combine elements of "rationalistic"
prose and " my t h i ~~ poetry, there is a tendency t'o seesuch a "mixed" style as a
f adt of the rather than e v i d k of rapid dianges in modes of cornposi-
tia. For exam$+"~armenides trieil to put &e meter of Hoderic poetry (epic
hexamer) to the kmice of philosophical analysls. Thougl some commenta-
tots praisb Parmenides' abilities to express himself ih verse, others argue that
the vocabuIaq &i syntax of poetry were very md h in tension with his goals
and that Parmenides had to skggl e to adapt his' ideas to an unsuitable me-
Gorgias w k similarly situated in and i"RnuenCea by an oral-poetic
culture. Gorgias' unique prose was transforming &e uses to which prose dis-
course was being p u ~ thereby contributng to what is &en called the transi-
tion from mythm to iogos (Nestie I 966).
Gorgias says in his introduction that "1wish to offer reasoning by particular
argurnents to frd&e aaused of blame, to reveal'tliat her cntics are lying, and
to show the truth and to halt the ignorante" (2)? h is significant that Gorgias
i d d e s "reasoning" (logismos) as his methd. togismos is not a very com-
mon word in W-century texts. A typical early use is Democritus' advice to
"Drive out by reasoning &e unmastered paih of a numbed soul" (in Barnes
1987, 283"). Aristophanes uses &e word ody once-to make fun of rational
a r g u t a t i o n in the plays of Euripides ( h g s 973.h Rogers 1924). The word
6. Barnes (1982,155) cornplains that "It is hard to excuse Parmenides' choice of verse
as a medium for his philosophy. The exigencia of metre and poetical style regulad^
produce an almost impenetrable obscurity." The most thorough discussions of parmeni-
des' composition style is in Mourelatos (1970, 1-46, 264-68). See also David gallo^
(1984, 4-5)' Coxon (1986'7-S), and Havelock (1982,220-60; 1983).
7. &y& 66 fkhhopa~ k0yiop.b~ zwa zoi Uyai &AS +v &v K ~ K & dr~oouoav xai3oa~ 45
al~ug, 6E p&p<po&ouq ~m&pvou~ xdecag ~ a i 6&%aq z dqe k [fl] xai3oal. 4 6
dpae a~ (DK I ~ s I - ~ , 2:288-89). Al1~assagesquoted frorn Gorgias7 Helen are based on
Kemedy's most recent translation (1991,284-88) with siight aiterations by the author.
#- iden
. the 1
;tyle
BJ
1 "r:
rhw
3iffe
Soq
'nor
:om
:o G
indc
foq
:en
'ett
well.
"8 4
DOM
:he r
Rereading Gorgias' Helen 123
n times in the works attributed to Hippocrates, where it usually
(see, e.g. On the Art 11). Though Herodotus
employs it thirteen times - always to connote
king, or reflection.* Gorgias' self-conscious
n of his method as "reasoning" positions his text as contributing to
of what we would now call rational argumentation. Though his
stic" 1 do not mean to imply that Gorgias was
" in the sense implied by the word in modernist philosophies.
" that are performed in different ways at
on. In so doing, we will come closer to
' S "argumentation is didactic, obvious, and academic" (Bar-
His arrangement of arguments is "remarkably orderly and
"; his introductory forecast, clear transitions, and summariz-
could serve as a model for persuasive speeches today (Mac-
contrasts the beginning of Helen with
Parmenides' famous poem, and con-
o reveal "vastly different" styles of composition:
tement of authoriaYrhetorica1 purpose;
as the composer and originator of the
stigially formulaic attribution to the
on of the story of Zeus as Helen's
e, style and content are interrelated in Gorgias' text and comple-
a manner unlike Parmenides' poem. Barrett notes that his use of
rly a stimulator of listener involvement and
'insisted on a battle among ideas, on an agonistic clash promoting
124 Gorgias and the Disciplining of Discourse Rereading Gorgius' Helen 125
excitement. Thus in Helen, Gorgias stmctured an 'adversary' relationship
among ideas in testing arguments. . . . Through form, Gorgias built in agita-
tion and competition of reasons; form contributed to substance" (1987~17).
