Rhetoric and Persuasion

Gorgias uses a mixture of ethos, pathos, and logos in his Encomium of Helen.  The primary use of logos is Gorgia illuminating the simple fact that history has no definitive reason why Helen was taken to Troy she could have been forced by the gods, physically compelled, mentally compelled through persuasive speech, or emotionally compelled by her love for her captors.  Walking his audience through these possibilities, Gorgias begins imposing his own narratives upon the Helen mythology.  In the face of these myths, the audience faces uncertainty about their view of Helen for perhaps the first time.

The use of logos continues in his discussion of the gods fating Helen to go to Troy.  This same argument has plagued theologians for centuries, and for good reason the belief in fate andor gods pre-ordaining events necessarily removes human agency, for good or for ill.  It is impossible to condemn a mortal for his or her actions if they were compelled by an immortal.

The next argument is one of pathos.  Paralleling the discussion of Helen being forced against her will by the gods, Gorgias discusses the notion of Helen being forcibly kidnapped and brutally raped by her captor.  This cleverly reframes the common view of Helenthat she willingly left with Paris, with little to no regard for the chaos that would be caused in her wake.  Rather, Gorgias brings in a healthy dose of reality when the armed man with an army behind him wants an unarmed woman to come with him, she has very little choice.  The threat of violence as a form of coercion is just as effective as the violence itself.

Gorgias then moves to the ethos of speech itself.  Delivering a kind of mini-prayer to speech and its powers to move individuals in body and spirit, he creates an argument that is hard to attack after all, attacking the rhetorical power of words is to attack several fundamental aspects of Greek societyit would undercut the meaning of stories, the power of politicians, and even the power of prayer to sympathetic gods.  Gorgias points out that if speech can move gods and men, it is absurd to think it couldnt move one mortaland a weak individual being overpowered by strong words is not dissimilar from a weak individual being overpowered by strong arms or stronger gods.

The final argument returns to one of pathos, as Gorgias addresses the notion that Helen may have truly loved Paris.  He points out that through the lens of love, eyes can perceive the inner greatness of a person.  This, he says, is the basis of sculpture individuals wish to recreate the greatness they have seen in others, and audiences are drawn to this beauty.  He says that Helen viewing Paris may not have been that dissimilar from someone viewing a great statue of Alexander the Greatin that scenario, her leaving with Paris was not an intentional crime against the Greeks, but was simply her following the mandates of her heartmandates which, of course, are set by the gods, and individuals cannot be held responsible for.

Though all of these arguments are very thorough and articulated very clearly, the glue that holds them together is logosspecifically, the audiences lack of certainty about Helens actions.  Gorgias forces his audiences to realize they were imposing a narrative upon Helen, a narrative that was fueled by their own patriarchy and misogyny.  By imposing his own narratives, Gorgias did not necessarily have to prove how amazing his own arguments were, he simply had to prove how easy it was to provide an alternative.  Faced with all of these alternatives, one is left uncertain if they can ever definitively judge Helen.