rhetoric society quarterly volume 22 issue 3 1992 consigny, scott -- the styles of gorgias

8/20/2019 Rhetoric Society Quarterly Volume 22 Issue 3 1992 Consigny, Scott -- The Styles of Gorgias

1/12

This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]On: 06 December 2012, At: 14:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Rhetoric Society QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrsq20

The styles of GorgiasScott Consigny aa Department of English, Iowa State University,Version of record first published: 02 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Scott Consigny (1992): The styles of Gorgias, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 22:3, 43-53

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02773949209390959

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents

will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoev er caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02773949209390959http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02773949209390959http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrsq20


2/12

The Styles of Gorgias

Scott Consigny

From Style to Substance

An interpretive strategy used in several recent studies of Gorgias involvesattending to his style as a means of understanding his substantive idea s. Th ishermeneutic approach is not confined to studies of Gorgias, of course, for criticshave frequently explored the ways in which a philosoph er's manner of writing—his or her use of the aphorism, meditation, dialogue, philosophical poem, or rema rk, for example—may elucidate the content of his or her thinking. But thestrategy has proved especially inviting for interpreting Gorgias for two reasons.First, the substa nce of Gorg ias's thought is particularly elusive, not only becau semuch o f his writing is lost and his few extant texts are frequently fragmentary andcorrupt, but because he leaves many key terms undefined and ambigu ous, and heappears to make contradictory assertions and claims. In this context, a strategy ofreading that purports to clarify and render coherent his enigmatic thought isunderstandably appealing. Second, the hermeneutic strategy is particularly in vitingbecause Gorgias himself seems to have attached enormous importance to h is style,one often associated with such figures of speech as antithesis, anadiplosis(repetition of words), homoeoteleuton (likeness of sound in final syllables ofsuccessive words or clauses) and parisosis (arrangement of words in nearly equalperio ds). Given Gor gias's attention to matters of style, it is not unreasona ble topresum e that they may offer a clue to understanding his enigmatic philoso phy. Inthis essay, I will examine two prominent schools of critics who employ thishermeneutic strategy, and who arrive at conflicting interpretations of Gorgias's

overall philosophy. I then argue that each of these readings misconstrues thenature of Gorgias's writing, and I present an alternative reading of his style. Iconclude by suggesting that given his stylistic practice, Gorgias may possess adifferent concep tion of philo soph y than that presum ed by man y of hisinterpreters.

Before examining these two schools of interpretation, it is useful to placethem in respect to what may be termed the traditional construal of Go rgia s's styleand its implications about his putative philosophy. For traditionally, most criticshave seen Go rgias's style as poet ic, and have viewed his apparent preoccup ationwith style as an indication that he not a serious philosopher at all, but rather amere stylist, an orator who deploys poetic devices to embellish his speeche s.This view is first suggested by Plato, who describes Gorg ias's style as an eleg antfeast designed to please an audience rather than explore philosophical issues(Gorgias 447a ). Aristotle echoes this portrayal of Gorgias as a poetic stylistlacking serious ideas, asserting that

Since, though speaking absurdities, the poets seemed to have acquired their presentfame through their style, for this reason prose style was in the first instance poetic.


3/12

_44 . Scott Consigny

like that of Gorgias. And even now, many uneducated people think such stylistsexpress themselves best (Rhetoric 1404a 24-8) (Sprague A29).

This construal of Gorgias as a poetic stylist is iterated by numerous classicalcritics, who portray Gorgias as a stylist indifferent to substantive issues (SpragueA l , la , 2 , 4 , 21 , 30, 32, 35); and it has persisted in the modem era as well, withcritics characterizing Gorgias as a poetic orator offering a plethora of words and a

paucity of ideas (Van Hook 122); ah artist in words and not a man with amessage (Smith 354); a writer who simply borrowed a number of the techniquesof poetry and developed to an extreme the natural Greek habit of antithesis(Kennedy 64); and an orator in whose writing there is nothing of philosophicalimportance; only a kind of clever-silliness.... (Robinson 59). In RobertCon nors' version of this critical comm onplace, rhetoric for Gorgias was extremelypoetical ... abundant [in its] use of every poetic device—antithesis, isocolon,parison, homoeoteleuton—except meter.... His style is a result of his discovery ofa techne by which he could most effectually tap the response of orally conditionedminds and prov oke that poetic response through rhetoric(48).