ally, 1 address severa1 hermeneutic practices that have obscured
Finaily, it should be noted that Gorgias identifies himself as a writer - a self-
the ways Gorgias' Helen affected the content and practice of later
identification Siat is very rare and unusual for a fifth-century author. Gorgias
g. 1 want to identify those features of classical-era theoretical texts
ends his speech with the words: Y wished to write a speech as Helen's en-
comium and my own recreation" (21). One is far more likely to encounter
verbs of saying and hearing when sixth- and W-century texts describe the
aical, concrete "problem solutions" - the methods or procedures of
role of the authorlspaker. It is exclusively in the texts and fragments of a
smal number of "philosophexs" such as Diogenes of Apollonia that one fin&
statements like "as wdl have been shown ciearly in this written composition
(suggraph6)" (DK 64B4). Gorgias' self-conscious identiiication of hirnself
as the author of &e text is rernarkable for its time. Furthermore, his combina-
century B.C.E. it enacted a novel means of thinking. In short, in
tion of an epic theme, a highly poetic sryle, systematic reasoning, and self- to asking the question "What did Gorgias say?," we need to ask
conscious writing provides reason to doubt "great divide" theories that pit
d his speech do?" Advancing new ways of thinking about the world is
oral/mythological "versus" literatefrationalistic styles and mindsets as wholly
distinct. Such schemata simply do not work when one examines the texts of
various Sophists (Jarratt 1991~3 1-61).
The practica1 conaibutions of Gorgias' Helm can be summarized best by
describing them as advancing the art of written prose4in general, and argumen-
tative composition in particular. Though the subject mamr is ostensibly myth-
ical, the modus operandi of the discourse suppJements the qualities of madi- misleading. There is a tendency to read even a few sentences about
tional, oral-poetic composition with such humanistic-rationalistic practices as
the apagogic method of argiunent. Flnaily, it is possible that Gorgias helped to So, for example, Duncan titles his article "Gorgias' Theories of Art"
inaugurate the practice of composing encomium in prose.
Theoretical Contributions: Explicit and lmglicit
says that Gorgias held a "theory of knowledge" (1981, 116)~ and
My intent in this section is not to provide a detailed commentary on the
Gronbeck (1972) believes Gorgias defended a specific "theory of
text, which already has been done admirably by MacDowell(1982), ThomaS
' consistent with contemporary existential phenomenology.
Buchheim (1989), and others. Nor will 1 attempt the soa of extended argu-
ments are potentially misleading in two ways. First, they overesti-
ment that outlines and defends a specific Gorgianic theory of this or that based
maturity of theory development by implying more coherence and
on Gorgias' extant texts. Instead, in this seaion 1 focus on the portion of the
ess than can be demonstrated with the available evidence. The term
text that is of most interest to historians of rhetorical theory- the discussio*
of logos in paragraphs 8 through 14. Logos is a notoriously polysemous term ry" is made up of a constellation of beliefs that attempts to solve
in ancient Greek. Throughout this section 1 leave logos untranslated SO as to
avoid overly modernistic or reductionistic renderings. In most M-ten r at a the degree of development of a person's thought to impute to
Sophistic texts the term is meant quite broadly, as with the current term ' a full-blown "theory of X" on the basis of one or two sentences that
course." Because the term is often set in opposition to mythos, "reaso certain qualities about a given X. Accordingly, it is more appropriate
126 Gorgh and the Disciplining of Discourse
at times simply to identify a statement as a belief or even hypothesis rather
than as a theory.
Second and more important, tthe attribution of a number of theories to
ancient writers on the basis of isolated or few statements mischaracterizes the
process of intellectual investigation in ancient Greece during the sixth and fifth
centuries. By the late fourth cennirg, the scientific and philosophical vocabu-
lary, syntax, and available models of studies had developed to the point that
one can identify wmpeting "schools of thought" about various "theories" in
more or less distinct "discipiines." Aristotle's accounts of earlier philosophy
give us the impression that such was the case fully two centuries earlier. How-
ever, as the important work of Cherniss (1935) and Havelock (1983) has
demonstrated, Aristotle's "history" is both inconsistent and rnisleading. A&-
totle presumes that the conceptual categories and patterns of explanation
available to him and his students were also available to his predecessors. In the
search to find historical anticipations of his theories, Aristotle often radically
retranslates earlier thinkers' notions into his own vocabulary. As Havelock
argues, something important is lost in the translation: "Such vocabulary subtly
distom the story of early Greek thought by presenting it as an intellectual
game dealing with problems already given and present to the mind, rather
than as a groping after a new language in which the existente of such problems
wiii slowly emerge" (1983, 57). One of the major tasks of earlier thinkers
was to develop the analytical tools necessary for "phiosophical" or "scien-
tific" investigation to take place. As Somsen sugges&in his study of the fifth-
century Greek "Enlightenment," the most important advancements may not
"necessariiy take the form of doctrines" or "programs of reform" but rather
were experiments in ways of thinking about things (1975, 4). In articular,
what we call in hindsight the birth of Western philosophical thinking is the
effort to describe the world with generalizations that privilege secular expla-
nations of causes (Guthrie 1962,26-3 8).
