Rereading GorgUls' Helen

S,

I 15

1believe that recent developmentsin the historiography of the Sophists

Rereading Gorgias' Helen

Gorgias' Encomiwm of Helen (hereafterHelen) 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 nonrepresentationaltheory of language and meaning (Mourelatos 1985; Kerferd 1984). Despite the great interest the text has generated, there is remarkably 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. ResoIution of al1 of these issues is unnecessary and perhaps even undesirable. None
Scholars as diverse as Dodds (1959, g), Cole (1991a, 73)' Jebb (1893, cxxiv), and 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.
I.

a space from which to consider and visit the text anew. chapter offers a predisciplinary historical description of Gorgias' faspeech. 1 caii the description "predisciplinary" to indicate the belief that xts of fifth-century Greek writers, especially those by the figures comreferred 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, fifthry 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 AristotleysRhetoric. 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 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 1will 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 Gorlen as an "epideictic" speech is a somewhat misleading characterthe 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.
S

'

What 1s the Speech's Purposes'

'

Van Hook (1945,

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 I887, 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.

II 6

Gorgias cand the Disciplfningof Discourse

Rereading Gorgias'Helen

117

charge of deserting her husband, Menelaus, and running away with Paristhe 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 early Greek literat~re.~ Some have supposed that Gorgias' account may have been an w w e r to Euripides' or vice versa, but as D. M. MacDowell argues, "There is no resemblance in detais, and no strong reason to link GorgiasY discussion of Helen with anyone else's" (1982,12; see also Blass 1887,1:5 6-s7). Gorgias begins with a clear statemmt of purpose: his task is to remove, through reasoning (logismos),the mjust blame that Helen has received (I-4. After providing a brief account of her birth, personal qualities, and marriage (3-S), GoEgias posits a list of four posible causes behind Helen's departure to Troy: chance and the gods, physical force, persuasion by logos, or passion (6). He then addresses the four causes in u n ,arguing that each is such a powerful force that Helen should not be blamed for her behavior. The amount of space he spends o-n each cause is noteworthy: Gods and chance are dealt with in one paragraph (6), as is force (7), whde logos is addressed in seven (8-14) and passion in five (15-19). He then concludes by summarizing the causes and suggesting that he has accomplished his purpose (20-21). Beyond Gorgias' stated agenda, for what purpose was the discourse composed and performed? Most commentators categorize the Helen as epideictic rhetoric. The verb epideiknarnai is typicaiy translated as "to displaymor "to show)J> and epideixis denotes a particular exhibirion or demonstration. Since ancient wnters refer to Iie1.m as an epideictic address, it is commonly assumed that the purpose of Helm was primariy to show off Gorgias' oratorical abilities. Segal calls it a "mythological showpiece of rhetoric" and an "epideictic encomium" (1962, IOO), John Robinson dubs it a "display piece" (1973,s 3 1, Poulakos says that Gorgias i n the Helen "indulges in the delights afforded by epideictic rhetoricn (1986, ~ o I )and , Van Hook deems it an "epideictic . ~ O U de I force" (1945, 54). Jarratt classifies the Helen as "epideictic" and says that Gorgias "exploits the latitude offered by a rhetorical (1991,591. Scott Consigny argues that al1of Gorgias' speeches are categorized properly as epideictic and that Gorgias "uses the epideicticprimarily to advertise his own rhetorical skiiis" (1992,291). The purpose of Gorgias' display of
e

rowess, most commentators believe, was to attract more students tion of Helen as predisciplinary problematizes, though does not ject, such a conclusion. To begin with, it is not at al1 clear that nt texts ought to be limited by the apparently mutually exclusive ilosophy or Rhetoric. Certainly in the past the Helen has been in just such a limiting fashion. Though often cited in histories of Helen is rarely, if ever, mentioned in histories of Greek philosoed earlier, categorizing texts from the fifth century B.C.E. exclutoric or Philosophy often risks anachronism. The question is, rgias' speeches supposed to accomplish? Were they "display" nded solely to entertain? Were they intended to be, at least in es, efforts to theorize about issues later labeled "philosophical"? S of the text that privilege one feature of the text over the other e obvious answer that Gorgias' texts -like anyone else's -pomultiple functions. Locating the text as predisciplinary gives us sitate before describing and assessing it wj$ specific, disciplinary le, 1believe that it is inappropriate to confine Helen to the Aristof epideictic rhetoric. Even though one can refer to a ~erformance rgias as an epideixis, and despite the morphological link beand epideiktikz, identifying Gorgias' Helen as an "epideictic" ewhat misleading. Assignment of fifth-century texts to a specific urse may presume a greater degree of genre-related compositions than were the case during Gorgias' career. Aristotle's wellefold taxonomy of Rhetoric was not codified until his lectures, es after Gorgias' death (Kennedy 1991, 299-305 ). Accordingl~, m with characterizing Helen as epideictic is that a discrete genre of ,rhetoric is not clearly identified as such until well into the fourth , E . Aristotle's conceptual formulation of epideictic rhetoric is alinly original. The earliest extant use of the word epideiktikd is in hist (224b5), where it is used to describe "the art of display" that 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 fourth-century Sophists and has been applied only with hindof the previous century. Epideiktik might have been yet another o f Plato's original construction of an -ik word to designate a s~ecific ii (Arnmann 1953; Chantraine I ~ s ~ , ~ ~ - I s I ) . ntends that the word "epideictic" is part of a later developed staninology that has its roots in the "preanalytic stage" of the history of

