Brad Waldo

Rhetoric 103A

Kwan Hua

8 October 2016

Philia contra Erōs: Why the Boy Should Sleep with Lysias

            Plato’s Phaedrus begins with Phaedrus reciting a speech given to him by Lysias on why it is better to choose a suitor who is not in love with you, rather than choose a suitor who is in love with you. Phaedrus reads, from Lysias’ scroll, to Socrates, “I don’t think I should lose the chance to get what I am asking for [i.e., sex], merely because I don’t happen to be in love with you” (231A). In this essay I describe one of three aspects of the argument Lysias offers to the young man on why it is better to have relations with a non-lover. He describes intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social benefits of being involved with a non-lover, and I focus on the last.  

            Lysias offers that consorting with a non-lover will benefit one’s own life because the non-lover will not flatter you, regret doing you favors, or chose you just for the sake of your body, and that the status of the relationship between non-lovers can actually be superior in many ways to the debilitating and destructive madness of love. Interestingly, Lysias also offers social reasons of why it is better if one chooses a non-lover than a lover.

Lysias argues that if two men get away with the arrangement he is proposing, one’s image in the public eye will not suffer, regardless of  “conventional standards and the stigma” of having sex with someone that does not love you (231E). The non-lover is able to control himself and will be able to act appropriately, “rather than seek the glory that comes from popular reputation” (232A). Because non-lovers are not wedded in the public eye, the non-lover can treat their friendly consort in a way that friends treat one another, presumably in a freer, less possessive fashion. Implicit in this claim is that freedom from seeking glory in popular reputation allows the relationship between the two men to remain more earnest and genuine, as well as undistorted from social expectations surrounding relations between lovers.

Lysias is then described as saying that, “it’s inevitable that a lover will be found out” and if you spend time with someone that loves you, “[the public will] think you are spending time together just before or just after giving way to desire” (232B). Here Lysias is arguing that the public assumes that sex is a central focus of time spent between lovers. Whereas the public may find fault with this sexcentric arrangement wherein desire rules, “they don’t even begin to find fault with people for spending time together if they are not lovers; they know one has to talk to someone, either out of friendship or to obtain some other pleasure” (232B). In public opinion, friendship, philia, is more acceptable than erōs, sexual desire or passion. Lysias offers that as social beings, humans need to interact with one another and share conversation. Philia, thus, is perceived by and large as a natural desire and as a less debilitating pleasure than the maddening passion of erōs. There is an element of deception in this claim, too, because one will experience the pleasure of sex, or minimally, the pleasure of pleasing his suitor, but will gain the benefit of not being found out. Lysias is attempting to convince the boy to have sex with him regardless of the fact that he does not love him. People will believe that the boy and Lysias are merely friends, engaged in natural and necessary friendship rather than the madness stricken tribulations of love. The non-lover is not described as being entirely freed of the passions of erotic love; Lysias instead is arguing that his proposed arrangement will be beneficially sneaky and clandestine. Detachment between sex and love, here, is presented as beneficial because one can retain their public image, and is presented elsewhere by Lysias as also being beneficial to one’s personal development.

Lysias also offers that one’s close friends are often critical of them when they are in love. Phaedrus reads: “friends often criticize a lover for bad behavior; but no one close to a non-lover ever thinks that desire has led him into bad judgments about his interests” (234B). Any bad behavior will not be perceived as being distorted by the desire of erōs, but will be assumed to be caused by some other misjudgment. Presumably, bad behavior due to erōs is more blameworthy than behavior due to other causes. By consorting with a non-lover, one will not be subjected to the criticism of their friends if they behave badly. Any mistakes made by the boy will be perceived as being caused by some reason that is not as blameworthy as being madly in love.

The social dimension of Lysias’ speech elicits many interesting questions regarding the actual status of erōs in his proposed arrangement with the boy. Will the relationship really lack erōs or will it simply be hidden from public view? Does Lysias really lack erotic love for the boy, or is he representing his desire in this way to dupe the boy and have his way with him? The other two dimensions of Lysias’ speech are complicated by these social reasons for consorting with a non-lover. Lysius’ claims of lacking erotic love for the boy, his proposal for a sexual encounter, and the benefits for the boy therein are made murky by arguing that there is a social benefit to being perceived as friends only and not as lovers. 

