Download Launching a thousand ships: The beauty of Helen of Troy in Isocrates

Launching a thousand ships:
The beauty of Helen of Troy in Isocrates
Canova, Helen, marble 1819. From Bettini, M.and Brillante, C. (2002). Plate number 20.
This thesis is presented for the degree of Master of Arts of the University of Western
Australia.
Serena Ceccarelli
B.A. Honours (UWA)
School of Humanities: Classics and Ancient History
University of Western Australia
2005
FOR
GINEVRA
DE CAROLIS
ii
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the significance of the beauty of Helen of Troy in the Encomium of
Helen written by the fourth-century philosopher Isocrates. Previous traditions, and
especially epic poetry and tragedy, had assessed Helen’s beauty and either blamed or
excused her for causing the Trojan War. Isocrates moved beyond this dichotomy to create a
new focus on her beauty as the ultimate source of all that made Greek culture distinctive.
Modern scholarship, however, has been generally unsympathetic – we may almost say
blind – to this projected beauty. The meaning of beauty in Isocrates’ work has been
overlooked by scholars in favor of its rhetorical structure. The work was criticized for its
disjointed arrangement and lack of seriousness. The Helen has been interpreted as a
reaction to contemporary rhetorical issues or as merely an educational manifesto. This
thesis aims to identify and clarify the ideology underlying Isocrates’ construction of
Helen’s beauty in his encomium.
This study aims to evaluate aesthetically the role of beauty in Isocrates’ Helen. The
evaluation is conducted through a philological analysis of the terms used to describe
Helen’s beauty. Parallels are drawn between Isocrates’ construction of Helen’s
physiological beauty and that described by his teacher Gorgias. The linguistic comparison
of the two texts reveals deeper insight into how Isocrates reacted to the views of his master,
which were based on sensory perception, and how he created in the Helen an encomium of
beauty highlighting its non-visual effects.
iii
The Helen of Isocrates is also compared with the contemporary Platonic work Phaedrus,
which explores beauty as a means of arriving at pure knowledge. In this case, comparisons
are drawn thematically and reveal that while the two works share similar topics and aims
regarding the notions of beauty, Isocrates’ aesthetic idea is much more practically grounded
and intended to be of benefit to the entire society when compared to the more idealistic and
individual Platonic notion. Finally, the reasons for Isocrates’ choice of beauty as a major
theme for the Helen are explored through a comparison of Helen’s beauty to that of Hellas
– an equation which Isocrates deems important for the fourth-century society.
iv
Acknowledgments
I am extremely grateful for the conscientious supervision of Dr Neil O’Sullivan. I would
like to thank him for his patience and especially for the support he has given me over the
years. I feel privileged to have enjoyed his insightful and committed advice and to have
learned the research skills which have been enriching.
This thesis would have been
impossible without his supervision.
I would also like to thank Dr Judith Maitland for her help and advice and Joanna Jamroz for
her helpful assistance in the German language. I would like to thank Andrew Hartwing for
his encouragement and for his insightful comments. Thanks in particular to Kate Riley for
proofreading. I need to thank other scholars and friends who have assisted in different
ways throughout these years of research: Martin Drum, Laura D’Olimpio, Duc Dau, Sarah
Durack, Fiona Groenhout, Suzie Handajani, Sheree Lowe, Narelle McAuliffe, Graeme
Miles and Ali Marchant, Olivia Mair, Julian Welsh. I am also grateful for all the support
offered by the Scholars’ Centre, which facilitated the process of my research. In particular,
I thank Dr Toby Burrows and Susana Melo De Howard for their invaluable help in
providing all the resources for this project. I also owe my gratitude to the staff at Student
Services especially Dr Geoff Cooper and Dr Judy Skene for their assistance in learning,
language and research skills and especially for the initial encouragement and direction
which allowed me to begin this research. I am extremely grateful to Graeme Cleary and
Kael Driskoll for their technical help and assistance.
v
Finally, but in a special way, I would like to thank my parents and my brothers and sisters
for putting up with these years of research and for all the support and encouragement in the
difficult moments. I would like to thank in particular my fiancé James for his patience and
continuous encouragement which has got me through this research project.
Serena Ceccarelli,
University of Western Australia
August 2005.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract
iii-iv
Acknowledgments
v-vi
Abbreviations
ix
Introduction
1-11
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
12-25
1. Beauty in Isocrates’ works
2. Beauty in the Helen
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’
26-82
encomia
1. Beauty-related themes in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
2. Theories of knowledge in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
a. Gorgias on dovxa, lovgoV and beauty
b. Isocrates on dovxa, lovgoV and beauty
3. Isocrates and Gorgias between ejgkwvmion and ajpologiva
vii
Chapter 3: Notions of beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
83-115
1. Beauty and the divine
2. The crusade for beauty
3. Beautiful eloquence
4. The philosophic pursuit of beauty
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
116-147
1. Beauty and Greece
2. The barbarian as antithesis to Greek beauty
3. Athens and love of beauty
4. Isocrates’ purpose in the beauty of the Helen
Conclusion
148-156
Bibliography
157-166
viii
Abbreviations
DK: H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, eds. 1964, Berlin.
L-P: Lobel, E. and Denys Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, eds. 1955, Oxford.
PMG: Page, Denys L. Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. 1962, Oxford.
ix
Introduction
Helen of Troy’s beauty is the object of praise in the Encomium of Helen, (henceforth
referred to simply as ‘the Helen’) by the fourth-century philosopher Isocrates. This research
aims to analyze his work through an aesthetical perspective and intends to evaluate the
importance and significance of Isocrates’ eulogy of beauty in the Helen.1
Although the date of composition has not yet been established with certainty, it is
believed to have been written around 390 B.C.2 Other views give 370 B.C. as the
completion date.3 Mathieu places the speech after 390 and introduces the Helen
chronologically as part of a polemic discussion, claiming that this work belongs to
Isocrates’ youth and can be placed between the judicial discourses and the great political
discourses.4 Livingstone similarly claims that although there is insufficient evidence to date
the Helen with certainty, it would be approximately located between 390 and 380.5
The way in which ancient literature has treated the theme of beauty, embodied in this
mythological character, reveals a definite juridical approach up to the time of Isocrates. The
myth of Helen of Troy was certainly explored in an exhaustive way in several fields, such
1
The Helen survives in forty different manuscripts; the most used have been the Urbinas III (G), the
Vaticanus 936 (D), the Ambrosianus O 144 (E), the Laurentianus LXXXVII 14 (Q), the Scaphusianus 43
(Z), the Vaticanus 65 (L), the Laurentianus LVIII 5 (N) and the Parisinus 2932 (P), (Mathieu and Brémond,
1963, p. 161). Cf. (Zajonz, 2002, pp. 60-64).
2
(Guardini, 1987, p. 311).
3
Jebb claims that from paragraph 3 of the Helen it can be assumed that Gorgias was already dead and he died
in 380 B.C. Moreover he claims that in paragraph 1 there is a reference to the three Socratic groups, namely
the Cynics, the Academy and the Megarians and that these sects must have already been well established and
that Antisthenes, founder of the Cynics, who died in 366 B.C. was still alive (Jebb, 1893a, pp. 98-99).
4
For Mathieu’s chronological theory see Mathieu (Mathieu and Brémond, 1963, p. 151-161).
5
(Livingstone, 2001, p. 43) and (Eucken, 1983, p. 44).
1
Introduction
as epic, poetry, tragedy, rhetoric, and, in different cults and traditions as the main cause of
the mythological Trojan War. From the early Spartan tradition Helen represented beauty
and was also believed to have the power to confer beauty on other people.6 The tradition of
Helen, in Greek literature, begins with the poetry of Homer where, despite her beauty, the
queen is the cause of the Trojan War.7 Helen’s beauty strikes the elders at the Scaean gates,
her face like that of a goddess (Iliad iii, 156-158). The Trojans perceive her as being the
cause of death but Priam instead respects her and believes that the war was willed by the
gods (Iliad iii, 164ff). Hostile feelings against Helen come mainly from the mouth of the
queen herself (Iliad xxiv, 768ff) who admits her guilt8 and feels nostalgia for her family left
behind (Iliad iii, 176).9 So, in the Homeric writings Helen’s beauty is admired but also
feared because it has been the pretext which the gods have used to start the Trojan War.
After having blamed Helen, the poet Stesichorus tries to redeem the image of the
Spartan queen by writing a ‘Palinode’ in her defence. While epic focuses on the events
around characters such as Helen, lyric poetry highlights the emotions and feelings which
those events created in the hearts of the characters.10 Sappho, in fact, in Fragment 16 (L-P),
although still dealing with the shameful woman of the Homeric poems, interprets Helen’s
fleeing to Troy as being driven by the desire for love and presents the queen as a woman
who deserted her husband and preferred beauty to everything else, including ethics and
6
Herodotus writes of the cult of Helen at Sparta: she is worshipped as the goddess of beauty at Therapne (vi,
61, 3) and, as a goddess, had the power to beautify an ugly child who would later become the mother of the
Spartan king Demaratos (vi. 61).
7
(Iliad ii, 160ff, 176ff; Odyssey 4, 145f; 11, 438).
8
Cf. (Worman, 2001, p. 21). Il. ii, 173ff, 241 f, 404; vi, 344; xxiv, 764; Odyssey, iv, 145, 260ff. Helen does
feel responsible for the war and believes that Zeus gave her a cruel destiny (Iliad iii 355-357).
9
Similarly in the Odyssey (iv 244-264) Helen is represented as feeling responsibility for the war and her
betrayal. Stanford, in his commentary on the Odyssey, describes Helen as “repentant, industrious, hospitable,
domesticated and still beautiful” (Stanford, 1961, p. 272).
10
(Zagagi, 1985, p. 64). Similarly, in work by the poet Alcaeus (in fragment 283 L-P), Helen is represented as
the woman who is the cause of death and on account of whom many young lives were wasted.
2
Introduction
values.11 The poem of Stesichorus (fr 187; 223; 192 PMG) aims to redeem the figure of
Helen; the most discussed fragment (192 PMG) opposed for the first time the traditional
version of the Helen myth, claiming that Helen never went to Troy.12 Thus, Stesichorus, in
the attempt to provide the true account for the Trojan War, completely ignores the Homeric
version and justifies Helen’s conduct by creating an ei[dwlon of Helen’s figure.
Later on, the tragedian Euripides writes the Helen, excusing her and claiming she was
never in Troy. In tragedy,13 Euripides follows Stesichorus’ line in creating an ei[dwlon of
Helen14 while the historian Herodotus differs from the Homeric account in that he focuses
on the version of the Egyptian priests. Not convinced by Homer’s story, he accepts the
Egyptian priests’ version of the events surrounding the Trojan War, (ii 112-120).15 It can
be, thus, concluded that the first attempt to redeem the figure of Helen was made by
Stesichorus, later followed by Euripides in his Helen.16 The point that is particularly
important for this research is that especially in Euripides’ Helen17 the beauty of the queen is
the main cause for the Trojan War and for the destruction of Greeks and Trojans (27; 304;
11
(Austin, 1994, p. 61).
Cf. Plato’s Phaedrus 243a. For a discussion of the ambiguous nature of Helen’s eidolon see Bassi (Bassi,
1993, pp. 62-64). For evidence for the phantom created by Stesichorus see Plato’s Republic 586b ff which
compares the fight over images of true pleasure to the fight over the phantom of Helen at Troy by men
ignorant of the truth.
13
Aeschylus in the Agamemnon (60-67) calls Helen the woman of the many husbands and states that even the
etymologies of her name, as destroyer of many ships, have negative implications (Agam. 681-718).
14
According to this version Helen was taken by Hermes to Egypt, to the house of king Proteus; at the end of
the war Menelaus goes to Egypt and meets the true Helen. In other plays by Euripides the representation of
Helen is negative: the Andromache (229-231; 361-363; 590-641; 680-684) in which Helen is a disgrace, the
Hecuba, where the poet mainly focuses on the suffering of the Trojan women, mothers and wives affected by
the loss of lives in the war (265-266; 441-443; 629-656; 943-952); and in the Trojan Women ( 740-779; 914965; 969-1032) where the queen Hecuba is desperate owing to misfortunes which have come about because
of Helen’s flight to Troy.
15
According to this version of the events, while Paris is taking Helen to Troy they are detoured to Egypt and
there as soon as the pharaoh realises Paris’ actions, he detains Helen while the Greeks still wage the war on
Troy, believing that that is where Helen is.
16
(Zagagi, 1985, p. 69). For Stesichorus’ influence of Euripides see Kannicht (Kannicht, 1969, p. 25).
17
In comedy, Aristophanes parodies Euripides’ Helen and picks up the story of the defamed Helen in the
Thesm. (850-928).
12
3
Introduction
363), to the extent that Helen wishes to be turned into an ugly woman so that the Greeks
might forget everything which they suffered because of her (262-266).18
Helen’s appearance in mainly poetic works (Homer, Sappho, Stesichorus, Euripides) has
aroused either pity or hatred towards the character herself: “For many centuries this theme,
expressed by the language of poetry, stimulated tears, sorrow, anger, hatred, gave rise to
sympathy and admiration”.19 However, the reason for this is that the scope of the poetic
genre was designed to offer an extreme range of emotions as a means of escaping from the
difficulties of real life. The philosopher Gorgias, subsequently, wrote an ‘apology’ in
Helen’s defence, giving a logical explanation of her behaviour in prose, yet still using
innovations borrowed from poetry. The fifth-century author, and Isocrates’ teacher, wrote
an Encomium of Helen: in it he aims to excuse the queen on account of her human
impotence in the face of superior forces which prevented her from acting otherwise.
The juridical approach of ancient literature, followed up until this point, takes a new
turn. Isocrates, the prose writer par excellence, adopted the genre of the encomium to
present a new approach to this figure. Isocrates does not judge the extent to which her
beauty needs justification or reproach; rather he praises Helen and her beauty for offering
something most worthwhile. This dissertation seeks to investigate the subject of Helen’s
beauty in a work which was innovative at the time of composition on account to its original
approach to a topic that, elsewhere, had already been assessed on the basis of either guilt or
innocence. In ancient literature, therefore, the beauty of Helen was not praised but assessed.
18
Zagagi rightly points out that this wish is opposed to the other plays of Euripides in which Helen is guilty
for having misused her beauty. See Zagagi for references to these texts (p.85 note 68). In Euripides’ Helen
beauty will be used by Helen as a cause of self justification and self pity. Meager claims that Helen in
literature is mainly object of contempt and that “her spectacular beauty provided her with little or no
protection against the insults of centuries” (Meagher, 2002, p. 49).
19
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 285).
4
Introduction
Myth, history and aesthetics blend into an encomiastic frame in Isocrates’ Helen, yet
scholars have neglected to explore in depth the role of beauty in the composition.
It is first of all important to provide an outline of the story told by Isocrates in the Helen in
order to understand the bases for controversial scholarly criticism. Isocrates begins by
presenting the oratoric teachings of his predecessors and contemporaries (Helen §1-13), and
in opposition to these rhetorical practices he places his own speech (§14-15) and begins his
own composition about the Spartan queen, Helen of Troy. The stages which follow
concern the affection of Zeus for Helen (§16-17); the seductive power of Helen and the
force she exercised on the hero Theseus (§18-20); Theseus’ eulogy (§21-37), a list of
Helen’s other suitors (§38-40); the judgment of Paris (§ 41-48); the conduct of the Greeks
in response to the figure of Helen (§49-51); and the involvement of the gods, Greeks and
barbarians (§52-53). Finally, the Helen ends with a eulogy of the quality of beauty (§5458), in the face of which even the gods were subservient (§59-60), and (§61-66)
recommending that the Greeks pay homage to Helen.20
In the last three paragraphs
Isocrates exhorts the readers to thank Helen and the Trojan War for preventing them from
becoming slaves of the barbarians and states that, for anyone who wishes to speak of Helen,
there is still space for further arguments (§67-69).
The structure of the Helen has been subject to literary criticism. The assumption that
encomiastic rhetoric lacked seriousness of purpose was first suggested by Aristotle in his
Rhetoric (iii.14ff) both because it presented an apparent disconnection between the
introduction of a work and its main body (Isocrates’ Helen is given as an example), and
5
Introduction
also because it often introduced different characters to add excitement.21 This antagonistic
view has led scholars to focus their attention on the structural harmony and rhetorical style
of Isocrates’ Helen. Poulakos, a leading scholar in the study of Isocrates’ Helen, says that
this focus has “…done little to help modern interpreters understand Isocrates’ Helen”.22
Modern scholarship has often overlooked the seriousness of purpose in the Helen. Some
scholars have overlooked or undervalued the Helen. In fact, scholars such as Norlin
consider it a “half-serious attempt to treat mythological themes … in a manner to convey
some useful lesson”. Similarly he considers Theseus to be a character introduced in order to
add variety to the speech.23 Van Hook agrees with Norlin and claims that the Helen is a
show-piece, a “rhetorical exercise”, in accordance with the conventions of the genre it
follows, but he goes even further arguing that, for the modern reader, the encomium “must
be put among the least important of the compositions of Isocrates”.24 Contrary to
Kennedy’s theory that the Helen is a praise of Hellenism,25 Poulakos claims that the
Encomium of Helen is Isocrates’ response to the eristics and that in reality it is a symbol
and exaltation of eloquence,26 mainly concerned with competing kinds of education.27
Most scholars have questioned and focused on the apparent disconnection between the
polemical introduction (Helen §1-13) and the subject of the main body, namely the myth of
Helen and the praise of her beauty. Scholars thus have often attempted to explain the
Helen’s purpose by simply regarding it as a rhetorical piece intended to respond to the
20
(Mathieu and Brémond, 1963, pp. 153-154).
Cf. Arist. Rhetoric xvii. 11.
22
(Poulakos, 1983, p. 2).
23
(Norlin, 1929, p. 418, note a)
24
(Norlin, 1928, p. xxxi) and (Van Hook, 1945, p. 58). Unlike Jebb and Norlin,Van Hook thinks the
introduction of Theseus is a mistake.
25
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 80). Similarly Jaeger considers the Helen to be a mythical symbol of political
aspirations which were later expressed in the Panegyricus (§280). Jaeger sees the Helen as a preface to his
great manifesto (the Panegyricus) where Isocrates intended to express new ideas for the morality not only of
the individual but also of the entire nation (Jaeger, 1945, pp. 69-70).
