Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The ocS iety for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1977 Form and Content in Gorgias' Helen and Palamedes: Rhetoric, Philosophy, Inconsistency and Invalid Argument in some Greek Thinkers Arthur Adkinis University of Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Adkinis, Arthur, "Form and Content in Gorgias' Helen and Palamedes: Rhetoric, Philosophy, Inconsistency and Invalid Argument in some Greek Thinkers" (1977). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 73. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/73 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. -1- i:;:,:70 Form and Content in Gorgias' Helen and Palamedes: Rhetoric, Philosophy, Inconsistency and Invalid Argument in some Greek Thinkers Gorgias' Helen (B 11) and Palamedes (B 11a)1 are among the l ongest pieces of continuous prose included in Diels-Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. We have here a �are opportunity of considering h ow a writer who merits inclusion in Diels-Kranz develops an argument over a number of pages. Gorgias, it is true·, is a rhetorician; and though he has some claim to be regarded as a soph­ ist or-Presocratic :philosopher also (see especially BJ), rhetoric2 has evident­ ly much to contribute to the Helen and Palamedes. The extent of the contri­ bution is indeed the primary subject of the first part of my paper. I shall inquire whether Gorgias in the Helen indulges in rhetorical flourishes in which form takes precedence over content; whether on" the other hand Gorgias' general philosophical position supplies the content of this work and furnishes premisses from which conclusions axe drawn for Helen's benefit, the rhetoric furnishing no more than a pleasing mode of presentation; or whether a case is being argued, and language manipulated, ad hoc, the rhetoric substituting for logic a.�d valid argument. Gorgias himself terms the Helen a Eaignion (21): I shall briefly con­ sider the meaning of the word in the light of my discussion. I shall discuss the Palamedes in less detail, and consider whether the presuppositions of the .Helen and Palamec.es are inconsistent with one another. Subsequently, I shall raise the q.uestionwhether inconsistency is per � a mark of a rhetorician at this period, or whether similar inconsistencies may be found in other writers 'who are philosophically more respectable. I shall also consider to· what extent Gorgias' presuppositions, and inconsistencies, are shared with non--philosophical Greeks in