Encomio di Elena

by Gorgias of Leontini

Da Omero a Saffo, da Eschilo a Euripide, il mito di Elena adultera percorre alcuni fra i momenti più alti della letteratura arcaica e classica. In questo brillante e paradossale discorso di Gorgia (483-380 ca a.C.) viene ribaltata l'immagine della donna colpevole, che pur stava all'origine della civiltà e dell'autocoscienza nazionale greca. Il disegno divino, l'irresistibilità dell'amore, la violenza, l'insidia trionfante della parola costituiscono le cause che tolgono all'essere umano ogni responsabilità. Così la moglie di Menelao, anche per la sua sovrumana bellezza, viene scagionata da ogni colpa, diventando fulgida icona della passività, di chi non desidera ma, al contrario, diventa oggetto del desiderio.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Mythology, School, Read For School, Historical

108 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 381

About the author

Gorgias (/ˈɡɔːrdʒiəs/; Greek: Γοργίας Ancient Greek: [ɡorɡíaːs]; c. 485 – c. 380 BC) was a Greek sophist, Italiote, pre-Socratic philosopher and rhetorician who was a native of Leontini in Sicily. Along with Protagoras, he forms the first generation of Sophists. Several doxographers report that he was a pupil of Empedocles, although he would only have been a few years younger. "Like other Sophists he was an itinerant, practicing in various cities and giving public exhibitions of his skill at the great pan-Hellenic centers of Olympia and Delphi, and charged fees for his instruction and performances. A special feature of his displays was to invite miscellaneous questions from the audience and give impromptu replies." He has been called "Gorgias the Nihilist" although the degree to which this epithet adequately describes his philosophy is controversial.

His chief claim to recognition is that he transplanted rhetoric from his native Sicily to Attica, and contributed to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the language of literary prose.

Reviews

[Pierre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Letto per la challenge 7 libri in 7 giorni.

Gorgia da Lentini e gli altri sofisti sono stati spesso accusati di aver perfezionato l'arte della parola fino ad arrivare a non curarsi più della verità: la logica sarebbe stata utilizzata da loro in un modo fine a se stesso, al punto da arrivare a difendere il falso per il gusto della mistificazione.

Beh, leggendo oggi l'encomio di Elena e l'encomio di Palamede di tutto ciò non c'è traccia. Anzi, la logica sembra essere utilizzata in modo virtuoso, per difendere la verità anche se contro l'opinione comune (un po' come fece Socrate dopo la battaglia delle Arginuse e il successivo naufragio, difendendo gli ammiragli ateniesi che non ne avevano colpa nonostante la maggioranza volesse condannarli). Insomma, questa lettura perde un po' di senso se filtrata con la morale del terzo millennio: ovviamente per noi Elena non ha colpa del suo rapimento e semmai deve essere biasimato Paride, se lo ha perpetrato contro il suo volere. Anche nel caso in cui Elena si sia innamorata, dice Gorgia, non possiamo condannarla, dal momento che Eros è una forza irresistibile.

Il terzo scritto qui raccolto, Intorno al non-essere, invece pare più mistificatorio, dal momento che il filosofo arriva a negare l'esistenza dell'essere, attraverso un astuto gioco verbale.

Sconsiglio l'edizione delle Paoline, che contiene uno stucchevole saggio introduttivo che applica esplicitamente la visione del mondo cristiana più e più volte. Assolutamente evitabile.

[Eugenia M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A marvelous rhetorical approach by Gorgias Leontinus who tries to defend Helen (the beautiful woman because of whom it's said that Trojan War started). This book is reported as an essay for the nature and the power of oration. What is so interesting here is that he uses familiar -for people of ancient times- examples to prove how "vision" can play a major role for people's decisions. Vision called "όψις" in ancient Greek, is what triggered Helen to follow Paris whose beauty is has been known ever since. Through his report in "vision", he wants to put a great issue on the table; the issue of "convincing", showing the strength of oration skills, which can have the same affect as the strength of physical compulsion. In that way, he had the chance to refer to "orators" who did not attempt to speak the truth, but only the plausibility. Gorgias is the first one to who equals even the art of painting to sham and charm and expresses the theory that art is an illusion. I shall close this review with the ambiguous last words in this book: "εμόν δέ παίχνιον" , with which he's provoking his audience to consider whether all he said was true or plausibility like the rest of orators.
So,totally recommended among a variety of ancient literature pieces.

[Basilius · Rating 3 out of 5]

“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.

[Hon Lady Selene · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Sacred incantations sung with words are bearers of pleasure and banishers of pain, for, merging with opinion in the soul, the power of the incantation is wont to beguile it and persuade it and alter it with witchcraft. There have been discovered two arts of witchcraft and magic: one consists of errors of the soul and the other of deceptions of opinion. All who have and do persuade people of things do so by holding a false argument. For if all men on all subjects had both memory of things past and awareness of things present and foreknowledge of the future, speech would not be similarly similar, since as things are now it is not easy for them to recall the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future.
For speech constrained the soul, persuading it which it persuaded, both to believe the things said and to approve the things done. The persuader, like the constrainer, does the wrong and the persuaded, like the constrained, in speech is wrongly charged."