What Sets the Stage for the Entire Encomium of Helen

Dana Levine

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

Precis

Passage six advances four arguments for why Helen should not be blamed for the war: plans of the gods, physical abduction, persuasion, and love. By stripping Helen of all agency in each of the four alternatives, Gorgias is reminding us of Helen’s inferiority as a human. Helen is not powerful enough to resist the gods, physically strong enough to resist abduction, or mentally strong enough to resist discourse or love. This sets the tone for the entire encomium.

First, Gorgias addresses the gods because this is how Homer secures Helen’s guilt. The emphasis on superiority of the divine over human can be seen as an argument drawn from that of Homer’s in the Iliad. Homer’s depiction of Helen and allegiance to the gods serves as a template for Gorgias to attempt to disprove Helen’s guilt so that it can be shifted elsewhere. In the Iliad, the gods are the enablers of the stories by navigating characters and events. Here, Homer blamed Helen for leaving Troy and causing the war with little blame attributed to the gods’ ability to guide human doing, though this divinity is present throughout the epic. Now, Gorgias is arguing that because of a predetermined fate imposed by the gods or by the power of divine influence which is accepted by Homer, Helen is not to blame; the gods are responsible. Gorgias is using Homer’s logic and mechanism of elevating the power of divine influence in order to exonerate Helen of blame.

Gorgias further argues that humans have no ability to question or escape superiority which is also the gods. Because humans are not capable of comprehending or ruling over a higher power, the gods should be left unquestioned as humans are servant to the gods’ desire. This is a powerful assertion because it leaves the first of the four arguments Gorgias gives to be unquestionable within a human’s reasoning. Additionally, his use of the word natural as a declarative assumes that there is an existing set of mutually accepted norms which accept this idea of what is natural. He argues, “it is not natural for the superior to be hindered by the inferior” which is an effective argument because it forces his audience to yield their personal values and beliefs and submit to what Gorgias deems as natural.

The other possibilities Gorgias gives in the encomium as reasons to exonerate Helen of blame are mere happenings under the umbrella of the gods’ plans. If one believes that Helen left Troy at will, it is still predicated on the fact that this will was shaped by the gods and led by their involvement in fate because the gods are of an inescapable power larger and more superior than all human beings. The passage ends: “one must acquit Helen of infamy”. Here, Gorgias is not yet removing all blame from Helen; he is saying that Helen should not be known for wrong-doing. Whether or not Helen was aware of what she was doing and whether or not she willingly participated, it was by will of the gods that she did so, or by abduction or persuasion or love, and was therefore not her will. Helen was merely a participant in the unfolding of events that led to the war, but by the will and doing of others. In this passage, the establishment of the ability of the divine and Helen’s inferiority both physically and mentally constructs a trajectory for the arguments in the rest of the encomium.

Gorgias, Encomium of Helen

(6) Either by the wishes of Fortune and plans of the gods and decrees of Necessity she did what she did, or abducted by force, or persuaded by speeches, <or conquered by Love>. Now in the first case, the responsible party deserves the responsibility. 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 and led by the superior--for the superior to lead and the inferior to follow. And a god is superior to a human being in force, intelligence, etcetera. Accordingly, if one must attribute responsibility to Fortune and the god, one must acquit Helen of infamy.

Precis Posted for Corway Chao

Corway Chao

Professor Carrico

GSI: Kuan Hwa

The Prattling Preaches of Protagoras vs. the Assault of Socrates’s Thoughts

The text Protagoras by Plato begins with a young Athenian citizen aspiring for political eminence, who requests Socrates’s accompaniment in discussion with the reputed “wisest of all living men,” Protagoras. However, as a political philosopher, Plato had much to say concerning citizenship and Sophists. With a stroke of the pen, he combines both topics to demonstrate the flaws of the Sophists through dialogue concerning citizenship. From the point Hippocrates notifies Socrates of Protagoras to when the famed discourse nearly drew to an end, Plato portrays the flaws of the Sophists, through its sole representor, Protagoras and his association with outward appearance, his weakness and inaccuracy intrinsic in arguments that merely gloss over the surface, and his twisting of knowledge to support his claims.