2 . Frank J. Groten's study (1955) of various treatmof the Helen legend in Greek literatute makes it clear that Gorgias was not the first to argue that Helen was blarneless. Fuahermore, the rnany previous sympathetic treatments of Helen cal1 into question the claim that Gorgias' Helen was an unprecedenred effoa to "radically reconstruct" historY to "dislodge a mythic source for misogynism" (Jarratt 1991, 74). For a reading that argues Gorgias' Heien "reiteratesin oratorical discothe general trend toward f u d f l subjugationof women" in ancient Greece, see Biesecker (1990'77).

118

Gorgiasami the Discipliningof Discourse

RereaBng Gorgiasnaen rrs, including "phiiosophers" such as Parmenides, Empedocles, and Hems. Gosgias adapted and transformed poetic styles and genres of compmiand 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 rhetorid goals and forms of corhposition that soon would be sepaby l a t a prose writers. Isocrates' comment (Helen 14-1 5 ui Van Hook r, 67) ahout the competing needs of apologia and encomia would ha%
) argues that epideicticrhetoric played an important

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 i n 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 ceremonial 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. 1noted earlier that epideiknunui is typically translated as "to display" or "to show." 1 should add that the same is true of shorter verb deiknunai. Other meanings include "to bring to light" and "to show forth." The noun deikdon can designate a specificexhibition. The meaning of the preposition 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, toward, and against. The question becomes: Why was the preposition epi- compounded 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 "diargument is correct, then what later would splayed" or re-presented. If CoIeYs 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 Gorgias' 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 century later. Gorgias would not have felt any tension between writing a theoretical "versus" an epideicticspeech, 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 t o instruct- just like o a e r early Greek

nt Greek culture. The funeral oration (epitaphios), wcular, is credited with creating an "exuaordinary," transcendent edge for its participants, generating a saong sewe of community, and behavior toward accepted norms. Similarly Perelman and Olbrechtsb-suggest that the functi& of epideictic rhetoric is not to change beliefs the adherence to values held in c o m n by the 59, 52). There is no evidence tly&-a~y of these and speaker" (19 - -- kves are (phsuedby 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 that would be conducive to perbrming ritualistic functions. Rather cluding that Gorgias is somehow a "failed" epideictic speaker, as psuggests (1887, 1:68), a description o f He& as predisciplinary chalt o epideictic's formalization by Aristotlehave been expected to ncrease adherence to k&ty values.or perform ritualistic functions. W r consequence of redescribing &e speech as predisciplinary is that that presume Rhetoric was a discrete disciw1y demarcad body of literature are anachronistic. The clearest $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). Adan analogical reading of Helen as Rhetoric based on "historical and l d grounds," he notes that "both are attractive, both are unfaithful, and a v e a bad reputation" (1983 b, 4-5). is dubious history on three counts. First, the avalable the Greek word for Rhetoric-rh8torikZ- had not yel

racn

G ~ r gd b A i P&i@I%ng h ofDknmrse

Rereadi~g Gorgias' Helen

12 I

h 6kx@s1 w o t e Hdm (asdiscwed in ehapm 1 ) . Or, even if rb&mkw;as iai use*nt w ~ d have d k n so n o d a t rbce & e a t o m&e pretext unnecessary and the da&on mswcwful. Seco4 Psulrrkos' "ihistorical explaa1atiom" of &e n s d forpretezct an b&K o$;orgla$ kweak,<He claims that *Gor@asIIIUS~have been a o l &e &&nian p r t c t h s of urtderance; frequmt b a r r i s k ~ an$ s condemnatiatls, &e h'rriag o f Ih&s in public, and m~mrmmi~tion by: s ;d e r n w have dicta& that'he 'approachhis task indimljy" (rp$3bi 77. Sqch a o h a r a ~ b a t i a %~;essly n eaaiggerate Athenian "inas the burntoierance" andprcsumes that eertain p w d y attested hgtd8,
@.ti cained w