In short, we underestimate the sigdcance of the earlier writers' efforts to
come to grips with the process d theorizing itseld by overestimating the so-
phistication of such early "theories." If predisciplinary theoretical efforts are
treated as if the authors were educatd in methods and language developed
much later, then their role in transforming imellectual practices is missed.
In the case of Gorgias, one of the most important theoretical contributions
of the Helen is that it engaged in relatively systematic, secular, physical ex~la-
nation and description. Gorgias provides a serious account of the workingc of
logos and the psyche. With respect to logos, Gorgias enumerates its qualities,
describes its effects, and explains how it works. The HeIen is the earliest
surviving extended discussion of logos and certainly the most sophisticated of
Rereading Gorgh' Heien 127
Prior to Gorgias, al1 we have are a few fragmentary aphorisms by
such as Heraclitus and Protagoras that simply posit declarations
s. Gorgias begins the relevant section of Helen by making a similar
laration: "Logos is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most
body accomplishes most godlike works. It can banish fear and re-
ief and instill pleasure and enhance pity. 1 shall show how this is so"
&en Gorgias goes on to do what no one prior to him (that we know
lain how logos works.
in the power of logos, Gorgias compares its effect with that of
1 poetry 1 regard and name as logos having meter. On those who
me fearful shuddering and tearful pity and grievous longing as the
ugh logos, experiences some experience of its own at others' good
ill fortune" (9). Aside from providing what we might now call a
al account of the effects of oral discourse (Segal1962), the passage
le for containing a potentially unprecedented propositional form:
on. While the practice of defining terms has its recorded stan in the
f Plato (Schiappa 1993,406), the statement "al1 poe regard and
T os having meter" clearly ought to count as a stipulat e definition.
len may be our earliest example of the practice of explicating
t a pamcular word means in one's own discourse. That Gorgias
word is, itself, a significant advance in the practice of theorizing.
eding sentences have been the basis for various commentators'
S of Gorgias as a defender of an "irrational" or "nomational"
language: "Divine sweetness transmitted through speech is induc-
sure, reductive of pain. Thus by entering into the opinion of the
force of incantation is wont to beguile and persuade and alter it by
and the two arts of witchcraft and magic are errors of the psyche
ers of opinion" (10). Enos, among others, describes Gorgias as
g a "nomational epistemology" and says that Gorgias "did not
al methods for attaining krisis but, rather, used nonrational, stylis-
ures for gaining the assent of listeners" (1993, 85, 88). However,
earlier, such characterizations underestimate the "rational" aspects
S' texts. Furthermore, as Solmsen argues, accounts such as Gorgias'
understood as attempts to rationalize language and thought "on a
ular basis, with no need for divine causation" (1975, S). Unlike
S who depend on the Muses for mystical inspiration, Gorgias' ac-
les that speakers have a "self-conscious relation" to their speech
991, 57). As de Romilly points out, Gorgias "was deliberately shift-
c into something rational" (1975,zo). In Helen, Gorgias proceeds to
rational explanation of why such "magic" works: "If everyone, on
128 Gorgias and the Disciplining of Discourse Rereading Gorgias' Helen I
every subject, had memory of the past and knowledge of the present and
hotomy is a more important step in developing new modes of inquiry than
foresight of the future, logos would not do what it does, but as things are it is
y particular claim Gorgias makes about logos, peitb6, or bia.
easy neirher to remember the past nor consider the present nor predict the
1
, In the process of describing the persuasive/forceful workings of logos, Gor-
future; so that on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the
as develops an analogy that proved to be influential: "The power of logos has
gsyche. But opinion, being slippery and insecure, casts those relying on it into same effect on the condition of the psyche as the power of drugs to the
slippery and insecure fortune" (1 1).
ture of the body; for just as different drugs dispel different secretions from
Gorgias then spends the equivalent of two paragraphs arguing that Helen is body, and some bring an end to disease and others to life, so also in the case
blameless because logos is so powerful that its use amounts to the use of force
logos - some bring pain, others pleasure, some bring fear, others instill
(in Greek, bia). First, he identiies logos as the powerful vehicle of peitho, age in the hearers, and some drug and bewitch the psyche with a kind of
persuasion: "What is there to prevent the conclusion that Helen too, when still
1 persuasion" (14). De Romilly contends that "Gorgias' magic is technical.
