Gorgias’ speeches, the Helen and the Palamedes, are illustrative of the growing awareness of the rules and regulations that form the basis of an effective speech and that will later develop into the system of rhetoric. Each discourse as a whole displays a clear structure. Beginning and end are marked off by an introduction and an epilogue. The main theme is clearly defined and developed into a number of subthemes, each dealt with in a separate section.
The Palamedes contains Palamedes’ defense against a charge of high treason and is structured as follows:
1-5 introduction and statement of main theme 6-21 arguments based on the issue itself 22-27 arguments directed towards the accuser (Odysseus) 28-32 arguments addressed at the judges 33-37 epilogue
Each section is functional in the overall speech. Introduction and epilogue serve to create the desired emotional state in the audience (the judges) and to underline the significance of the case at hand. In Sections 6-21, the argumentation in the strict sense, one finds the speaker (Palamedes) dealing with the facts of the case. Sections 22-27 and 28-33 are directed ad hominem: Odysseus is attacked on the basis of his personality, and the judges are appealed to on the basis of their personal interest. The Palamedes is tailored to the concrete situation of an accused called upon to defend himself before a panel of judges, and is thus an example of a judicial speech. All the elements present in it belong to the basic style of the genos dikanikon or judicial genre of later rhetoric.
The Helen, although also a speech of defense, differs from the Palamedes in that this speech explicitly has the intention of praise (3-5, 21). The speech has the following structure:
1-2 introduction 3-5 descent and beauty of Helen 6-19 arguments based on the issue itself 20-21 epilogue
The focus of the speech is to provide all possible explanations for Helen’s behaviour. She is held responsible (unjustifiably, according to the speaker) for the Trojan War with all its horrors. Most emphasis is given to the persuasive power of speech (logos, 8-14) and love (eros, 15-19) as exculpating factors. The speech seems to be a mixture of rhetorical types: one finds elements typical of the defense speech, but Sections 3-5 clearly derive from the tradition of speeches of praise with the mention of noble descent and beauty of Helen.
The development of the reasoning in both speeches seems to be consciously methodical. In both speeches Gorgias makes use of a central method or strategy that subdivides the main issue into a number of hypothetical subthemes. Each of these is tested for their tenability by means of logic and considerations of probability. If they appear to be (un)tenable, it can be concluded that the main theme is (un)tenable. Thus Palamedes’ guilt and Helen’s responsibility can be refuted. This method, known as apagoge, is applied by Gorgias in such a way that the speaker begins by enumerating all possible arguments of the case, and subsequently demonstrates the untenability of each and every one. The attractiveness of this strategy lies not only in the fact that in using (quasi-)logical compulsion the main charge is refuted but also that by the enumeration and systematical treatment of all of the potential arguments a sense of completeness can be achieved that reinforces the final conclusion.
The use of argument in this way reflects the acknowledgment that in deciding an issue the role of doxa or opinion is crucial. Humankind lives in a contingent world, in which the state of affairs or (lack of) facts alone more often than not is not sufficient to reach a clear decision on an issue. Given these circumstances Gorgias introduces two major features of argumentation in his speeches. First, there is the reasoning on the basis of probability (eikos). If decisive proof is lacking, the question of fact or the interpretation of fact depends on criteria of comparison with what the person or persons called upon to judge take to be the case or the state of affairs generally. Their criteria are based on experience and commonly accepted knowledge about human behaviour, and the expectations they have on the basis of this. Secondly, the unclarity of the issue at hand demands the application of distinctions that can serve as points of departure in the speech. In later rhetoric, four legal defense-strategies were developed, known as staseis (‘basic positions’): did the accused factually perpetrate the act he is charged with or not, if the act is confessed, how should it be legally defined (e. g., murder, manslaughter, etc.), how should the act be morally estimated (killing a tyrant differs from killing a good king), and are the judges or the court competent to judge the case? Distinctions such as these are, to a certain extent, implied in Gorgias’ speeches. They can be viewed as model speeches for two of these basic positions: the mythological causes cellbres Palamedes and Helen serve as exemplary cases.
