Helen: the in-depth perspective

Considering that few people in our class seem to have enjoyed Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen", I decided to give it another chance, now that I have a better understanding of rhetoric in general.

Recognizing first that Gorgias is a sophist - skilled in the ways of persuasion, I recognized that he used several of the skills that Aristotle pointed out. He defends Helen using judicial oratory as the story of her fate occurred centuries before him. He sets it up like a court case, and makes an interesting point in that it is needed to visit this subject, as we humans seldom learn from the past and thereby repeat our mistakes.

"For if all people possessed memory concerning all things past, and awareness of all things present, and foreknowledge of all things to come, discourse would not be similarly similar; hence it is not now easy to remember the past or consider the present or foretell the future;"

Gorgias use of hyperbole to magnify her tragic life may be
impressive, but it doesn't convince many.

Gorgias then uses a common but classic combination in his argument. He uses amplification for each of his points to Helen's alleged innocence, but adds hyperbole with them, exaggerating Helen with finesse to convince for his cause. He describes her as a goddess on earth, who could woo all men with the same skill as Aphrodite. He dramatizes the event of her betrayal and victimizes her, each time elaborating on another use of rhetoric that Courtney described in her post: Cause and effect.

From this, I conclude that the man was indeed skilled in understanding the many underlying powers that rhetoric possesses - even before a time when they were catagorized, which does add a bit of credibility in my eyes. Sadly, his work fails to bring up any kairos and there is also a significant lack of ethos which fail once again to convince me of her innocence.