Helen Revisited

After rereading Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen with the new outlook of someone who has read Aristotle, I was able to pick up on things that I had missed before. For example, the Encomium is actually the perfect example of how to practice telling the difference between Antecedent/Consequence and Cause/Effect, both under the Relationship Topic of Invention, simply because there are so many examples of each.

Cause/Effect

              Helen was born of noble parentage SO she had godlike beauty

              Helen was young SO she could easily be overpowered or persuaded

              The above sayings are true SO I, Gorgias, have proven my point

Antecedent/Consequence

              IF the gods made her do it THEN she is innocent

              IF she was taken by force THEN she is the victim

              IF she was persuasively deceived THEN she should be acquitted

Testimony?

Under scrutiny, the Encomium becomes less of a concrete argument and more of an artistic proof because Gorgias rhetorically created the speech himself. He does not have any witnesses, authorities, or documents proving him correct. He does reference the gods, but only in attempt to expound on one of his antecedents. Some of his information is based on rumors, but since he addresses all of the stories people have said concerning Helen instead of using rumors as proof, I do not think that is enough of a testimony to take away from the artistic nature of his proof.

Katie also talked about the apparent lack of testimony in her blog and I think that this topic lends itself to a discussion on kairos. Since Gorgias wasn’t actually trying to defend Helen, who had long since died, the question becomes what was his intended audience and purpose? If he is truly just trying to show off his rhetorical skills as a form of personal advertisement, maybe his lack of testimony was calculated. His audience didn’t want a lecture as much as they wanted a show of rhetorical finesse.