The Palamedes deals with the issue of whether or not Palamedes is guilty of high treason. According to myth and literary tradition he was falsely accused by Odysseus and unjustly condemned. Gorgias follows the tradition, but does not allow the judges certainty about the facts: did Palamedes in fact commit the act he is accused of (first stasis)? This lack of clarity enables Palamedes to make abundant use of probability. He refutes the argument of financial advantage by pointing out that he is a rich man (15). Similarly he deals with the motifs of honour, self-preservation, friendship and selfinterest (16-19). The sequence of arguments seems to be based on a generally accepted view of motifs for human behaviour and an interest in the psychological factors behind them. Gorgias makes use of the existing patterns of expectation with respect to human behaviour in the application of probability.7 Furthermore, the didactic purpose of the speech seems reflected by passages such as Section 4, where as part of the introduction Palamedes asks himself questions on how to proceed with his speech: ‘Where shall I start? What shall I say first? To what section shall I turn first?’ Thus stages of invention (heuresis) seem to be understood, such as the need for an effective opening, the selection of potential subject-matter, and an awareness of the different parts of a speech and their functionality.
The Helen takes its point of departure from mythological tradition as well. It seems that Helen’s responsibility for the Trojan War was part of that tradition: already in the Iliad that question is raised (3.164; cf. Euripides, Troades 914-1032). It is precisely on this issue, Helen’s responsibility (second stasis), that Gorgias focuses. The fact itself of Helen being unfaithful to her husband and of sailing to Troy is a given. In the refutation section (6-19) four possible explanations are offered for Helen’s departure with the Trojan prince Paris. It was the will of the gods or of fate, she was physically overpowered and abducted, she succumbed to the power of speech, or she was rendered defenseless by the power of love. The latter argument resumes the topic of Helen’s beauty in the eulogy section of 3-5, where it is described how it created strong desire in many men and thus became the cause of great things performed by many. The effect of beauty in the strong emotion of eros or desire is now applied to Helen herself, and she becomes exemplary for the irresistible power of beauty and its concomitant effect of desire. Overall the defense is based on the notion of force majeure: in all cases Helen was overcome by a superior force and therefore cannot be held responsible for her actions. She does not deserve the bad reputation she has acquired. Finally, at the close of the speech (21) Gorgias seems to suggest that it is not to be taken seriously: ‘It was my intention to write the speech as an encomium of Helen, and an amusement for myself’. Here Gorgias proves himself to be a true sophist. This ambivalence, in providing the speech with an open end, is typical of the playful intelligence practiced by the sophists. The mixture of seriousness and playfulness, and the open ending, remind one of Socrates in his aporetic dialogues as portrayed by Plato. Mentioning playfulness does not imply that the speech is reduced to meaningless wordplay. If this game is played earnestly, the fictional case of Helen becomes a valuable exemplary realisation of Gorgias’ views on the power of speech. The closing sentence, therefore, is saying that (almost as a prefiguration of postmodern philosophy) the speech is to be taken both seriously and not.8
One of the four arguments exonerating Helen is that she was persuaded and her mind deceived by speech (logos). The spoken word aiming at persuasion switches off the free will of the hearer by aiming at and manipulating his emotions. Persuasion takes the form of deceit: the word used is apate, etymologically ‘leading astray’. The term refers to the phenomenon that the hearer, himself notwithstanding, is diverted from his way of thinking and his mind is changed.9 In describing the power of speech, which is ‘a mighty ruler’ (8), Gorgias first points at poetry (poiesis) and its comparable capability of affecting the emotions of an audience because ‘into those who hear (poetry) comes fearful fright and tearful pity and mournful longing, and at the successes and failures of the affairs of others and of other persons the mind is affected, through words ( dia ton logon), by a suffering of its own’ (9). Furthermore, he compares the healing power of incantations (10), the impact of arguments by astronomers, the contest of speeches as regulated in court, and the suggestive and quick-minded debates of philosophers as instances of the power of speech. The explanation for this extraordinary power lies in the fact that, according to Gorgias, humankind necessarily in most cases has recourse only to belief (doxa) to make up its mind (11).10 But belief or opinion is ‘slippery and unreliable’ (11) and therefore easily manipulated by speech. It can exercise compulsion on the mind by manipulating the emotions and thus constitutes a superior power.