This construal of Gorgias as a poetic stylist is useful for understanding thetwo schools of critics under consideration, for in their project of rehabili tatingGorgias as a serious thinker, each school tends to retain the commonplace thatGorgias writes poetically. In this vein, each contends that Gorgias's p oetic styleis integral to his enigmatic thought; that it is only through figurative speech thathe is able to articulate what Richard Eno s calls his clear-cut epistemology (51).The first school originates with Mario Untersteiner, whose approach is shared tovarying degrees by Enos, Bruce Gronbeck and Richard Engnell . According toUntersteiner, Gorgias's style is indeed poetic, in that it is replete with numerousfigures of speech which, before invading Gorgias's artistic prose, [were] used bypoetry, which influenced him (200-201). Like the poets he draws from, Gorgiasuses these figures mim etically, to represent or replicate the Truth about things inthemselves. But Gorgias departs from many poets in that he deploys these figures epistemologically, in order to display a view of reality that resists articulation in rational discourse. That is, he deploys poetic figures to represent or replicate theessential Truth about reality by introducfing] them into a philosophical c oncept oflife and into a tragic comprehension of reality (201). Thes e poetic figures aresuperficially quite diverse, but are in fact grounded on one distinctive figure, that ofantithesis, wh erein opposite concepts are contrasted (200). For such figures asisokola, homoeoteleuton, and parisosis, in balancing phrases and clauses, serve toelaborate and underscore the central antitheses of the text, and to provide each w ith a stricter conceptual unity of its own, allowing its constituents to appear moreclearly (200).

The figure of antithesis is crucial, according to Untersteiner, for it enablesGorgias to replicate or imitate stylistically a tragic antithesis that is present inreality itself. That is, by revealing an essential element in his own language he[shows] how reality [is] stamped throughout with the same pattern: theirreducibility of the antitheses (my italics) (194). In Enos's terms, Gorgias usesthe antithesis as a fundamental methodological instrument, in that his rhetoricstressed an antithesis which went beyond the stylistic form that earned himdistinction to reveal and direct a philosophical m ethod of inquiry (45). The poetic

figure of antithesis is indispensible for articulating the truth about Reality, be causeone of the fundamental aspects of this antithesis is a tragic conflict betwe enBeing and human understanding and logos, itself. As Gronbeck notes, the tragedy


4/12

The Styles of Gorgias 45_

of kno wled ge is two-fold, for Ma n seeking true know ledge is frustrated with thegulf between the non-rationality of the gods and the attempted rationality of hisown mind; further, man working to convey what partial knowledge he has mustmove through the medium of logoi and by genus psyche, which is as capable ofdisease as the bod y (31). O r, according to Engnell, [fjor Gorgias, know ledge wastragic because when man approached the world rationally, through logos, he wasalways forced into contradiction or led to antithetical conclusions (176 ). Toattempt to argue for the notion that the Truth about reality cannot be proved isinherently contradictory and self-refuting; and Gorgias's way to avoid such adilemm a is to use a poetic technique, and to thereby show through imita tionwhat that reality is. In short, Gorgias is able to apprehend the true nature ofreality, but also to recognize that he cannot logically articulate i t . Hecircumvents this difficulty by using an antithetical style that in effect shows theTruth in a non-logical or poetic manner.

If this school sees Go rgia s's poe tic style as a mimetic display of theinherently antithetical nature of reality, a second school of critics interprets hisstyle as expressive rather than mime tic, and infers that for Gorgias every a ccoun t of reality is an arbitrary expression of the poetic rhetor. In this sense, G orgia s'sexpressive style reflects a subjectivism, whereby one can never apprehen d any

external reality whatsoever. In this vein, Laszlo Versenyi argues that Go rgias'sconception of the power of the word makes him m ore akin to the lyric poets wh o,instead of enlightening man, gratify, delight him, and provide an escape from hisplight (52). Because he considers everyday life to be deluded, ignorant,unessential, and unsafe, according to Versenyi, Gorgias uses his expressive styleto generate imaginative alternatives to everyday life, offering release and salv ationthrough an escape into a better, more essential, and sounder rea lm (52). InCharles Seg al's terms, Gorgias transfers the emotive devices and effects of poetryto his own prose, a practice whereby logos is ... free from the exigencies ofmim etic adherence to physical reality.... (107). Gorgia s is a subjectivist forwhom what is called reality dwells only in the human psyche and itsmalleability and susceptibility to the effects of linguistic corruscation (my italics)(107). And according to Jacqueline de Romilly, Gorgias is a skeptic who deniesthe possibility of know ledge, and whose poetic magic rests on the notion that al l