early Greece; and very bri�fl.y indicate some long-standing worries · of my own about the study o:f Presocratic philosophers. There is much of interest in the introduction to the Helen; but I have no space to discuss it here, and shall begin at (6), where Gorgias sets out four possible reasons or causes for Helen's going to Troy with Paris: she did what she did either (a) as a result of the wishes of Chance or the plans of the gods or the decrees of Necessity or (b) because she was carried off by force or (c) because she was persuaded by words (logoi) o·r ( d) because she was smitten with love. We might perhaps provisionally grant that Gorgias had furnished a full list of possible reasons or causes (but see below),J and e..<pect him to demon­ strate that Helen was influenced by (b), or possibly (a), since (b) is certain­ ly, and (a) possibly, a valid defence. Gorgias, howev,er, undertakes to show that, no matter which of the four was the reason, Helen should be exonerated from blame. He offers four argmnents or groups of arguments, one for each reason or cause. Argtunent 1. Suppose Chance, Necessity or the gods desired, planned or decre�Helen's journey. By nature (pephuke) the stronger (kreisson) is not prevented by the weaker. No; the weaker is ruled and led (sg;esthai) by the stronger. God (a term which evidently includes Chance and Necessity) is kreisson than a human being in might, wisdom, and their other characteristics. If then one should ascribe the causation (or the guilt, aitia) to Chance and God, one should absolve Helen from her bad reputation. I shall discuss later whether these pleas are novel.4 For the moment I note that the argument seems to rest primarily on causality, with the will of the divine powers mentioned acting as a cause. The stronger can compel the actions of the weaker. The argument is logically presented: its acceptability is likely to vary from culture to culture. However, not only logic is employed, nor is causality alone invoked. Kreisson does not simply mean 'stronger': it serves as one of the comparatiyes of �athos, 'good', so that one may be kreisson also in wisdom or cleverness, (sophia and other characteristics. The wiser or T'(e'e .(l Ef'Zr s9' U%mm Em % _e V%'e |IJ!ą ŀ ŀ _ŀ F")U :'U" t_ ' úĆ " ŀ ½ ŀ r9% Fß ^ Īŀ !ŀ åŀ ŀ %7 #U. l ` _33ß &.` B _ ŀ sqt uŀ ~äŀ # 7ġ ŀ ijŀ Ă6ŀ ŀ ŀ 9)f) $&S\Bgl ª­`ß aªß r9' Gß 4§bUß GGß ` ŀ ae ©ŀ @A?` Scl , *% Ïŀ .àæ7ŀ EZ ;aG% ^0 _f"m <%f% Z_u X*f)W mQCSR D[ 8%Zr l <+ m&^Z" 3&Zr )EZ%q r=) daqqHEUEr r X6H 6C6El d&Tl /&O>61l ÂGHß +ŀ 8HL.4 l 9)f) f% f=)rafE 2aEq=)q \^}) ŀ r c.