21
6
Introduction
rhetorical debates of the time.28 Worman claims that Isocrates seems to follow his teacher
in his association of Helen with the epideictic style.29 Other scholars, such as Jebb, have
attempted to attach value to the Helen by emphasising external factors which would confer
more significance on it. Jebb considers the Helen an example of imaginative and historical
panegyric30 and claims that Isocrates adds “dignity and gravity” to ordinary addresses of
praise by “connecting with mythical-subject matter some topic of practical interest, political
or moral”.31 He also claims that without the references to Theseus, the story of Helen would
not have dignity nor gravity nor interest. However, Poulakos criticises Jebb for neglecting
to explain how the discussion of Theseus increases the importance of the work and how the
work could be of political interest to the audience.32 Other scholars such as Jaeger and
Howland mainly concentrate on the educational programme of Isocrates’ school and have
focused on the structure of this work, criticising its disjointed arrangement where the
proemium has little or nothing to do with the rest of the work, agreeing with others that it is
critical but disconnected from the rest of Isocrates’ argument, and that it is probably a
polemic of another very important school, the Socratic school.33 Therefore previous critics
of Isocrates’ Helen have interpreted the proemium and the main speech as two different
elements, considering the former serious because of its historical background, the treatment
of the eristics, while the latter, diverting into mythological narrative, is a trifling exercise.
Scholars have in this way neglected to deliver an attentive enquiry into the importance of
26
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 16).
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 17).
28
(Poulakos, 1986), (Heilbrunn, 1977).
29
(Worman, 2002, p. 168).
30
(Jebb, 1893a, p. 10).
31
(Jebb, 1893a, p. 102-103).
32
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 2) and (Jebb, 1893b, p. cxxxi).
33
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 305, note 84) and (Howland, 1937, p. 151).
27
7
Introduction
the theme of beauty which I will use as the hermeneutical device in order to understand the
real meaning of the Isocratean Helen.
Few scholars have felt the need to reconsider the Helen in a different light, taking into more
serious account the significance of Helen’s beauty. The limited discussion undertaken in
regard to such a quality has often been incorporated into larger arguments, but has not yet
been traced or analyzed individually to form a single study. Some superficial attempts have
been made by scholars to make a connection between beauty and the fourth-century society
in which Isocrates lived. Poulakos agrees with Kennedy not only that there is a connection
between the introduction and the main body but also that the whole composition is not
simply a mythological exercise but a hymn of rather serious intent.34 Kennedy begins his
interpretation of the Helen by considering it as a work endorsing “a worthy theme, not to be
compared with trivialities”.35 However, Poulakos criticises Kennedy for failing to account
for what Kennedy himself defines as the “literary high point of the speech”, namely the
power of beauty. 36
On the other hand, Poulakos, despite having singled out the important function of beauty
in this work, and having claimed that “if the Helen is about one thing, it is about the pursuit
of beauty”,37 incorporates the significance of beauty only in analyzing the exaltation and
expression of the power of eloquence.38 Worman likens Helen’s beauty to the epideictic
style and claims that Isocrates’ intention was to emphasize the superiority of this style to
34
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 78).
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 79).
36
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 82) and (Poulakos, 1986, p. 4).
37
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 8).
35
8
Introduction
that of other schools of thought and thus to present their activities as useless, devoid of
benefit and truth.39 Moreover she argues that in the fourth-century treatment of Helen
“Isocrates follows his apotheosis of beauty with an argument for its importance as a civic
virtue”.40 The purpose of this thesis is not only to show Isocrates’ interest in the ‘beauty of
eloquence’ but to demonstrate that the role of beauty in this work, considered in itself and
in comparison with other related works, reflects a deeper nature.
For the purpose of tracing the importance of the beauty represented in the mythological
figure of Helen in the Helen, and to fulfil the aims set out in this research, the exploration
of the subject will begin by analysing the way in which beauty is represented in Isocrates’
works and, in a special way, in the Helen. Greek terms, nouns and adjectives, which define
beauty in the Isocratean text will be explored to reveal the way in which Isocrates shifts
between the different meanings inherent in these words. The ambiguous nature that
Isocrates attributes to beauty allows the author to fluctuate between the visual and nonvisual connotations of this quality and will lead the reader to evaluate the importance of its
power.
After an analysis of Isocrates’ sliding between the different meanings of beauty in the
Helen, it will then be important to turn to a comparison between the concept of beauty as
exemplified in the Isocratean text with the one proposed in the previous century by the
homonymous work of Isocrates’ teacher Gorgias. The relation of the Isocratean Helen to
the ‘defended’ Helen of Gorgias will be explored in terms of their overtly similar but
latently different treatments of Helen, where Isocrates claims to have made a pure eulogy of
38
(Poulakos, 1986, pp. 18-19).
9
Introduction
the queen and mentions his master’s oversight in his treatment of this important subject of
beauty. The aim here will be to reveal Isocrates’ intention in respect to the physiological
outlook of his master Gorgias. In paragraphs §14-15, Isocrates reproaches his teacher
Gorgias for composing a defense (ajpologiva) of Helen rather than an encomium
(ejgkwvmion). Although they work with similar language and themes, the two encomia
approach these from very different perspectives. I will attempt to prove that while Gorgias
uses his scientific basis for his epistemological search, Isocrates instead concentrates not on
the physical impact of beauty but rather on its non-visual effects. The analysis will
comprise a linguistic comparison of similar themes which relate to beauty; consequently the
chapter will shift to the epistemological views of Isocrates in comparison with those of his
teacher Gorgias.
Just as a comparison with a work of the previous generation on the same character
allows us to see points of similarity and difference in Isocrates’ speech, the same heuristic
function can be reserved by comparison with a contemporary work devoted to the same
theme. Like Gorgias’ Helen, Plato’s Phaedrus sheds invaluable light on Isocrates’ work,
and also allows us passing consideration of the relations between these two great Athenian
figures.
After exploring contrasting notions of Helen through the comparison of the Isocratean
with the Gorgianic Helen, and contrasting notions of beauty in the comparison of the
Isocratean Helen and the Platonic Phaedrus, I will return to the Helen in order to unravel
the reasons which drove Isocrates to write about and praise the beauty of Helen of Troy.
This chapter will evaluate the use of the terms which define beauty in the Helen and
uncover the ways the concept of beauty, emblemized in the body of this mythological
39
(Worman, 2002, p. 166, ff.).
10
Introduction
character, holds a significant role for Greeks and more specifically for Athenians. Helen
has been classified as a symbol of Hellenism by some and as a symbol of beauty by others.
In the final chapter these two ideas will be combined in an innovative interpretation of
Isocrates’ Helen as being a figure who transcends the boundaries dividing the Greek world.
40
(Worman, 2002, p. 168).
11
Chapter 1
Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
Introduction
The primary aim of this first chapter is to introduce the importance attributed to the theme
of beauty by the fourth-century orator Isocrates and to examine the author’s use of this
concept in his works and specifically in the Helen. However, a simple conclusion on this
not possible, as Isocrates appears to shift between the two meanings denoted in the word for
beauty: its visual and its non-visual connotations. Isocrates writes an encomium in which he
mentions the traditional physical appearance of Helen but emphasizes the effects of beauty
on human beings and the benefits it bestows. The second aim of the chapter is to reveal,
without drawing any premature conclusions, the ways in which the terms that describe the
concept of beauty behave and to observe their usage and implications, first in Isocrates’
texts in general and then, in more depth, in his Helen.
The research will be divided into two main sections. The first will assess the relevance
and significance of words related to beauty in Isocrates’ works in general, by analyzing
their implications in the texts. The second part will focus on the more intense usage of such
terms in the Helen itself. Through a thorough analysis of such definitions in the Helen, I
aim to provide a clearer and more accurate picture than currently exists of Isocrates’ idea of
the concept of beauty. Through a philological analysis, I will propose a deeper appreciation
of the importance and relevance of this quality in the Helen.
12
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
1. Beauty in Isocrates’ works
Before tracing the meaning of beauty in Isocrates’ Helen, it is necessary to scrutinize the
ways in which Isocrates uses the terms which define this quality in his other works. In
fourth-century Greece the concept of beauty did not merely signify exterior attributes but
also had psychophysical aspects, which included spiritual and physical elements. It
embraced both form and content and focused on the beauty of, and harmony between, the
soul and body.1 The Greeks used the word kavlloV to signify anything that pleases, attracts
and arouses admiration: “it meant sights and sounds but also a quality of human mind and
character”.2
Tatarkiewicz claims that when tracing the history of ancient aesthetics it is important to
remember that its concepts are not necessarily restricted to the term ‘beauty’, as they
appeared in the shape of other nouns. In fact, more was said of harmony, symmetry and
eurhythmy rather than of beauty itself.3 However, this study concentrates on that part of
kavlloV which can be translated as ‘beauty’. Indeed, the Greek word and its English
translation, as one would expect, do not map precisely onto each other, and kavlloV
contains elements which we would not classify as ‘beauty’, just as our notion of beauty
contains qualities which the Greeks would have expressed with other terms. Nevertheless,
there is sufficient overlap for a study of the Greek word in the sense of ‘beauty’ in this
speech to yield significant results.
1
(Tatarkiewicz, 1970, p. 74).
(Tatarkiewicz, 1970, p. 25-26).
3
(Tatarkiewicz, 1970, p. 5).
2
13
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
In Isocrates, the terms which define the concept of beauty, mainly expressed by the noun
kavlloV and the adjective kalovV,4 present different connotations and meanings in his
works.5 The physical aspect of beauty is expressed only in a few references in Isocrates.
For example, in Evagoras (§1), Isocrates tells Nicocles that he saw him honouring the tomb
of his father with plenty and beauty (tw:/ kavllei,§1) of offerings, and later claims that
Evagoras himself, as a boy, possessed the qualities of beauty (kavlloV), bodily strength and
modesty (§22).
Isocrates frequently emphasizes the less obvious feature of kavlloV. For example, the
noun defining beauty refers to actions in Panathenaicus (§36) and again describes the
deeds achieved by the people of the city of Athens and their ancestors in Antidosis (§306).
Elsewhere, Isocrates explicitly attaches importance not to exterior beauty but to more
abstract values which are described by the term kavlloV. Hence, in the Evagoras, he claims
that honourable men (kalou;V kajgaqou;V)6 do not pride themselves as much on bodily
beauty (ejpi; tw:/ kavllei tou: swvmatoV, §74) as they do on being honoured for their deeds
and wisdom. Moreover, in To Demonicus (§6), he states that physical beauty (kavlloV)
does not offer a lasting benefit, as it is spent by time and withered by disease.7
4
(Dover, 1974, p. 69, ff.).
Isocrates uses the noun kavlloV repeatedly in the Helen only (§14,16, 18, 41, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60) and
sporadically in other works such as the Evagoras (§1, 22, 74), the Panathenaicus (§36), the To Nicocles
(§19), the To Demodicus (§6) and Antidosis (§306).
6
See Isocrates’ reference to the term kalovV kajgaqovV, meaning honourable: Antidosis (§278, 95, 280, 100,
241, 220, 291); Evagoras (§51, 74); Panegyricus (§78, 95); Nicocles §43); Panathen. (§183), Areop.(§71);
Bursiris (§32); Arch. (§35); Helen (§8). When the term is used next to the noun ajnhvr, it is often translated as
‘good and true man’: On the Peace §133 (here there is a reference in the Loeb translation which adds that the
term is technical for the aristocratic party but that in this case it is used in a broader sense, (Norlin, 1929, pp.
90-91, note b), Antidosis (§138, 243, 316); Paneg. (§78). Other times it is translated also as ‘man of character
and reputation’ as in Archid. (§35). See Wankel on the significance of the term kalovV kajgaqovV in the
Evagoras (§74) (Wankel, 1961, p. 59 ff).
7
On the same topic in the To Nicocles (§19), Isocrates claims that it is important to display magnificence not
in any of the extravagant ways which quickly vanish but in the beauty of the objects which one possesses (tw:/
kavllei tw:n kthmavtwn) and in the benefits which one bestows upon friends.
5
14
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
In addition, Isocrates appears to subordinate the aesthetic appearance to more internal
values. External images used as a reminder of the dead are in fact subordinated to the
importance of leaving behind the memory of someone’s achievements in the form of words.
In the tone of a teacher, he turns to Nicocles, who represents Evagoras’ posterity, and says
that while images of the body are beautiful memorials of someone,8 there is greater value
in the deeds and the character of a person, and that these are to be observed in discourses
which are composed according to the rules of art (Evagoras §73).9 Similarly, in Antidosis
(§7), Isocrates reminds the reader that discourse is more important as a means of making
the truth known after one’s death, and it is a more noble memorial than statues of bronze.
The transmission of these virtues connects itself with the concept of the mind’s
enlightenment; Isocrates says that while images are stationary in the places where they are
erected, words can travel across Greece (Evagoras §74) and be disseminated in the
gatherings of enlightened men, a concept which will be dealt with at a later stage.10 From
such observations it is possible to conclude that the concept of beauty is usually mentioned
by the fourth-century writer for the exaltation of values that represent a more internal
reality, rather than the physical one.
As I have examined some instances of the role of the noun kavlloV in Isocrates’ works,
it is now important to turn to the role that the cognate adjective performs in Isocrates. The
adjective kalovV presents a more abstract meaning than that attributed to its noun. Dover
claims that such a term applied to a person means ‘beautiful’ or ‘handsome’;11 yet he also
claims that the term kalovV was used freely by the orators and was employed for any action,
kala; me;n ei\nai mnhmei:a kai; ta;V tw:n swmavtwn eijkovnaV, (Evagoras §73).
Livingstone adds that in the Busiris Isocrates presents words as a finer alternative to sculpture, (Livingstone,
2001, p. 123).
10
Race states that Isocrates in Evagoras (§74) would have had in mind one of Pindar’s pieces (Nem.v) when
opposing the immobility of statues to the mobility of words (Race, 1987, pp. 149-150, 154).
11
See Eur. Helen 260-263 and Hdt. vi 61.2. (Dover, 1974, p. 69).
8
9
15
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
achievement or behaviour which deserved praise or evoked a favourable response.12 In the
Evagoras, the adjective kalovV, often in its superlative, comparative or adverbial forms, is
used to describe non-physical values such as reputation (§15), achievement of honour (§34,
§39), the preparations of one’s mind to be a ruler (§41).13 Elsewhere, the term kalovV, in all
its forms, again conveys the non-physical aspect of beauty.14
For example, in the
Panathenaicus (§78), Isocrates describes the honourable expedition of Agamemnon leading
the Greeks against the barbarians. In Antidosis (§304), he depicts the noble pursuit of the
cultivation of the mind; in Panathenaicus (§71) noble achievements; and in the Antidosis
(§255) speeches.15
In the particular context of a phrase, kalovV expresses more clearly the non-visual aspect
of beauty. Through this adjective, the author attaches importance to the human choice of
the best course of life.
In the Helen (§55), in fact, the phrase kavlliston tw:n
ejpithdeumavtwn, “the best of the ways of living” appears. In Panathenaicus (§205),
Isocrates devotes a few paragraphs to challenging the notion that the Spartans were the
discoverers of the best ways of life, (kavllista tw:n ejpithdeumavtwn §202, §205), when,
instead, they had committed many outrages against the Greeks and themselves (§207,
§210).16 In Busiris, Isocrates attributes the power to be guides and teachers of the most
honourable conduct17 not only to the gods but also to their offspring, as examples to all
(Dover, 1974, p. 70). Dover claims that in later Greek kalovV displaced the meaning of ajgaqovV entirely
(Dover, 1974, p. 71).
13
Dover mentions that the adverb kalw:V, its comparative kavllion and superlative kavllista encompass a
wider meaning than that of the adjective since they practically cross the field of euj which is the adverb
corresponding to ajgaqovV (Dover, 1974, p. 70).
14
(Van Hook, 1945), (Norlin, 1928, Norlin, 1929). Cf. Panathenaicus §78, 90, 182, 256, 260; To Philip §68,
79 134, 135; To Demonicus §15, 16, 43, 46; Archidamus 45; Panegyricus § 71; Against Callimachus §31;
Antidosis §220, 290, 291, 304,309. For further references see Preuss (Preuss, 1904, p. 102-103).
15
There appears to be a contrast here between kalovV and aijscrovV. cf. Ar. Birds 755f. Cf. (Dover, 1974, p.
70, ff).
16
Cf. Panathenaicus §204, 216. Antidosis §242.
17
tw:n kallivstwn ejpithdeumavtwn hJgemovnaV kai; didaskavlouV gegenh:sqai, Busiris §41.
12
16
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
humanity. Thus the use of the adjective in the context of this phrase is mainly in the nonvisual sense.
Sporadic references to beauty in all of Isocrates’ works have been useful to demonstrate
that, in the occasional mentioning of this quality, Isocrates appears more eager to explore
the side related to an internal disposition of the human being rather than focusing merely
upon its external powers. The passage from the To Demonicus (§5), which appears
contradictory, clearly distinguishes the two different features of beauty: Isocrates claims
that the greatest and most enduring possession in the world is not beauty but rather hJ
ajrethv, while beauty, kavlloV, can be corrupted by time and disease. Here, the definition of
beauty refers to the physical sphere, while the other aspect of beauty, which is normally
employed by Isocrates, is associated with one’s personality and virtue. In fact Isocrates
exhorts people not to rely on what is merely physical because it will not endure the test of
time. Instead the possession of virtue, he claims, remains in old age and goes beyond riches
and high birth (§7). The choice of such virtue, however, will need an attractive and
enchanting accomplice, namely Helen of Troy.
17
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
2. Beauty in the Helen
In the Helen, Isocrates treats the theme of beauty in the most exclusive and extensive
manner. In this text in particular, Isocrates slides between the visual and non-visual aspects
of the quality. The author praises the beauty of the queen now referring to her traditional
beauty, which pertains the physical aspect, now to the more metaphorical meaning of the
word. It is therefore important to examine some of its uses. Isocrates begins by introducing
the character of Helen as possessing the physical attractiveness which previous traditions in
the Greek world18 transmitted as indisputable, and often refers to her incomparable quality.
Helen, Isocrates says, possesses to the highest degree the gift of physical beauty, which is
the most venerated, the most precious and most divine gift (§54). Isocrates tells us that
Helen was blessed with a quality superior to that which is ordinarily conferred on others.
He claims that while Zeus gave to Heracles the power to govern with strength, to Helen he
gave something greater, beauty, which by its nature brings strength under its command
(§16-17).19
The commentaries introduce the theme of beauty from this point onwards (§16).
Tomassetti says that the whole oration is a hymn to beauty and that it reflects the Hellenic
enthusiasm for this quality. Tomassetti claims that the Greeks had a deep fascination for
beauty and its value had always been highly regarded.20 Guardini states that the exaltation
of the beauty of Helen begins from paragraph 17 and that this quality is important because,
through its eulogy, the queen is undisputedly admired and is completely free from her
18
For example Homer, Iliad iii, Sappho fr.16 L-P. See also Euripides’ Trojan Women, about which Worman
comments that “Helen’s body is a mobile focus of desire in her speech” (Worman, 1997, p. 188).
19
Zajonz gives a reference to the description of the power of e[rwV in Menander fr. 1 (Zajonz, 2002, p. 151),
while Tomassetti notes the perfect symmetry of the two sentences: two consecutives followed by two relatives
in order to highlight the comparison between Heracles and Helen (Tomassetti, 1960, p. 41).
20
(Tomassetti, 1960, p. 65).
