The Battle Against no Foe

Largely in response to John's post, I would like to piggyback off of the cause and effect theme he discussed.  Due to the judicial nature of Gorgias' Encomium of Helen, reasoning is everything.  There must be a cause and effect, an A leading to a B.  With Gorgias, he sides with and defends the underdog, Helen, so that he might woo listeners with seemingly flawless pathing of logos.  In reality, Gorgias mostly lures in the audience with sweet words so that they can watch him glory in beating up a straw man.  Gorgias sequentially lays down the pieces of his case without an opponent to rebut, simply reveling in how amazing he is with the occasional "Am I right or am I right?" to the audience.  There was no real concern for the case itself. 

Aside from that digression and going on to Katie's post, though Gorgias does attempt to make his monologue epideictic in nature by praising Helen's hopeless frailty to the power of the gods, the method he utilized was one of judiciary rhetoric.  Going back to the opening theme of the previous paragraph, Gorgias piles enthymeme upon enthymeme so as to amass sound reasoning for a case he most likely cares nothing for.  Gods are superior to men, so who was to blame Helen for succumbing to the sway of Love?  Gorgias sure was not one to point his finger, as it net him more food for his ego. 

I say this is Gorgias, so this is Gorgias.  No one to contend?  Too bad.

Ceasing the bashing on Gorgias' methods and motives, as Katie said, the excellent use of Helen's inferiority to the superiority of the gods proved highly beneficial in terms of persuasion.  By taking something that hit home to the audience and following it up with skillful use of enthymemes, Gorgias was successful in unopposedly asserting his views.  Unfortunately, a single testimony proves insufficient.  Even if Gorgias was speaking the truth, he was running a one-man race.  Alone, one is both the winner and the loser.