śmieszne, kocham sofistów

Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen" is a masterful piece of rhetoric that challenges traditional narratives and provokes deeper reflection on the nature of blame, sympathy, and the power of language. Gorgias' defense of Helen is persuasive, as he argues that her actions were beyond her control. Through his use of language, he shifts the focus from blame to sympathy, suggesting that Helen was more a victim of circumstances—of divine intervention, love, and the irresistible power of rhetoric—than a perpetrator of betrayal. This argument is not just compelling in its content but also in its style. Gorgias employs metaphor and figurative language with such finesse that each line resonates on a deeper, emotional level.

One particularly striking line is when Gorgias writes, ‘And with her one body she brought together many bodies of men.’ The rhythmic cadence of this sentence, combined with the repetition of the word ‘body,’ creates a powerful emotional pull. It emphasizes Helen’s monumental influence. The choice of words here is not incidental; it reflects Gorgias' intricate and persuasive use of language, which he likens to a drug—capable of enchanting, overpowering, and ultimately, altering reality.
This metaphor is central to his argument, as it reinforces the notion that Helen, under the influence of such powerful forces, was not entirely autonomous in her decisions.

Structurally, Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen" challenges the conventional perceptions of Helen of Troy, reframing her as a victim rather than a villain. In doing so, it forces the reader to reconsider not only Helen’s story but also the broader implications of moral responsibility and the power of rhetoric in shaping public opinion.

While the text was good, not only did this edition have a facing translation for every single page(!), but it also had some typos in the Greek. Commentary was fairly lacking as well, and the only reason this is higher than one-two stars is because Gorgias himself is just a joy to read :)

Gorgias hace una excepcional producción literaria digna de ser recordada por las generaciones venideras. El tema que elige ya habla de una conciencia de ficción latente: la defensa retórica de un personaje mitológico - quien, además, es mujer; cosa extraña en la sociedad machista de la Antigua Grecia -. El propio Gorgias se divierte mucho con este encomio y eso se nota durante toda la obra, donde los juegos con las palabras, la sintaxis griega y los giros lingüísticos son admirables. Él mismo al final deja en claro que este fue "su jueguito". También, al terminar de leerlo nos queda esa sensación un tanto inquietante, que habrán tenido sin dudas los detractores de Gorgias en la época, de que este tipo es capaz de escribir un discurso a favor o en contra de cualquier cosa y convencer al público de cualquier manera - un sofista magistral -.

Read in Greek. Sublime piece of writing. Gorgias plays with rhyme in a very refreshing way, and all the dialectics set up by the discourse particles are interesting. I was not expecting all the profound reflections on memory and the power of art. I’m not sure how this reads in English, but in Greek it’s a real treat. I should say, it is very easy to poke holes in Gorgias' argument, and indeed as a persuasive speech it is quite flawed. But this is what makes the text so interesting! What are the implications of Gorgias' argument for, say, the male Athenian citizenry? For sophists? Where does it backfire? (Everywhere!)
Anyone interested in those questions should check out chapter 8 of Ruby Blondell's 2013 book on Helen of Troy. I have a PDF of that chapter, happy to email it to anyone who wants it.

4,5 stelle

interesting take, though he seems to give Helen agency and deny it at the same time

A pretty easy read, but his style is quite artificial so it makes it an awkward read sometimes. A good text to springboard discussion about many aspects of Ancient Greek thought.

Para um livro deste género, gostei bastante.
Foi uma leitura interessante. No entanto, não sei se teria gostado tanto deste livro se não o tivesse estudado e aprofundado em aula.

i am gorgias of leontini fr
also helen did nothing wrong

Breve libello, molto carino. La capacità retorica è davvero insuperata.

“How then can the blame of Helen be considered just? Whether she did what she did, invaded by love, persuaded by speech, impelled by force or compelled by divine necessity, she escapes all blame entirely.”