18
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
previous negative connotation as being the woman responsible for the long and painful
Trojan War.21 Without specifically mentioning the term kavlloV, it is said that Zeus,
wanting to give glory to his children, entrusted to Heracles a life of perils and labours and
to Helen the gift of beauty which attracted the admiration of all beholders and inspired
conflict in men (§17). Zajonz comments on the term perivblepton, and says that the word
means “the looks or the attention drawn to someone”, which, elsewhere in Isocrates
(Archidamus §95), does not always have a positive meaning as here in the Helen. In
Isocrates the term fuvsiV refers to the external appearance and is mentioned only in the
Evagoras (§75) where it is accompanied by an additional specification of its physical
aspect (th;n tou: swvmatoV fuvsin). Wankel also agrees that, in the fourth century, natural
beauty, which is a physical feature, is stressed occasionally by the words fuvsiV and o[yiV,22
while Zajons points out that more often in Isocrates’ works this term describes human talent
or the personality as a whole and rarely the physical stature.23
Also it is known that Helen surpassed all other people in birth (tw/: gevnei), in beauty (tw/:
kavllei) and in fame (th:/ dovxh/) (Helen §14). Zanjoz specifies that while dovxa is a
controversial concept in the Helen, both her gevnoV and kavlloV are undeniable qualities.24
Guardini, on the other hand, categorises the three qualities as ideal values of the aristocratic
class and not specific to the single individual. Such values were exalted in the Helen at a
time when they were gradually losing their importance.25
21
(Tomassetti, 1960, p. 41) and (Guardini, 1987, pp. 335-336).
Wankel adds that the uses of theses “somatisch-a&sthetischen” words are in contrast with the ethical ajretaiv
which in the fourth century determine the term kaloV kajgaqoV (Wankel, 1961, p. 63) Cf. Plato’s Euthyd.
271b4-5, Prot. 315 d8-e1, Parm. 127 b2-3, Lys. 207 a1-3 (Wankel, 1961, pp. 61-64).
23
For references to Isocrates’ other works regarding this topic see Zajonz (Zajonz, 2002, p. 155). Another
observation on the mention of this nature comes from Flacelière who comments that while the labours of
Heracles affect all his life, beauty instead is a natural quality which is given only once. (Flacelière, 1961, p.
25).
24
(Zajonz, 2002, p. 141).
25
(Guardini, 1987, p. 316, 333).
22
19
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
More specifically, in the middle fifth century kalovV was used in its non-visual sense by
the aristocrats who felt threatened by political change. The aristocratic group wanted to
reinforce the ethical and political values intrinsic in the term with the other adjective which
confers noble connotations, ajgaqovV.26 In the fourth century, the word kalokagaqiva did
not simply refer to the archaic ideal but was a term still to be defined.27 Bourriot claims that
the term kaloi; kagaqoiv in the fourth century qualified those who were considered “les
bienfaiteurs”.28 He opposes Jaeger,29 in claiming that the term kaloi; kajgaqoiv, traditionally
identified with the ideal of the perfect Homeric hero, needs to be reassessed.30 With specific
reference to the Helen (§8), Burrriot asserts that Isocrates wishes to contrast the business of
the people whom he criticizes in the proemium for dealing with useless affairs, with the
noble affairs of the kaloi; kajgaqoiv.31
In the Helen Isocrates appears to emphasise motives less obvious than the quest for
pleasure and physical attraction. Isocrates subordinates the physical attractiveness of Helen
to non-physical beauty.32 Helen’s physical attractiveness affects humans; however its
importance in Isocrates lies in the non-physical results that her beauty inspires and
manifests in the actions of people. These effects are not, as one would expect, of a physical
nature but pertain rather to behavioural and personal responses. The hero Theseus, a
character familiar to the Greek and especially the Athenian reader, despite having power
over many kingdoms, preferred union with Helen over the sovereignty of large countries
26
(Roscalla, 2004, p. 115).
(Roscalla, 2004, p. 121).
28
(Bourriot, 1995, p. 371).
29
(Jaeger, 1939, pp. 3-4, p. 416 note 4).
30
(Bourriot, 1995, p. 316).
31
(Bourriot, 1995, p. 412)
32
(Zajonz, 2002, p. 236-237). For further discussion on the scholars’ arguments over the apparent
contradiction to the quest for beauty which Isocrates mentions see Zajonz (Zajonz, 2002, p. 236).
27
20
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
(§18).33 The well-known character of Paris is also introduced by the author in the Helen in
order to show the effects that beauty exercises on human behaviour and, during the beauty
contest (Helen §41), being overwhelmed by the sight of the goddesses (§42), he
nonetheless chooses the beauty of Helen.
In paragraph 43 two uses of the comparative adjective of kalovV are found: Isocrates says
that Paris wants to become a son of Zeus by marriage, considering this a much greater and
more glorious honour (meivzw kai; kallivw) than having power over Asia, and that he could
leave no more glorious (kavllion) heritage to his children than for them to be descendants
of Zeus on both paternal and maternal sides. In paragraph 48, Isocrates claims that Paris
would have been a fool if the gods themselves were contending for beauty (peri; kavllouV)
and he himself would have failed to recognise beauty (kavlloV) as the greatest gift. Zajonz
claims that Paris’ desire is for someone who possesses beauty to a high degree but who
may also have additional characteristics, and thus Helen cannot be equated simply with
physical beauty. Isocrates has chosen in the Helen to tell of the effects of the queen’s
beauty on famous mythological characters, showing how, in the past, men of prestige were
captivated by her charm. However, their response reveals more profound values.
In paragraph 54 of the Helen, as I have previously mentioned, Isocrates reserves for
beauty a place superior to other traditional values in Greek culture. Beauty, as Isocrates
argues through a series of superlatives, is the most venerated, valued and divine of all
things (Helen §54). Isocrates’ tone gradually becomes more resolute when he states that,
33
Theseus is the hero whom Isocrates describes as not lacking in courage, wisdom or any other virtue but
rather being the one who achieved absolute virtue (pantelh: th;n ajreth;n, §21) and who demonstrates virtue
and self-control (th;n d’ a[llhn ajreth;n kai; th;n swfrosuvnhn §31). It is paradoxical that the character of
Theseus is assigned here the quality of swfrosuvnh, ‘self-control’, since he was also irrationally affected by
the beauty of Helen (Helen §18) and this passion brought him to seize Helen by force (biva/ labw;n) (Helen
§19). However, Isocrates immediately redeems the hero by saying that his discourse is an encomium of Helen
and not an accusation of Theseus (Helen §21). The way Theseus achieves, after what he has done in the past,
21
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
while things that lack courage, wisdom and justice may still be valued more than the
qualities themselves, things which do not have beauty are not beloved. Such qualities, in
fact, will be despised unless they possess, to some extent, the form of beauty (§54).
Flacelière comments that beauty in this paragraph is implicitly compared to an ajrethv and is
superior to all other virtues, and that the ajretaiv are the qualities, physical or moral,
through which a person can distinguish him- or herself.34
Let us turn to observe more specifically the connotations attributed to the term kalovV in
order to explore its rapid shifts of meaning in the Helen. More non-visual connotations of
beauty occur in the Isocratean text. In paragraph 55, Isocrates arrives at his deeper claim
about beauty and says that virtue is the most beautiful way of living expressed by the
phrase kavlliston tw:n ejpithdeumavtwn ejstivn (§54-55). Such a phrase occurs elsewhere in
Isocrates’ works, and reveals the emphasis which Isocrates places on human choice of the
best ways of life,35 which he again appears to associate with the concept of beauty.
In other instances, although Isocrates appears to be stressing the visual aspect of the
quality of beauty, he really focuses his interest on the reactions that its enchantment
produces. For example, Isocrates describes what happens in humans at their encounter with
beauty: ‘at a glance’, and therefore at the first visual contact, human beings become well
disposed towards those who possess physical beauty (toi:V de; kaloi:V eujqu;V ijdovnteV eu\noi
gignovmeqa), and pay homage as they do to the gods only to the possessors of beauty (§56).
Isocrates also mentions that human hearts are set on nothing beyond what they intend to
possess, and humans have an inborn passion for beautiful things (tw:n de; kalw:n), which is
complete virtue and self-control is by choosing the most important quality of all which is represented in Helen
and her beauty (Helen §18).
34
(Flacelière, 1961, p. 41)
22
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
as great as the object that they desire (§55). Further on Isocrates claims that it is important
to revile anyone who is under the power of anything other than beauty and calls them
flatterers, while those who are subservient to beauty are regarded as lovers of beauty and
lovers of service.36 Therefore, although the author refers to objects and people which reflect
the physical quality of beauty, he nonetheless stresses the importance of the non-visual
effects that these may have on people’s internal dispositions.
Isocrates, in the last section of the Helen, explores in more detail the devotion that
beauty inspires, and states that people submit more willingly to those who possess beauty
than to those who rule over others (Helen §57). In order to highlight the importance of
beauty in the past, Isocrates says that Zeus himself, who is the ruler of all, approaches
beauty (to; kavlloV) humbly (Helen §59) and Zajonz adds that the interpretation of Zeus’
behaviour, which shows respect to beauty, presupposes that an appropriate internal attitude
is the basis for his physical transformation into lower natures.37 The author then adds that
beauty (to; kavlloV) is honoured much more among the gods than among human beings, to
the point that the gods pardon their wives when they are ruled by it (§60).
The shifts between visual and non-visual aspects of beauty in the Helen are not always
exclusive of each other, but are at times connected and dependent. In paragraph 60,
Isocrates claims that more mortals have been made immortal because of their beauty (dia;
to; kavlloV, §60) than through all the other virtues. Therefore, in the Helen Isocrates thinks
(tw:n kallivstwn ejpithdeumavtwn, Panath. §205, cf. §202).
tou;V de; tw/: kavllei latreuvontaV filokavlouV kai; filopovnouV ei\nai nomivzomen, §57-58. Although
Tommassetti (Tommasetti p. 68) claims that such a beauty is exalted as a value which is indistinguishable
from what is good, and as a strength which wins over the instincts, calms the passions and makes life
pleasurable, I am inclined to believe that the effects of this quality on people nonetheless produces an
infatuation and a passionate devotion.
37
(Zajonz, 2002, 267). Zajonz adds, however, that Zeus changes his shape not in the name of humility but
with the goal of out-witting his victims. Moreover the commentator notes that since a habit of Zeus is
described, the present tense gignovmenoV is suggested rather than the aorist recommended by the MSS QLPN
genovmenoV (Zajonz, 2002, p. 267).
35
36
23
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
of non-physical beauty as an ajrethv.38 Isocrates admires (§58) those who regard youthful
beauty,39 incarnate in the youthful body of Helen, as a holy shrine.40 This quality, which
can now also be defined as virtue, is inaccessible to base people, and thus those who pursue
it are considered benefactors of the city. The rapid shift between the physical beauty of
youth and the non-physical and virtuous effects of this quality, which translate to service
and benefits, is evident.
Moreover, in the Helen it is stated that, thanks to the beautiful queen, the Greeks are no
longer slaves of the barbarians (Helen §67),41 and the author proposes that only one kind of
slavery should exist: enslavement to beauty (§56-57). Helen has exceeded the deified
mortals in beauty and appearance (§61), obtaining not only immortality, but also power
equal to that of a god (§61). I suggest that in Isocrates the beauty represented in Helen,
despite its apparent physical definitions, offers the potential to elevate the internal,
existential and behavioural status of a person, by inspiring those attracted by it to follow a
virtuous path. The Isocratean sliding between visual and non-visual beauty is thus not
accidental, but, rather, argues for the non-physical effects which physical beauty itself can
produce. Such beauty in the Helen, even if presented against the background of a
mythological past, has a connection with the wider environment of the Greek world: the
welfare of the polis, and the Greeks’ international relations with the barbarian world, as will
be explored in the following chapter.
38
(Flacelière, 1961, p. 44).
Helen was in fact young when she arrived in Sparta (§39).
40
For a picture of the inaccessible shrine see Plato, Lach.183 b2-5 (Zajonz, 2002, p. 265)
41
After the war of Troy, Isocrates says in paragraph 68 that the Greeks expanded so greatly that they took
from the barbarians great cities and much territory and Mathieu and Brémond give a reference to a similar
passage in Herodotus (i, 1-5), (Mathieu and Brémond, 1963, p. 179).
39
24
Chapter 1: Beauty in Isocrates’ Helen
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have shown that in the Helen Isocrates uses the noun kavlloV and the
adjective kalovV in order to describe the concept of beauty, a value which he elevates above
all other Greek values. The author exempts the queen from any trace of negative reputation,
and exclusively exalts her beauty, whose effects can be seen to be working in the lives of
human beings. In the Isocratean usage of words, both the noun and adjective describing
beauty refer mainly to non-physical attributes. Finally, it has been possible to demonstrate
that in the Helen Isocrates continuously and rapidly slides between the physical and nonphysical connotations of the term denoting beauty. While implying that Helen’s physical
characteristics have the power to attract and infatuate, Isocrates focuses mainly on the
effects of beauty in the sphere of human behaviour and internal disposition towards virtue.
Mythological characters such as Theseus and Paris were captivated by Helen’s charm, but
their reactions reveal a preference for that which is not simply visually and physically
satisfying.
Isocrates focuses on the importance and necessity of obtaining the much admired quality
of beauty as the most essential value required in Greek society. Isocrates’ vision of beauty
requires comparison with the homonymous text of his teacher Gorgias, who in the fifth
century composed the Encomium of Helen but whom Isocrates reproaches for the misuse of
the genre he employed. The following chapter intends to discover whether Isocrates’ text
interacts with that of his predecessor and whether Isocrates’ concept of beauty, intended
mainly as a non-physical value, seeks to challenge the more physiological treatment of the
same subject by his master.
25
Chapter 2
The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Introduction
As has been demonstrated in the previous chapter, the Helen of Isocrates displays the
concept of beauty by sliding between its physical and non-physical connotations,
concentrating however on the non-physical effects that this quality exercises on human
beings. We now turn to a comparison between the concept of beauty as exemplified in the
Isocratean text with the one proposed in the previous century by the homonymous work of
Isocrates’ teacher Gorgias. It will be argued that, although Isocrates and Gorgias in their
encomia of Helen share similar themes and both speak of the concept of beauty, Isocrates in
his Helen intends to react to the purely physical and individual approach of his master by
composing a eulogy of the queen based on the communal and more abstract meaning of the
concept of beauty. Through a deeper analysis than has been undertaken so far, I will
demonstrate that Isocrates, drawing on his master’s encomium, has reacted to its ideas by
forsaking its focus on visual perception, in favour of developing similar themes from a
different perspective, which centres on the non-visual effects of beauty.
The first aim of this research is to reveal how Isocrates responds to the issues treated by his
teacher by employing a similar use of vocabulary but applying it for very different
purposes. The second aim is to show how despite the fourth-century author’s response to
26
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Gorgias’ physical approach, a conceptual closeness between the two authors can be found,
at least in their epistemological search for the truth. The third aim is to prove more
specifically how Isocrates reacted to the homonymous work by his teacher, by discarding
his physiological approach and by creating, through his Helen, a eulogy of non-visual
values and the importance of rhetorical content, portrayed in the story and figure of Helen.
Different scholars have examined the relationship between Isocrates and Gorgias through a
comparison of their two encomia of the Greek heroine Helen of Troy. Many have
highlighted similarities and differences between the two works and have focused their
attention on the themes and choice of words that the two philosophers have dealt with,
mainly underlining their different intentions.1 The two works have already been discussed
from a variety of points of view: philosophical, political, stylistic.2 Most scholars follow the
view which Isocrates himself spells out in paragraphs 14-15 of the Helen where he claims
that while Gorgias tried to defend Helen, he instead mainly wishes to praise her and that
Gorgias committed an error by composing a defence (ajpologiva) rather than an encomium
(ejgkwvmion).
To advance the debate, an inquiry into the possible reasons which urged the one to be an
advocate for the mythological queen and the other to be a promoter of obedience and
devotion to the beauty which her figure emblemized is required. Most scholars agree that
both authors chose the topic of Helen for their specific ends, but they place the two
encomia stylistically as well as conceptually distant from one another. As Papillon points
out, a speech on Helen would have been extremely valuable to Athens if written in the right
1
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 289, see also p 280-82). See also Papillon 1997 and Zagagi 1985.
27
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
manner.3 Papillon adds that it is only the tone of defence that distances Gorgias from the
aims of his pupil Isocrates in their treatment of Helen.4 Tuszynska-Maciejewska has
focused her attention on the purpose of the two philosophers in the Helen. She claims that
the theme of Helen offered both Gorgias and Isocrates the opportunity to express their
concerns about contemporary problems and issues: through it both provided tevryiV.
However, Tuszynska-Maciejewska adds that while in the Helen Gorgias linked rhetoric
with philosophy and promoted his conception of “artistic deceit”, Isocrates, instead,
through his Helen, promotes an “educational manifesto”.5 Capriglione pronounces his
opinion in a more resolute manner, claiming that Isocrates was in some way closer to the
truth than his predecessor, and more able to discern the truth from what was false.6 In sum,
scholars have often classified the Gorgian Helen as a rhetorical exercise meant to persuade
in favour of Helen’s defence, while Isocrates’ Helen is seen as a development towards a
more patriotic engagement of the Athenian audience.
While scholars like Gomperz7 underestimate the importance of Gorgias’ scientific interests
and claim that the sophists were only concerned with rhetoric, I will try to prove instead
that the Gorgian Helen deals in a significant way with scientific and physical influences
which provoke important changes in the soul of human beings. This scientific basis is used
by Gorgias for his epistemological search and theory. The object of Isocrates’ search in his
work correlates with that of Gorgias, even though the latter is conducted through very
2
(Kennedy, 1958, pp. 77-83), (Heilbrunn, 1977, pp. 147-159), (De Romilly, 1973, pp. 155-162).
(Papillon, 1997, p. 10).
4
(Papillon, 1997, p. 10).
5
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 289).
6
(Capriglione, 1983, p. 441).
3
28
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
different methods. To illustrate this, I will analyze the instruments, dovxa and lovgoV, which
the authors used to convey their concepts of truth. For Gorgias these two terms symbolized
the critical deceptive factors which affect the physiological composition of the human
being, while in Isocrates they are used as the instruments to arrive at what is noble, which
he contrasts with their misuse in useless and trivial discourses by other rhetoricians. I will
analyze the genre in which Isocrates frames the subject he proposes, namely Helen and her
beauty. Isocrates in fact attempts to prove his master wrong by revealing the proper way of
composing an encomium and of structuring a noble subject, as he reproaches his teacher in
paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Helen. Isocrates places particular weight on this genre and the
praise of his characters in order to secure the dissemination of his message.
7
(Gomperz, 1912, pp. 37-38): here Gomperz argues about assumptions made around the statue of Gorgias
holding an astronomical globe with Isocrates standing next to him, (DK 82 a 17).