        Plato, through the discourse of Philosopher and Sophist, brings up what can be related to the flaw of Sophism, Protagoras’s association with outward appearance, more precisely that of a citizen when he clearly is not so. The text begins with introducing Protagoras as a foreigner, a husk residing where he literally does not belong as a foreigner. Moreover, to Socrates that was not the fact that mattered to him. Instead, Socrates describes Protagoras as fairer than the beautiful Alcibiades, for “is not the wiser always the fairer?” By relating Protagoras’s wisdom to appearances, Socrates not only reveals his wisdom as a mere front or act, but even as a whore, when he immediately follows with commodifying the act by saying “if Hippocrates [gives] him money…[Protagoras] will make [him] as wise as he is himself.” Using Hippocrates’s conundrum with his slave, a citizen enforcing his right by trying to capture his property, Plato cleverly associates Protagoras to a slave when he has Protagoras say, “to run away, and to be caught in running away is the very height of folly.” The slave has been captured so to say, since Protagoras is shown to be very much like a slave, an occupant that looks like a citizen, but lacks the full rights of such. To be seen as a suitable teacher for Hippocrates is quite fitting however, because for a man who seeks political eminence, one who uses wisdom for appearance alone is perfect. To further enforce Protagoras’s superficiality, Protagoras differentiates himself from other Sophists by only teaching “prudence of public affairs”, without wasting time on the arts, the true substance and culture that makes up a citizen, the stilts of nationalism that Plato touts. Nearly having the discussion drawn to an end, Socrates dubs the mostly foreigner assembly, “arbiters,” upholders of the laws that Plato finds inherent in citizenship, another instance of the foreign Sophists acting as citizens.

The association between Protagoras and appearance reflects the kind of arguments that Protagoras and the Sophists make, arguments that only gloss over the surface, with their inherent weakness and inaccuracy.  By using Hipponicus as metaphor and example, he is shown “lodged…[in] a storehouse that “Callias had cleared…out,” a presentation of the Sophist arguments’ lack of substance. He is “wrapped up in sheepskins and bedclothes,” a foreigner, a wolf pretending to be something it is not, blending in under the golden light of reason and fleece. Without realizing the true complexities of citizenship and its treasured quality, virtue, Protagoras oversimplifies virtue into five parts, which Socrates is able to prove as one greater, holistic concept. Even when backed into a corner, Protagoras still desperately attempts to wriggle out with his ambiguous, weak concession, “if you please I please; and let us assume, if you will.” Sensing a chink in the armor that is Sophistry, Socrates asks Protagoras to “cut [his] answers shorter,” because its long length not only leaves listeners wondering about the original question, but also allows him to gloss over details as an extensive response is laid out. With Sophists simply constructing a shell of interpretation, it was bound to crack under the intense pressure of Socrates’s style: curt, probing questions and examples meant to puncture.

In attempts to substantiate their claims under the probing of others, the Sophists were shown to be enthusiastic practitioners of twisting knowledge for support. By relating Protagoras’s wisdom to a slave, his wisdom is shown to be stripped of its most basic aspects to be bent against its will. Even Protagoras himself believed that “[a Sophist’s] purpose…[is] to deceive the government,” as if at once proclaiming his dishonesty and anarchic, irresponsible citizen tendencies. The unctuous interlocutor even deals a sweet breath of liberty and bootlicking to the audience by giving the option of ”apologue or myth, or…[arguing] out the question,” demonstrating the many masks that his arguments can constantly don, while Plato staunchly supports using the form that best fits the argument.

Presented as a set of frauds and foreigners, the Sophists were brought down in authenticity harshly through Plato’s references to citizenship. Plato believed citizens were born into that right and should uphold laws the best they can to support it. Sophists were seen as anything but; people who are not born in Athens, do not support a true sense of virtue, and do not try their best to demonstrate the true aspects of concepts. Perhaps the reason Sophists initially hid under the guises of other professions was to avoid the barbs, like those of Plato, becoming entangled in the sheep’s wool that they try to pull over the eyes of others.

