Gorgias, Polus, and Socrates on Rhetoric
in Plato's Gorgias
by
Daniel N. Erickson
Department of Modern & Classical Languages & Literatures
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks
Introduction
Rhetoric was an important part of Greco-Roman education,
for it enabled politicians and others who spoke in public
to persuade their audiences in an efficient and effective
manner. However, there was (and still is) a danger associated
with this art because, like any powerful tool, it can be
misused. Just as a virtuous person can employ it to accomplish
good, so can an evil one use it to do the opposite. The
nature of rhetoric was of interest to Plato, and he wrote
about it in the Gorgias. The focus of this paper
is on what Gorgias, Polus, and Socrates say about the subject
in this dialogue and the insights concerning its essence
and proper use that can be gained therefrom.
The Gorgias
Dodds states that the Gorgias is presented
as a drama with five actors (6), but due to the constraints
of space, only the three mentioned above will be considered
in this article. The main topic of conversation between
Gorgias and Socrates is the definition of rhetoric. In
the dialog between Polus (a follower of Gorgias) and Socrates,
the emphasis is on how it should be used. Socrates masterfully
leads the discussions through a series of questions and
answers, termed "dialectic," to help all of the interlocutors
understand the subject better. Nothing seems to fluster
him, and even when the impatient Polus becomes agitated,
he maintains his composure and keeps the discussion on track.
Gorgias, Polus, and Socrates: Background
Each of these men is an actual historical character. Gorgias
was born in Sicily, where rhetoric has its roots. In the
Gorgias, he is clearly considered a rhetorician,
not a sophist (Dodds 7), though he shared some of their
characteristics, such as teaching for pay and traveling
from city to city. However, he differed from them in one
important respect: whereas sophists believed that they could
teach arete 'excellence,' Gorgias did not. Of those
whom Socrates examines in the Gorgias, he receives
the gentlest treatment.
Polus has a much harder time with Socrates, and
one reason why is his impulsive nature. As Kennedy observes,
his name means "colt," which is suggestive of his personality
(45). His coltish impatience stands in stark contrast to
the professional manner of Gorgias (Dodds 11). Not much
is known about the historical Polus; all that is known for
certain is that he was born at Acragas in Sicily, taught
rhetoric, and wrote a no longer extant treatise or two on
the subject (Dodds 11).
We know more about Socrates. According to Ehrenberg, it is
difficult to discover the real Socrates though many wrote
about him (362), but there are some facts upon which there
is agreement. Regarding his family, he followed in his
father's footsteps and became a stonemason, his mother was
a midwife, and he married Xanthippe, who bore him three
sons. Most of his life was spent in Athens, and he left
only to fulfill military obligations (Ehrenberg 366). Although
he participated in governmental affairs on occasion, he
usually stayed clear of them. However, he did not keep
aloof from people and enjoyed conversing with and questioning
anyone who would speak with him, particularly the aristocratic
youth. Eventually this angered some powerful individuals,
and he was accused of corrupting the youth and introducing
new gods into the state. That he was convicted and executed
is well known.
Besides his death, Socrates is also remembered for
his "teaching," though he claimed not to teach anything.
He questioned men to help them know more both about themselves
and about good and evil, and it was through this type of
knowledge that he believed excellence could be found. As
we shall see, the Socratic method is not easy and can be
quite frustrating.
Gorgias and Socrates (449A-461B)
The scene for most of the Gorgias is the
house of Callicles, Gorgias' host. The first to be questioned
by Socrates is Gorgias, who confidently promises to answer
any question that may be posed. When asked the name of
his art and what he calls himself, he replies that he is
a rhetorician and practices rhetoric. It seems that Socrates
has asked a simple question requiring a simple answer, but
this is not so since he then continues the questioning to
discover exactly what he does.
Socrates goes on to ask Gorgias whether can train
others to be rhetoricians, and he asserts that he can.
At this point, the conversation becomes deeper, and Socrates
sets the stage for a more serious discussion by asking him
to continue to reply to his questions as briefly as possible.
Gorgias consents, claiming that he is a master of the brief
style of speaking and that nobody can speak more briefly
than he.
Socrates then asks, "With what particular thing
is its [rhetoric's] skill concerned?" (449D).1
Keeping true to his promise of brevity, Gorgias responds,
"With speech" (449D). Inquiring further, Socrates
asks whether rhetoric deals with every kind of speech.
Gorgias answers that it does not, but that it enables men
to speak and to understand what they say. Socrates is still
not satisfied and observes that other arts, such as gymnastics
and medicine, use speech and that their practitioners understand
what they say about their disciplines. He then asks, "Why
then, pray, do you not give the name 'rhetorical' to those
other arts, when they are concerned with speech, if you
call that 'rhetoric' which has to do with speech?" (450B).
Gorgias replies, "Because, Socrates, the skill in those
other arts is almost wholly concerned with manual work and
similar activities, whereas in rhetoric there is no such
manual working, but its whole activity and efficacy is by
means of speech" (450B-C).
This seems like a good answer, but Socrates believes
that Gorgias still has not captured rhetoric's essence.