truth is out of reach (my italics) (20).Perhaps the fullest version of this interpretation of Gorgias's style is offered

by Eric White, who sees Gorgias's endlessly creative and figurative style asexemplifying a will to spontaneity, one by which he expresses new and illusoryspheres of belief in an every-changing moment (21). Unlike Untersteiner, w hosees Gorgias as systematically deploying the traditional figure of the antithesis,White sees Gorgias's style as constantly innovative, lyrically originating novelfigures from mom ent to mom ent. That is, Gorgias com poses an endlesslyproliferating style deployed according to no overarching principle or rationaldesign (21), whereby he restlessly experime nts with the style of utteran ce in thehope of producing genuine novelty (30). And unlike Untersteiner, who assertsthat Gorgias's antithetical style replicates the tragic architecture of reality itself,White argues that for Gorgias each whimsical figure of speech creates its ownillusory domain , in that Gorgias discovers in every new occasion a uniqueopportunity to confer meaning on the world (14). Gorg ias's style thus reveals hisunderlying epistemology to be a subjectivism wherein each novel creation is anexpression of his personal whim , an ultimately arbitrary imposition of form


5/12

46 Scott Consigny

upon the teeming variety of the world (my italics) (36). And his capriciou sfiguration implies that every ostensibly mimetic verbal account of an externalreality is deceptive insofar as it is taken as an accurate representation of how thingsreally are . Henc e Gorgias implies in his style that, as Untersteiner notes, ' trag iccon trarie ty,' in the last analy sis, is only a figure of speec h (41-42 ).

The Styles of daptation

We are thus confronted with two conflicting analyses of Gorgias's style and itsepistemolog ical significance, the former holding that Gorgias's an titheses offer a ninsight into the tragic antitheses inherent in reality; the latter maintaining thatGorgias's arbitrarily invented metaphors imply that any understanding of reality isforever out of reach. Whereas each of these construals provides a coherentinterpretation of his style and thereby seems to rehabilitate Gorgias as a clear-cu t epistemologist, I contend the readings do not accurately characterize his actuastylistic practice. For each of these approaches to Gorg ias's style may be termed a histori cal, in that they in effect isolate Gorgias's works from their historical andcultural setting, and attemp t to discern a coherent stylistic pattern within theworks them selves. This approach is misleading, for it relies completely on howGor gias's style appears to us today, and makes no attempt to discern ho w it w ouldhave appeared to the audiences to which he addressed his work s. Draw ing on adistinction offered by Richard Rorty, we may say that each school offers a ration al reconstruction of Gorgia s's style, attempting to assess it on the basis ofhow it sounds to our own ears, rather than attempting a historical reconstructiondesigned to discern how it would have been received by Go rgias's c ontemporaries.In this section of my essay, I undertake a historical reconstruction of Gorg ias'sstyle, placing each of G orgias's four major extant works among other texts in theirrespective ge nres. That is, I situate the Epitaphios, th e Encomium for Helen, th eApology For Palamedes, and On Nature ot Not-Being in the respective genres ofthe Athenian funeral oration, the Discourse on Helen of Troy, the Athenian legalApo logy, and the Eleatic metaphysical trac t Drawing on recent philological andhistorical research in each of these four genres, I argue that in each of his works

Gorgias adapts his style of writing to the vocabulary and protocols of speaking andreasoning of each genre or discourse. In short, I contend that rather than writingin a consistently antithetica l or arbitrarily innov ative style, Gorgias insteadexhibits a diverse, chameleon-like manner of writing and speaking designed to adaptto the constraints of distinct, recognizable genres.