29
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
1. Beauty-related themes in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
The treatment of Helen by Isocrates as opposed to that of Gorgias is as different as the
diverse ideas which distinguished the fourth from the fifth century in ancient Greece. The
classification of the two authors has not been simple in the past. Isocrates has been
considered a representative of sophistic rhetoric in the fourth century by scholars such as
Kennedy,8 Norlin and Van Hook who seem to have discarded the philosophical content of
his teachings.9 Subsequently the author has been seen as shifting between the fields of
philosophy and rhetoric. Gorgias has similarly been considered a controversial figure to
identify: Schiappa and Gomperz claim that it is a mistake to consider the Sophists’
intellectual pursuits as what we are tempted to call ‘philosophical’. The Sophists’ theory in
fact, they say, is not pure ‘philosophy’ but rather a by-product of rhetorical pursuits, aimed
at attracting the audience and more students.10 Such views, however, will appear to be
extreme in the light of a deeper analysis of the two Helens.
A brief summary of Gorgias’ Helen is needed for the interpretation which follows. The
aim of the rhetor, in this work, is that of freeing Helen from the compromising accusations
which have made her a “reminder of calamities” (tw:n sumforw:n mnhvmh, c.2). Gorgias
wishes to explore the reasons for which Helen betrayed her husband and household and left
for Troy, and to discharge the queen from blame. The reasons for her decisions, Gorgias
claims, are likely to be four: in the first case, Helen was won over by the will of Chance
8
(Kennedy, 1980, p. 31-36).
(Norlin, 1928, p. 124) and (Van Hook, 1945, p. 438). Both Norlin and Van Hook translate the term
filosofiva as rhetoric, see also Yun Lee Too who claims that when Isocrates uses the term philosophy he
actually means ‘rhetoric’(Too, 1995, p. 164).
10
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 163) and (Gomperz, 1912, p. 35-49). See Schiappa for the implications of the fact that
the term rJhtorikhv is not found in the writings of Isocrates (p. 165).
9
30
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
and the purposes of the gods and the decrees of Necessity; in these motives, the irresistible
will of the gods is responsible for her departure (c.6). In the second case, in which Helen
was seized by force, the barbarian (Paris) who committed such an uncivilized act is to
blame, (c.6-7). In the third case, Helen could have been deceived by speech, lovgoV, which
is a powerful and persuasive ruler (c.8-13). The last reason for her flight to Troy would
have been her abduction by love, but Gorgias excuses the queen on the basis that sight of
things produces love and desire in men, and the human eye, pleased by the sight of a body,
transmits an irreversible disease to the mind (c.15-20). The aim of the Gorgian Helen is
thus to prove the innocence of a human being for whom superior forces have prepared an
inescapable trap.
I have previously defined Isocrates’ concept of beauty in the Helen,11 however for the
purpose of a textual and conceptual comparison of his work with the Helen of his teacher,
an exposition of Gorgias’ ideas, background, and potential reasons for his treatment of
Helen, is necessary. I support Worman’s view that Gorgias was concerned with cosmetic
issues and arguments, which were directed to giving pleasure to the eye of the mind.12 In
fact, Gorgias seeks to elevate the power of speech almost to a visual level: “The speech
uses Helen’s desirable body to organize its arguments, and seeks to reproduce in language
the impact of such bodies on the eye”.13 Worman highlights in her work all the different
aspects of sense perception, such as seeing and hearing, through which images and words
can mould the mind of the perceiver, provoking a tevryiV which, as Segal also claims, can
divert the course of the human psyche.14 Moreover, Tuszynska – Maciejewska considers
11
Chapter 1, section 2.
(Worman, 1997, p. 173).
13
(Worman, 1997, p. 173).
14
(Worman, 1997, p. 180) and (Segal, 1962, p. 126).
12
31
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
what is believed to be Gorgias’ intention, namely to deprive the victim of common sense,
as fitting with the rational explanation of the philosophers of the fifth century, who were
well aware of how strong emotions could alter human sensory perception.15
Theories which aimed to answer the epistemological questions concerning the
mechanisms of perception preceded and were current during the time of Gorgias. Gorgias,
just like his predecessors and contemporaries, was interested in the physiological impact of
sight and visual perception and the deception that it exercised on the human being, as is
evident in the Helen. Isocrates, on the other hand, seems to focus his work on the nonphysical characteristics and beneficial consequences that the quality of beauty, which he
represents through the figure of Helen, can bring. Thus, first I would like to analyze some
of the differences between the ideas expressed in the two works. A textual comparison of
the vocabulary which deals with the concept of beauty, used in both works, may help to
clarify Isocrates’ position in respect to his teacher, the sophist Gorgias.
Both authors use similar language related to beauty (e[rwV, kavlloV, o[yiV, sw:ma), but to
different degrees. Isocrates and Gorgias both speak of e[rwV. The section which Gorgias
dedicates to love deals mainly with optical perceptions whose strength is beyond human
control and whose effects on the mind of human beings leads to significant outcomes. The
defence of Helen, based on the impossibility of resisting love’s power, begins in paragraph
15.16 The first instance in which the word for ‘love’ (e[rwV) occurs is in paragraph 4 where
the author tells us that Helen provoked great desire for love in many people. Immediately
after this, Gorgias explains what the effects of this love are and describes them from a very
15
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 281).
32
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
physical and concrete perspective, through the figure of the ‘body’: “with a single body she
brought together many bodies of men who had great pride for great reasons”.17
Moreover, in paragraph 5 Gorgias tells us that the man whom he does not want to
mention, namely the hero Paris, fulfilled his love by obtaining Helen.18 The author’s
reluctance to name the Trojan hero is rooted in the fact that to tell people what they already
know might be convincing but brings no delight. Gorgias is thus concerned at least partly
with tevryiV, with delighting his readers.19 Gorgias’ aim is to imprint in the mind of the
audience a concrete image of the effects that physical attraction can achieve. Through
delightful alliterations20 he reveals the magnitude of Helen’s charm and the great number of
people which her loveliness affected.
Isocrates in contrast avoids mentioning the effect that the physical power of e[rwV has on
the individual, and wishes to work on a different image for his audience from that of
Gorgias. His treatment of the characters of Theseus and Paris, as I will explore later on,
comprises a recounting of their labours and works, mythological stories already well known
to the reader. Through this image, Isocrates has the intention of convincing his audience on
the basis of the connection of beauty with familiar topics, rather than that of provoking a
temporary feeling of delight, which his teacher instead pursues. In Isocrates’ Helen in fact
the word tevryiV does not occur.21 Papillion claims22 that Isocrates’ use of mythological
16
We have no more instances before chapter 15, except in chapter 6 where love is mentioned in the list of
reasons for which Helen was forced to leave.
17
(MacDowell, 1982, p. 21).
18
o{stiV me;n ou\n kai; di’ o{ ti kai; o{pwV ajpevplhse to;n e[rwta th;n JElevnhn labwvn, ouj levxw, Gorgias’
Helen c. 5.
19
See especially c. 18: tevrpousi, tevrpein.
20
polla; de; polloi:V pollw:n e[rwta, c.18; pleivstaV de; pleivstoiV ejpiqumivaV e[rwtoV ejnhrgavsato, c.4.
21
The word tevryiV in Isocrates’ works only occurs twice: once in the To Demonicus §16 where Isocrates
claims that pleasure attended by honour is the best thing in the world, but pleasure without honour is the
worst: Ta;V hJdona;V qhvreue ta;V meta; dovxhV. tevryiV ga;r suvn tw:/ kalw:/ me;n a[riston, a[neu de; touvtou
kavkiston. In §46 Isocrates says that at times pursuing virtue and self control and other virtues brings delights
33
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
topics represents his intent to impress images on the mind of his audience and to involve
them in his political and social theories.
e[rwV is for Isocrates the passion for beauty which brought the Greeks to fight
collectively for the common good. Isocrates speaks about e[rwV not just as ‘love’ but as love
of beautiful things (tw:n de; kalw:n e[rwV, Helen §55) and the strength of this desire
corresponds to the power of the object that is sought. In paragraph 52 it is said that such a
great ‘passion’ for the hardships of the Trojan expedition, and for participation in it, took
hold not only of the Greeks and the barbarians but also of the gods, to the point that they
did not prevent even their own children from joining in the struggles around Troy.23 The
reason for the passion that took hold of the participants was that it was considered a
honourable thing to fight for the daughter of Zeus (§53). For Gorgias, however, e[rwV is a
very concrete and physical power and the author’s intention is that of provoking pleasure
by recounting the physical impact of this force on the individual, whereas for Isocrates it is
instead the passion which drove the Greeks to join the quest for the communal benefit of
their race.
The term for beauty is also used in both encomia, but Isocrates attaches to this quality a
different importance from that proposed by his master. Gorgias uses the word for beauty,
kavlloV, and its cognate adjective, kalovV, in his encomium, but construes it as something
that the human being neglects because of fear from the external world, which arrives
through sight. In fact, it is because of this fear that man is indifferent to what is judged
(tevryeiV) that are pure and more abiding (§47). The cognate adjective (To Dem. §21) and verb (Panath.
§246) also occur once each, referring to the discourses which, if used by a cultivated mind, are able to benefit
and delight the audience.
22
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 389-90).
34
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
honourable, kalovV, by the law and to the advantage which is gained through victory.24
MacDowell explains that the tou: kalou: of the phrase represents the honour or high
reputation which soldiers gain if they do their duty, whereas the tou: ajgaqou: is material
advantage.25 I do not hold to the certainty that the term kalovV here necessarily has a nonmaterial connotation; however it does appear that Gorgias opposes this kalovV to what is
physical, the visual impact on account of which human beings are led to neglect what is
non-visual and abstract.
As far as Gorgias is concerned, it is possible to explain his idea of physical perception as
symbolized more by the power of e[rwV than that of kalovV. In fact, even though the author
mentions the effects that the sight of an attractive body can have on the human being
(c.18ff), he prefers, for the purpose of offering a more convincing reason to excuse Helen,
to claim that it was e[rwV itself which performed this irresistible physical force.26
Gorgias seems to emphasize that visual perception has a significant and decisive impact
on the actions of the perceiver. In paragraph 17 Gorgias explains that, having seen
(ijdovnteV) frightening sights, people have lost presence of mind for that moment. Further
on, Gorgias joins his theory of visual perception and beauty to the defence of his subject
and claims that ‘if the eye of Helen, pleased by the figure of Paris, presented eager desire
and contest of love, what wonder? If love is a god with a god’s power, how could a lesser
23
cf Panath. §81.
ijscura; ga;r hJ ajmevleia tou: novmou dia; to;n fovbon eijsw/kivsqh to;n ajpo; th:V o[yewV, h{tiV ejlqou:sa
ejpoivhsen ajmelh:sai kai; tou: kalou: tou: dia; to;n novmon krinomevnou kai; tou: ajgaqou: tou: dia; th;n
divkhn gignomevnou, Gorgias’ Helen (c.16).
25
(MacDowell, 1982, p. 42).
26
If McDowell shows that the claim that love is a power so strong that it cannot be resisted is not new and
that e[rwV, as it is conceived in the Gorgian Helen, is a god (c.19), then it can be argued most strongly that a
human being cannot be expected to be more powerful than the divine (MacDowell, 1982, p.16). Cf.
Aristophanes’ Clouds 1082, Euripides’ Helen 948-50, Sophocles’ Antigone 781-800, Women of Trakhis 441-8
and the words attributed to Sophocles in Plato’s Republic 329c.
24
35
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
being reject and refuse it? But if it is a disease of human origin and an ignorance of the
soul, it should not be blamed as a sin, but regarded as an affliction’ (c.19). Gorgias, through
the exposition of reactions to visual perception, gives a human explanation of what can
possibly make human beings reject what is not visible and yet beneficial.
Isocrates instead makes beauty the central theme of his encomium, and as I have
previously explored, it often implies a non-physical meaning. In Isocrates the term kavlloV
is used several times (§14, 16, 18, 41, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60). Isocrates, as opposed to Gorgias,
intends to show that persons in the past who saw beauty, even if captured through a
passionate force, had been led to act differently. Isocrates describes, as will be further
explored, how some mythological characters, well known to the audience, saw Helen, were
captured by her beauty, and yet were stirred to make noble choices and perform noble
deeds.
It is first of all important to point out that Isocrates does not completely discard the
visual aspect of beauty: Helen’s beauty is referred to in paragraph 14 as one of her personal
qualities and in paragraph 16 the author speaks of this quality as a force which by its nature
can bring strength itself under subjection and which drew the admiration of all who looked
at her (§16). People were captivated by Helen’s loveliness (hJtthvqh tou: kavllouV, §18).
Moreover, the prize of beauty for Paris refers to physical beauty by which the hero himself
was overwhelmed (§41-42), and the first influence of beautiful people which affects the
actions of the beholders is physical, referred to as having an effect on the eyes of those who
catch sight of their beauty (eujqu;V ijdovnteV, §56).
However more important to the author is the non-physical impact that these sights have
on people. Isocrates thus distances himself from the purely physical approach of Gorgias.
36
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
The fourth-century author, in his encomium, claims that as soon as human beings see
beautiful people they become well disposed towards them, and to them alone, as to the
gods, they do not fail in their homage (Helen §56). Human beings submit more willingly to
being the slaves of beautiful people than to ruling over others, and they are more grateful to
them when they impose many tasks upon them than to those who demand nothing at all
(§57). Isocrates is interested in the results that the impact of sight produces in human
beings. In regard to visual perception, Isocrates recounts what happened to the poet
Stesichorus who, because of speaking ill of Helen, was deprived of sight but as soon as he
made his recantation his sight was restored (§64). Isocrates projects in the ability to see the
capacity of recognizing where beauty lies, and the sight of beautiful people sparks in them
the will to serve: for this very reason he has undertaken the task of praising Helen. In the
case of Isocrates sight is used to create a relationship of service to beauty and thus to make
people responsible for what they see.27 While Gorgias concentrates mainly on the theme of
the effects of physical sight, Isocrates instead shifts the focus mainly to the relationship of
people to beauty and on the effects that such a quality can exercise in them. Sight, which
obviously includes the sight of beauty, is presented by Gorgias as being able to provoke a
loss of control and disregard for ethical regulations in human beings.
In Gorgias, sight, o[yiV,28 in fact displays an active role: it is the instrument through which
visions from the world reach the interior world of the human being and condition his
actions. Gorgias explains how vision, according to its uncontrollable power, can affect the
mind of a human being: because sight engraves on the mind images of things which have
27
(Papillon, 1997, p. 12)
37
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
been seen (c.17),29 such vision has the power to change and mould the human mind (c.
15).30
Isocrates acknowledges the physical beauty, her appearance of Helen, without giving to
o[yiV determining power over her other more non-physical and beneficial attributes. In
Isocrates the word o[yiV does not have the active and involved role which it plays in
Gorgias. Even though in paragraph 61 Isocrates says that Helen surpassed all deified
mortals just as much as she excelled them in the beauty, th;n o[yin, of her person, he
nevertheless reminds us that Paris, overwhelmed by the sight of the goddesses (hJtthqei;V
th:V tw:n qew:n o[yewV) (§42) and compelled to make a choice of the gifts the goddesses
were offering, chose in the end to live with Helen before everything else. The basis of his
choice of Helen is not visual because all the goddesses present an overpowering sight, yet
his choice goes beyond what is physical, and pursues her non-physical attributes.
In Gorgias the theme of visual perception and its subsequent effect on the soul is connected
to the theme of danger and fear. In paragraph 16 Gorgias, in order to explain how visions of
things can affect the soul, gives the example of warlike bodies, ready in their bellicose
adornment of bronze and iron. If the eye sees this, it is troubled.31 Once the sight is
In more detail Zagagi specifies “Isocrates’ glorification of the idea of kavlloV stands in sharp contrast with
Gorgias’ exploitation of the theme of o[yiV for purely apologetic purposes” (Zagagi, 1985, p. 81, note 61).
29
ou{twV eijkovnaV tw:n oJrwmevnwn pragmavtwn hJ o[yiV ejnevgrayen ejn tw:/ fronhvmati (Helen c. 17).
30
dia; de; th:V o[yewV hJ yuch; kajn toi:V trovpoiV tupou:tai (c. 15). The last word, both as verb and noun,
appears to be used by Empedocles (DK 31A62) and especially by the atomist Democritus, (DK 68A135 (50
ff.); B5, 228) in the context of explaining vision. See Diels and Kranz index, (Diels and Kranz, 1964, p. 438).
31
eij qeavshtai hJ o[yiV ejtaravcqh kai; ejtavraxe th;n yuchvn, w{ste pollavkiV kinduvnou tou: mevllontoV
o[ntoV feuvgousin ejkplagevnteV. I print Sauppe’s emendation of the corrupt text of the MSS (on eij plus the
subjunctive as a poetic usage see Goodwin, (Goodwin, 1929, p. 443)). Also, taravssw in the active form
means to stir up, to disturb, while in the passive it means ‘to be in disorder’, which represents the opposite to
the ‘order’, kovsmoV, that we find in chapter 1 of the Helen of Gorgias.
28
38
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
troubled it also disturbs the soul, so that often men flee, stricken with panic, from the
danger which is to come.
In Isocrates, by contrast, danger is not something which affects the soul, nor something
which the author consciously connects with human sight, but rather a challenge to be taken
up, as long as it is beneficial for the community. In Isocrates, two kinds of dangers are
found: the first are those which Heracles undertook, which are celebrated and important,
while the others, those which Theseus chose to engage in, are more useful and of more vital
importance to the Greeks (§24). In paragraph 31 Isocrates tells us that Theseus engaged in
dangerous exploits which he hazarded alone, contrasting them with the labours of Hercules,
whose toils were of no benefit to mankind and only dangerous to himself (§24). Therefore,
Theseus had gone through perils by himself but not for himself.
Moreover, Isocrates tells us that even the gods did not excuse their own children (Helen
§52) since they thought it was more honourable to die for the daughter of Zeus than to live
without having taken part in the dangers endured on her account (Helen §52-53). Finally, in
paragraph 62 Helen rewards Menelaus for the dangers and toils he had undergone for her.
Therefore Isocrates continuously aims to emphasize the sociological and collective effect
which individual enterprise might have on people. While Gorgias appears to endorse a
more realistic approach to what happens in the soul of man as it is challenged by images of
danger, Isocrates appeals to the courage of human beings and again sends his messages for
common involvement in facing danger and fear for noble causes, by presenting examples
from the past.
39
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Through the term sw:ma Gorgias explains the duality of the power of the physical world
and also shows that human behaviour is subject to the impression made by sight. In chapter
16 the author mentions warlike ‘bodies’ and their adornment of bronze and iron;32 if the
sight sees them it is alarmed and alarms the soul, so often men flee, stricken with panic,
from future danger as though it were present. However, words and objects can also,
according to Gorgias, provoke the very opposite feelings: there are instances where painters
collect features from many bodies and colours and make one body and colour and this
delights the sight: (c.18).33 He further claims that many forces create in many people love
and desire for many things and bodies (c.18).34 Gorgias believes that the impression of the
sight of human bodies creates different responses in those who perceive them.