He maintains that other arts, like geometry and arithmetic,
use speech and very little or no manual labor. When asked
what subject is dealt with by rhetorical speech, he replies,
"The greatest of human affairs, Socrates, and the best"
(451D). Socrates, however, points out that this does not
answer the question since other professionals would say
that their arts are concerned with the greatest good for
mankind. In the words of Scott, "Praise doesn't define
it" (1).
Still patient and not giving up, Socrates poses
another question to Gorgias. He asks him what rhetoric
produces, and Gorgias replies that it is persuasion. He
claims that rhetoric enables a man to persuade judges, members
of the assembly, and others that deal with governmental
issues. He also boasts that a rhetorician can have anyone
he wants as his slave by using his powers of persuasion.
Socrates, beginning to feel confident that Gorgias is close
to revealing his concept of rhetoric, synthesizes what he
has said about it thus far. As he understands it, Gorgias
believes that rhetoric produces persuasion and nothing else.
When asked if this is correct, he agrees.
Socrates next wants to know the domain of persuasion
in general and the true nature of rhetorical persuasion.
He points out to Gorgias that arts besides rhetoric persuade,
such as teaching. Gorgias does not deny this and when asked
what type of persuasion rhetoric brings about, he replies
that it is the kind that is used in public meetings and
courts and that it is concerned with justice and injustice.
Socrates reassures Gorgias that he is not harassing
him and then continues his probing to clarify the issues
at hand, for he wants to avoid any misunderstanding. He
asks him whether there is a difference between knowledge
and belief, and Gorgias states that the two are different.
He also agrees with Socrates that persuasion is used both
in causing someone to learn something and in swaying one
to a particular belief. When Socrates suggests that there
must be two kinds of persuasion, one that produces knowledge
and another that causes belief, Gorgias agrees. Socrates
then asks him to state the type of persuasion produced by
a rhetorician at a public meeting or in a court, to which
Gorgias replies that it is the one that brings about belief.
Therefore, Socrates asserts, "Thus rhetoric, it seems, is
a producer of persuasion for belief, not for instruction
in the matter of right and wrong" (455A). Gorgias grants
that this is true.
Socrates now states that he wants to sort out exactly
what has been said so far about rhetoric and asks Gorgias
to imagine that he is being questioned by prospective pupils
concerning what they will learn from him. Gorgias enthusiastically
relates what he considers the great power of rhetoric.
Of particular note, he states that he has gone with his
brother, a physician, many times on his rounds and has been
able to convince his patients to submit to treatment when
his brother could not. He declares that a rhetorician can
speak before a crowd more persuasively than anyone else
but should not use his art improperly. Furthermore, when
a rhetorician abuses the power of rhetoric, his teacher
should not be blamed because he imparts his knowledge to
be used correctly.
When Gorgias is finished, Socrates asks him whether
he wants to continue. He does so because he feels that
Gorgias has made some claims that are not in accord with
what he had said earlier and he does not want the situation
to turn ugly. Gorgias agrees to proceed. Socrates' position
at the end of their discussion can be summarized thus: a
rhetorician has no knowledge, produces only empty beliefs,
and uses his skill with words as "a tool of power and pleasure"
(Scott 1).
Commentary
Gorgias appears to be a fine professional with ethical
standards. He definitely is a master at speaking and cognizant
of his responsibility not to use his craft unethically.
Perhaps he boasts too much about what he sees as the powers
of rhetoric; but this might be forgiven in part since others
were listening, and we can not blame him for wanting to
attract some business. However, he has not questioned some
aspects of his profession deeply enough, such as its relation
to justice and injustice, and this is his major flaw in
the Gorgias.
Just as Gorgias shows himself to be an expert rhetorician,
Socrates displays his mastery of dialectic, which somewhat
resembles rhetoric. For example, like Gorgias, he maintains
the attention of his audience, displays poise and confidence,
and carefully presents his case in a vigorous manner. Socrates,
however, delves into meanings of ideas and concepts much
more deeply than does Gorgias, whose art is rather superficial.
All of this is not to say that he does not use some "tricks."
According to Lanham, "He must create a context which does
not notice words as words" (38). This he does very well
by keeping Gorgias and the others busy thinking about what
he says, which gives prominence to his ideas rather than
to his words. The opposite is true of Gorgias because the
way in which he says something is more important than what
he says.
Socrates and Polus (461B-481B)
Socrates next speaks with Polus, who is upset because
he believes that Socrates has been unfair to Gorgias. Socrates
takes control of the situation and does not allow himself
to become upset. He knows how to handle Polus, who, as
noted earlier, is similar to a spirited colt in his impulsiveness.
When Polus asks him what kind of art rhetoric is, he replies
that he considers it a certain kind of knack (empeiria)
and not a real art at all. Polus then inquires what kind
of knack this is, and Socrates responds that it is the kind
that produces pleasure and gratification. He elaborates
on this by explaining that rhetoric is a type of flattery.
Polus, in turn, asks him to name the branch of flattery
to which it belongs, and Socrates replies that it is a reflection
(eidolon) of a branch of politics. Therefore, it
is not one of the true arts, which are founded on knowledge,
but only a counterfeit.