The Power Paradox

Federico Brooks

Professor Carrico

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

October 7, 2016

The Power Paradox

            In the “Encomium of Helen” Gorgias is writing two speeches in one: the first is his explicit attempt to exonerate infamous Helen of Troy from the accuse of causing the war. The second, and consequent to the first, is to display the power of rhetoric to an interested audience. For the purpose of this précis, I will focus on section 4 and the beginning of section 6 of this epideictic speech, as translated by Brian R. Donovan. The sections go as follows:

(4) Born of such parentage, she had godlike beauty, which having received she not inconspicuously retained. She produced the greatest erotic desires in most men. For one body many bodies of men came together, men greatly purposing great things, of whom some possessed great wealth, some the glory of ancient and noble lineage, some the vigor of personal strength, and others the power of acquired cleverness. And they were all there together out of contentious love and unconquerable ambition.

(6) Either by the wishes of Fortune and plans of the gods and decrees of Necessity she did what she did, or abducted by force, or persuaded by speeches, <or conquered by Love>. (Gorgias, Encomium of Helen, sections 4 and 6).

More precisely, the element that will be analyzed within these sections is one: the controversial power attributed to Helen through her objectification and how it shapes the argumentative vantage point of the author.

From the beginning of the speech, the passivity of Helen is unquestioned. she is in each case only a victim of circumstance; helpless against Gods, Strength, Love, and Language. If her position was one of an evildoer in the past, Gorgias is now further reducing it to a neutral idle: incapable of evil because incapable of any action. As the speech progresses the author is actively boiling down the human attributes of Helen, by going through many of the things that we share as humans – spirituality, physical strength, passions of the soul, and language (section 6) - and explicitly depriving her from a choice in their regards.

In section 4, Gorgias mentions the one power that Helen can still possess: beauty. But seemingly unhappy with it, he uses the litotes in the first sentence to trivialize its importance; speaking of a beauty that ‘having received she not inconspicuously retained.’ The phrase could in fact translate into: a beauty, which ‘having received, she not not conspicuously retained.’ The use of a double negative and words such as ‘receiving' and ‘retaining' suggest a great deal about the frame in which he posits Helen. This is a reiteration of her role of passive victim, as her beauty is not hers to own and it is merely the product of her divine parentage, and her only responsibility to passively retain it.

The language that he uses when describing men and women is so evidently different to almost verge on sarcasm. The parallel structure where men are ‘greatly purposing great things’ and most even possessed ‘great wealth’, ‘glory of (…) noble lineage’, ‘vigor of personal strength’ and ‘power of acquired cleverness’ enables the combination of this wealth, lineage, and strength to transform fragile words like ‘love’ and ‘ambition’ to be ‘contentious’ and ‘unconquerable’ when speaking about men. The expressive way in which Gorgias attributes masculine traits to men and the extensive use of strong adjectives and repetitions create a sense of disparity between the two genders. While Helen’s only active role is that of inspiring erotic desires in men, the same are portrayed ‘greatly purposing great things’.

 After laying out the fundamental, merely logical and pragmatic arguments first, Gorgias divides section six with the diacope ‘she did what she did,’ thereby accentuating three more powers that could have coerced her: the negative power of physical ‘force’ on one side; the positive and metaphysical ‘love’ on the other, and in the middle, rhetoric: the tool that can be applied to either. It is exactly the double nature of rhetoric that finally gains center stage on the podium, as it can be used both to abduct Helen from her home through force or exonerate her from all blame through love, thus reducing the beautiful Helen, to Gorgias’ plaything, again.

Precis

Melanie Pittman

Discussion Section 101

Rhetoric 103A

Virtue in the Face of Death: The Apology

Socrates: “…if, I say, now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, if I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown; no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance? And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men, - that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than deny a certain evil.”

Throughout Plato’s Apology, Socrates makes four arguments against the charges brought against him by the court. In this passage, he is making his third argument, having already argued against charges of corruption and atheism; now, he is asserting that a fear of death is not a valid reason for rejecting one’s true calling in life, and that he will never abandon the practice of philosophy, even under the threat of execution. Socrates makes his argument against succumbing to a fear of death in two parts: the first argues that to do so would be of the most impious nature, and the second denounces the fear of death itself as the ultimate display of ignorance.