I turn first to Gorgias's Epitaphios or Athenian Funeral Oration, a workwhich seems to exemplify the putative Gorgia n style mo st strikingly. To ourears, Gorgi as's writing may seem highly antithetical and excessively ornate, givingcredence to the readings of both Untersteiner and White; yet when we placeGorgias's text among other extant Athenian funeral orations, we find that itsantitheses and ornamentation emulate the expected stylistic conventions of thegenr e. An exam ination of the funeral orations of Lysias, Pericles, Hyperides andPlato all show that Gorgias's use of formal and stately figures is quite in keeping

with the conventions of the Epitaphios, an officially sanctioned military andpolitical oration serving to honor the dead and reinforce comm unal virtues. Adetailed analysis of the topoi and figures of these extant orations lies beyond thescope of this essay; but it may be noted that in his use of antithesis, as well as of


6/12


homoioteleuta, parisosis and isokola, he echoes rather than departs from its formaland antithetical figuration. In Nicole Lo raux 's terminology , the Sophist, anopportunist in form as well as in content, has turned to the advantage of his ow nthought themes proper to the funeral oration. ... appropriating a fixed form towhich he had first to subject himself (my italics) (227-2 28). Th e sombe rsonorities, repetition of sounds, and rigorous formality of Gorgias's style isparadigmatic of the Athenian funeral oration rather than idiosyncratic; and whatma ny critics identify as peculiarly Gorg ian might better be described as typical ofthese works. Indeed, the paradigmatic status of Gorgias's text is underscored byexamining the Menexenus, wherein Plato parodies the entire genre of the funeraloration. For in his parody Plato mimics several of Gorgias's specific phras es,suggesting that Gorgias's oration is representative of the genre as a whole in bothits content and its style (Loraux, 313).

If Gorgias adapts his manner of writing to the formal style of the funeraloration in his Epitaphios, he adapts to the very different conventions of epic, lyricand dramatic poetry in his Encomium for Helen. Indeed , the style of Helen differsfrom that of the Epitaphios to such an extent that some scholars have contendedthat the tw o texts are by different au thors, Jeb b asserting that Helen does not bearany distinctive marks of the style of Gorgias, and Spengel attributing it to

Polykrates (101). This difference in the two styles is obvious even in translation;for whereas Gorgias uses antithesis throughout the Epitaphios, he uses this figurefar less often in Helen, and instead deploys the more typically poet ic figures ofme taphor, simile, and personification. Indeed, Poulakos suggests that Gorg ias usesHelen to personify his own art of rhetoric, defending Helen as a pretext fordefending his often-maligned art (Helen 1-16). Gorgias's use of conventionally p oet ic figures rather than the formal figures of sound found in the Epitaphios isunderstan dable, for the style of what may be labelled the discourse on Helen is adistinctively imaginative literary discourse, in contrast to the more temporally andstylistically restricted funeral oration. But the predominant comm onplaces andtropes in the discourse on Helen are nevertheless quite recognizable; and G orgias'suse of these devices echoes their use by Homer, Stasinos, Stesichorus, Aeschylusand Euripides (Lindsay, 156; Suzuki, IS).

In the Palamedes, next, Gorgias adapts to yet another contemporary style ofwriting, employing the acceptable figures of speech and thought found in typicalfifth-century Athe nian legal apolo gies. As with the case of Helen, critics havedisputed Gorgias 's authorship of the work precisely because of the markeddifference in style between it and his other writings (Unte rsteiner 95). In thisvein, Theodor Gomperz notes that classical critics distinguish between theceremo nial style which is brilliant, exalted, stately, flowery and full of color, anda forensic style that is sharp , cool, clear and sober (477 ); and presum ing that heis indeed its author, Gorgias shows that he is master of each . As in the case of theEpitaphios, Gorgias's success in adapting to the structural and stylistic constraintsof the legal apology is attested to by Plato's choice of the Palamedes as a model toimitate and parody in his Apology. For as James Coulter notes, Plato em ploysmany of the same commonplaces and phrases as does Gorgias, among which arereference to the defendant's modest wealth as proof of sincerity, the claim to be a

benefactor of the judges, the falsity and contradictory nature of the charge, the lackof personal gain from committing such a crime, the use of logical rather thanemotional appeal, the exhortation not to hurry what old age will soon bring about;the distinction between words and deeds; the future condemnation of the jury if it


7/12

_48 Scott Con signy

condemns an innocent defendant; the preference of death to dishonor (31-67)Plat o's choice of Gorgias's wo rk to parody strengthens the argumen t that Go rgias 'style is representative of the legal apology rather than a consisten tly antit hetic alor an arbitrarily n ovel presentation of figures of speech.

