Introduction
This rhetorical analysis of Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen will focus on two chief parts of the judiciary
oratory convention that Gorgias implements to various effectiveness: enthymeme
and the topic of invention of testimony.
Enthymeme
 |
Aristotle codified enthymemes as a way that
judiciary rhetoricians persuaded the jury.
Today, we are much more aware of what
"memes" are than what enthymemes are.
Would grumpy cat approve of our lack
of rhetorical knowledge? |
Rather than being truly epideictic,
Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen is more
of a judiciary rhetoric. Gorgias speaks
of the past only and uses chiefly enthymemes, which are, according to Aristotle’s
Rhetoric, most suited for judiciary
rhetoric. Enthymemes are informal logic
that leaves out either a major or minor premise. They rely chiefly on popular opinions rather
than truth to persuade others. Enthymeme
is employed, among many other cases, when Gorgias claims, “For the will of a
god cannot be hindered by human forethought. For it is not natural for the
superior to be hindered by the inferior, but for the inferior to be ruled…by
the superior….accordingly, if one must attribute responsibility to…the gods,
one must acquit Helen of infamy.” Here,
the obvious and common premise that all humans are inferior to the gods is left
out of the argument. These enthymemes
are highly efficient to Gorgias’s argument.
He relies on the popular opinion to prove his case. His arguments, thus, seem logical and
indisputable to his audience even though they are not based on pure truth. Gorgias also secretly employs the pathos of
appealing to popular belief whilst maintaining a somewhat deceiving appearance of
logic.
 |
Gorgias relies chiefly on enthymemes rather than testimony to
prove Helen as innocent. Both are methods that Aristotled
codified as useful for judiciary rhetoric. However, not
including more instances of testimonymight not be the
most effective approach. |
Testimony
Unlike the use of enthymeme to
great effect, Gorgias loses some of his ethos and credibility by not truly
examining another important judiciary convention—testimony. Gorgias does not examine any testimony except
appealing briefly to the supernatural and the written law. He calls on the supernatural to acquit Helen
as one can see in the previous paragraph, which is effective as an enthymeme. However, if the popular opinion did not support
the supernatural as a motivator, he would lose its effective testimony. Furthermore, Gorgias briefly compares the
ineffectiveness of written law, saying it is not always effective: “For the
strong habitual force of law is banished because of the fear prompted by the
sight [of battle].” Here, he attempts to
prove that law might be overcome by fear and thus is not Helen’s fault if she
does not obey law. This argument is
effective to an extent, but because Gorgias calls upon no other testimony to
prove Helen innocent, he is a bit ineffective in this sort of argument.
