Everyday Conversation to Convince a Crowd

In the Funeral Oration of Pericles, many different forms of rhetoric are employed. I didn't recognize most of them when I first read it, as I was mostly focused on form and the classic appeals. After reading “Rhetoric” by Aristotle, I was able to point out a lot of other devices.
One of the devices that I found used was enthymeme. I didn't realize how incredibly common it was in normal speech! Trying to find examples of this in the text, I found some examples where major premises are kept and where they have been omitted. Take, for example, this line from Pericles: “To me it seems that the consummation which has overtaken these men shows us the meaning of manliness in its first revelation and in its final proof.” Here, the premise that courage and gallantry (which was stated several sentences previous and in a different context) is manly.

Reading this text again, I also noticed the very epideictic as well as deliberative aspects of the speech. It is epideictic in the sense that Pericles is talking to a large crowd and praising the men who fought. It is deliberative in the fact that he is exhorting future measures. He is calling the families of these

men to action- either calling to the mothers to have more children or calling to the children and men to stand up and show pride in their city by fighting as well.

Pericles also uses his own testimony to add credibility. In the first few lines he speaks about having a first-hand witness or reliable second-hand testimony of the accounts of battle. Pericles says “I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others of whom I made careful and particular inquiry.” If this isn't a direct proof of testimony displayed, I don’t know what is!

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.  

Pericles, Epideictic Excellence

Epideictic Oratory:

Rereading this speech has helped me understand so much about what epideictic oratory actually is. The biggest goal of it is to praise (or blame, but in the case of Pericles and Athens to praise). He even says at the beginning that people may become jealous of all the praise heaped upon the dead, recognizing that such exaggeration is an important part of this branch of speaking.

• He praises their fathers who created Athens, praises them for their “courage and virtues”.
• He exaggerates the power of their army, stating that others always say they fought the entire Athenian army.
• He states that all Athenians show exceptional grace and exceptional versatility.
• He praises all the positive aspects of the men who fought and downplays the negatives that they have done. For example, “[the soldiers have] done more service to the commonwealth than they ever did harm in their private lives”.

By doing such praise he is also setting up a bigger enthymeme. Not one that is said in a sentence or two, but his message as a whole.

Enthymemes:

The minor premise he says is: These men fought for Athens.

The conclusion he draws is: Therefore Athens is great.

The missing major premise he is inferring us to realize is: Those men who fight for something, make it great.

In addition to this overarching Enthymeme, he uses many smaller ones throughout his speech.

• Page 73, line 24-26: He assumes that which is appropriate is advantageous.
• Page 76, line 1-4: He assumes that we must fight the cause of those who sacrifice for us.
• Page 76, line 29: He indicates that it takes doing great things to be worthy of Athens.

This last one, about being worthy of Athens, is such a brilliant microcosm of this speech as a whole. He is trying to get everyone there to realize their need to sacrifice for Athens, and the enthymemes he uses do a good job of accomplishing that.

Popular Persuasion: Opinions are greater than Truth

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.