actical Contributions of Gorgias' Helen

tce the disciplinary expectationsand nomenclature of classical rhetorare set aside, Gorgias' role as an innovator in prose composition is %gY discernible. There are no extant examples of a prose composition orgias' Helen (Blass 1887,1:72; Duncan ). It is not until after Gorgias' death in the fourth century B.C.E. that to Alexander describing "rules for the notes, "enkmion and enkmiazein are century of formal praise in prose or verse, but in ifthis especially a poem celebrating someone's victory" ). Such use is found in Pindar, Hesiod, and Aristophanes, but not ~ r i t e rThough .~ it is posible that "encomium" was added to the at some later date, Gorgias explicitly calls his discourse "an enal sentence of the speech -a self-referencesuggestgias was aware of the relationship between his speech and the robable inference is that Gorgias helped to inaugtion of prose encomia that was infamous less than a c&y@ry later, osigm (177a-c) that speeches of praise had been subjects as diverse as Heracles and salt. It does not really matter d now classify Gorgias' speech as apologia or a rhetorical "hythan as an encomium. It is not unusual for writers to contribute to genres in ways that they did not, and could not,
E

filg of Pro@&ras9 b&ks, me' m e (see 'DoT~~' 1976; stone 19823, 23 1-47; S c k p p a 1991% 1 4 4 & . Tiiird, if & r e b d been srn mgent.need for pretext, Gaig&d S & ~rtdci& would have fagd PouIah &$es the names of Arismphmed pkiq&vqpa l%k@s, aad 8hk &&wmpla @f&ea&tic masking of as anything p c l n p e > but &e= was no &~~ &@ p4~right's @gdfic p@&Iri&s nsd pdiikclim (Daver, 197%)&ma g 1 B e~ w & M h & -m, h r mample,e ; * ridSn1.d by h i ~ o p h a n e even s & * p r h p s wen k a s e -elk.obS W I s l h g in th.aiu&ence! Likewise, &e pwex o f s-peeebk m expi5cIt &d develqd heme& & & If i there h .had beri h a d ' e i . ~ m e n ~ s~' b l~ ain ~ t A&eds,.k isph& ~mhkely that they w d km ~ s d & - ~ ~ o t g i a s "hamless and r i o n t h r w t ~ g simply because he ~mirted t k d~'I&&~rk.'' k%er & ,G&~c& )thc T m t ' s alleged E a s & disc~ms k a r u c W is;.deseriM by byciphm a$ is prohibition of

o l*

h h d j &Whezdi ( H Q ~ X & 1 .&.a 1)" Po&m,'&f co~r@e,~fs n ~ th r i d y m dxo hm r e d Hdw as being priG ~ g i aanceptualized s an m d y a:BOei2 Rfx~wic.3 %kde&xs' sli~&fs " q tof r k r i c " m a n d &at:iwmp4>s& H d e &e ~ analbe b e e n rhetoric "d-Ly pmpmd&&tesi n &S mndw (I@I, r 1+6-17).And de Romd m f * , ktieves that HeIa"sdkfeme is a p r e t fer ~ a de$- of Gorgias' Artt ~bf lHele~ p i ra ~my p i d e &&e Master of RhetWdder t k overemphasia O.MC.~SU& kripti@ns ase &derdr~e%mind bythe q and wn.tnbutims of the text, w@ and r n * d c ~ h & OII~ o$ prurp,a~~s
t h q under;&mae
Q:&~Eposik,zgendas.

ele en is also noteworthy for being an early and masterful example

of argument by which an advocate enumerates a series esses each in turn. Kennedy's description merits quotain which Gorgias seeks to justify the choice of raiseworthy and defend the maligned- he have yielded to Paris either through fate or the ,or else she was ravaged by force or persuaded by words or umed to exist. Each of those trated by what Aristotle ple within the lirnits of probability that in each ction. The most interesting discussion is .), where Gorgiasdevelops an analysis of psy-