When we think of classical Greek philosophy, we think of Socrates and Plato (men we call proper philosophers) and anyone who thought before them we call Sophists. Now a sophist in ancient Greece was simply a teacher, who taught rhetoric, art, sometimes mathematics, and other subjects to the Athenian elite. But sophistry has come to be a pejorative term today, and that’s mainly because Plato hated the sophists. Whereas Plato felt any good thinker worth his salt should be determined to find “the truth,” the cynical and skeptical sophists saw truth as subjective or unknowable. And that’s the reputation that’s come down to us. But we actually have some of the works by the sophists, and their ideas are pretty intimidating.

One good example is Gorgias of Leontini. A great orator, he taught rhetoric and debate to many upper class Athenian citizens. Most of his work is sadly lost, but one speech, made perhaps for one of his classes, is so fascinating and troubling that we understand why Plato didn’t like him, and felt the need to undermine Gorgias in a few of his dialogues. The speech I’m referring to is the Enconium of Helen.

We all know Helen right, she was the chick that ran off with Paris and sparked the whole Trojan War? Because of this, she’s gotten quite a bad rap throughout history, and was probably the most hated woman in ancient Greece—quite an achievement. However, as a rhetorical exercise and “for my own amusement” Gorgias creates a defense of Helen, and claims she is not to blame for running off with Paris and starting the war.

What’s his argument? First Gorgias brushes aside fate, physical abduction, and love as plausible reasons for her guilt, as the first two are outside of her power and the third is akin to madness or sickness. He mainly addresses Helen making an active choice of her own volition, having been persuaded by Paris to leave her husband and join him in Troy. The sophist points out that if Helen was convinced to leave via discussion with Paris, then his act of persuasion is to blame, and not Helen, as he convinced her. He communicated the idea so effectively that Helen was forced to adopt it, almost by compulsion. After all, when a big man beats up a little man, we don’t blame the little guy, we rightfully recognize that it’s the big jerk who’s to blame for exploiting his superior strength. Likewise Paris, who was more intelligent, or at least more persuasive than Helen, is to blame for overpowering her mentally. It’s not her fault she couldn’t defend herself against a superior rhetorician.

Now, whether or not you buy this line of reasoning, it still raises many difficult and alarming implications. Gorgias noticed how “truth” was contingent on persuasion. In order for an idea to be accepted and believed by someone, if it didn’t originate in that person, they first have to be convinced of it. It had to have communicated to them. And the criteria for whether or not they accept it is if they find it persuasive.

Well why does that matter? It matters because if the acceptance of an idea is not dependent on its validity or soundness, but on its persuasiveness, then it’s impossible to difference between genuine truth and impressive rhetoric. Proof of this claim comes from the fact that people believe bad ideas all the time. We adopt bad ideas because they sounded logical, when in reality they weren’t.

John Milton, in his classic Areopagitica, declares that the debate of ideas—the public arena of thought—should wean out bad ideas and let good ideas rise to the top. But Gorgias disagrees. He points out that it’s not the “best” ideas that become adopted, but simply the most persuasive. He’s not saying that truth doesn’t exist, but if it does, is completely obscured by human language. The very means that we use to communicate are just as likely to muddle the truth as it is to reveal it.

This is why Gorgias blames Paris and not Helen for her change of heart, and likens rhetoric to compulsion. Words are immensely powerful because they can dictate what a person believes, and may even lead to unbelievable disaster, such as the Trojan War. But they may also lead to beautiful works of culture, such Homer’s Iliad. Gorgias seems to imply that we have a responsibility to wield language effectively. That’s why he doesn’t waste his time trying to discover some elusive “truth” that may or may not even exist. He spends his time teaching others good oratory, so they may create their own truth and share it to others.

I love Plato’s idealism and heroic pursuit for mental clarity. But it’s refreshing to hear such sound skepticism as an antithesis to the Socratic method. Gorgias made me reevaluate, not only my opinion of the Sophists, but on the truth status of language as a whole. It made more conscious of how I communicate to others, and a little more cautious in accepting what others have to say.