Gorgias

This article is about the Greek rhetorician. For the Platonic dialogue, see Gorgias (dialogue). For the Seleucid general, see Gorgias (general). "Gorgias" is also the name of a disputed text of Aristotle (see below).

Gorgias (in Greek Γοργἰας, circa 483-375 B.C.E.), Greek sophist, philosopher and rhetorician, was a native of Leontini in Sicily.

In 427, he was sent to Athens by his fellow-citizens at the head of an embassy to ask for Athenian protection against the aggression of the Syracusans. He subsequently settled in Athens, and supported himself by the practice of oratory and by teaching rhetoric. He died at Larissa in Thessaly.

His chief claim to recognition resides in the fact that he transplanted rhetoric to Greece, and contributed to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the language of literary prose. He was the author of a lost work: On Nature or the Non-existent, the substance of which may be gathered from the writings of Sextus Empiricus, and also from the treatise (attributed to Aristotle; ascribed to Theophrastus) De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia. In this work he argued a formulation of skeptical philosophy that states:

1. Nothing exists;
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

Introduction

Due to his ushering in of rhetorical innovations involving structure and ornamentation and his introduction of paradoxologia – the idea of paradoxical thought and paradoxical expression – Gorgias of Leontini has been labeled the ‘father of sophistry’ (Wardy 6). Gorgias is also known for contributing to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the language of literary prose.

Gorgias’ surviving rhetorical works (Encomium of Helen, Defense of Palamedes, On Non-Existence, and Epitaphios) exist in the form of rhetorical exercises that were used to teach his pupils and demonstrate various principles of rhetorical practice (Leitch, et al 29). Although some scholars claim that each work presents opposing statements, the four texts can be read as interrelated contributions to the up-and-coming theory and art (technê) of rhetoric (McComiskey 32). Of Gorgias’ surviving works, only the Encomium and the Defense are believed to exist in their entirety. Meanwhile, Gorgias’ Epitaphios is thought to be only a small fragment of what used to be a significantly larger funeral oration, and On Non-Existence appears in summary form. These works are each part of the Diels-Kranz collection, and although academics consider this source reliable, many of the works included are fragmentary and corrupt. Questions have also been raised as to the authenticity and accuracy of the texts attributed to Gorgias (Consigny 4).

Gorgias’ writings are both rhetorical and performative. He goes to great lengths to exhibit his ability of making an absurd, argumentative position appear stronger. Consequently, each of his works defend positions that are unpopular, paradoxical and even absurd. The performative nature of Gorgias’ writings is exemplified by the way that he playfully approaches each argument with stylistic devices such as parody, artificial figuration and theatricality (Consigny 149). Gorgias’ style of argumentation can be described as poetics-minus-the-meter (poiêsis-minus-meter). Gorgias argues that persuasive words have power (dunamis) that is equivalent to that of the gods and as strong as physical force. In the Encomium, Gorgias likens the effect of speech on the soul to the effect of drugs on the body: “Just as different drugs draw forth different humors from the body – some putting a stop to disease, others to life – so too with words: some cause pain, others joy, some strike fear, some stir the audience to boldness, some benumb and bewitch the soul with evil persuasion” (Gorgias 32).

Gorgias also believed that his "magical incantations" would bring healing to the human psyche by controlling powerful emotions. He paid particular attention to the sounds of words, which, like poetry, could captivate audiences. His florid, rhyming style seemed to hypnotize his audiences (Herrick 42). Gorgias' legendary powers of persuasion would suggest that he had a somewhat supernatural influence over his audience and their emotions.

Much debate over both the nature and value of rhetoric begins with Gorgias. Plato’s dialogue entitled Gorgias presents a counter-argument to Gorgias’ embrace of rhetoric, its elegant form, and performative nature (Wardy 2). The dialog shows that rhetoric does not meet the requirements to actually be considered a technê but is a somewhat dangerous "knack" to posess both for the orator and for his audience. This is because it gives the ignorant the power to seem more knowledgable than an expert to a group.

Biography

Gorgias originated from Leontini, a Greek colony in Sicily, and what is often called the home of Greek rhetoric. Very little is known of his life before he emigrated to Athens in 427 B.C.E. as an ambassador to ask Athenian protection against the threat of Syracusan aggressors (Leitch, et al 29). It is known, however, that Gorgias had a father named Charmantides and two siblings – a brother named Herodicus and a sister who dedicated a statue to Gorgias in Delphi (McComiskey 6-7). Once in Athens, Gorgias’ impressive oratorical style was said to have brought many of the leading politicians and intellectuals under his influence (Wardy 6). Settling in Athens, Gorgias made an impressive living by practicing oratory and teaching rhetoric to students, including Pericles, Critias and Isocrates. He also spoke at Panhellenic festivals becoming well-known in Olympia and Delphi. His existing works include the Encomium of Helen, the Defense of Palamedes, On Non-Existence (or On Nature), and Epitaphios (McComiskey 32). Gorgias is reputed to have lived to be over one hundred years old. He died at Larissa in Thessaly in 376 B.C.E.