In his treatise On Not-Being, finally, Gorgias adapts to the convention s an dconstraints of yet another existing discourse, that of the traditional Eleatic tract oexercise. Go rgias's o riginal text is lost, and we have only paraphrases by Sextuand pseudo-Aristotle; hence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions abousuch stylistic matters as his figures of speech . But it may be noted th at in classicacommentary on the work, there is no mention that Gorgias violated the stylisticpractices of the Eleatics; and we may presume that his manner of writing wasconsidered quite typical of the genre. Indeed, Gorgias's choice of topoi, his use odeductive argument, and his abstract voice seem to imitate the accepted phi losoph ical s ty le of the Eleat ic t radit ion. In Thom as Ro senm eyer ' sassessmen t, Go rgias 's pamp hlet, i.e., the original of the two versions which wenow possess, is seen as ah epicheirema in the Eleatic tradition. His technique ofargumentation places him in the company of Zeno and Melissus. . . . Nord enshowed u p the stylistic kinship between G orgias and Heraclirus, and actually theris more than mere style to connect the thought of the two . (231). It lies beyon dthe scope of this essay to attempt to assess which Eleatic philosopher Gorgiasmost closely emulates; but it is sufficient for my argument to note that in thiswork , as in his other three texts, the most remarkable feature of Go rgias 's style isneither a consistent use of the antithesis nor an arbitrary figurative originalityThis do es not mean that Gorgias never uses antitheses; for some of the estab lisheddiscourses to which he adapts, in particular the official funeral oration, employ thafigure of speech. No r does it mean that he eschews originality in his figurationfor some discourses, such as the overtly literary discourse on Helen, encourageand reward overtly creative** word play. But if one examin es all four of Go rgi as'smajor extant texts rather than merely one or two, and situates those textshistorically rather than examining them as isolated poetic artifacts, then o ne musconclude that Gorgias 's governing stylistic strategy is one of stylisticopportunism, adapting to the diverse norms of existing discourses, whether they bthose of the formal and sonorous funeral oration, the playful and witty discourse onHelen , the lucid and sincere legal apology, or the abstract and terse Eleatic essay .

F r o m E p i s t e m o l o g y t o H e r m e n e u t i c s

Given this reading of G orgias's style, it appears that the results of my inquiryare primarily negative, for it does not seem possible on the basis of his style toascribe any clear-cut epistemo logy to Gorgias. W ere it the case that Gorgiassystematically deployed antitheses, i t may be plausible to conclude that hisobjective was to replicate mimetically an antithesis in the nature of the worlditself; or were it the case that Gorgias arbitrarily invented novel figures of speechit may be reasonable to infer that he is a subjectivist who sees reality as sequenceof disconnected moments given a subjective coherence through force of will. Bu

on the basis of historical evidence, I have argued that neither reading of his style iswarranted, in that Gorgias appears to adapt his vocabulary and figures of speech todistinct, well-defined genres, rendering his own speech fitting to the vocabularyand norms of speaking and reasoning of each genre of discourse. Yet if Gorgias


8/12


9/12

_50 Scott Consign y

and what is said. Indeed, one might say that for Gorgias there is no subjecmatter that exists apart from the discourse in which it is raised; no indepen dentcontent that antedates and is somehow re-presented in a given style. RatherGorgias offers various ways of describing and arguing, wherein each discourse ostyle provides a distinct way of seeing and thinking. Hence to look for a distinc c onten t behind one or another of Gorg ias's own various styles, and to presumthat his assertions in one discourse will necessarily be consistent with his remarkin a potentially incomme nsurate discourse, is to foist an epistem ology upohim, rather than seeing him as engaging in a hermeneutic project of discursivadaptation.