Gorgias consequently links the role of bodies and their composition to the theme of
kavlloV in his Helen. In the very beginning of his encomium Gorgias tells us that kovsmoV
to a body is beauty.35 MacDowell translates kovsmoV as ‘goodness’ or ‘merit’,36 the right
condition in which a city is a good city, a body is a good body, and so on…, “the good
order of the thing itself”.37 Both MacDowell and Bona, in their analysis of this first phrase
of the Gorgian encomium, are reluctant to translate kovsmoV as ornament, which implies
aujtivka ga;r o{tan polevmia swvmata kai; polevmion ejpi; polemiva/ oJplivsei kovsmon calkou: kai; sidhvrou,
(c. 16).
33
oiJ grafei:V o{tan ejk pollw:n crwmavtwn kai; swmavtwn e’n sw:ma kai; sch:ma teleivwV ajpergavswntai,
tevrpousi th;n o[yin, (c. 18). Various scholars have Gorgias allude to the anecdote of the painter Zeuxis,
Italiot and contemporary of Gorgias, who, in order to paint Helen, chose the five most beautiful women of the
city and painted the most charming part of their bodies (Cicer, rhet. ii, 1,3; cf Plin. n.h. xxxv 64), (Immisch,
1927, p. 49) (Mariano and Pacati, 1990, p. 369); see also Brillante for an iconographical explanation (Bettini
and Brillante, 2002, pp. 235-38).
34
Polla; de; polloi:V pollw:n e[rwta kai; povqon ejnergavzetai pragmavtwn kai; swmavtwn (c.18).
35
For a reference to the meaning of kovsmoV among earlier thinkers and the atomists see Diels and Kranz
(Diels and Kranz, 1964, pp. 240-241). Lucretius refers to mundi, kovsmoi, which are formed and destroyed,
(book ii introduction) (Bailey, 1947, p. 794). Moreover in book ii (1049) Lucretius refers to the formation of
an ordered world (kovsmoV) where ‘necessity’ and ‘laws of nature’ took command.
36
Cf. Thucyd. i.5.2.
37
(MacDowell, 1982, p. 33).
32
40
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
something exterior, as it has usually been deciphered.38 The word in fact appears to refer to
the right composition, the internal order which renders something good. So, the right order
of things for a body is beauty, kovsmoV….swvmati de; kavlloV (c.1).
The Gorgian use of sw:ma is not restricted to describing the physical structure of a
human being but also encompasses the meaning of the structure and make up of lovgoV. In
chapter 8, for example, it is mentioned that speech is a powerful lord which through the
finest and most invisible body effects the most divine works (c.8).39 Thus here Gorgias
thinks of lovgoi as being composed of swvmata, atoms,40 and rather than being metaphorical
he gives a detailed explanation of the composition of physical elements.41 Gorgias adds that
the effect of speech upon the composition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs
over the structure of bodies (c.14).42 The effects of this impact are rendered by Gorgias
through a metaphor: just as some drugs expel some humours from the body,43 and either
cure it or kill it, so some speeches cause sorrow, some cause delight, and some fear, others
make the hearers bold, some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion,
(c.14).
Just as human bodies produce diverse responses, so also the arrangement and layout of
words provoke distinct reactions when they come in contact with the inner disposition of
the soul. Gorgias, unlike Isocrates, refers to the make up and nature of the body. He claims
38
(Moreschini, 1959, p. 29), (Tasinato, 1990, p. 57).
o}V smikrotavtw/ swvmati kai; ajfanestavtw/ qeiovtata e[rga ajpotelei:, (c.8). Cf. Plato’s Meno 76 a ff.
40
This word was often used by the atomists: see Democritus (DK68A48(17ff), 68A117, 68A43, 49, 58, 64,
80 (corpora); Epicurus DK68A47 (3), 68B156, 68B141; Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus
DK31A44; Leucippus and Democritus DK67A1, 6, 9-10, 11(corpuscula), 15, 24. (See Amis for a discussion
of Epicurus’ debt to Democritus, (Asmis, 1984, p. 337 ff.)).
41
For Gorgias’ theory on speech and its substance see On the Non Existent or on Nature in Sextus Empiricus’
Against School Masters vii 65.
42
to;n aujto;n de; lovgon e[cei h{ te tou: lovgou duvnamiV pro;V th;n th:V yuch:V tavxin h{ te tw:n farmavkwn
tavxiV pro;V th;n tw:n swmavtwn fuvsin (c. 14).
43
w{sper ga;r tw:n farmavkwn a[llouV a[lla cumou;V ejk tou: swvmatoV (c. 14).
39
41
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
that the quality of physical beauty attached to a body has an enormous impact on the sight
of beholders and may lead them to dramatic actions. Parallel to the theme of physical charm
is that of lovgoV: Gorgias seems to attach greater importance to what kind of lovgoV reaches
the people and seeks to analyze its composition by claiming that the inner make up of
speeches is what causes the most diverse reactions in people.
In Isocrates’ Helen, unlike in Gorgias’ work, the word sw:ma is not extensively used.
Occasionally it is seen to represent the body of a living human being, however when
connected with the concept of beauty, the effect of the body of Helen produces nonphysical effects and prevails over its physical counterpart. When the Trojans were
defending the cause of Asia and the Greeks that of Europe they believed that the land in
which Helen resided in person, to; sw:ma, would be the more favoured by Fortune, (§51).
On the other hand, to these benefits which are produced through the body of Helen,
Isocrates opposes the outcome of the misuse of such bodies to produce immoral and
unbeneficial actions. There are bodies used for evil purposes and which represent uncivilization. Isocrates mentions in paragraph 28 the strength of the Minotaur and adds that
his strength was commensurate with its composite nature, therefore possessing the double
strength of two bodies.44
However, in paragraph 58, Isocrates turns his attention back to the main purpose of his
work, to praise Helen’s beauty, explicitly ranking the preservation of this beauty as the
highest concern for a citizen. Isocrates considers more severe the crimes committed against
the gift of beauty than those committed against other bodies: in fact one ought to despise
more those who, possessing beauty, have trafficked in it and ill used their own youth than
44
th;n d ijscu;n ejcouvshV oi{an proshvkei th;n ejk toiouvtwn swmavtwn sugkeimevnhn (c. 28).
42
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
those who have done violence to the bodies of other people (§58).45 Therefore, Isocrates
again subjects the physical elements to the non-physical and concentrates his topic of praise
into a more abstract idea of beauty as an undeniable and precious value, for which every
human being is responsible.
The textual comparison between Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ Helen led us to notice many
instances of the way in which Isocrates used the same language as Gorgias for different
purposes. The impact of physical perceptions for Gorgias seems to represent Helen’s
excuse before the tribunal which blames her for her conduct, while Isocrates discards the
Gorgian defence and focuses on the exaltation and praise of beauty. Isocrates turns Helen
herself into an image for ethical qualities, which although still exercising a physical
magnetism, causes reactions which surpass the visual and the obvious and aim at the
attainment of something of non-visual worth.
Thus, I have so far established that Isocrates in the Helen intends to emblemize in the
figure of the beautiful queen the non–physical reactions which her beauty can produce. For
this purpose I have analyzed the differences between his approach and his teacher Gorgias’
handling of a similar theme and vocabulary.
However, the conclusion that Isocrates
completely neglected the arguments related to sensory perception and, conversely, that
Gorgias ignored issues relating to established truths and was simply interested in the
inevitable deception provoked by external factors, is too simplistic, as the analysis which
follows will argue.
45
h] tou;V eijV ta; tw:n a[llwn swvmat’ ejxamartovntaV (Helen §58).
43
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
2. Theories of knowledge in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
a. Gorgias on dovxa, lovgoV and beauty
For the purpose of placing Isocrates in closer theoretical relation to his teacher, I here
propose an interpretation of Gorgias’ Helen not as just a symbol of rhetoric, nor just as a
display of visual perception theories, but rather as a symbol of an important meaning, in
which scientific and philosophical concepts are developed as analytical tools, as I will show
in the Gorgian treatment of speech and its workings on the soul. It is my intention to prove
that beyond Gorgias’ concern for form and the effects of physical phenomena on the souls
of human beings, which previous scholars have noted, his aim is that of creating, through
the work Helen, something different and more truthful, in a world where the only firm
knowledge is that everything is subject to change.
The interpretation of the tablet reportedly forming part of the tomb of Isocrates showing the
philosopher and his teacher Gorgias, standing next to his pupil but holding an astronomical
globe has been of some interest.46 The material argues for an interpretation not of Isocrates
but of Gorgias as being interested in physical phenomena. Scholl has interpreted the
representation of the poets as indicating that Isocrates too was interested in astronomy and
46
DK 82A17 (=[Plutarch] Lives of the ten orators 838d) with note. Cf. (Schiappa, 1999, p. 126).
44
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
geometry, and that he shows himself together with famous intellectuals of the past as the
champion of the old education, standing next to the celestial globe as a symbol of the new
education which he claims as his own.47 In order to support his point Scholl refers to two
passages from the Isocratean works (Panathenaicus §26ff and Antidosis §261ff) in which
he believes that Isocrates explicitly commends the study of geometry and astronomy.
However, the two passages demonstrate Isocrates’ only lukewarm praise of these subjects
since in both it is clearly expressed that it is important for a young man to train in them but
that such training is not the sort of thing which one should continue with in adulthood.48
Moreover, the sole source of our knowledge of the representation explicitly says that
Gorgias was looking at the globe while Isocrates was standing next to him but not, it seems
to be implied, looking at the globe himself.49 Thus, although Scholl is right in claiming that
the representation of Gorgias is an allusion to Isocrates’ own education by the Sophist,50 he
appears to have misinterpreted the material. Isocrates in fact studied physical science but
moved on from it while Gorgias dedicated most of his life to it.
Through his physical and scientific explanations, Gorgias encapsulated in his speech, the
Helen, his belief in some concept of truth. Scholars’ views of Gorgias’ Helen appear to
present a one-sided interpretation of the work. As before the fourth century there was no
distinction between the art and skill of producing discourse aiming at the truth and that
aiming at persuasion, Schiappa51 criticizes Poulakos and other scholars who like him
47
(Scholl, 1994, pp. 249-250).
Cf. Busiris §23 is the only other place where astronomy is mentioned, and with the same implication.
49
DK 82A17: h/\n de; kai; aujtou: travpeza plhsivon, e[cousa poihtavV te kai; tou;V didaskavlouV aujtou:, ejn
oi|V kai; Gorgivan eijV sfai:ran ajstrolofikh;n blevponta aujtovn te to;n jIsokravthn parestw:ta.
50
(Scholl, 1994, p. 250).
51
(Schiappa, 1999, pp. 114-115).
48
45
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
consider Helen to be simply the personification of rhetoric and claim that when Gorgias
speaks of Helen he is in real fact referring only to eloquence.52 Poulakos proposes an
interpretation of the Gorgian Helen as a defamed symbol of rhetoric.53 Worman conceives
the work as being completely based on the theory of sense perception, in the parallel
between images and words.54
In the Helen Isocrates deals with similar epistemological instruments to those used by
Gorgias in his Helen. In this section, I will analyze the use of dovxa, lovgoV and their
connection with concepts of truth in the Helen of Gorgias, in order to then show how
Isocrates treated these analogous themes in his Helen for a different end. Both authors
recognize that they have only one tool to conjecture about the truth, which is opinion, dovxa.
The only instrument which they both possess to express their intentions is their lovgoV. I
will argue that while Gorgias revealed the technical causes and effects by which it is
possible to be deceived and consequently produce something deceptive, his deeper goal
was to offer an alternative road in the speech itself through which it is possible to arrive at a
truthful concept.
Gorgias incorporates lovgoV and dovxa into his epistemological theory. Gorgias does not
believe in the existence of abstract and absolute knowledge and explores therefore the
options which dovxai provide. According to the Sophists and to Isocrates, the established
value of ‘virtue’ and ‘excellence’ (ajrethv) referred to accomplishment in a particular skill,
while Plato saw it as a universal moral principle. In tracing the history of this word, Guthrie
52
(Poulakos, 1983, pp. 4 and 10). For other scholars who read the Helen as a rhetorical symbol see Verdenius
(Verdenius, 1981, pp. 116-128). (De Romilly, 1992, p. 72).
53
(Poulakos, 1983, pp. 1-16).
54
(Worman, 1997, pp. 171 ff).
46
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
claims that it was only through the Platonic Socrates that the meaning of virtue extended
from excellence or accomplishment in a specific job or art to the more ideal sense of
abstract knowledge.55 In regard to such topics, Gorgias claims that virtue cannot be taught,
unlike the tevcnai (arts).56 On the basis of this assertion, it has been concluded that for
Gorgias the way to arrive at supreme power is through skill in speech and persuasion (c.6),
which does occupy a large part of the Gorgian Encomium (c.8-15). According to Gorgias
there is no real knowledge and the actions of man depend on the skill of the powerful
persuader.57 Isocrates, in his proemium, in an attempt to distinguish himself from the
sophists,58 names Gorgias, who dared to claim that nothing exists of the things that are (§3),
and states that his master’s theory of knowledge relies on dovxai.59 In Gorgias dovxa usually
has the meaning of opinion, discerning, the active critical tool of the soul through which
judgment on the world can be made.
At the time when Gorgias was writing, theories of sense perception were significantly
current and represented by some of the best known philosophers, namely the atomists.
Originally Empedocles (492-432 BC), the teacher of Gorgias (DK 82A2), thought that
sensation was caused by atoms which are sent from one object to the other, and fit into the
pores of the object which receives them (DK31B 89).60 In fact, danger and fear, as well as
their opposite feelings, pleasure and delight, in Gorgias appear in the shape of ‘bodies’
55
From Pindar (Ode x.20) Guthrie concludes that since this word was conceived as ‘achievement’, the word
virtue could refer to excellence in an accomplishment or art (ie. excellence in speed, or fighting). Cf. Homer
Il. xx.411; xv.641. Refer to Guthrie for further examples (Guthrie, 1971, p. 252-253).
56
Plato’s Meno 95c.
57
(Guthrie, 1971, p. 271).
58
See Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1414b 19-30). Natali comments that Aristotle highlights the fact that Isocrates
desired to distinguish himself from those who discredited philosophy, (Natali, 1983, p. 48).
59
This theory is expressed in Gorgias’ work On What Is Not, or On Nature (Peri; tou: mh; o[ntoV, h] Peri;
fuvsewV). Even though the work does not survive, it appears in detailed accounts in Sextus Empiricus’ Against
Mathematicians vii. 65-87 and (Aristotle) Melissos, Xenophanes, and Gorgias (979 a11-980b21).
60
(Bailey, 1928, p. 53)
47
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
(sw:ma). One of the definitions of the term sw:ma is “any corporeal substance”.61 It is not
surprising that Gorgias should use the term in this way since he is believed to have been the
student of the physician Empedocles (DK 82a2) and thus appears to resemble his master’s
theory of perception (DK 31A86, 92).62 Empedocles claimed that all things which are fit for
union are made alike by Aphrodite and so love one another (DK 31, B17, 4-5).63 Gorgias
presents Helen as being overwhelmed by physical attraction through sight and in the Helen
the author bases his theory on the logic of desire.64
I will now explore more specifically how Gorgias, in his Helen, connects the impact that
sight produces through external images to the effect that words have on the opinion (dovxa)
of a person. As there is no other tested, secure standard for these ‘opinions’ to be measured
against, he concludes that speeches are the absolute lord of individual’s judgment. Thus,
just as there was no choice for the Spartan queen to resist or react to external influences of
visual perception, similarly the human being has to surrender to the power of words and to
whoever knows how to use them. This analysis will then provide enough material to shed a
clearer light on Isocrates’ ideas in the Helen.
61
(Liddell, Scott and Jones, 1940, p. 1519). The first definition given by the dictionary is “body, dead body,
corpse”. The second definition explains that by some authors, such as Isocrates, it is used in the sense of a
body which is alive.
62
In the Platonic Meno, Socrates, speaking to Meno, and referring also to Gorgias, calls them both followers
of Empedocles, because both claim that existing things have effluences and pores through which effluences
sent out by other objects, enter. They claimed that effluences are of different shapes and can fit corresponding
pores, such as colour for example, which is an effluence of things commensurate and perceptible to sight
(Meno 76 a ff.).
63
See also (Sedley, 1998).
64
(Worman, 1997, p. 174).
48
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Dovxa appears to be used by Gorgias mainly65 in connection to lovgoV (from cc. 8-15
onwards) and in the sense of opinion, which is the only instrument of ‘knowledge’ that man
has and which is weak and uncertain. In paragraph 9 Gorgias claims that it is necessary to
offer proof of the power of speech to his listeners. For Gorgias speech is a powerful master
and inspired incantations, through speeches, by “intercourse with the mind’s belief”,
(sugginomevnh ga;r th:/ dovxh/ th:V yuch:V) have the power to enchant and persuade (c. 10).
In paragraph 11 Gorgias exclaims that many men have persuaded, and do persuade
people of things, by molding a false argument66 since it is not possible to have complete
memory of things past, awareness of things of the present and foreknowledge of the future.
Because of this, on most subjects, most men take opinion as counsellor to their soul,67 but
since opinion is slippery and insecure it casts those employing it into slippery and insecure
successes.68 Therefore, because of Gorgias’ endorsement of scientific theories of sense
perception a sense of negativity may emerge, when reading the Helen, from the way in
which Gorgias approaches the position and activity of man in a world which cannot be
understood, nor perceived in its truth.
In the Helen Gorgias undoubtedly intends to present words as exercising a great
degree of control over the soul of the human being in different ways. In order to realize the
force of lovgoi it is enough, according to Gorgias, simply to study the words of astronomers
65
Only in paragraph 4 when speaking about the men whose body Helen attracted with her own, he describes
some as possessing glory of ancient nobility, oiJ de; eujgeneivaV palaia:V eujdoxivan. eujdoxivan means ‘good
reputation’ and, compounded from the adverb euj, suggests the good and beneficial attributes of glory.
66
o{soi de; o{souV peri; o{swn kai; e[peisan kai; peivqousi de; yeudh: lovgon plavsanteV (c.11).
67
w{ste peri; tw:n pleivstwn oiJ plei:stoi th;n dovxan suvmboulon th:/ yuch:/ parevcontai, (c.11)
68
hJ de; dovxa sfalera; kai; ajbevbaioV ou\sa sfalerai:V kai; ajbebaivoiV eujtucivaiV peribavllei tou;V aujth:/
crwmevnouV.