The discussion now shifts to the question of the
power of rhetoric. Polus believes that orators have supreme
power in the cities where they live, but Socrates disagrees.
Thereupon, he tries to clarify what they mean by "power,"
and Polus agrees with him that it is good for one who has
it. Socrates then proceeds to give proof that orators do
not have great power. To begin with, both orators and tyrants
do not really do what they wish, but only what seems best
to them because of the good results that they believe
will be produced. Secondly, a man is powerful only if what
he obtains is good. However, it not infrequently
happens that a seemingly excellent course of action has
bad results, which is a sign of weakness rather than power.
Socrates concludes by saying, "Then I spoke the truth when
I said that it is possible for a man to do what he thinks
fit in a city and yet not to have great power nor do what
he wishes" (468E).
Next, Polus remarks that a man who does whatever
he wants, such as killing or sending to prison whomever
he wishes, is enviable and that it makes no difference whether
he is just or unjust in his actions. Socrates could not
disagree more and adds, "We ought not to envy either the
unenviable or the wretched, but pity them" (469A). As regards
Socrates' opinion of the unjust man, "[He] is completely
wretched, even more so if unpunished, not because his injustice
is more painful, but because it is more evil" (Scott 2).
Polus goes on to state that a man who does as he
wishes must try to avoid punishment, believing that punishment
is an evil and that an unjust man can gain an advantage
from his actions only if he does not incur any disadvantage
or punishment therefrom. Polus also thinks that such a
man can be happy, but not Socrates. One claim made by Polus
to refute him is that surely the omnipotent King of Persia
must be happy, but Socrates can not tell whether he is because
he does not know his stance on education and justice. Polus
then inquires whether he believes that happiness is totally
based on one's attitude towards these concepts. Socrates
replies, "Yes, by my account, Polus; for a good and honourable
man or woman, I say, is happy, and an unjust and wicked
one is wretched" (470E). Socrates also disagrees with Polus
regarding punishment, for he considers it good because it
acts as a medicine and improves an unjust soul, which is
the worst evil that a person can have; a just soul is best
because it is supremely beneficial to the individual (Scott
2).
Commentary
Polus obviously is a man with little knowledge of
the complexities of life. In his naiveté, he believes that
a powerful orator or tyrant is practically invulnerable
and can commit any act of injustice that pleases him. He
does not understand the consequences of the unjust use of
power and how hard it is to avoid punishment for evil acts.
Being selfish and sadistic in mentality, he is completely
ignorant of what it means to live in a community and does
not realize that the total disregard for justice that he
describes is doomed to failure, for people do not tolerate
it for long and soon dispose of the offender.
Socrates, on the other hand, is no stranger to the
real world. He knows both from experience and from contemplation
that we need justice to live happily and that a person can
be truly happy only if she or he is honorable and good.
During his life, he saw the consequences of injustice and
understands that it is destructive not only to the community
but also to the individual. Through dialectic, Socrates
attempts to help Polus to know himself better and grasp
the difference between good and evil. Polus, however, is
a difficult case, and Socrates has such a hard time getting
through to him because he is inexperienced in life, headstrong,
and convinced that he is right. Nevertheless, this does
not discourage Socrates because he knows how important it
is to assist Polus and others like him to come to know themselves,
realize their illogical thinking, and make a firm decision
to pursue excellence and justice.
Conclusion
Plato's Gorgias allows us to examine various
attitudes towards rhetoric and to form our own opinions
about it. Gorgias is representative of those who unequivocally
sing its praises, while Socrates is a fine example of one
who, through careful analysis, arrives at a low opinion
of it. From Polus, we are reminded that the unjust can
use rhetoric to accomplish egotistical and evil objectives.
While we can reject Polus' abhorrent beliefs outright, the
diametrically opposed views of Gorgias and Socrates merit
attention. Most would agree that formal rhetoric is not
the phenomenal art that Gorgias portrays it to be, but from
him we see its effectiveness as a tool of persuasion. Socrates
underestimates the value of rhetoric by considering it a
counterfeit art, but correctly advises us that we need to
know the difference between justice and injustice so that
our actions may be ethically sound and our lives happy.
A point missed by both is that rhetoric is a part of human
behavior (Lanham 46). It is neither just the formal art
of persuasion used by trained professionals nor a mere knack
for producing pleasure and gratification. We all learn
to use rhetoric to some degree of competence to cause others
to listen to us and persuade them to our point of view.
Note
All quotations from the Gorgias are from W. R. M. Lamb, trans., Plato
with an English Translation, vol. 5 (New York: Putnam,
1925).
Works Cited
Dodds, E. R., ed. Gorgias. London: Oxford UP, 1959.
Ehrenberg, Victor. From Solon to Socrates. London:
Methuen, 1968.
Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian
and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
Lamb, W. R. M., trans. Plato with an English Translation.
Vol. 5. New York: Putnam, 1925.
Lanham, Richard A. The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric
in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale UP, 1976.
Scott,
Frances. "Plato, Gorgias: Study Guide to Arguments."
Department of Philosophy. Texas Tech University, 1984. |