[Camiel 2004 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Free Helena 🙅‍♂️🙅‍♂️🙅‍♂️

[Catherine Woodman · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the perks of having children in college is that I have been exposed to lots of great works of writing that I missed in my youth. My youngest is an auditory learner and a classics major, so I have spent countless hours reading writings from the ancient world to him. Many of the works of ancient Greeks and Romans have been lost forever or are only known because other writers have paraphrased their work. Gorgias was luckier than that. He was a Sophist of the 5th century BCE and four of his works survive to the modern age. His defense of Helen is an interesting example of rhetoric that is disconnected from a moral and ethical stance. The Sophists were slammed by Socrates and his acolytes for just this problem—no moral compass. The good news is that his rhetoric is very accessible.

Helen was at the center of the disastrous war with Troy. It went on for ten years, led to the destruction of Troy, and spawned three epics (The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid).

Gorgias’ contended that Helen could have been bewitched by the gods so that it was her fate to leave her husband and go with Paris. That is my assessment and I was surprised to find out that she was blamed in the ancient world. The other options that Gorgias considers are that she was forced to go against her will, that she fell in love with Paris (which he argues leaves her blameless—others might disagree) and then most interestingly, he argues that she might have been deceived by Paris’ rhetoric. He gives a discourse on how a good persuasive speech can be dangerously effective. He says that Helen should be forgiven if she fell for such a persuasive speech, because such rhetoric is overwhelmingly seductive to the point of being witchcraft. I was initially quite skeptical, and then I thought about the current Republican candidates for president, and realized that Gorgias could easily be talking about Donald Trump.

[Ilary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Grazie Gorgia per difendere Elena ❤️

[ana carolina · Rating 5 out of 5]

lindo perfeito maravilhoso

[☠Valentina☠ · Rating 2 out of 5]

shitty

[yen nguyen]

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

[Effy · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Ava · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Franco Gilabert · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 -.

[joe s · Rating 4 out of 5]

Likely used as a resource within ancient Sophistic schools, the Encomium of Helen is an exercise which demonstrates the power of language and authority of rhetorical parlance. Gorgias makes an effort to free Helen from public scrutiny over "causing" the Trojan War, contending that it is his civic duty to speak truthfully and refute falsities. What's most notable (and influential) is Gorgias structure and organization as he frames his arguments in opposition of commonly held beliefs (Dissoi logoi), offering a more directly disarming approach for his argument.

Mostly—I loved the passage about love and divinity. Pretty words.

[austra]

Gorgias defends Helen of Troy arguing that she cannot be blamed for causing the Trojan War if she was persuaded by speech (logos), which he claims has the power to move souls like drugs affect bodies. More broadly, Gorgias’s rhetoric treats logos as a powerful, almost magical force, capable of shaping belief, overriding reason, and controlling emotions, regardless of whether it points to truth or falsehood.

For Gorgias, rhetoric is less about truth and more about the persuasive use of language.

Probably the greatest redemption for Gorgias against Plato’s claims. Or just a sales pitch.

[OSCAR · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es opúsculo me ha hecho pensar que la mala reputación de los sofistas (compartimiento estanco donde cabe todo aquéllo que molestó a Platón) resultas a ratos infundada. No se ha encontrado mejor defensa del honor de Helena que este texto. Es interesante subrayar que mientras esta defensa habría exculpado a Helena, la Apología de Sócrates en cambio condujo al resultado contrario, a la condena del gran pensador heleno.

[Egor xS · Rating 4 out of 5]

Personal milestone: this is the first unadapted historical text that I have read in full in the original Ancient Greek. Three years of prior devoted study, and still was not an easy go.

Among other turns of eloquence, the sophist compares logos (speech, word) to drugs, τὰ φάρμακα, in its both or by turns toxic, healing, elating effect.

[George Nielsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 :)

[gold dust woman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically the man is defending Elena’s going to Troy, even though her lawful husband was in Sparta. I do not agree with Elena being innocent, but the author wrote in the end that “he did it for fun”, so that’s why i give it 3 stars

[Mariana · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Haley Lipford]

Read for class

[Paz Ortiz Santa Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

i am gorgias of leontini fr
also helen did nothing wrong

[madelyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ancient and Medieval Philosophy Fall 2022

[Phantoomer · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

io nichilista

[manuell.patterii · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5 stelle

[Marek Pogrom · Rating 4 out of 5]

śmieszne, kocham sofistów

[Carly Campbell · Rating 3 out of 5]

if i could play devils advocate ! i would have had better points than he had

[Valen]

en cual andaba no rjkajd

[Alan Tai]

making my way through critical works