Rhetorical Works

Encomium of Helen

In their writings, Gorgias and other sophists speculated "about the structure and function of language” as a framework for expressing the implications of action and the ways decisions about such actions were made” (Jarratt 103). And this is exactly the purpose of Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen. Of the three divisions of rhetoric discussed by Aristotle in his Rhetoric (forensic, deliberative, and epideictic), the Encomium can be classified as an epideictic speech, expressing praise for Helen of Troy and ridding her of the blame she faced for leaving Sparta with Paris (Wardy 26).

Helen – the proverbial “Helen of Troy” – exemplified both sexual passion and tremendous beauty for the Greeks. She was the daughter of Zeus and Leda, the Queen of Sparta, and her beauty was the direct cause of the decade long Trojan War between Greece and Troy. The war began after the goddesses Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite asked Paris (a Trojan prince) to select who was the most beautiful of the three. Each goddess tried to influence Paris’ decision, but he ultimately chose Aphrodite who then promised Paris the most beautiful woman. Paris then traveled to Greece where he was greeted by Helen and her husband Menelaus. Under the influence of Aphrodite, Helen allowed Paris to persuade her to elope with him. Together they traveled to Troy, not only sparking the war, but also a popular and literary tradition of blaming Helen for her wrongdoing. It is this tradition which Gorgias confronts in the Encomium.

The Encomium opens with Gorgias explaining that “a man, woman, speech, deed, city or action that is worthy of praise should be honored with acclaim, but the unworthy should be branded with blame” (Gorgias 30). In the speech Gorgias discusses the possible reasons for Helen’s journey to Troy. He explains that Helen could have been persuaded in one of four ways: by the gods, by physical force, by love, or by speech (logos). If it was indeed the plan of the gods that caused Helen to depart for Troy, Gorgias argues that those who blame her should face blame themselves, “for a human’s anticipation cannot restrain a god’s inclination” (Gorgias 31). Gorgias explains that, by nature, the weak are ruled by the strong, and, since the gods are stronger than humans in all respects, Helen should be freed from her undesirable reputation. If, however, Helen was abducted by force, it is clear that the aggressor committed a crime. Thus, it should be he, not Helen, who should be blamed. And if Helen was persuaded by love, she should also be rid of ill repute because “if love is a god, with the divine power of the gods, how could a weaker person refuse and reject him? But if love is a human sickness and a mental weakness, it must not be blamed as mistake, but claimed as misfortune” (Gorgias 32). Finally, if it was speech that persuaded Helen, Gorgias claims he can easily clear her of blame. Gorgias explains: “Speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body. It can stop fear, relieve pain, create joy, and increase pity” (Gorgias 31). It is here that Gorgias compares the effect of speech on the body with the effect of drugs.

The Encomium demonstrates Gorgias’ love of paradoxologia. The performative nature of the Encomium requires a reciprocal relationship between the performer and the audience, one which relies on the cooperation between the deceptive performer and the equally deceived audience (Wardy 36). Gorgias reveals this paradox in the final section of the Encomium where he writes: “I wished to write this speech for Helen’s encomium and my amusement” (Gorgias 33). Additionally, if one were to accept Gorgias’ argument for Helen’s exoneration, it would fly in the face of a whole literary tradition of blame directed towards Helen. This too is paradoxical.

Defense of Palamedes

In the Defense of Palamedes Gorgias describes logos as a positive instrument for creating ethical arguments (McComiskey 38). The Defense, an oration that deals with issues of morality and political commitment (Consigny 38), defends Palamedes who, in Greek mythology, is credited with the invention of the alphabet, written laws, numbers, armor, and measures and weights (McComiskey 47).

In the speech Palamedes defends himself against the charge of treason. In Greek mythology, Odysseus – in order to avoid going to Troy with Agamemnon and Menelaus to bring Helen back to Sparta – pretended to have gone mad and began sowing the fields with salt. Palamedes got Odysseus to disclose this information by throwing his son Telemachus in front of the plow. Odysseus, who never forgave Palamedes for making him reveal himself, later accused Palamedes of working with the Trojans. Soon after, Palamedes was condemned and killed (Jarratt 58).

In this epideictic speech, like the Encomium, Gorgias is concerned with experimenting with how plausible arguments can cause conventional truths to be doubted (Jarratt 59). Throughout the text, Gorgias presents a method for composing logical (logos), ethical (ethos) and emotional (pathos) arguments from possibility, which are similar to those described by Aristotle in Rhetoric. These types of arguments about motive and capability presented in the Defense are later described by Aristotle as forensic topoi. Gorgias demonstrates that in order to prove that treason had been committed, a set of possible occurrences also need to be established. In the Defense these occurrences are as follows: communication between Palamedes and the enemy, exchange of a pledge in the form of hostages or money, and not being detected by guards or citizens. In his defense, Palamedes claims that a small sum of money would not have warranted such a large undertaking and reasons that a large sum of money, if indeed such a transaction had been made, would require the aid of many confederates in order for it to be transported. Palamedes reasons further that such an exchange could neither have occurred at night because the guards would be watching, nor in the day because everyone would be able to see. Palamedes continues, explaining that if the aforementioned conditions were, in fact, arranged then action would need to follow. Such action needed to take place either with or without confederates; however, if these confederates were free men then they were free to disclose any information they desired, but if they were slaves there was a risk of them voluntarily accusing to earn freedom, or accusing by force when tortured. Slaves, Palamedes says, are untrustworthy. Palamedes goes on to list a variety of possible motives, all of which he proves false.