.',

3. To b fair, a b r h&m offm explicitly " h i ~ t t ~ r i d grom& ' for bis reading, he m t s in his 9 n c 1 t i s i ~ ro &e pwi- tbit Iikk 7rmp be ru" as a definse @f rheqric, r ~ ( i 1 e sof s whether the Hdenlaet~ric a n w %en massed his [~orgia~'! dnd" (1983b). de fiert du make de rhtorique 4, *SOUS b justification d"Hielene pene un R o d y 1988, roj). Jan&L1oy.d tr@ates this as Wnder t k e w of justifying tj~entastw of rhetoric prdaims & p i e in E r i s skifls" i d e R ~ & ~ & 0 6 7 See ) .a t , ~ . h d 4 y (93988,1081,8hpta (rgxti;96-3 7 ) :and -3r

g ~ o ~ h a n eClouds s, line 1205 (Rogers1924, ~ 3 7 4 )Hesiod, ; Works and Days hlyn-White 1936,281;Pindar, O l ~ ~ 2.47, k n 10.77, 13.29; Pythian 10.53; k z a 1.7 (Sandys 1937).

Rereading Gorgias' Helen

123

chological effects.The speech ends with a brief conclusion echoing the stptemmts 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 hhis famousdscussion of being. He refers to the lide work as a logismos o, "reasoning" i n section two, and this seems entirelp appropriate. . . . It is playful in mood, but it also has a seriaus purpose i n dernonstrating a method of logid p m f . (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 paralle1iR anc&nt Greek discourse berween the transition from poetic m prase st!yl$s and &e gradual proliferation of modes of reasoning Because many texts 01this era tend to combine elements of "rationalistic" prose and " m y t h i ~ poetry, ~ there is a tendency t'o see such a "mixed" style as a f a d t of the rather than e v i d k of rapid dianges i n modes of cornpositia. For exam$+"~armenides trieil to put &e meter of Hoderic poetry (epic hexamer) to the kmice of philosophical analysls. Thougl some commentatots praisb Parmenides' abilities to express himself i h verse, others argue that syntax of i poetry were very m d h in tension with his goals the vocabuIaq & and that Parmenides had to skggle to adapt his' ideas to an unsuitable meGorgias w k similarly situated in and i"RnuenCea by an oral-poetic culture. Gorgias' unique prose was transforming &e uses to which prose discourse was being p u thereby ~ contributng to what is &en called the transition from mythm to iogos (Nestie I 966). Gorgias says in his introduction that " 1wish to offer reasoning by particular argurnents to f r d &e aaused of blame, to reveal'tliat her cntics are lying, and to show the truth and to halt the ignorante" (2)? his significant that Gorgias i d d e s "reasoning" (logismos)as his methd. togismos is not a very common 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 o d y once-to make fun of rational argutationi n the plays of Euripides ( h g s973.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 impenetrableobscurity." The most thorough discussions of parmenides' 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~ 4 5 al~ug, 6E p&p<po&ouq ~m&pvou~ xdecag ~ a6&%aq i z d q e k [fl] xai3oal. 4 6 dpaea~ (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 aiterationsby the author.

#-

. the 1
;tyle

iden

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" 1do not mean to imply that Gorgiaswas

BJ 1 "r: rhw
3iffe Soq 'nor :om :o G indc foq :en
'ett

" 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

well. "8 4 DOM :he r

S ' "argumentation is didactic, obvious, and academic" (BarHis arrangement of arguments is "remarkably orderly and "; his introductory forecast, clear transitions, and summarizcould serve as a model for persuasive speeches today (Maccontrasts the beginning of Helen with Parmenides' famous poem, and cono reveal "vastly different" styles of composition:

tement of authoriaYrhetorica1purpose; 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 complea 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 Discipliningof Discourse

Rereading Gorgius' Helen

125

excitement. Thus in Helen, Gorgias stmctured an 'adversary' relationship among ideas in testing arguments. . .Through form, Gorgias built in agitation and competition of reasons; form contributed to substance" (1987~17). Finaily, it should be noted that Gorgias identifies himself as a writer -a selfidentification Siat is very rare and unusual for a fifth-century author. Gorgias ends his speech with the words: Y wished t o write a speech as Helen's encomium 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 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 combination of an epic theme, a highly poetic sryle, systematic reasoning, and selfconscious writing provides reason to doubt "great divide" theories that pit oral/mythological "versus" literatefrationalisticstylesand mindsets as wholly distinct. Such schemata simply do not work when one examines the texts of 1-61). various Sophists (Jarratt 1991~3 The practica1 conaibutions of Gorgias' Helm can be summarized best by describing them as advancing the art of written prose4in general, and argumentative composition in particular. Though the subject mamr is ostensibly mythical, the modus operandi of the discourse suppJements the qualities of maditional, oral-poetic composition with such humanistic-rationalisticpractices as the apagogic method of argiunent. Flnaily, it is possible that Gorgias helped to inaugurate the practice of composing encomium in prose.