young, was carried off by logos just as if constrained by force? Her mind was wants to emulate the power of the magician by a scientific analysis of
swept away by persuasion, and persuasion has the same power as necessity nd its inflnence. He is the theoretician of the magic spell of words"
(anagks), although it may bring shame. For logos, by persuading the psyche . Gorgias theorizes in this case by drawing the analogy to the in-
that it persuaded, constrained her both to obey what was said and to approve ingly secular, "rational," and "scientific" art of medicine (1975,~o). The
what was done. The persuader, as user of force, did wrong; the persuaded, alogy functioned paradigmatically in the sense that both Plato's Gorgias
forced by iogos, is unreasonably blamed" (12). Second, he proves just how d Aristotle's Rhet o~c later sought to explain the art of persuasion by com-
powerful logos can be by providing a series of examples of how easily humans ing it to the developing art of medicine. Gorgias' effort(,# analogy may
are persuaded by competing logoi:
m sirnplistic by contrast to the relatively sophisticated vocabulary and theo-
Aristotle or the late dialogues of Plato, but the analysis provided by
To understand that persuasion, joining with logos, is wont to stamp the
ater theorists would not have been possible without the efforts of intel-
psyche as it wishes one must study, first, the arguments of the astronomers
als such as Gorgias.
who, substituting opinion for opinion, removing one and instilling another,
a
sed on the passages in Helen that discuss logos and passages in other Gor-
make what is incredible and unclear things appear.true to the eyes of opinion;
second, the forceful contests of argumentation, where one side of the argu-
ic texts, theorists have likened claims in Gorgias' texts to contemporary
ment, written with ski11 but not spoken with truth, pleases a large audience
etic, psychological, and speech-act theories of language. Such readi
and persuades; third, the debates of rival philosophers, in which swiftness of
roduced conflicting accounts of Gorgias' description of logos amo^
thought is also exhibited, making belief in an opinion easily changed. (13)
w
1 will not try t o arbitrate. There are at least five distinct categories of
gsr psychological (Segal), magical (de Romilly 1975), epistemological
The key contribution made here is the act of raising a provocative theoret-
1976; Gronbeck 1972; Untersteiner 1954)~ dramatistic (Verdenius
ical question: When does persuasion amount to force? The question is both ; Rosenmeyer 195 S), and sematological (Mourelatos 19 8 5; Kerferd
unusual and interesting because Greek literature prior to Gorgias usually ). Each reading tends to tease out of selected phrases a distinct theory of
treated persuasion and force, peith6 and bia, as antithetical. As John T. Kirby
language, rhetoric, and so on. As inte;sting and helpful as these treat-
puts it, "I will try to persuade you, but, faiiing that, 1 will force you. Such a
,
are, 1 think the "content" of Gorgias' account is remarkably straightfor-
disjunction is rooted in our most fundamental concepts of civilization. The and stands on its own. Though it is useful to interpret and reposition
wild beasts settle their disputes by bia; it is a mark of our hurnaniry, we feel,
S' a munt into contemporary terminology, Helen also deserves to be
that we can use persuasion to effect change, that we are not limited to the use stood, insofar as it is possible, in its original context, and appreciated for
of coercion" (1990, 215). Kirby suggests that "the peitho/bia axis is at the it contributed to its own generation of intellectuals. Once so positioned,
basis of some of our most ancient literary and rhetorical formulations" (1990, find its most profound influence is not a "idea," per se, but a
216; see also Buxton 1982, 58-63). From the standpoint of intellectual his- icked up by a later author, or a problem he poses. In terms of the
tory, it is arguably the case that Gorgias' questioning of a taken-for-granted tory of rhetorical theory, we must remember that the writing of systematic
''=
130
Gorgias and the Disciplining of Discourse
or theoretical treatises was exceedingly rare prior to the rnid-fourth century.
The scope and complexity of Gorgias' analysis is impressive when compared
to his contemporaries and predecessors, even if it seems crudely metaphorical
compared to some of his successors.
On Paignion: Gorgias Helen 21
The closing words of Gorgias's Helen are: Eboul&t% graphai ton logon
HelWs men enkihion emon de paignfon. The final word, paignion, is typi-
cally translated as "trifle," "recreation," or "diversionn; the most literal trans-
iation would be "plaything." Vanous commentators have seized upon the
word as proof that one should not read the speech too seriously or as a key
heuristic for interpreting the text (Dmcan 1938,404; Verdenius 1981, 125).