Gorgias doe s not comm ent directly on his own m ethodology, but he suggestthat he considers his own intellectual endeavor to be hermeneutic rather thanepistem ological with his metapho r of discourse as a gam e. Specifically, hcompares speech to the Olympic gam es, noting that a verbal encounter or conte stdem ands daring and skill , qualit ies shared with the athlete (Sprague B8)Gorgias's metaphor is significant, for if each discourse is a kind of game, then it i re gulativ e of its speakers, in that it prescribes its own protocols of speech a nreasoning. Further, each discourse possesses its own internal criteria for speakinand reasoning, in effect claiming sovereignty for itself to warrant or rejecstatements mad e within it. Speaking metaphorically, Gorgias remarks that each

discourse or logos is a kind of powerful lord (Sprague Bl 1,8), sovereign over itsown dom ain and independent of alternative discourses. As such, no one discoursis privileg ed, in the sense that it is warranted in claiming priority over othediscourses in its formulation or production of truths. Through his own practice, awell as in specific remarks, Gorgias implies that every discourse is of this sortwhether it is the Athenian funeral oration, the literary discourse on Helen, thAthenian legal apology, the Eleatic tract, or any of the discourses of poetsmete orologists, philosophers or popular orators (Sprague B l l , 13). Individualusing one discourse are warranted from within that discourse to assert truths ; bustatements warranted in one discourse need not be warranted in another. For theris no one mode of speaking or thinking that is suprem e or neutral, one withiwhich every such claim may be adjudicated.

Insofar as Gorgias construes understanding as a hermeneutic project of adap tingto diverse discourses, he would presumably reject the notion that any one discourseand hence any one style, whether it be that of the funeral orator, literary criticattorney or philosopher, has a privileged access to the truth. In mis respect, hwou ld repudiate Unterstein er's claim that the antithetica l style is able to replicatthe nature of things as they really are , and that apprehension of this tragicantithesis is not itself justifiable only within the protocols of a particulardisc ourse . Fo r no one style , whether it is the antithetical formality of thEpitaphios, the lucid and closely reasoned legalese of the Palamedes, th emetaphoric w ittiness of Helen, or the elevated abstractions of Not-Being, possessesa privile ged status offering a direc t access to the inherent structure of the wo rldBut whereas Gorgias would resist the assertion that any one discourse or style iprivileg ed in this way, he would also reject the subjectivist notion that anindividual is able to create his own reality arbitrarily, following his own whimsthrough the expression of novel figures of speech. For to speak effectively o

successfully in any instance, one must speak fittingly, adapting to the constraintof the discourse at hand and speaking appropriately from moment to momentNov el and recognizably poe tic figures will be appropriate in some discourses


10/12


such as in an overtly literary discourse about Helen; but it is incorre ct tocharacterize their use as arbitrary ; rather, the articulation of poetic figures is itselfregulated by the conventions of poetic discourse. As such, Gorgias implies thatthe success—and truth — of on e's remarks is determined neither by the essentialnature of a putative reality lying beyond every discourse, nor in an individualspeaker's arbitrary inspiration or whim, but rather through the recognized protocols

and criteria of the specific discourse being spoken.

Scott ConsignyDepartment of EnglishIowa State Un iversity

Works Cited

Beck, L. W . Thilosophy as Literature.Philosophical Style, ed. Berel Lang.Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980.

Binkley, Timothy. Wittgenstein's Language. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1974.Burgess, Theodore. Epideictic Literature: Studies in C lassical Philology 3.

Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1902. Reprinted, New York: Garland, 1987.Con nors, Robe rt. Greek Rhetoric and the Transition from Orality.Philosophy

and Rhetoric 19(1986): 38-65 .Coulter, James. The Relation of the Apology of Socrates to Go rgias' Defense of

Palamedes and Plato's Critique of Gorgianic Rhetoric.Plato: True andSophistic Rhetoric, ed. Keith Erickson. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1979. 31-67 .

de Romilly, Jacqueline. Magic an d Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: HarvardU P, 1975.

Derrida, Jacques. Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles. T rans. Barbara Harlow. Chicago: U ofChicago P, 1979.

Diels, Hermann and Walther Kranz, eds. Die Fragm ente Der Vorsokratiker. Berlin:August Raabe, 1959.

Dodds, E. R. Plato's Gorgias. Oxford: Clarendon , 1990.Donagan, A. Victorian Philosophical Prose: J. S. Mill and F. H. Bradley.

English Literature and British Philosophy, ed. S. P. Rosenbaum. Chicago : Uof Chicago P, 1971.

Eng nell, Richard . Implications for Com munication of the RhetoricalEpistemology of Gorgias of Leontini. Western Speech. 37 (1973): 175-184.