 Socrates believes that God has assigned him the mission of being a philosopher in search of truth and knowledge, and that this divine charge is of the utmost importance to undertake and carry out. Like a soldier who battles bravely on in the face of death, Socrates too will continue to serve his purpose to the gods, and not allow a fear of death to deter him. Indeed, to forsake his task in fear of death would be the ultimate act of impiety, equal to “denying the existence of the gods.” If he were to ever let himself fall prey to this level of cowardice, to deny his gods in place of his own self-preservation, then he would be deserving of a trial for impiety and atheism.

The rhetoric employed by Socrates in this portion of his argument subtly accomplishes two things: first, in attributing his life’s work of philosophy to the determination of the gods, he further substantiates his prior argument that he does indeed believe in gods and the supernatural. Additionally, in stating that “if I were to desert my post for fear of death… I might justly be arraigned… for denying the existence of gods,” he effectively invalidates the charge of atheism against him which (partially) brought him to trial. The judges of the court want him to admit to the charge of atheism in exchange for being spared death; he does the exact opposite, by accepting the possibility of his death if it means he doesn’t repudiate his gods. This role reversal subliminally tells his accusers that the very thing they’ve accused him of is the opposite of what warrants accusation, and they have no legitimate case against him.

The other main argument Socrates makes in this passage is that the very fear of death itself is irrational and unvirtuous, as no man has knowledge of what death entails; it is just assumed by most to be a “greatest of evils.” He sees this type of broad assumption of what comes after death as a gross “pretense of wisdom,” in which men presume they know particulars of something in which they cannot possibly have knowledge of at all. They will let this false knowledge influence them to take a dishonorable course of action to avoid dying, rather than stand by what is virtuous and welcome the notion of dying with honor.  

Socrates claims to have no knowledge nor assumptions about death and the afterlife, pointing out that for all anyone knows, it could be “the greatest of all blessings for men.” Men only assume the worst will happen after death, but it could truly be Heaven; with such a possibility present, and no evidence for the contrary, Socrates states that he would “never avoid a possible good” to instead choose a path of injustice. Though he declares full ignorance of the afterlife, he also believes the knowledge of knowing he doesn’t know makes him wiser than those who claim to know, as the absence of a fear of death keeps his judgment unclouded and his decisions more virtuous.

In both parts of his argument, Socrates makes it abundantly clear that he will not falter in his pursuit of philosophy, justice or virtue, even with the risk of death looming over his head. He uses rhetoric to flip the arguments of the courts in a way that uses their own charges against them, while simultaneously proving his innocence, all the while maintaining the stance that though he knows nothing, he is still wiser than the men passing judgment against him.

Iliad by Homer (Book IX): The Dominance of Masculinity

Elle Remick

Professor Carrico; Rhetoric 103A

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

8 October 2016

Iliad by Homer (Book IX): The Dominance of Masculinity

            Homer’s Iliad accentuates the theme of dominant masculinity. Through the use of rhetoric, Book IX featuring Achilles’ refusing argument against Ajax, Odysseus, and Phoenix demonstrates Achilles’ attempt to remain dominantly masculine.

            Towards the end of Book IX, the passage displaying Achilles’ final dismissal towards Ajax represents his commitment to masculinity. While he ultimately refuses Ajax’s offer, Achilles refers to him as the “noble son of Telamon…” (Homer). Using an allusion, Achilles’ intention behind the remark of Ajax’s father is to degrade him to a boy’s status; instead of referring to Ajax as an individual man, Achilles is relating him to a product of someone else that is of a higher caliber. Thus, Achilles remains dominant. Achilles continues to proclaim his dominance over Ajax by stating, “You have spoken to my liking…” (Homer). Suggesting that Ajax’s objective is to please him, Achilles further proclaims dominance through style. That being said, Achilles makes himself appear more credible than Ajax and, therefore, the more dominant person through rhetoric. However, not only does Achilles demonstrate his aim for dominance, he also identifies a threat to it.

