There remain two rhetorical works of Gorgias, Helene and Palamedes. Of these works Helene has attracted the attention of scholars because it contains the argument in which Gorgias' own view on the function of language seems explicitly stated. The first aim of this paper is to criticize Guthrie's and Kerferd's interpretation of this work, which seems to be the standard interpretation. The second aim is to suggest a possible interpretation of "deception", which is the crucial notion in the rhetorical theory of Gorgias. From the philosophical point of view, Gorgias is one of the most interesting figures of the sophists. It is known from his philosophical treatise On Not-Being that he was familiar with Eleatic philosophy. In this treatise, Gorgias proves three theses, the second of which is "If anything exists, it cannot be known.", and the third is "If anything can be known, it cannot be conveyed to others". Guthrie and Kerferd insist that the the third part of Helene(pars. 8-14)which demonstrates the power of language on human mind is supported by these doctrines and find in this part the following two epistemological theses : (1)it is impossible for man to acquire knowledge and his understanding always remains on the level of doxa, and(2)all Ianguages are false. But I think that it is impossible to find either of these two doctrines in Helene. They draw the thesis(1)from par. 11. But reading carefully, we find that it never denies the possibility that man has knowledge. It only says that it is difficult and rare for man to have knowledge. This implies that man can attain knowledge even if it is rare. In Helene Gorgias does state one case that he himself regards as knowledge. It is the assertion that Helene is innocent, the assertion that this speech tries to demonstrate. In par. 2, he declares that he "will make the truth clear and remove the ignorance." This means that there can be knowledge for Gorgias. The thesis(2)cannot be extracted from the text of Helene, either. In the third part of On Not-Being, Gorgias states that language itself differs from what it refers to. This fact implies that all languages are inevitably false. Guthrie and Kerferd suppose that the expression "false word" in par. 2 of Helene refers to this fact. But in this place Gorgias says that "How many people persuaded how many people about how many things by false words?". This expression seems to mean that most of the words used for persuasion are false but in rare cases they are true. Gorgias does not deny the possibility that words are true. Thus in Helene he argues consistently from the ordinary point of view and it is not necessary to import the philosophical doctrines demonstrated in On Not-Being into Helene.in order to understand the argument of Helene. The tendency to detect the philosophical doctrines in Helene has influenced the understanding of the key concept "deception" (απατη) in the rhetorical theory of Gorgias. Many scholars think that this concept refers to the fact that there is a deep gulf between language and what it refers to, as is stated in On Not-Being. But it is not in On Not-Being but in Helene that this concept is stated most explicitly. Therefore we must understand it in the context of the argument of Helene. Through the whole argument of Helene, the function of language is argued solely in connection with its emotional effect. In par. 13, the languages of science, law, and philosophy are introduced. Kerferd finds difficulty in understanding the function of these languages with relation to the emotion another explanation to the function of these languages. But Gorgias' intention to mention these languages seems to demonstrate that even in these fields, the emotional effects of language have more powerful influence on human mind than the theoretical reasoning. Gorgias'
(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