It seems that in his observations of the power of speech Gorgias also looked at the theatre, where persuasive speech is present and where its emotional effects are obvious. He recognized in dramatic performances, and probably especially in the interactions between characters, a rhetorical situation (to use a modern term) similar to the arena of the lawcourts and the Assembly. His observation is quoted by Pseudo-Plutarch: ‘Gorgias said that tragedy is deceit ( apate), wherein the one who deceives is more correct than the one who does not deceive, and the one who is deceived is more wise than the one who is not deceived’ ( On Listening to the Poets 15c-d). In another passage, Pseudo-Plutarch uses the same quotation, and adds an explanation, which runs as follows: ‘ . . . and indeed the one who deceives is more correct, because he does what he promises; and the one who is deceived is more wise, because that which is not insensible is easily carried away by the pleasure of words’ ( On the Glory of the Athenians 348c). The point Gorgias is making, according to Pseudo-Plutarch (probably correctly), is that the audience should hold the illusionary reality of the stage for the time of the performance for a kind of truth. This does not amount to falseness, because both parties involved, poet and audience, voluntarily and consciously partake in the mechanics of the dramatic illusion. The poet produces an illusory reality in which the audience can ‘believe’.11
The connecting element between tragedy and rhetoric is apate (‘deceit’). The power of speech is irresistible and audiences will submit to it, even if this process does not develop by force. Rather, an audience will succumb to that power willingly, as if under a kind of spell. It is relevant to note that from Homer onwards the enchanting power of rhetoric, as represented by the goddess Peitho, is connected with the power of love. One of the thelkteria or charms in the brassiere of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, is oaristus parphasis or the capacity of gently talking the partner’s head off. This capacity of love to ‘take over’, its irresistible force, receives ambivalent qualifications.12 To be overcome by love has its positive sides, but the take-over will more often than not result in a deterioration of the person thus affected. At most, being in love is a mixed blessing: in the words of Sappho, glukupikron ‘bittersweet’.
The magical and enchanting aspect of persuasive speech obviously interested Gorgias a great deal. It seems reasonable to assume that his decision to formulate his doctrine of apate in an encomium on Helen, the most beautiful of women and the embodiment of seduction and desire, was a very conscious one. Even though the keyword apatee seems to be borrowed from Parmenides in a conscious polemic with his epistemology, it also belongs to the verbal domain of eres. In Sophocles’ Antigone we encounter the phrase apata kouphonoon eroton (‘the deceit of blithe and careless desires’), which refers to the cheating of men by desire. Thus, apate also carries a connotation of seduction, and therefore the argument drawn from its power is all the more appropriately exemplified in an apology of Helen.13
In search of an illustrative example of apate in the sphere of skillful speech as envisaged by Gorgias, one can refer to the famous speech by Sinon at the gates of Troy, as recounted by Vergil (Aeneid 2.57-198).14 Aeneas tells the story of how the Trojans, after the Greeks have besieged their city for ten years, one day discovered that they had gone. The evident facts as they present themselves to the Trojans are as follows: the Greek ships have departed, there is a giant wooden horse left on the beach, and a Greek, by the name of Sinon, is captured. After being brought before the Trojans, Sinon addresses the Trojans, skillfully using speech. He interprets the obvious facts on behalf of the Trojans. On the basis of the evidence he constructs a plausible whole that plays on the feelings of pity and piety of the Trojans and which will capture their minds, taking over their capacity for judgment. In fact, the ships have not retreated but are in hiding; the horse is a concealed personnel-carrier and not an offering; and Sinon is a Greek operative and not a pitiable refugee. Sinon offers the Trojans an alternative reality, a plausible whole based on skillful speech - cf. Gorgias, Helen, 13, ‘a single speech pleases and persuades a large crowd because written with skill, not spoken with truth’. Sinon’s speech has created an illusion, a separate reality which appeals to the Trojans. As spectators in the theatre, but in this case to their fatal detriment, they believe in this illusion, because their emotions and feelings make them to want to believe. The story of Sinon can be taken to exemplify Gorgias’ words that ‘speech is a powerful ruler’ (Helen 8).15
World History