            Although Achilles claims to be dominant, he senses competition against Agamemnon. Achilles carefully uses an idiom, alliteration, and another allusion to identify his rage. He moves forward with his speech and states, “But my blood boils when I think it all over, and remember how the son of Atreus treated me with contumely…” (Homer). The idiom and alliteration of his boiling blood emphasizes the merit of his masculine competitiveness. Furthermore, alluding again to the fact that Agamemnon is the son of Atreus is Achilles’ tactic to seem as the dominant individual. Achilles continues to show his distress over potentially being dominated when he claims that Agamemnon treated him “[as] though [I] were some vile tramp, and that too in the presence of the Argives” (Homer). Not only is Achilles humiliated that Agamemnon challenged his masculinity by treating him with disrespect, he also generates the spectacle in front of his army. That being said, Achilles expresses concern for his masculinity through rhetoric.

            Achilles mentally recovers, and redeems his masculinity; he orders Ajax to deliver the message to Agamemnon that he will not stoop down to his level and fight. This noble rhetoric demonstrates that Achilles is the more masculine out of the two, and he cannot be challenged. In fact, Achilles makes a bold statement when he says, “I will have no concern with fighting till Hector…flings fire upon their ships” (Homer). In this rhetoric, Achilles is saying that he is masculine enough to neutralize the idea of his troops experiencing potential danger. In other words, Achilles’ amount of masculinity prevents him from feeling any remorse or sympathy.

Achilles makes one last remark to his masculinity. Lashing out at Agamemnon, Achilles proclaims, “For all his lust of battle, I take it he will be held in check when he is at my own tent and ship” (Homer). As his goal is to make Agamemnon appear inferior, Achilles confidently announces he will beg him for a truce; Achilles ultimately dominates Agamemnon’s masculinity.

Book IX in Homer’s Iliad demonstrates the impact Achilles’ rhetoric makes on the theme of masculine dominance. At first, Achilles recognizes the importance of masculinity and dominance. Then, his rhetoric is driven by rage and humiliation. However, Achilles recovers, redeeming his masculinity. By the end of this passage, Achilles proclaims that his masculinity is dominant.

The Origin of Love

Jordan Moniz 

Rhetoric 103A 

October 4, 2016 

Precis Assignment 

                                                 Encomium of Helen

In Brain R. Donovan’s translation of Gorgias’ text Encomium of Helen, Gorgias, uses and performs the art of rhetoric to defend Helen of Troy, and prove that she is not to be blamed as the cause of the war between Greece and Troy. Gorgias’ goal is to persuade his audience/readers that Helen, is not the culprit for the war, but rather was the victim of Prince Alexander’s persuasive speech. Gorgias lays out his reasons for why Helen left Greece and shows in each example that Helen’s actions are not to be blamed as the reason for the war and that she should be exonerated of being known as the fault for the great war between Greece and Troy. For each reason that Gorgias gives for Helen leaving Greece he carefully argues to show the reader that in all cases Helen, was either in a state of non sound mind or was compelled by the divine or by force. The two reasons that Gorgias focuses on the most for Helen leaving are speech and love, both of which Prince Alexander is the cause of her fleeing and that Alexander, was indeed the one who was to blame. 

Gorgias argues that Prince Alexander is at fault for he was the persuader and compelled her by his use of speech to leave Greece and therefore, Helen cannot be held at fault for she was persuaded by his speech to do so( Gorgias,12). Gorgias uses the term discourse to describe the type of speech that Helen fell a victim to because discourse, is the persuasive type of speech associated with rhetoric. Gorgias’ claim is that Alexander’s goal was to persuade Helen by way of discourse into leaving with him. Gorgias sees discourse as the primary motivator for Helen’s actions and explains how the power of discourse can effect ones judgement, leaving one in a non sound state of mind, and influencing one to make choices that they would not do under normal circumstances. Those who are skilled in the art of rhetorical discourse, like Alexander can manipulate others into doing what they want. Gorgias goes on to show that discourse, has the same power as drugs and can bewitch the soul into falling under evil persuasion(Gorgias, 14). This point is crucial for proving Gorgias’ claim that Helen is not to be blamed for if she was under a power that acted as a drug either by discourse or by love, then she was not sound of mind at the time that she left Greece. This is a bold statement because if discourse works like a drug which Gorgias is claiming here then Helen was under the influence and she didn’t flee on her own volition. Here you find Gorgias appealing to his audience/readers’ senses by explaining how discourse can have the same affect as drugs do to someone when the persuader is skilled at the craft of discourse, aka rhetoric. This is also the same if Helen fell a victim to love. Gorgias’ calls love a “mental weakness” and just like a drug, mental weakness causes one to not be in a sound state of mind. Gorgias goes on to explain that Helen was persuaded by Alexander’s body to flee Greece and she was under the compulsion of love which clouded her judgement(Gorgias, 19). In both cases of discourse and love Helen, fell under the spell of persuasion either by the words that Alexander spoke to her or by his body that he presented to her. These two forms of persuasion are according to Gorgias what compelled her to flee and it was not a choice she made on her on volition.  In closing Gorgias, believes that he has proven by way of rhetoric persuasion that Helen is not to be blamed for her actions and her name should be cleared of any wrong doing. Gorgias is a skillful rhetorician and makes a compelling argument for showing that Helen was not the cause of the Trojan war.