D. M. MacD~weu wonders if ealling his speech a paignion implies that Gor-
gias does not realiy believe what he has said: "one tnay imagine the twinkle in
Gorgias's eye as he reveals in the very last word that he regards the whole
paradoxical composition as a game" (1982,16,43). Poulakos argues that the
speech was not intended as "model" speech for students because no one would
end such a speech "with a comment that might be interpreted by one's listeners
as telling them 'You've been had"' (1983,3). Kennedy suggests that with this
word "Gorgias plays at undercutting a serious purpose in the speechn (1991,
288n). J. M. Robiison condudes that the word means that we do not even
know how "we are to take the work" (1973,52). Hehi ch Gomperz even uses
&e appearance of the word pai&n in H e h to interpret other works by
Gorgias as examples of joke-speech (Scberzrede) -most notably the treatise
O n Not Being: "Die Schrift ber die &tur war ein paignion" (19 I 2,3 3 -3 5 ) .
Such readings use the appearance of the word paignion to codr m the
characterization of Gorgias as not "realiy" serious thinker and not a "men
phiiosopher. The case has already been made h t we ought to set aside this
sort of assessment as anachronistic and ill-fomded (Casertano 1986; Segal
1962). The work Gorgias does in the H e h is serions in the sense that it is
an important composition that contributed to the development of prose dis-
course and intell-1 inquiry. It is not a plaything in the sense an innocuous
ditty might be-such as an encomium for Mickey Mouse. Accordingly, we
should be wary of readings that overemphasize &e significance of this one
word as a heuristic key tozthe entire speech.
How, then, do we explain the choice of the word paignion by someone
obviously quite careful in his writing? 1 think the question needs to be "un-
asked" or at least downplayed. Unlike many ancient texts, the speech appears
to be complete. There is plenty of textual material with which to work without
Rereading Gorgias' Helen 13 I
fter all, one might specu-
r 0f acoustical prefer-
elodious phrase men
which to end the performance -one can alrnost imagine Gorgias taking a
rgias' Helen, Plato provided the first definition
cess of describing a whole class of art: "So this
rly to al1 the members of this class; for none of
is practiced for any serious purpose, but al1 of them purely for play."9 We
no reason to believe that Gorgias would have agreed with such a one-
ork. Or, if he had, he would have insisted that
and inappropriate to place disproportionate
the purposes of interyreting the speech. If the
, at some point in time, lost this last Gord, the speech's impor-
as wrote and spoke a generation
Rhetoric was recognized as a distinct "discipline" upon the coining and
ssion of logos is more precisely
in general than as a "theory of
onetheless, it is obvious that
as significantly influenced the early theoretical articulation of the disci-
of Rhetoric by theorizing about the workings of persuasive discourse.
discipline is best understood
evolution of compositional techniques" (1993~42). If SO' then the Helen
role in that origin. Though,
eaking, Gorgias' Helen should not be labeled an "epideictic" speech
dvanced ifth-century B.C.E.
n prose composition;
s the writer of the speech,
132 Gorgias and the Disciplining of Discourse
probably inaugurating the prose genre of encomia, and by offering a secular
account of the workings of logos. There are many ways of making Gorgias'
Helen meaningful by reading it as a historical text and as source of inspiration
for contemporary Neosophistic theorists. As an addition to such readings,
describing the Helen as predisciplinary underscores the text's historical signifi-
cance, 1 hope, by situating it in the context of ifth-century Greek composi-
tional and theoretical practica and by avoiding the imposition of fourth-
century categories and expectations.
Rhetoric and Philosophy in On Not Being
Denying Be-ing, he says [it is] nothing; and i f [it] is, it is unknowable;
and if it is and [id knowable, it cannot be made evident to others.
O ~ K ~l v a gn7otv odSv. EI SYoziv, 6Eyvmzov ~Fvai. ~i SE ~ a i kmr mi
yvmv, &U ' od sii;IwtOv a(& 1s
(On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias 979a12-I 3 )
utline the different schools of interpretation of Gor-
' lost text known as On Not Being or On Nature (Peri tau mi! ontos Z peri
word esti as a prolegomenon to a detailed
cs. In diis chapte2 1 simply want to make the
point that it is impssible to translate, iet alone describe, Gorgias'
without imposing a particular interpretation. The syntax is ambig-
d one cannot translate the ever-present esti without nporting a pxkr-
for one teading or apother. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to alert
to a range of posible interpretations before providing an exegesis that
into five parts. 1 first discus &e extant versions of On
me of &e preliminary difficultes facing the
describe the disciplinary assumptions made
and rfretoAwl~diipe~1~~ons of On Not Being that have
) 1