^ ŀ , C` ` ^,ŀ `XIŀ v>% }= Mf" ffE)n r9) =E7?)q} .9fE H ŀ ) ŀ ŀ XE39 ŀ ŀ \ ŀ ŀ EZg)m) r =) ']_jLr ,ŀ (',Z;[B` H Gŀ 4X`ª Ãŀ !"` F^L 7MW` %+ , H ïŀ ŀ ŀ yhbŀ ), e%8r : ` &;ß k *, ` N:X` K-hMNl r r9) A`X)ŀ ! ŀ Ð/û ŀ xd.l ß ªÃ/ª®e¬Ä¬Fß Gß c¬ß Aŀ E] ŀ ı ŀ ß ŀ " H :aª¬f4¬rß ,F¿ÕFFß "OF¬ß #:ß ¬bß ŀ gŀ @ ŀ ªÃGGFF:ß +`ªß 3 ¬7:ß 3fb/ß 36³ ŀ ĥ$$(ŀ ŀ / D ĠĮnŀ B´ŀ VÊF¬ß Gß I5Fß Ñ ŀ Ģ4ŀ ªīa «)6Fªß qªß !33FÞ¯-}Fß b ß ª¾ß ª3hF¾bFªß ĊÒñŀ I ŀ Ó ŀ >lrŀ ò#ădŀ JMŀ r9' .HaR5l ^,ŀ ¬YFß 3&ªªß ŀ 7ŀ +Đŀ >Ąŀ #ŀ ėI) ŀ %ća ¯ģ®Ô Ãŀ ŀ °Õ%%ó ŀ 0Èŀ Öŀ Ï%`<ß × ŀ % aZr) ¡ŀ \¨ā< %ĺŀ üçŀ Nw X_e% `#)Ø ? -Ø ŀ ŀ Ã3^ß ) ŀ Ē:ŀ 5'/` [Hl ŀ ¬Xb:ß Ĭ %oŀ ' _+` %ŀ `¬ß ŀ Ęŀ ^=ß ¬ß )Kŀ ŀ · ŀ # ŀ cß ŀ VFl ¾= H G ß Ùŀ ' Øß aGFß ¬^°ß ¬ZBß 3¨Fß bªß Fß :7Gg5 ¬[ l ÚWŀ kU ēvŀ 'Pµŀ Eŀ )-Hŀ ý %ŀ =>o¬/` Ķŀ 3 0HFªß ÏFÙß Ö:CMß ±^Db²¬" 2994.[Rl !ŀ ß ŀ bÏbªb-}Fß 1<Úß ¾ŀ 5ŀ bªß +èŀ " ¬ß 3êFß GFß ;ŀ «3eŀ ŀ Kŀ 0ŀ Ä $ŀ ¾ß b£ß ãNĻŀ =ß ¬ß b7FªFß b¾Ù 1ŀ :' *ŀ bªß ÐFÚß Q?=@7_l ¬^ 'Ú {ęľéO4ŀ Q. fŀ ŀ :?o¬ 1H Jŀ á9ŀ ' ŀ Ö[ß ¢1wŀ <ß ÖX¬ß ci4O qm 3'ß "=@ ` >ß ŀ Ç8Ü xk)e mE ¤ ŀ ¥(ŀ ŀ Fb`3$ß .ªF¤¬b ß z&ŀ ªb3Fß À^Fß Gß 4}êFß ŀ )C¾b%H Gß =̪´Fª ß &:ß G~~Öªß b rŀ ` =8Ã3H f=f ŀ &9) ğÉĚŀ O ŀ ^ªß tƪ¬bGiF?ß ^bªß ƪFß Gß <?ªªß Û ŀ ~=) -U ŀ Jß ¬F¬µFß w9% e : ŀ ŀ ċ"ŀ #ŀ ;ĉ (ŀ Ü2ŀ ŀ į ŀ ð# ŀ İŀ bß ;w 4H ě)"ŀ =ŀ ß ¬X`wß Cŀ ©ß ß GG" Ĩ ŀ ŀ 5ŀ þĿ ĔĤ iĭ ŀ ­= >OHDJP` ,` (:ß :^"*­ŀ Dđ(ŀ Zôŀ /(WW bß &-` $ÊĦ= Gø ŀ ŀ .ŀ Gß ­Xjªß =¶Fß Øß &¬ªß ¦ŀ XêZŀ 0^ %J!1ŀ y@%E =· ß ,34` ¾^Fß ª^. ŀ `!ŀ ŀ :Ñ ŀ 3&¬ß §ŀ ĜLļŀ 2e.A^030l ¸^¬ß ªª`ª¾3Fß Øß 0Fß o^7=} G ß f7 )Zr l "¸ŀ ŀ 33^R`!ŀ Á]Fj¹ºß Fß YK5=r ¹ŀ ¬^¬ß aªß `¬ªF}Gß #ŀ Er= ¬Ā<ŀ ë ŀ TÇ ŀ ŀ &` } ŀ ŀ :^ŀ ÑF-ªß G{~Öß :ˬ`ß ¶ŀ ; c¾Ïŀ ,]Yl ÅXŀ $&ď42ŀ 8=E!H ¬^Fß F¾Úß Kß ß 3êFß G¡ß Ók¾XÃ¬ß ŀ 8Ý* ŀ BE!= Olªß 0ŀ & ŀ " 2ŀ PVĩ ŀ *ŀ ŀ J% ŀ cr U^% #0` GG ß +bl ŀ }ª¾ß ­ß ŀ 6 ` 9%e) ŀ .º&ŀ ĝõÞŀ xŀ r m%) Z^ mP7Z _. =6ªa= H ¬^F¦ß ªß Ľ'\` ŀ Sbªß 34F:Fªß ªß Ã3^ß ":ß -ŀ ŀ UĴŀ c4 ŀ ß À'ŀ Ô^b3^ß !l xH ¬ß +ŀ ¬^Fß FGGF3¬ªß Gß 4X,¬DF H ŀ ¾ŀ FÑmÃªß 4~êFß ß :ß EUU ¼ŀ ö&ĕŀ uê¬bNß ¬XFß Ĉ*-ŀ ªFªFß Gß =?#ª¬ " Fß ¢=Ã3Fªß ŀ Ė3Tŀ Cŀ ĸR ŀ $ŀ ŀ $,ŀ Gß @ŀ :FGnFªß F¬¥ß ªß !ŀ F îe ŀ ªÚªß r<H ŀ ,,"G:ß ¨^Å=>F ß ¬FGÉß I=Zfl ŀ # ŀ N- ŀ ŀ ¬^ªFß Ö^ß ,H ^¬. BXŀ £Á<ŀ ŀ ÏoÑ`:ß /Å¬ß "l %ŀ ŀ z9 ŀ r=) 3/+br^ŀ Gß F¬bß @vF3»`ÑFªß Ö`¾^ß Ëªß Gß XÚª`3$ß :ª3"¬p GJl B4ŀ ĵYŀ 3b¼ªß Sjªß ½ß Øß 9Vb4È-H ªÿ=3ŀ ŀ 5Ú^}Fŀ Eß (ŀ Ìŀ ŀ =mŀ %l *%\` )8_IQ9<S` WJ$ &(/2` Aŀ h,pr _1 rA% F"r % }b¾F$}Øß ¬&ª}¾F<ß *:ß ŀ ? e wß ^f")f 껧 ' Íŀ YQ .r WGl x!' Æŀ )1l EWW »ùČ^ŀ $ŀ ŀ :í'ŀ ŀ 2:aFª ß Lß ;XPl ÷ķ Îħ5ŀ ŀ F*ŀ ,ŀ Ĺ p'ŀ ±j(ŀ :ß ªÛ¬×ß *2l 'l âč ŀ 9)e) ŀ `l Eŀ ^Ď.ŀ {^ %cZ%f|' %W%Z E/ -3- persuaded her (or her suche) The of (8) in (9-11) og s p .