When gods make might, might makes right, and right makes the Melians... a sad crew :(

This précis is of a paragraph near the end of the Melian Dialogue beginning, “As for the gods”. It is paragraph -105- of the text if accessed from http://www.shsu.edu/%7Ehis_ncp/Melian.html.

            The argument made by the Athenians refutes two claims made by the Melians in the preceding paragraph. Within the refutations the Athenians build two counter points of their own. These two main points are accompanied by a subtle and continuous ethos claim, which in addition to the two main premises form a grander theme and final point. Throughout the text there are further argumentative strategies enlisted to strengthen both small and large points.

The Athenians begins with a refutation of the Melian claim of Athenian unrighteousness. The refutation states that the Athenians are in fact more righteous than the Melians because they are following the law of nature that they “did but inherit” from the gods. Arguing that they would in fact be unrighteous if they were not to enact and pass down “their nature”, so decreed, to rule wherever they will. They then proceed to reassert that it is not their law, in order to remind the Melians that they cannot be held accountable for it. It is simply a rule they are following out of duty to the gods, and as such, one the Melians would also follow if they were in a position of strength. This assertion also serves as a not-so-gentle reminder to the Melians that they are weak and therefore wrong. It is part of the Athenian logos that might makes right, that force equates logic, and that therefore the wise thing is for the Melians to submit; anything else is illogical and foolish. Also worth mentioning are the opening words, “As for the gods” and the words used to switch the focus of the argument, “So much for the gods”. If read together as a question and a damning assertion it functions as a final rebuttal to the Melian plea to heaven’s favor: As for (your plea to) the gods? So much for (your plea to) the gods!

The second disputation admonishes the Melian claim that the Lacedaemonians will, out of honor, defend them. The argument begins with an Athenian ethos claim, by initially –albeit mockingly - giving credit to the Lacedaemonians that they are, “exceeding virtuous among themselves” in order to establish a sense of unbiased recognition. With this new credibility they immediately turn and denigrate the Lacedaemonians as the “most notorious” for choosing pleasure over honor, and expediency in the place of justice, rendering the Lacedaemonians as unfit morally and far from honorable. This in turn leaves the Melian claim inconsistent. It is also worthwhile to note the Athenians state that “out of very shame” is the reason why the Lacedaemonians would act, and it is honor not shame that drives the righteous into battle. This further denies any credit to the Melian claim and once again establishes the idea that the Melians are behaving in an unwise manner.

In addition to the two apparent themes there is a larger ethos claim made by the Athenians working throughout the statement. It is based on Athenian certainty in comparison to Melian uncertainty. The Athenians use words and phrases of certitude and authority when referring to themselves and their actions, such as, “This law” and in several places “we know”. Meanwhile they appoint ideas of uncertainty and immaturity to the Melian position including, “you imagine”, “the simplicity of your idea” and “blind hope”. Within this claim, made through the very language they use, is the reoccurring concept that the Melians are misguided and act not on reason but on improbable expectation. Thus asserting once again that the position of certainty, authority, and strength is the credible and therefore reasonable position.

This argument for reason and credibility is the overarching message of the section. The Melians are repeatedly accused of believing against rationality, which sets up the premises that they are in fact foolish. The Athenians on the other hand claim the authority and certainty of the gods, justified by their physical might, which in turn gives them credibility. In essence the greater claim is; you the Melians are unwise and weak while we the Athenians are wise and mighty. As a result you the Melians should listen to us the Athenians because it is in your interest to follow the words of the wise instead of the hopes of the foolish. The ultimate logos of the argument is built from the establishment of ethos in the argument; it is illogical to choose foolishness over credibility.