ally, 1 address severa1 hermeneutic practices that have obscured the ways Gorgias' Helen affected the content and practice of later g. 1 want to identify those features of classical-era theoretical texts aical, concrete "problem solutions" -the methods or procedures of

century B.C.E. it enacted a novel means of thinking. In short, in to asking the question "What did Gorgias say?," we need to ask d his speech do?" Advancing new ways of thinking about the world is

misleading. There is a tendency to read even a few sentences about So, for example, Duncan titles his article "Gorgias' Theories of Art"

Theoretical Contributions: Explicit and lmglicit

My intent in this section is not to provide a detailed commentary on the text, which already has been done admirably by MacDowell(1982), ThomaS Buchheim (1989), and others. Nor will 1 attempt the s o a of extended argument that outlines and defends a specific Gorgianic theory of this or that based on Gorgias' extant texts. Instead, in this seaion 1 focus on the portion of the 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 in ancient Greek. Throughout this section 1leave logos untranslated SO as to avoid overly modernistic or reductionistic renderings. In most M-ten Sophistic texts the term is meant quite broadly, as with the current term ' course." Because the term is often set in opposition to mythos, "reaso

says that Gorgias held a "theory of knowledge" (1981, 116)~ and Gronbeck (1972) believes Gorgias defended a specific "theory of ' consistent with contemporary existential phenomenology. ments are potentially misleading in two ways. First, they overestimaturity of theory development by implying more coherence and ess than can be demonstrated with the available evidence. The term
ry" is made up of a constellation of beliefs that attempts to solve

r a t a the degree of development of a person's thought to impute to a full-blown "theory of X" on the basis of one or two sentences that certain qualities about a given X. Accordingly, it is more appropriate

126

Gorgh and the Disciplining of Discourse

Rereading Gorgh' Heien

127

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 investigationin ancient Greece during the sixth and fifth centuries. By the late fourth cennirg, the scientific and philosophical vocabulary, 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. However, 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 "scientific" investigationto take place. As Somsen sugges&in his study of the fifthcentury 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 explanations 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 sophistication 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~lanation 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

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 reief 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. i n 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 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 inducsure, 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, stylisures 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' acles that speakers have a "self-conscious relation" to their speech 991, 57). As de Romilly points out, Gorgias "was deliberately shiftc 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

every subject, had memory of the past and knowledge of the present and foresight of the future, logos would not do what it does, but as things are it is easy neirher to remember the past nor consider the present nor predict the future; so that on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the gsyche. But opinion, being slippery and insecure, casts those relying on it into slippery and insecure fortune" (1 1). Gorgias then spends the equivalent of two paragraphs arguing that Helen is blameless because logos is so powerful that its use amounts to the use of force (in Greek, bia). First, he identiies logos as the powerful vehicle of peitho, persuasion: "What is there to prevent the conclusion that Helen too, when still young, was carried off by logos just as if constrained by force? Her mind was swept away by persuasion, and persuasion has the same power as necessity (anagks), although it may bring shame. For logos, by persuading the psyche that it persuaded, constrained her both to obey what was said and to approve what was done. The persuader, as user of force, did wrong; the persuaded, forced by iogos, is unreasonably blamed" (12). Second, he proves just how powerful logos can be by providing a series of examples of how easily humans are persuaded by competing logoi: To understand that persuasion, joining with logos, is wont to stamp the psyche as it wishes one must study, first, the arguments of the astronomers who, substituting opinion for opinion, removing one and instilling another, 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 argument, written with ski11 but not spoken with truth, pleases a large audience and persuades; third, the debates of rival philosophers, in which swiftness of thought is also exhibited, making belief in an opinion easily changed. (13) The key contribution made here is the act of raising a provocative theoretical question: When does persuasion amount to force? The question is both unusual and interesting because Greek literature prior to Gorgias usually treated persuasion and force, peith6 and bia, as antithetical. As John T. Kirby puts it, " Iwill try to persuade you, but, faiiing that, 1 will force you. Such a disjunction is rooted in our most fundamental concepts of civilization. The wild beasts settle their disputes by bia; it is a mark of our hurnaniry, we feel, that we can use persuasion to effect change, that we are not limited to the use of coercion" (1990, 215). Kirby suggests that "the peitho/bia axis is at the basis of some of our most ancient literary and rhetorical formulations" (1990, 216; see also Buxton 1982, 58-63). From the standpoint of intellectual history, it is arguably the case that Gorgias' questioning of a taken-for-granted