49
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
who substitute opinion for opinion, destroying one by creating another, making what is
incredible and unclear seem ‘true’ to the eyes of the opinion (c. 13).69
The second example to which Gorgias draws the reader’s attention to explain the effects
of discourse is that of compelling debates in which a single speech, written with art but not
spoken with truth, bends a great crowd and persuades it (c.13). The third point is the verbal
disputes of philosophers, in which the swiftness of thought is also shown, making the belief
in an opinion (hj dovxa, c. 13) subject to change (c.13). After this Gorgias intends to join his
rhetorical theory to the sight perception theory: in paragraph 14 he gives an example in
order to explain his point about the effects of lovgoV on the soul and compares it to the
effects that drugs have on the body (tw:n farmavkwn tavxiV pro;V th;n tw:n swmavtwn
fuvsin). Gorgias mentions these three examples in order to present a picture of issues
which were contemporary and thus he explains the way in which persuasion, when added to
speech, has the capacity to shape the mind in whatever way it wishes (c.13).70
Let us now turn more specifically to the theme and usage of lovgoV, to which a large portion
of the Gorgian encomium is devoted, and with which Isocrates is also concerned. While
Gorgias’ work appears to show pessimism and nihilism in that nothing can be trusted or
o{ti d’ hJ peiqw; prosiou:sa tw:/ lovgw/ kai; th;n yuch;n ejtupwvsato o{pwV ejbouvleto, crh; maqei:n prw:ton
me;n tou;V tw:n metewrolovgwn lovgouV, oi{tineV dovxan ajnti; dovxhV th;n me;n ajfelovmenoi th;n d’
ejnergasavmenoi ta; a[pista kai; a[dhla faivnesqai toi:V th:V dovxhV o[mmasin ejpoivhsan. MacDowell
comments that an ordinary person, listening to the different theories of the different scientists, and not
knowing from his own experience which one is right, believes the one which the scientist presents most
clearly and plausibly to him (MacDowell, 1982, p. 39). As MacDowell also claims, there is nothing here that
can support the theory of some modern scholars who consider that Gorgias discarded the truthfulness of
scientific theory, which will be dealt with in more detail at a later stage (MacDowell, 1982, p. 39).
70
Here Bona adds that Gorgias borrowed the idea from Parmenides who wrote about learning to know the
opinions of mortals, listening to the deceitful harmony of their words, dovxaV ..broteivaV mavnqane kovsmon
69
50
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
improved, it will be shown that Isocrates in his Helen instead portrays a positive image and
presents his themes in order to involve the audience, as well as to engage with
contemporary rhetorical concerns.
Scholars so far have interpreted Gorgias’ Helen as a simple rhetorical and persuasive
piece. Critics such as Consigny believe that lovgoV in Gorgias’ Helen represents an attempt
by the speaker to dominate others in the community, jut as would a great dynast.71 Bergren
claims that Gorgias’ use of his yeudh: lovgon (c.11), which appears to contradict his initial
statement (c.2), may be a signal of Helen’s association with the rhetoricity of language
which is uncontrollable.72
Papillon claims that the difference between Gorgias and
Isocrates lies in the fact that while Isocrates’ theory dwells on the power of words and
images,73 Gorgias’ is based on the power of language.74 Zagagi claims that Gorgias, when
dealing with the myth of Helen, concentrates on Helen’s aJrpaghv rather than on her journey
to Troy since the author’s purpose does not have any concern with the tangle of moral
problems.75 Moreover, it has been claimed that for Gorgias philosophy is just one of the
forms of rhetorical expression, employed for the sole purpose of persuading.76
It is evident that Gorgias is more concerned with the nature of language, while Isocrates
when praising lovgoV (Nicocles §5-9, Antidosis §253-57) does not discuss how it works, but
ejmw:n ejpw:n ajpathlo;n ajkouvwn (fr. 8, 51 ff). Bona adds that both Gorgias and Parmenides share the idea that
any analysis of the physical world moves into the realm of opinion (Bona, 1974, p. 23).
71
(Consigny, 2001, pp. 106-107).
72
(Bergren, 1983, p. 85).
73
See Papillon about Isocrates’ serious treatment of mythic material, (Papillon, 1996, pp. 386, ff.)
74
(Papillon, 1996, pp. 388-89).
75
Zagagi proposes that Isocrates instead presents Helen’s aJrpaghv as a factor in her favour because she was
preferred by Paris and she was a divine gift, (Zagagi, 1985, p. 80). Isocrates however concentrates for this
reason more on the figure of Paris rather than on Menelaus (§62) to avoid altogether the problem of betrayal
and to get on with his praise of Helen undisturbed (Tatarkiewicz, 1970, p. 287).
76
(Tatarkiewicz, 1970, p. 289).
51
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
rather what lovgoV does and reveals.77 Gorgias, like Isocrates, describes in his discourse the
subject he intends to treat. He begins by speaking about Helen’s family and says that the
woman whom the lovgoV is about was pre-eminent among other people in birth and descent
(c.3). While in Isocrates Helen’s descent was the cause of her divinity, immortality and
beauty, in Gorgias her family origin does not protect her from the external influences,
namely the wishes of Chance, the purposes of the gods, the decrees of Necessity, or the
power of force, or speech, or love (c.6-20). Speech in Gorgias is a powerful ruler, a
dunavsthV mevgaV,78 which with its invisible body accomplishes divine things (c.8) and is
able persuade and deceive the mind (c.8) including that of Helen. Helen in Gorgias’s Helen
is originally half human and half divine yet convicted for the crime of betrayal and she is,
according to Gorgias, in desperate need of a defence which only a skilful orator such as
Gorgias, with the power of lovgoV, explained above, can attempt.
However, I contend that in the Helen Gorgias is indeed concerned with the truth. Before
giving an interpretation to the Gorgian lovgoV, it is important to point out that Gorgias in his
Helen employs different kinds of discourse, distinguishing the speeches on the basis of
ethical importance. In fact, Schiappa claimed that before the fourth century there was a
rather more holistic vision of lovgoV which included the goal of seeking successes as well as
that of seeking the truth, until the distinction between rhetoric and philosophy took place in
the fourth century, which Isocrates, as it will soon be shown, applies to his Helen.79 Gorgias
instead retains the importance of his scientifically-based knowledge in combination with
the use of linguistic devices in his Helen. Despite the fact that Gorgias is more oriented
77
(Papillon, 1997, p. 9).
Cf. Euripides’ Hecuba 814-19 where the peiqwv is a tuvrannoV.
79
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 165).
78
52
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
towards the physical aspects of the world and interested in the way in which images and
words technically work on the minds of people, in his Helen he does not merely focus on
the power of rhetoric or images. Through the Helen itself he establishes the possibility of
transmitting a more truthful message, rather than just a deceptive one, amongst the
superficial, ever-changing world of opinions. Also, through the use of lovgoV Gorgias is
interested in its composition and the physiological effects that this might have on the mind
of human beings. In his work, the author aims to achieve tevryiV by combining rational
argumentation with a style of prose which adopts poetic innovations.80
The claimed disjunction between truth and lovgoV in Gorgias is a misinterpretation.
Natali claims that the way in which Isocrates wants to surpass Gorgias is by substituting the
demonstrations of his teacher which were based on probability with an argument which
bases itself on established opinions, shared by the audience,81 and that while Isocrates in the
proemium criticizes the contemporary method of education and condemns useless and false
discourse, he must have had a mevtron to distinguish the true from the false.82
Such an assertion should be considered valid to a certain extent. But to conclude that
Isocrates could distinguish truth from falsehood, and Gorgias could not, does not seem to
be an accurate interpretation. Firstly, Gorgias does not deny Helen of responsibility for the
actions she has taken, as has been previously believed.83 In this regard, Bona has pointed
out an apparent incongruence in the Gorgian treatment of the relation between truth and
80
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 283). MacDowell appears to contradict this theory by claiming that the
distinction between poetic and prose vocabulary, which was present in the fourth century, may not yet have
emerged in the fifth (MacDowell, 1982, p. 17).
81
(Natali, 1983, p. 51).
82
(Capriglione, 1983, p. 441).
83
Tuszynska - Maciejewska claims that Gorgias’ main intention is to prove Helen’s lack of free will
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 283). Similarly, Giuliani claims that the enchantment of words and of the
beauty of the body are located by Gorgias in a realm which is not subject to moral judgment (Giuliani, 1998,
pp. 31-32).
53
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
speech. In chapter 1 Gorgias in fact says that it is at the same time an error as well as
ignorance to blame what is worthy of praise, and conversely to praise what deserves blame.
Gorgias appears to be concerned, however, with what is true.
Within the same
paragraph Gorgias adds that ‘grace’ or ‘perfection’ for a speech is the truth
(kovsmoV….lovgw/ de; ajlhvqeia). He tells us that his intention is to bring to a halt the
accusation which is directed at Helen and end the ignorance of the perpetrators of this
accusation (c. 2).84 To this he adds that what he wants to achieve in this dissolving of falsity
is to show instead what is true, deivxai tajlhqe;V, and free Helen (c.2). To the reader who
wonders whether the author has achieved the aim which he initially intended to accomplish,
Gorgias himself answers “I have removed by my speech a woman’s infamy, I have kept to
the purpose which I set myself at the start of my speech” (c.21).85 The issues which he
deals with in the Helen concerning the way in which sight and words have a physiological
and scientific effect on people appears to be simply part of Gorgias’ background and a
result of the theories of sense perception which preceded and were contemporary with him.
However, this position should not be considered proof of his disbelief in the existence of
some concept or expression of truthfulness.
The present argument seeks to show that Gorgias intends to look for the truth, as he
himself has stated at the beginning of his work, and he will do so in an innovative way,
removed from the senseless creations of other orators, whose views and practices he
exposed. Gorgias intends to achieve this by drawing an argument based on reasoning, a
logismovV,86 through the lovgoV.87 It is true that Gorgias does not specifically define the
pau:sai th:V aijtivaV ..kai; deivxai te tajlhqe;V kai; pau:sai th:V ajmaqivaV, (c.2).
(MacDowell, 1982, p. 31).
86
Cf. Aristophanes’ Frogs 973.
87
(Bona, 1974, p. 12).
84
85
54
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
word lovgoV which itself could mean ‘argument or discourse’ as well as ‘rational order’,
‘reasoning’.88 However, I will attempt to reveal how Gorgias’ lovgoV is not used merely as
a rhetorical show-piece, but in its structure is concerned, more than first appears, with
truthful concepts in his Helen. 89
While Tuszynska – Maciejewska claims that Gorgias does not condemn the deceit of
the lovgoi, which are the counterparts of poetry, because they may arouse conviction in the
case that listeners lack knowledge to decide whether something is true or false,90 in contrast
it appears that the intention of Gorgias is to point out that persuasion achieved through
dovxai has lead nowhere and that there is a need for structure through serious reasoning to
impress the listeners’ minds. De Romilly claims that Gorgias wants to emulate the power of
the magician, focusing on the magical spell of words.91
What is important to consider is the logical method used by Gorgias.92 The way in
which Gorgias deals in the first instance with the lovgoi is by exploring the way such tools
have been used incorrectly. Gorgias does not seem to imply that meteorologists, rhetors and
philosophers, whom he mentions in paragraph 13, have been able to establish truths
because of their power of persuading, as Consigny claims.93 Instead the author appears to
be against such orators, some because they have substituted one opinion after another trying
to make what is obscure and incredible appear clear, (a[pista kai; a[dhla), some because
they have written with skill but not spoken with truth (oujk ajlhqeiva/ lecqeivV), and some
88
(Consigny, 2001, p. 5).
See the use of the word novmoV Gorgias’ Helen (c. 7, 16, 21.18): c. 16: fear makes men disregard nomos.
90
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 284).
91
(De Romilly, 1975, p. 14ff, especially p. 16). Gorgias focuses on the power of lovgoV in general and on its
power to affect human emotions (Lloyd, 1979, pp. 83-84, 99). See also Mareddu (Mareddu, 1991, pp. 25455).
92
See Kennedy and Bona for a similar view: (Kennedy, 1963, pp. 167-68), (Bona, 1974).
93
Cf. footnote above 71.
89
55
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
because, through their quick-wittedness, they have made opinion, based on belief (pivstin),
changeable.
Gorgias would be able to obtain adherence to the message of speeches, conviction
(pivstiV), based on opinions, if he were to narrate the episodes of the stories of Helen94 as
his pupil did, yet this is not his intention. Gorgias’ intention is spelled out in paragraph 2
where he says he aims to inject logismovV into the lovgoV. In paragraph 11 Gorgias says that
many writers covering many subjects have fabricated false speeches, (lovgon plavsanteV).
However, if man is able to retain either memory (mnhvmhn) of the past, understanding
<e[nnoian>95 of the present and foreknowledge (provnoian) of the future, then the power of
speech would not be as strong (c.11).
Gorgias identifies in contemporary speeches manipulative interference from some
rhetoricians. LovgoV is seen as a despot, which is the persuader and the human mind is the
persuaded (oJ peivsaV…e[peisen). Gorgias adds that the persuader, as the one who compels,
(ajnagkavsaV) is guilty (ajdikei:), while the persuaded (hJ de; peisqei:sa) is the one
compelled (ajnagkasqei:sa) and falsely suffers a bad fame (c.12). Just like Helen is the
victim of lovgoV, Gorgias sees the speeches themselves as being used in a deceptive way by
other orators. Such speeches are in need of the plausible structure of the logismovV, the only
truthful element he knows. The word logismovV is used to refer to a process of reasoning,96
and it occurs as early as Democritus (DK68B187, 290, 302, 306). The notion of the
94
(Bona, 1974, p. 29).
The word <e[nnoian> is conjectural supplement to the text; see MacDowell (MacDowell, 1982, p. 38).
96
(Liddell, Scott and Jones, 1940, p. 900).
95
56
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
logismovV is connected with the word lovgoV and describes a mental process through which
it is possible to arrive at a convincing argumentation.97
More examples in Gorgias’ work reveal his search for something true and authentic. The
contrast in the Gorgian encomium is not so much the one between lovgoV and knowledge,
rather the power of lovgoV is inversely proportional to the degree of human knowledge. In
the Helen, Gorgias never states that knowledge is impossible to attain and that opinion is
the only guide, as Guthrie claims.98 I disagree also with Consigny’s view that the Gorgian
concept of truth in relation to lovgoV relies mainly on persuasiveness and can be called truth
only if it manages to succeed in persuading in that given agon. Consigny claims that in all
the different instances truth is determined by its persuasiveness, which moulds the soul as it
wishes (c.13).99 Doxastic speeches in fact have been persuasive and yet far from the truth.
In his encomium Gorgias does intend to create something different from what has been
achieved in the past with rhetoric. Gorgias does not appear just to look into the past, as is
claimed by Papillon,100 with a pessimistic view of the way in which rhetoric is limited in its
moral and epistemological content. On the contrary, with a positive eye to the future he
intends to redeem Helen and to begin a different speech. In paragraph 5 Gorgias says that
he wants to skip that former time in which the transgressions of the queen took place. Very
early in the speech, he wants to proceed to his intended object (tou: mevllontoV lovgou) and
propose the causes which it is likely caused the departure of Helen (c.5).
97
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 283). McDowell interprets this word as meaning logic, (MacDowell,
1982, p. 34) and Natali adds that, in the Gorgianic Helen, it represents a process of the argument which aims
to reveal a change of topic (Natali, 1983, p. 49).
98
(Guthrie, 1971, 270 ff.).
99
(Consigny, 2001, p. 89-90). See Consigny for such a view and the wrong portrayal that Plato made of
Gorgias for not distinguishing between knowledge and opinion (Gorgias 454c-e) presenting him as being
concerned only with opinion and not with knowledge (Consigny, 2001, pp. 80-81).
100
(Papillon, 1997, p. 8).
57
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Gorgias mentions that such an aim can be achieved in a variety of ways and discourses
which have a great power over the human mind. Firstly, Gorgias mentions that in poetry the
power of lovgoV is manifested:101 Secondly Gorgias attributes to lovgoV another power, that
of the enchantment, effected through speeches (c.9). However, the shift from this kind of
lovgoV to the next one is made through the phrase fevre dh; pro;V a[llon ajp’ a[llou
metastw: lovgon, which McDowell takes to mean probably ‘to another variety of speech’,
one which like poetry produces emotional effects.102 After this Gorgias claims that two arts
of sorcery and magic have been invented which are deviations of mind and deceptions of
belief (yuch:V aJmarthvmata kai; dovxhV aJpathvmata), (c.10).
Gorgias seems to be wanting to stimulate the audience’s realization that a truthful
conception does exist but that the human condition is very far away from it and is not able
to grasp it. In fact he claims that however powerful the speech may be, it will nonetheless
suffer from the ill devices and misuse of ignorant people. Deception is possible because of
the ignorance of people, for it is impossible for man to reach the immense amount of
knowledge which he should acquire in order to escape the tricks of lovgoV. Thus, as a
consequence man in this situation relies mainly on opinion, dovxa, but as previously
explored, we know that dovxa in its weakness and insecurity opposes itself to ajlhvqeia.103
101
See also Tatarkiewicz and Giuliani on the power of poetry and the figure of Helen appearing in many
poetic works ( Sappho, Homer, Hesiod…). For many centuries the theme was with a variety of emotions such
as tears, sorrow and anger, which attracted and involved the public (Giuliani, 1998, p. 50), (Tatarkiewicz,
1970, p. 285). For Gorgias poetry is speech with metre (c.9) and for those who hear it it has the power to instil
in them not abstract feelings but very concrete ones such as fearful fright (frivkh perivfoboV) or tearful pity
(e[leoV poluvdakruV) (c.9). Moreover poetry is capable of making someone feel something as his own (c.9).
See Bona for the explanation of the power of successful tragedians who can trick the listeners and make them
feel what is presented to them as their own feelings (Bona, 1974, pp. 15-17).
102
(MacDowell, 1982, 37).
103
See paragraphs 11 and 12, and see Bona’s claim that opinion and truth are definitely two opposed elements
in the Gorgian encomium. He mentions the same antithesis in the Palamedes (24) dovxh/ pisteuvsaV
ajpistotavtw/ pravgmati, th;n ajlhvqeian oujk eijdwvV. Bona disagrees with Untersteiner who claims that the
58
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
The other instance in which Gorgias explicitly spells out his intention to do something
different with the lovgoV on Helen appears in paragraph 5 where he claims that he will
achieve his aim by showing the likely reasons, eijko;V, for Helen to have done what she
did.104 One of the problems with speeches which Gorgias lists is that they are written with
art but not spoken with truth (tevcnh/ grafeivV, oujk ajlhqeiva/ lecqeivV c.13).105 The contrast
between tevcnh and ajlhqeiva is also worth mentioning: lovgoV turns to the world of opinion
and dominates it with tevcnh; however it cannot overcome it since the result remains still a
dovxa. Such a speech, therefore, which remains among the doxastic ones, does not contain
the truth.106 Therefore, the lovgoV with which Gorgias has discussed the fallaciousness of
other lovgoi through a logismovV appropriate to the defence of Helen, and which relies on
the ‘likely’ and probable causes and consequences of the issue, is to be regarded as the
‘truthful one’.107
Isocrates in his Helen reacts to the views expressed in the text of Gorgias,108 rather than
the personal views of his teacher expressed elsewhere. Despite the fact that Gorgias is the
author of the work peri; tou: mh; o[ntoV and that according to him “nothing exists and if
exists it is not knowable and even if it was to be learned, it is not possible to communicate
contrast is not between opinion and truth but rather between two ways of knowing , (Untersteiner, 1967, p.