Legitimized Suffering: A Precis of the Third Agon of Hecuba

In the third agon of Hecuba by Euripides, Polymestor and Hecuba face each other in debate, each attempting to prove an evildoing of the other to Agamemnon. This discursive contestation is preceded by a material contestation in which Hecuba, with the assistance of Trojan maidens, blinds Polymestor and kills his children. Armed with a set of claims, evidence, and warrants, explicitly addressing both the one she accuses and the current master of her fate, Hecuba makes her claim that the “sorry plight” of Polymestor’s situation of suffering is legitimate.

Hecuba opens her argument with a prophetic narrative of fate rather than a direct accusation geared towards producing a particular fate. The prophetic warning that Hecuba precedes her argumentative claims with is summarized as follows: Those men who use words to frame unjust action as good will suffer a “miserable end”. Hecuba’s statements regarding the relationship between words and deeds are predicated on “ought” and “should” statements.  For example, “If a man’s deeds had been good, so should his words have been”. These verbs reveal Hecuba’s assumption of the existence of an overarching principle or custom. This principle frames an understanding of that which is “good” and that which is “evil” and enables her fatalistic warning. According to Hecuba, it should not be possible to obfuscate the unjust intentions of action in word. Yet, in reality there are individuals who make a science out of doing this exact thing. Because these individuals fail to meet the moral obligation imposed on them as humans governed by an overarching principle, they will suffer a miserable fate. This warning allows Hecuba to: 1. Relate Polymestor’s lack of good faith (unkept promise and lies) with immorality in addition to injustice.  2. Abnegate the possibility of being outweighed by words. The clever words of Polymestor may allow him to sway Agamemnon’s judgement but ultimately, he will suffer a “miserable end” due to his failure to meet the moral obligation imposed on him by custom.

Following this prophetic warning, Hecuba responds to Polymestor’s rhetorical move toward innocence. She argues that his claim to have only killed her son Polydorus because he sought to befriend the Achaeans is entirely untrue. Hecuba refutes his claim by stating that it is impossible for the barbarian race to ever be friends with Hellas (the Achaeans). For this very reason, the claim of Polymestor to being motivated to murder by the desire to befriend the Achaeans or procure safety to his country’s crops is unbelievable. According to Hecuba, Polymestor was motivated to kill her son by greed alone; he wished to procure the gold that belonged to Polydorus. She supports this claim with the following facts: 1) Polymestor did not either kill or capture alive Polydorus while Troy was victorious which would have been a great service to Agamemnon at the time. Rather, Polymestor killed Polydorus after the fact of the Achaeans victory which was inessential to their future success and safety. 2) Polymestor did not offer the gold of Polydorus to the Achaeans in their greatest time of need. Rather, he still insists on keeping the gold in his own palace. Supporting her claim with these two facts, Hecuba dismantles Polymestor’s claim to Achaean loyalty. Following this, she reiterates that the agreed upon duty of Polymestor had been to keep her son safe. She claims that his current misfortunate is due to his failure to keep faithful to his given word. This claim is supported by Hecuba’s earlier warning that those individuals who seek to give a fair complexion to their deeds of injustice will suffer a “miserable end”. The prophetic warning of Hecuba given earlier, supported by the assumption of a governing principle, serves to show that the suffering of Polymestor is unavoidable and inescapable.

In the last few sentences of Hecuba’s argument, she explicitly directs her comments toward Agamemnon in order to gather judicial support of her argument. In an ethos move, Hecuba ties the question of Agamemnon’s authoritative worth to his support of Polymestor. She claims that if Agamemnon helps Polymestor (an immoral person), he will show himself as worthless to his subjects. If he chooses to serve Polymestor, Hecuba will also be able to claim that Agamemnon delights in evil-doers because he is one himself. 
    Hecuba uses the rhetorical strategies, warrants, and reasons as laid out above,to both refute Polymestor's claims and support her ultimate claim that Polymestor's situation of suffering is  legitimate.