hotomy is a more important step in developing new modes of inquiry than

y particular claim Gorgias makes about logos, peitb6, or bia. , In the process of describing the persuasive/forceful workings of logos, Gor-

as develops an analogy that proved to be influential: "The power of logos has same effect on the condition of the psyche as the power of drugs to the ture of the body; for just as different drugs dispel different secretions from body, and some bring an end to disease and others to life, so also in the case logos -some bring pain, others pleasure, some bring fear, others instill age in the hearers, and some drug and bewitch the psyche with a kind of 1persuasion" (14). De Romilly contends that "Gorgias' magic is technical. wants to emulate the power of the magician by a scientific analysis of nd its inflnence. He is the theoretician of the magic spell of words" . Gorgias theorizes in this case by drawing the analogy to the iningly secular, "rational," and "scientific" art of medicine (1975,~o). The alogy functioned paradigmatically in the sense that both Plato's Gorgias later sought to explain the art of persuasion by comd Aristotle's R h e t o ~ c ing it to the developing art of medicine. Gorgias' effort(,# analogy may m sirnplistic by contrast to the relatively sophisticated vocabulary and theoAristotle or the late dialogues of Plato, but the analysis provided by ater theorists would not have been possible without the efforts of intelals such as Gorgias. sed on the passages in Helen that discuss logos and passages in other Goric texts, theorists have likened claims in Gorgias' texts to contemporary etic, psychological, and speech-act theories of language. Such readi roduced conflicting accounts of Gorgias' description of logos amo^ 1 will not try to arbitrate. There are at least five distinct categories of gsr psychological (Segal), magical (de Romilly 1975), epistemological 1976; Gronbeck 1972; Untersteiner 1954)~dramatistic (Verdenius ; Rosenmeyer 195 S), and sematological (Mourelatos 19 85; Kerferd ). Each reading tends to tease out o f selected phrases a distinct theory of language, rhetoric, and so on. As inte;sting and helpful as these treatare, 1think the "content" of Gorgias' account is remarkably straightforand stands on its own. Though it is useful to interpret and reposition S' a m u n t into contemporary terminology, Helen also deserves to be stood, insofar as it is possible, in its original context, and appreciated for it contributed to its own generation of intellectuals. Once so positioned, "idea," per se, but a find its most profound influence is not a icked up by a later author, o r a problem he poses. In terms of the tory of rhetorical theory, we must remember that the writing of systematic

''=

130

Gorgias and the Disciplining of Discourse

Rereading Gorgias' Helen

13 I

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.

fter all, one might specur 0f acoustical preferelodious phrase men which to end the performance-one can alrnost imagine Gorgiastaking a

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 typically translated as "trifle," "recreation," or "diversionn; the most literal transiation 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 Gorgias 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). Hehich Gomperz even uses &e appearance of the word pai&n in H e h to interpret other works by -most notably the treatise Gorgias as examples of joke-speech (Scberzrede) 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 c o d r 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 discourse 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 "unasked" 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 rgias' Helen, Plato provided the first definition cess of describing a whole class of art: "So this rly to al1the 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 oneork. 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 disciof 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 significance, 1 hope, by situating it in the context of ifth-century Greek compositional and theoretical practica and by avoiding the imposition of fourthcentury 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 [ i dknowable, it cannot be made evident to others. O ~~ K l v agn7otv odSv. EI SYoziv, 6Eyvmzov ~Fvai. ~iS E ~ a kmr i m i y v m v , &U 'od sii;IwtOv a(& 1 s (OnMelissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias 979a12-I 3 )

utline the different schools of interpretation of Gor-

' lost text known as On Not Being or O n Nature (Peri tau mi! ontos Zperi
word esti as a prolegomenon to a detailed
cs. In diis chapte2 1 simply want t o make the

point that it is impssible to translate, iet alone describe, Gorgias' without imposing a particular interpretation. The syntax is ambigd one cannot translate the ever-present esti without nporting a pxkrfor one teading or apother. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to alert to a range o f posible interpretations before providing an exegesisthat into five parts. 1first 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