187, ff.), (Bona, 1974, 21, note 1).
104
As Bona points out, the success of a lovgoV for Gorgias does not even rely on the kairovV which will only
secure practical success but would not be able to confer truth on it. (Bona, 1974, p. 27)
105
McDowell, in answer to some critics of the Platonic Phaedrus, rightly specifies that even though Gorgias
claims that truth is the most important virtue in speech, yet he has not explicitly prioritized convincing the
audience over telling the truth and that convincing and entertaining (pivstin... tevryin, c.5) should not be
valued as superior ends at the expense of truth (MacDowell, 1982, p. 33).
106
(Bona, 1974, p. 27, note 1).
107
Referring to the phrase in paragraph 2 logismovn tina tw/ lovgw/ dou;V Kerferd claims that “what Gorgias
seems to be saying is that in order to get at the truth it is necessary to indicate the truth or reality itself and not
the logos”, (Kerferd, 1981, p. 81).
108
(Buchheit, 1960, p. 56-57)
59
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
it to other people”,109 the Gorgianic Helen has been proven to be searching instead for a
truthful element. Thus he states that of everything that has been said to date regarding
Helen he aims to concentrate on the only certain thing: Helen went to Troy because of one
of the likely causes suggested in the encomium, and in this case the eijkovV, even if
rhetorical, is still based on a logical concept. Even though Gorgias’ speech has been
considered to be merely rhetorical, his encomium is not based on the opinion of other
people, like Isocrates’ Helen, but rather bases itself on a logical reasoning (logismovV),110
and reveals a stronger structure than the other types of lovgoi which were explored
throughout his work.
It is in fact not the lovgoV which, by molding the mind, dictates what is accepted as
rational or irrational.111 Rather Gorgias seems to lead us, through the present discourse,
intended as a rational and logical one, to discover what a ‘true’ discourse should be like. He
places it in opposition to other ‘false’ ways of creating a lovgoV. 112 Having seen Gorgias at
work on his intention to use the redeemable figure of Helen of Troy and make her the
object of a truthful lovgoV, where the success of her defence is based on the right reasoning
and probability of causes and effects, let us turn again to Isocrates, with his pragmatic yet
more serious and decisive tone. Isocrates presents, within his own lovgoV, an important
concept, which takes shape in the figure and charm of Helen.
109
Sextus Empiricus Against Mathematicians vii 65-87.
(Bona, 1974, p. 2-29).
111
(Consigny, 2001, p. 102). See also Consigny for Gorgias’ presentation of the tragic hero as striving to free
himself from the constraints which are imposed by reason, and in this his link to the other subjectivist defence
of Helen by Sappho. See also the connection between lovgoV and politics: speech is oppressive and tyrannical,
(Consigny, 2001, pp. 104-07). Consigny relates Gorgias’ interest in political and legal activities to his
association with Empedocles, Korax and Tisias (Consigny, 2001, p. 111).
112
(Consigny, 2001, p. 55).
110
60
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
b.
Isocrates on dovxa, lovgoV and beauty
My analysis of the differences between Gorgias and Isocrates in relation to the topic of
beauty has already revealed that while Gorgias in the Helen focused on sense perception,
scientific and physiological knowledge, Isocrates, adopting the same subject expressed in
the form of the encomium, reacted to his teacher’s view not by focusing on the visual aspect
of those themes but rather by emphasizing the non-visual advantages which beauty offers.
In doing so, I have explained the way in which Gorgias made use of epistemological tools:
he considered dovxa an unreliable instrument which is deceptive and gives false
impressions to the soul, and lovgoV a powerful agent which, based on doxastic knowledge,
has the power of influencing the soul as it pleases. What has also been discovered is that in
his Helen Gorgias appears to have constructed his argument so that it could be
distinguished from the merely rhetorical pieces which aimed to persuade the public and
neglected any basis of truth. This discovery has allowed us to place Isocrates’ concern with
truthful topics conceptually closer to that of his teacher.
In this section it is my intention to demonstrate that Isocrates, while employing similar
topics, vocabulary and cognitive instruments such as dovxa and lovgoV, ignores his teacher’s
scientific and physical handling of the subject and concentrates completely on the more
conceptual and non-physical issues which he believed to be of relevance to the community.
Both dovxa and lovgoV are employed by Isocrates as trustworthy means to arrive at what he
61
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
considers important. Through a textual analysis of dovxa and lovgoV, I will here explore how
the fifth-century physiological perspective of Gorgias’ Helen was remodelled by the
“somewhat different set of conceptual lenses”113 of the fourth-century author Isocrates.
Where Gorgias applied ‘beauty’ of form to his speech,114 Isocrates, in the following
century, wanted instead to attach greater importance to the ‘beauty’ of content. Isocrates’
intention was to write about matters that were politically and sociologically relevant to
Greece through discourses (lovgoi) which were worthy of praise and honour.115
Isocrates’ main concern with the importance of content, leads him to compliment Gorgias’
choice of subject (§14). Gorgias therefore is not considered by Isocrates to be a frivolous
writer composing trivial works similar to those praising ‘bumblebees or salt’ (§11-12),116 as
Consigny seems to claim.117 Isocrates, as Papillion asserts, in passing from his criticism of
other intellectuals, in particular the eristics (§1-13), to the mention of Gorgias’ concern
with a dignified subject, wanted rather to open the way for his own new approach to the
topic.118 Isocrates focuses in the first part of the encomium on his disapproval of the useless
practices of other intellectuals. With their works he contrasts his own discourse as a model
to follow, urging them to turn to useful pursuits,119 and thus exposing his own philosophy.
113
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 165).
“The Greeks were inclined to regard the beautiful form of speech as guaranteeing the truth of its contents,
just as they were apt to regard corporeal beauty as a sign of mental superiority” (Verdenius, 1981, pp. 116).
115
See Panathenaiucus §11, Antidosis § 276, and about the importance of political discourse see Antidosis
§80-85.
116
Cf. Plato, Symp. 177b where there is a reference to an Encomium of Salt by an unknown author. In
Panath.§135 Isocrates calls the practice of orators who deliver encomia on the most trivial things, a madness,
maniva.
117
(Consigny, 2001, p. 35).
118
(Papillon, 1996, p. 383ff).
119
(Papillon, 1997, p. 9).
114
62
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Despite the divergent views in regard to Isocrates’ categorization as philosopher rather
than mere rhetorician,120 I am inclined to believe that in the Helen Isocrates reveals his
definition of ‘philosophy’ when he claims that he does not think that ejpisthvmh can be
acquired by human nature, but he considers wise those who, through conjecture (dovxa),
attain the best knowledge, as well as those philosophers who engage with what leads to
practical wisdom.121 Isocrates’ main concern was for the theories and content of his
philosophy, rather than for rhetorical artifices,122 which are more evident in Gorgias’
Helen. In the Helen of Isocrates it is possible to notice a preference for civic virtue,
improvement of character, and training for the soul (see Nicocles §11, To Demonicus §40,
Antidosis §210).123 Isocrates’ purpose in the Helen was to present, through the same
subject as his master’s encomium, his ‘philosophy’, valuing content of higher standards and
the propagation of noble topics. The cognitive devices of dovxa and lovgoV will be used in
order to discern in more detail Isocrates’ philosophical theories.
In Isocrates the word dovxa refers to an idea which contrasts on several points with Gorgias’
view as previously analyzed. While Gorgias focused on the unstable aspect of this term in
120
Schiappa claims that it is not until the fourth century that philosophy begins to be treated as a distinct
discipline: for a list of the scholars who support the theory which believes in the separation of philosophy as a
distinct discipline see Schiappa, (Schiappa, 1999, p. 181). See also Striker, G. Essays on Hellenistic
Epistemology (1996), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 5. Schiappa (Schiappa, 1999, p. 164)
mentions authors, among them Van Hook (Van Hook, 1945, p. 438) and Norlin (Norlin, 1928, p. 124),
Poulakos (Poulakos, 1995, p. 116) and Too (Too, 1995, p. 190), who discard Isocrates’ role as philosopher
and rather consider him as a contributor to rhetoric.
121
Cf. Antidosis § 271.
122
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 164 ff).
123
The word yuvch, Schiappa points out, in Isocrates’ text blends different meanings and ideas such as mind,
personality, and soul (Schiappa, 1999, p. 165).
63
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
its function as critical tool, his pupil instead turns dovxa into the safe recognition of shared
knowledge124 which he uses in order to carry out his purpose in the Helen in the most
plausible way. Isocrates’ aim in the Helen is to confirm, and not to challenge as in the
Gorgianic Helen, the belief that dovxa has already been established. The first time the word
dovxa occurs is in the proemium (§13) where Isocrates criticizes those rhetoricians who find
much to say on trivial issues while on subject which already enjoy an established reputation
(dovxa) they cannot find anything which has not been previously discovered. Thus
Isocrates’ reproach is against those who refuse a subject which is already well known and
to which they will be incapable of adding their innovative ideas. Against this contemporary
trend Isocrates undertakes a challenge in the Helen: a well known subject, such as the story
of Helen, will be treated differently from in the past, and stress will be placed on the
evaluation of its content. So, Isocrates conceives the use of dovxa in his work to be a more
positive and secure factor than in his master’s usage of the term and represents it as a fitting
obstacle to those who wish to deceive by devising useless and false discourses. By dovxa
Isocrates means something which is more commonly approved and objective in comparison
with Gorgias’ usage of the term.
The second use of dovxa in the Helen is found in the next paragraph (§14) where
Isocrates actually refers to Gorgias, who chose to write of Helen125 as such a remarkable
However, it is important to point out that dovxa is not the only way in which Isocrates refers to opinion: in
paragraph 38 he refers to the opinion of Theseus with the term diavnoia. This word occurs again in paragraph
7 referring to the rhetoricians who enjoy discourses which have no practical use for anything and claims that,
however, these young men can be excused for holding such a view (th;n diavnoian). Again in §47 Isocrates
asks that Paris be judged not in a negative way but for the reasons which caused the goddesses to choose his
judgment/opinion (th;n ejkeivnou diavnoian).
125
dio; kai; to;n gravyanta peri; th:V JElevnhV ejpainw: mavlista tw:n eu\ levgein ti boulhqevntwn (Helen
§14). Even if in this assertion the name of Gorgias is not specifically mentioned, most scholars agree that the
author Isocrates refers to in this passage is his master, see Buchheit (Buchheit, 1960, p. 57ff.) and Natali
(Natali, 1983, pp. 48-49). Van Hook (Van Hook, 1913). Papillon follows Van Hook (Van Hook, 1913) in
believing that Isocrates refers to Gorgias in §14-15.
124
64
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
woman who surpassed all others in birth, beauty and renown, (th/: dovxh/). This dovxa for
Isocrates appears to have a greater importance than any other gifts. In paragraph 17
Isocrates mentions that Zeus himself knew that renown cannot be obtained from an easy
life but from wars and struggles, and he did not just wish to elevate the bodies of his
children to the status of gods but also to give them ‘glory’ (ta;V dovxaV) which is eternal. For
this very reason he gave his son Hercules a life of labours and Helen the gift of beauty,
which inspired admiration as well as conflict. Isocrates, in order to praise Helen, bases his
argument on the fact that the queen was a woman of great worth and qualities, and her
personal dovxa, fame, represents for him the incontestable and reliable basis on which to
rest credibility for the reasons for his encomium. In Isocrates, therefore, dovxa is not a
deceptive device, as in Gorgias, but rather it is the instrument which brings many people to
agreement, as in this case on the beneficial beauty of Helen.
Isocrates uses the term dovxa to refer to the shared opinion which other characters have
of Helen, and which reinforces the logical argument126 in favour of the eulogy of the queen.
Isocrates claims that for knowledge of contemporary events, people can usually rely on
their own opinions, while for the events which happened in the past it is important that their
opinions are in agreement with those of the wise men living at the time when the facts took
place (Helen §22). The wise men to whom Isocrates is here referring are Theseus, Paris and
many others who judged Helen to be a woman in possession of noble qualities.127
Unlike Gorgias’ individualistic view of doxastic deceits, Isocrates links dovxa with the
concept of truth, as a common experience of a given event. While for Gorgias ‘opinion’ is a
Natali rightly points out that the logismovV of Isocrates is not antagonistic to his concept of dovxa, as we
found in Gorgias (c. 8 ff.), but it is compatible with it, cf. Panathenaicus §261.
126
65
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
knowledge which is weak and only corresponds to the persuasive power of logos,
emphasizing the individualistic focus on the personal opinion of the human being, for
Isocrates the value of dovxa means the current opinion, the idea which is as close to the truth
as is humanly possible, and which is the result of the observation of a multiplicity of cases
which develop in a similar way, an idea on which most people agree.128 It is on these
empirical grounds that Isocrates presents to us the figure of Helen, as a woman on whose
beauty everyone had the same opinion, (koinh; dovxa, §41). Isocrates uses the example of
shared opinion about the beauty of the Greek queen in order to illustrate the process he used
to arrive at a discourse based on truthful reasoning, tested not just by individual responses,
as in Gorgias, but by a collective body.
In fact in the Helen (§4-5), Isocrates appears to represent dovxa as the way to arrive at
the truth, which, as will be explored more fully in the following chapter, is explained by the
author in terms of the usefulness of the topics employed. Isocrates claims that other
philosophers delight in discourses of no practical use (Helen §6-7) but that it is important to
bear action in mind: it is better to think plausibly about useful things (doxavzein) than to
have full knowledge (ejpivstasqai, §5) of the useless. Moreover, in Against the Sophists
(§8) Isocrates claims that those who use dovxai are more in agreement and are more
successful than those who profess to have ejpisthvmh.129 This passage is reinforced by
paragraph 9 of the Panathenaicus where Isocrates claims that he himself, even if not
possessing a suitable and strong enough nature for public action, feels nonetheless more
127
See Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1399a1-3) where there is a reference to Isocrates’ writing of Helen as a good
woman since she had been judged as such by Theseus and Paris, who was a just man because the goddesses
had chosen him as judge.
128
(Natali, 1983, p. 52-53).
66
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
able to form a correct judgment of the truth of any matter (doxavsai…th;n ajlhvqeian) than
those who claim to have exact knowledge (tw:n eijdevnai faskovntwn). Thus, as Natali
points out, dovxa appears in this case to represent ‘a trustworthy counsellor’.130 I shall now
turn to the use of the word lovgoV in the Isocratean text in order to reveal the way in which
Isocrates draws a parallel between dovxa (as assurance of a proper topic and as the basis for
plausible conjecturing) and the proper use of lovgoV as the medium through which these
noble subjects are to be expounded.
Isocrates is not interested in the physiological effects which deceitful speech can have on
human beings, so evident in the Helen of Gorgias. However, although drawing on Gorgias’
views that lovgoi can be at least partly deceptive, he confines these criticisms to the
discourses of his rivals and rather focuses on the content which lovgoi should transmit by
emphasizing their misuse by contemporary rhetoricians.131 In the encomium Isocrates uses
the word lovgoV132 fourteen times and all of these, except the last three, refer to the misuse
of words and rhetoric. In the first two paragraphs Isocrates describes the futile
exaggerations which were becoming more common in rhetoric (ejn toi:V lovgoiV, §2) at the
129
See Norlin Against the Sophists §2 (note d) explains Isocrates’ disregard for ‘science’ which can be taught
and that all that education can do is to develop in pupils a sound judgment which can be practically useful in
life (Norlin, 1929, pp. 162-163).
130
(Natali, 1983, p. 51).
131
The Helen of Isocrates, as Papillon points out, appears to be a comprehensive work where the author has
concentrated his criticisms of other orators, elsewhere in his other works, and especially in the Against the
Sophists, the Busiris and in the Antidosis, (Papillon, 1996, p. 378).
132
In paragraphs §1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 of the Helen Isocrates refers to lovgoV in relation to his rivals.
In paragraph §11 instead the author refers to lovgoi which are trustworthy and which need to be expressed in
the right manner because of their serious content. In paragraphs §16,21,69 Isocrates uses lovgoV exclusive
referring to his own work. Cf. Preuss (Preuss, 1904, pp. 114-115).
67
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
time. In paragraph 3 Isocrates mentions the Eleatic philosophers, Zeno and Melissus, and
finally Gorgias who claimed that nothing exists of the things that are.133 Further on
Isocrates says that these men,134 presumably including the master whom he has just
mentioned, have clearly shown that it is easy to contrive false (§3-4) statements on any
subject. Isocrates then claims that some rhetoricians take pleasure in those discourses which
are of no practical service in any respect (§6); in paragraph 7 Isocrates judges those
teachers who are responsible for exactly what they criticize in other people, namely being
dishonest in what they say. Isocrates places Gorgias as a philosopher in the older generation
which he blames in paragraphs 2-3, but praises him as a rhetor for choosing the right
subject in paragraph 14 of the Helen.135 Isocrates, thus, recognizes in Gorgias the capacity
of discerning the right content for speeches, yet his main intention in his text is to draw the
line between the lovgoi devoid of any valuable content and his own lovgoV.
Isocrates condemns in particular teachers who rely through their lovgoV on falsehood.
These masters in fact have tricked their pupils through their fabrications (yeudologei:n) to
such a degree that the young men, seeing their masters dare to write on subjects which are
false and unworthy of praise, a practice which they advertised as something desirable, have
dared themselves to write about the lives of beggars and fugitives as being more enviable
than those of other men (§8). The same theme is picked up again in paragraph 10,136 where
Isocrates provides the example of an athlete who, although pretending to be the best of all
133
In Antidosis §268, and in §155-56 Isocrates criticises Gorgias for earning money by teaching his theories
and not offering his earnings for social welfare, and to his master he opposes his own example of spending
less money on his maintenance than for the public good.
134
Gorgias could not be blamed as much as those rhetors who are not involved in politics, whom Isocrates
criticises in §9, because of his political contribution. Such an attitude might be expected from someone like
Isocrates who seeks eu[noia in order to achieve his goal: see De Romilly, (De Romilly, 1958) and Segal, who
points out Isocrates’ debt to Gorgias (Segal, 1962, p. 102, see note 29).
135
(Papillon, 1996, p. 384).
68
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
athletes, enters a contest in which no one else would agree to compete. Isocrates, through
these examples, intends to suggest that as it would be senseless to praise an athlete who
participates in an event without competition, so it would be foolish to worship the verbal
quibbles of the orators of his time who look for subjects in which no one can challenge
them, which Isocrates compares to an act of ‘praising misfortune’.137
Isocrates, nonetheless, appears to draw on Gorgias by expressing his awareness of the
difficulties and challenges associated with the choice of noble topics, which he conceives as
being the truth of a lovgoV. In fact since he emphasizes that while those who have found
refuge in obscure topics and praised ‘bumble-bees and salt’ have never been at loss a for
words, those who have spoken of subjects which were recognized as good and noble or of
superior moral worth have instead found more difficulties in their expressions (§12). Again
in paragraph 13 Isocrates highlights the fact that it is easy to overdo trivial themes by
eloquence (§13), but it is more difficult to rise to the challenges of other themes. Isocrates,
however, seeks to investigate what difficulties and challenges must be faced in order to
communicate a praiseworthy theme in writing. The importance of a good speech lies in its
flexibility to be shaped and eventually to reach the audience in a multiplicity of ways. In
paragraph 11, Isocrates defines what is difficult but worth achieving in rhetoric, and
explains how skill can be employed. Isocrates claims that there are some compositions
which follow one set road and this road is not difficult to find, nor to learn, nor to imitate,
while (dev) common and trustworthy speeches need to be devised and expressed in a variety
of forms, ijdew:n,138 and occasions of discourse, kairw:n. He then claims that to practise
136
(Zajonz, 2002, p. 124).