Through the Defense Gorgias demonstrates that a motive requires an advantage such as status, wealth, honour, and security, and insists that Palamedes lacked a motive (McComiskey 47-49).

On Non-Existence (or On Nature)

The original On Non-Existence was lost and today we only have two sketches of it. The first is preserved by the philosopher Sextus Empiricus in Against the Professors and the other by the anonymous author of De Melissus, Xenophane, Gorgia. Each work, however, excludes material that is discussed in the other, which suggests that each version may represent intermediary sources (Consigny 4). Gorgias’ On Non-Existence does not present a theory of rhetoric; rather it provides a general theory of the ways human beings encourage others to take action by means of logos (McComiskey 38).

On Non-Existence is a philosophical discussion of existence, truth, knowledge and communication (Consigny 37), and it is here that Gorgias outlines his nihilistic and solipsistic philosophy of existence, whereby he makes a tripartite claim that appears as follows: 1) Nothing exists. 2) Even if something exists, it cannot be known. 3) If it could be known, it could not be communicated (Jarratt 53). But he does not completely deny the possibility of communication altogether; rather it is logos that is communicated to others (Jarratt 55), because those things that the human mind can know, believe, and communicate are merely mental representations created by logos. But the relationship between logos and reality presents a problem because logos, existing only within the realm of human speech and thought, is different from the reality it represents (Walker 27). The further implications of this argument are that, because human beings are only able to think about things and cannot think the actual things themselves, as soon as something real is identified by a human it no longer exists in reality (McComiskey 24).

With the aim of establishing a “technê of logos” and defending it as a justifiable item of study, Gorgias shows that realities impact the human soul less than had been thought by pre-Socratic theorists (McComiskey 35).

Epitaphios (or Athenian Funeral Oration)

This text is considered to be an important contribution to the genre of epitaphios. During the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., such funeral orations were delivered by well-known orators during public burial ceremonies in Athens, whereby those who died in wars were honoured. Gorgias’ text provides a clever critique of fifth century propagandist rhetoric in imperial Athens and is the basis for Plato’s parody, Menexenus (Consigny 2).

Critics

Plato is one of Gorgias’ greatest critics. Plato’s dislike for sophistic doctrines is well known, and it is in his eponymous dialogue that both Gorgias himself as well as his rhetorical beliefs are ridiculed (McComiskey 17).

In the Gorgias, Plato distinguishes between philosophy and rhetoric, characterizing Gorgias as an orator who entertains his audience with his eloquent words and who believes that it is unnecessary to learn the truth about actual matters when one has discovered the art of persuasion (Consigny 36). In the dialogue, Gorgias responds to one of Socrates’ statements as follows: “Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn. You can ignore all the rest and still get the better of the professionals!” (Plato 24).

Plato is sure to make the distinction between playful oration and serious philosophy, arguing that Gorgias, despite his so-called philosophical work On Non-Existence, is not a true philosopher. Gorgias, whose On Non-Existence is taken to be critical of the Eleatic tradition and its founder Parmenides, describes philosophy as a type of seduction, but he does not deny philosophy entirely, giving some respect to philosophers (Consigny 37).

Plato answers Gorgias by reaffirming the Parmenidean ideal that being is the basic substance and reality of which all things are composed, insisting that it is a philosophical dialectic distinct from and superior to rhetoric (Wardy 52).

Aristotle also criticizes Gorgias, labeling him as a mere Sophist whose primary goal is to make money by appearing wise and clever, thus deceiving the public by means of misleading or sophistic arguments (Consigny 36).

External link

• Encomium on Helen (engl. translation)

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

Template:Presocratics

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Consigny, Scott. Gorgias: Sophist and Artist. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001.
• Gorgias. “Encomium of Helen.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Eds.
• Vincent B. Leitch, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. 30-33.
• Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.
• Leitch, Vincent B., et al, eds. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
• McComiskey, Bruce. Gorgias and the New Sophistic Rhetoric. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001.
• Plato. Gorgias. Trans. Robin Waterfield. Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Walker, Jeffrey. Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Wardy, Robert. The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato and Their Successors. New York: Routledge, 1996.

bg:Горгий bs:Gorgija ca:Gòrgies de:Gorgias el:Γοργίας es:Gorgias eu:Gorgias fr:Gorgias it:Gorgia la:Gorgias hu:Gorgiász nl:Gorgias no:Gorgias pl:Gorgiasz pt:Górgias de Leontini ro:Gorgias ru:Горгий scn:Gorgia sk:Gorgias fi:Gorgias

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Gorgias  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Gorgias"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.