Enos, Richard Leo. The Epistemology of Gorgias' Rhetoric: A Re-examination. The Southern Speech Communication Journal 42 (1976): 35-51.

Garver, Eugene. Richard McK eon's Chapter in the History of Rhetoric: Or, W hyDoes McKeon W rite So Funny? Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 14(1984): 3-14.

Gom perz, Theodor. Greek Thinkers. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901 .


11/12

_52 Scott Con signy

Gronbeck, Bruce. Gorgias on Rhetoric and Poetic: A Rehabilitation.TheSouthern Speech Communication Journal 38 (1972): 27-38.

Guthrie, W . K. C. The Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge UP , 1971.Hav elock, Eric . The Linguistic Task of the Presocratics.Language and Thought

in Early Greek Philosophy, ed. Kevin Robb. LaSalle: Hegeler Institute, 1983.

7-82.Harding, H. D. The Speeches of Thucydides. New York: Coronado, 1973.Jebb, R . The Attic Orators. Volume 2. London: Macmillan, 1876.Kennedy, George. The Art of Persuasion in G reece. Princeton: Princeton U P,

1963.Lang , Berel. Philosophy and the Art of Writing: Studies in Philosophical and

Literary Style. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1983.Lev i, Albert. Philosophy as Literature: The Dialogue.Philosophy and Rhetoric.

9(1979): 1-20.Lindsay, Jack. Helen of Troy. London: Constable, 1974.Loenen, J. H. Parmenides, Melissus, Gorgias. Assen, Netherlands: Prakke and

Prakke, 1959.Loraux, Nicole. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral O ration in the Classical

City. Tran s. Alan Sheridan. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986 .Ma ckin, Jam es. Schismogenesis and Comm unity: Pericles' Funeral Oration.

Quarterly Journal of Speech 77 (1991): 252-262.Makin, Stephen. How Can W e Find Out What Ancient Philosophers Said?

Phronesis 33 (1988): 121-132.Nehamas, Alexander. Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Cambridge: Harvard UP , 1985.Plato. Gorgias. W. R. M. Lamb, trans. London: Wm. Heinemann Ltd., 1967.Poulak os, John . Go rgias' Encomium to Helen and the Defense of Rhe toric.

Rhetorica 1.2 (19 83): 1-16.Rob inson , John . On Gorgias. Phronesis: Supplementary Volum e I, ed. A. P. D.

Mourelatos, E.N. Lee, R. M. Rorty. 1973. 49-60.Roochnik, David. The Tragedy of Reason. New York: Routledge , 1990.Rorty, Amelie. Experiments in Philosophic Genre: Descartes' Med itations.

Critical Inquiry 9 (1983): 545-564.Ro rty, Richard. Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: An Essay on Derrida.New

Literary History 10 (1978): 141-160.Ro rty, Richard. The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres.Philosophy in

History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy, ed. Richard Rorty, J. B .Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1984. 49 -75.

Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton UP,1980.

Rosenm eyer, Thom as. Gorgias, Aeschylus, and Apate.American Journal ofPhilology 76 (1955): 225-260.


12/12


Schiappa, Edward. Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy andRhetoric. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 1991.

Segal, Cha rles. Gorgias and the Psychology of the Lo gos .Harvard Studies inClassical Philology 66 (1972): 99-155.

Smith, Brom ley. Gorgia s: A Study of Oratorical Style.Quarterly Journal ofSpeech Education 7 (1921), 335-359.

Sprague, Rosamund Kent, ed. The Older Sophists. Columbia, South Carolina:University of South Carolina Press, 1972.

Suzuki, Miho ko. Metamo rphoses of Helen: Authenticity, Difference, and the Epic.Ithaca: Cornell UP , 1989.

Untersteiner, Mario. The Sophists. Trans. Kathleen Freeman. Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1954.

Van Hook, Larue. The Encomium on Helen, by Gorgias.The Classical Weekly6.16 (1913): 122-123.

Versenyi, Laszlo. Socratic Humanism. New Haven: Yale UP, 1963.Wh ite, Eric Charles. Kaironomia. Ithaca: Cornell UP , 1987.

rhetoric society quarterly volume 22 issue 3 1992 consigny, scott -- the styles of gorgias

Documents