« More on Aristotle | Main | Plato »
February 22, 2007
Gorgias
In Plato's dialogue, Gorgias explains to Socrates that rhetoric is the art concerned with speech, and that is deals with the greatest of human affairs, "the ability to persuade with speeches either judges in the law courts or statesmen in the council-chamber or the commons in the Assembly or an audience at any other meeting that may be held on public affairs…" (90). He then agrees with Socrates that the rhetorician is concerned only with "persuasion for belief, not for instruction in the matter of right and wrong" (92). This distinction, and the power of rhetoric to persuade to belief without an apparent concern for right or wrong, is at the heart of Plato's objection to rhetoric, and his objection to the teachers of that art. But Gorgias observes, as Blair would echo centuries later, that
our use of rhetoric should be like our use of any other sort of exercise…if a man becomes a rhetorician and then uses this power and this art unfairly, we ought not to hate his teacher and cast him out of our cities…it is the man who does not use it aright who deserves to be hated and expelled and put to death, not his teacher. (93). Gorgias was not merely a teacher of rhetoric, he was also a skilled speaker.
In order to display the power of words to persuade, he takes on the defense of Helen, arguing in part that she was swayed by the “powerful lord” of speech.
Gorgias begins by stating his purpose: “For my part, by introducing some reasoning into my speech, I wish to free the accused of blame and, having reproved her detractors as prevaricators and proved the truth, to free her from their ignorance” (44).
He outlines her lineage, and then sets up possible causes for Helen having been taken: “by will of Fate and decision of the gods and vote of Necessity…or by force reduced…or by words seduced…of by love possessed” (45). For each of these Gorgias offers a defense by which Helen cannot be considered guilty. Fate, the gods and force are all more powerful the human (in the latter case, he refers to rape), and love is either a force of the gods, or an affliction of the human soul, but in neither case is it a sin. And then there's speech, the key pupose for Gorgias's speech. He says, “if it was speech which persuaded her and deceived her heart, not even to this is it difficult to make an answer and to banish blame as follows. Speech is a powerful lord, which by means of the finest and most invisible body effects the divinest works: it can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity” (45). He compares the influence of speech to being "ravished by the force of the mighty” (45), and claims that “The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies” (46).
When he finishes the explanation, he offers a recap. Once again, Helen is excused because speech is so powerful: “It has been explained that if she was persuaded by speech she did not do wrong but was unfortunate” (46). And then he offers a conclusion that both recaps his purpose and congratulates himself on his success: “I have by means of speech removed disgrace from a women; I have observed the procedure which I set up at the beginning of the speech; I have tried to end the injustice of blame and the ignorance of opinion; I wished to write a speech which would be a praise of Helen and a diversion to myself” (46).
So he begins by saying he can, by speech, clear Helen's name, points out in the middle that each of his points, particularly the one about speech, is right, and at the end announces that he has accomplished his task. He never once seeks or secures the consent of the audience to this fact – I guess that comes after. But at the very beginning, he establishes this as an epideictic speech (of praise or blame) and seeks to shift blame to praise, or at least, to remove blame.
Works Cited:
Gorgias. “Encomium of Helen.” Bizzell & Herzberg. 44-46.
Plato. “Gorgias.” Bizzell and Herzberg. 87-138.
Posted by cageyer at February 22, 2007 03:15 PM