See Pease (Pease, 1926).
138
Guardini translates this word as “contenuti impegnativi”, (Guardini, 1987, p. 331).
137
69
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
dignity is more difficult and arduous than to practise silliness, and that seriousness is more
difficult than playfulness (§11).
Isocrates focuses upon distinguishing his own composition from trivial speeches. Earlier
in the speech, numerous examples of the misuse of lovgoV have been given, but from
paragraph §16 onwards the lovgoV refers explicitly to Isocrates’ own work in the Helen.
Isocrates intends to perform something new and to distinguish himself above other
orators,139 including his own master Gorgias. Isocrates claims (§15) that he will speak of
Helen leaving behind everything that has been already said about her, and that his work will
be a novelty since it will aim at handling a topic which has already been treated thoroughly
in a different way.
Isocrates claims that, of those who wished to discuss noble subjects140 (tw:n eu\ levgein
ti boulhqevntwn, §14), he praises especially him (Gorgias)141 who chose to write about
Helen, but that he intends to progress further in revealing how to compose a proper
eulogy.142 Isocrates claims his master made an oversight, namely that a speech of defence,
which I will explain further, follows different conventions from those of an encomium.
Here Isocrates begins his discourse (th;n …ajrch;n tou: lovgou, §16). Further on the author
will remind the reader that the discourse is an encomium of Helen (e[painoV, §21) and that,
in the final paragraph of this work, he will hopefully not have the last word on this subject
but that, by following his example, other orators can expand on the topic being assured that
they will not be at loss for words, but rather they will chance upon many more arguments
139
See Natali on Isocrates’ exordium in the Encomium with praise of himself as means of distinguishing
himself (Natali, 1983, p. 46). Cf. Arist. Rhetoric 1414b 19-30.
140
Speaking well means ‘to have a good idea’; such phrase is related to content rather than to eloquence: see
Aristophanes’ Frogs 1480, (Dover, 1994, p. 379), and Plato’s Apology 24e.
141
Refer to note 127 above.
70
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
which relate to Helen, (§69), as long as they will locate worthy themes at the basis of their
works. It is thus important to investigate in what way Isocrates claimed to differ in regard
to the genre adopted by Gorgias, despite drawing on his master’s view about rhetorical
issues, he advances an innovative composition, which unlike Gorgias, he incorporates in
the right structure of a pure encomium.
142
For this view see Papillon, (Papillon, 1996, p. 384).
71
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
3. Isocrates and Gorgias between ejgkwvmion and ajpologiva
Isocrates’ intention in the Helen will appear clearer through analysis of his choice of genre.
It will show that although Isocrates distinguishes himself from his teacher on the basis of
genre, he does in fact compose a pure encomium of Helen. However, it can also be proved
that Isocrates was not completely faithful to the role of encomiast throughout the whole
work since in order to arrive at the eulogy of Helen he had first to defend some of the
crucial characters who were connected with her fate. Thus firstly it will be important to
analyze the ways in which the author intends to distinguish his own work from that of his
master and of other rhetoricians. Secondly, the generic differences between the two
authors’ encomia will be explored in the light of their different purposes. Finally, it will be
shown that if Isocrates made a pure encomium of Helen he first had to make an apology for
other characters in order to render them able to choose Helen.
Scholars such as Schiappa, Dover and Worman have all recognized that the meaning of the
word encomium in fifth-century Greece referred to a poem celebrating someone’s
victory.143 Gorgias created in this epideixis a rhetorical hybrid where he gave some poetic
form to the set prose genre.144 In the fourth century the word encomium referred to a form
of praise in either prose or verse.145 As Livingstone points out, discussions of genre in early
rhetoric appear in the first surviving examples of treatises such as Aristotle’s Rhetoric and
the Rhetoric to Alexander, where the major uses of rhetoric are described, though they
143
144
(Dover, 1968, p. 237), (Worman, 1997, p. 173), (Schiappa, 1999, p. 121).
(Schiappa, 1999, pp. 119-20).
72
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
represent a state of development later than the works under consideration here.146 While the
former two were considered ‘practical’,147 the epideictic genre aimed at demonstrating the
author’s skill rather than influencing the immediate decision of the audience.148
Through such a choice of genre Isocrates intends to single out his work from those
which he condemned in the proemium including that of his teacher. The genre adopted in
the Helen, as with his other works, can be considered epideictic as it was designed to
advertise Isocrates’ broader political programme, and not just to persuade the audience at a
particular moment in time. Isocrates in fact makes clear his intention, as I have shown, to
distinguish himself from other authors by using different criteria based on subject matter.149
Livingstone claims that the mix of praise and defence which Isocrates criticizes was a
natural consequence of the choice of paradoxical themes in rhetoric.150 Isocrates realized
(Helen §8-13) that at that time the praise of paradoxical (para; dovxan) topics, which he
considered useless and without meaning, dominated sophistic display rhetoric, whether for
the purpose of entertainment or for the purpose of avoiding direct comparison with
145
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 121).
(Livingstone, 2001, p. 8-9). These sections were then subdivided: the symbouleutic into protreptic and
apotreptic, dicanic into prosecution and defence, and epideictic into praise and blame (yovgoV). Under the
category of epideictic oratory came the action of ‘praising’ and ‘blaming’. While praises were usually
manifested during pan-Hellenic festivals, for epideictic blame Livingstone claims that we need to turn to
sophistic prosecutions. Among these sophistic prosecutions Livingstone includes Alcidamas’ Odysseus and
Polycrates, kathgoriva SwkravtouV, (Livingstone, 2001, p. 12).
147
For a similar view see Buchheit (Buchheit, 1960, p. 143). See also Zajonz, (Zajonz, 2002, p. 143) about the
established difference in Isocrates between ajpologiva and eujlogiva. Zajonz claims that the difference between
ajpologiva and eujlogiva appears in later rhetoric, as for example in Aristotle, but it must not be assumed that
it was an established distinction in Isocrates since in the Busiris the author uses the two words side by side,
and it is in the Helen in fact that he makes a point of distinguishing the two terms (Zajonz, 2002, pp. 143-44).
148
Cf. Livingstone, (Livingstone, 2001, pp. 9ff).
149
For a parallel between Isocrates’ intention to distinguish the style of the e[painoV and ajpologiva see both
the Helen (§14-15) and the Busiris (§9, 44).
150
(Livingstone, 2001, pp. 12-13). For a treatment of rhetoric including paradoxical and insignificant themes
see Pease: Pease claims that the praise of the useless and ridiculous was probably established since the time of
Gorgias and calls this method of encomium adoxography. Among the works which come under this name
Pease mentions also Gorgias’ and Isocrates’ Helen, (Pease, 1926, p. 29). However, Isocrates, Livingstone
146
73
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
poetry.151 As a result, the Helen and the Busiris of Isocrates illustrate how a pure
encomium, as opposed to defence, was to nullify paradoxical attributes of the subject,
instructing other authors to display and exercise their qualities as writers of genuine
encomia by focusing on the praise of a single character.152
Isocrates states that for the subject of the Helen the most appropriate form is pure praise
(§15), and in this he differentiates himself from his teacher. In Gorgias the style that the
author ascribes to his own work is expressed with the word ejgkwvmion (§21). Its beginning
is composed of encomiastic elements such as genealogy, and positive attributes such as
beauty.153 However, Gorgias makes the transition to a speech convincing because of a
reasoning demonstrated by the eijkovV in regard to Helen’s acquittal. Yet, his argument does
not demonstrate encomiastic purposes as it requires the style of legal defence, by
demonstrating that each hypothesis (c.6ff) can rigorously secure Helen’ position and excuse
her.154 On the other hand, Isocrates’ choice of genre in the Helen aims at praising many of
its characters for reasons which, in the end, appear to be linked: Isocrates claims that the
strongest assurance (pivstin) for those who wish to praise Helen (toi:V boulomevnoiV
JElevnhn ejpainei:n) will be if he can show that those who loved and admired her were
themselves more worthy of admiration than other men (§22). The encomia of the two
authors have always been regarded as stylistically different for their differing purpose of
points out, seems to be averse to this very kind of trend. Pease also claims that the line between encomium
and adoxography is hard to draw (Pease, 1926, p. 33).
151
(Livingstone, 2001, p. 13).
152
(Livingstone, 2001, p.13).
153
For more information about the topics of encomia and especially the genealogy see Livingstone (Gorgias
Helen c.3, Isocrates’ Helen §16, Evagoras §12) (Livingstone, 2001, p. 8ff.).
154
On this basis, Livingstone comments Polycrates’ Busiris was criticised for wavering between praise and
defence. However, in his Busiris Isocrates fixes the ‘mistake’ of Polycrates by including both praise and
defence but by categorising them as separate, both stylistically and methodologically (Livingstone, 2001, p.
12).
74
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
praise and defence.155 However, the “generic purity” employed by Isocrates has been
singled out,156 yet not explained.
For the purpose of evaluating Isocrates’ use of encomiastic genre, it is important to
investigate the way in which the author explicitly uses the verb ejpainei:n, (to praise). As I
have already explored in paragraphs 10 and 12, Isocrates criticizes the trend of ‘praising’,
ejpainei:n, useless things and claims that such action has never left the orators without
words, and that they have often found enough material to speak of frivolous issues. While
he appreciates Gorgias’ ability to select the subject of his work, Isocrates criticizes his
ability to praise someone: his master, according to Isocrates, did not treat the subject as an
ejgkwvmion but rather as an ajpologiva (§14). To this criticism Isocrates adds that the defence
is neither composed of the same topics as the encomium nor deals with the same actions,157
but that a defence is only appropriate when someone is charged with a crime (§15).
However, although it can be established that the Helen was a “model encomium” of the
beautiful queen on which Isocrates’ pupils could mould their epideictic writings,158 I
propose that Isocrates in his work is inconsistent in his aim of being a pure encomiast in
regard to the characters of the Helen. Isocrates appears to defend and redeem any of the
faults which the tradition assigned these characters in order to reveal that the choice of
Helen was made by people worthy of admiration. In fact in the Isocratean Helen the
involvement of the heroes in noble causes makes them the subjects of encomia. I propose
155
See Papillon (Papillon, 1997, p. 2ff) and Zagagi (Zagagi, 1985, p. 81).
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 303).
157
oujk ejk tw:n aujtw:n ijdew:n oujde; peri; tw:n aujtw:n e[rgwn. Van Hook criticizes Blass for substituting the
conjecture ajnqrwvpwn for the MSS’ e[rgwn (Van Hook, 1945, p. 66).
158
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 67).
156
75
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
that Isocrates intentionally provided reasons with which he could overrule the characters’
traditional reputation subsequently praising their qualities in his work. In paragraphs 41
following, Isocrates mentions the reasons for which Paris was overwhelmed by the beauty
of Helen, and proposes that his choice was prompted not by motives that the character was
expected to have according to the previous tradition,159 but for the more dignified motive of
acquiring a noble lineage (§43-44). To such a ‘defence’ Isocrates adds that no sensible
person could find fault with this reasoning (§45)160 and goes on to explain that people,
without considering the antecedent events, have misjudged Paris (Helen §46 ff.).
Similarly, with the character of Theseus, Isocrates seems first to have made an
ajpologiva, a term with which he criticizes the composition of his master, in order then to be
able to construct Theseus’ ejgkwvmion. The treatment of Theseus consists, at the beginning,
of a defence of the hero, a treatment which Gorgias adopted in representing the character of
Helen. Isocrates recounts that Theseus, being captivated by the beauty of Helen, went
against the power of her family, and overruling the dangers he encountered in Sparta, he
seized her by force (§19). However, to this the author adds that if Theseus was an ordinary
person, rather than the distinguished man that he was, his encomium could be mistaken for
an accusation (kathgoriva) of the character, (§21).
Isocrates ransoms Theseus on account of his ajrethv (§21-22).161 Even though what
should be Theseus’ encomium reveals itself to be Theseus’ apology at first, the virtue of
Theseus provides enough material for Isocrates to exalt his character. I disagree therefore
159
Probably here referring to Paris’ reputation especially in Homer’s Iliad, where Paris is described as the
one who insulted Hera and Athena (xxiv 28-30), who raped Helen from Sparta (iii 443ff), who retreated from
Menelaus (iii 16ff), and when he accepts the duel, is rescued by Aphrodite (iii 67ff.).
160
tw:n me;n ou\n eu\ fronouvntwn oujdei;V a}n toi:V logismoi:V touvtoiV ejpitimhvseie. For the interpretation of
the term logismovV as reasoning or calculation see Livingstone, (Livingstone, 2001, p. 149). (Velardi, 2001,
especially pp. 23 ff.).
76
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
with Livingstone’s comment about Theseus that in the Helen, as well as in the Busiris,
“Isocrates adheres strictly to praise and does not mention the ill that has been spoken of the
character he is praising”.162 In fact it appears that Theseus first had to be redeemed in order
to perform the role that the author decided to give him in the Helen. Isocrates uses Theseus’
positive opinion of Helen in order to make a eulogy, not only of Theseus himself but also
of the queen (§22). Isocrates, first, praises the hero for his civic and regal qualities (§3138), and then claims that Helen is even more worthy of praise than the hero because of all
her qualities.
In paragraph 38 Isocrates finally arrives at praising Helen in more detail and gives
reasons for which the queen deserves to be eulogized by making her superior to human
excellence. In dealing with the figure of Helen, the encomium for Isocrates is not a defence
of someone in light of their supposed crimes, but rather a process by which good qualities,
possessed by a person (§15) are brought to light. Straight after the ‘praise’ of Theseus, as
has been discussed,163 he asks whether Helen should not be praised, being the one who
established her power over a man of such excellence and self control (§38),164 and thus be
regarded as superior to all other women.
Isocrates wished to be distinguished from first from rhetoricians on the basis of the
subject matter of discourses, then from his master on the basis of genre. However, Isocrates
did not completely adhere to the role of pure encomiast since in order to make his way to
the real object of praise, namely Helen ( JElevnhV e[painoV, §21), he first defended and
161
Cf. Livingstone, (Livingstone, 2001, pp. 17-18).
(Livingstone, 2001, pp. 17-18).
163
(Van Hook, 1945, p. 58).
164
krathvsasan de; toiauvthV ajreth:V kai; swfrosuvnhV, pw:V oujk ejpainei:n crh;… (§38). While in
Euripides Helen was blamed for ajfrosuvnh, Trojan Women 987-992.
162
77
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
excused Paris,165 then Theseus, on the basis of their possession and choice of ajrethv and
justified every ‘mistake’ or reason for blame, in order to make their trustworthy choice of
Helen the foundation of his praise of beauty.
165
Isocrates also excused Zeus (§59) and then men and gods who succumbed to mortal beauty, §61.
78
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be asserted that the encomium of Helen by Isocrates presents
similarities with the homonymous work by his teacher Gorgias: both works were called an
encomium, both used a similar vocabulary, both employed the much discussed figure of
Helen. I have proved, through a linguistic comparison of the two encomia, that Isocrates
has employed a vocabulary related to the concept of beauty and visual perception which is
similar to the one with which his master chose to describe the story of Helen. However,
while Gorgias focused on the perspective which analyzed the physical impact of external
factors on the physiological make up of the human being, Isocrates decided to neglect this
approach and used an analogous vocabulary for a different purpose. Although still
considering factors which are related to beauty and which affect the sight, he highlighted
above all the non-visual and non-sensual effects which this quality stimulates in human
beings, leading them to choose noble paths of life.
In the second section of this chapter I have studied the two authors’ works more closely in
relation to dovxa, lovgoV and truth. I have shown that often scholars have considered
Gorgias’ Helen to be merely a rhetorical show-piece, and that of Isocrates to be a civic
manifesto, more concerned with truth and epistemological theories than his teacher’s.
However, through the comparison between the two authors’ use of dovxa and lovgoV I have
firstly argued that Gorgias, although having inherited a concern for physiological
phenomena from atomistic and sensory perception theories current in the fifth century, did
not discard the possibility of acquiring some kind of truthful understanding through
79
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
rhetoric. Rather, he reveals a process, in his Helen, through which it is possible to arrive at
concepts of truth. For Gorgias dovxa is an untrustworthy tool through which the mind
interprets perception. Consequently lovgoV can persuade the human mind because of the
presence of dovxa and because of the lack of something more secure and truthful, through
which it is possible to prove and confirm what is perceived. Gorgias will counterpose, in
his present lovgoV, an alternative to doxastic speeches which fashion the mind according to
need: this innovation is a rational argument, logismovV. The truth is that Helen escaped to
Troy; the truthful treatment for such a fact is the analysis of the plausible causes, eijkovV,
which affected the person of Helen and led her to react in such a way. Gorgias’ theory is
thus not just rhetorical and devoid of any truth but scientifically and physiologically based.
Isocrates reacted to his teacher’s views by employing a similar context, characters and
cognitive tools such as dovxa and lovgoV and, as his master did, linked them to the concept
of truth. However, Isocrates believes the possession of truth to be achievable through the
exercise of practical wisdom and the employment of useful content. In comparison to his
teacher’s theories, Isocrates intensifies in the Helen his interest in the utility and beneficial
importance of content, rather than of physiological phenomena. Isocrates uses dovxa to
mean the ‘common opinion’ of well known mythological figures and, unlike the more
individualistic use of the term by his master, he accentuates the more communal and
objective meaning of dovxa. In regard to lovgoV, Isocrates appears to draw upon Gorgias in
claiming that lovgoi are potentially deceptive, however he seems to restrict this tendency to
the discourses of other writers. Isocrates’ own speech intends to reveal how lovgoV is
expected to be a vehicle which transmits an important message and the essential content
80
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
which the author wants to communicate. The epistemological theory on which Isocrates
relies in order to convince his audience of the importance of his subject comprises the
observation of advantages and benefits which submission to the beauty of Helen has
brought to Greek society, to which Helen’s dovxa, as well as the dovxa of those who admired
her, testify. Therefore in the fourth century, Isocrates ignores the scientifically-based theory
of his teacher Gorgias and instead emphasizes primarily the importance of content which
was being neglected by his contemporaries.
Finally, regarding genre, I have shown that Isocrates claimed to offer “generic purity”, and
to make a genuine eulogy of the figure of Helen, in whose beauty he wanted to emblemize
his social and rhetorical beliefs. Isocrates appreciates Gorgias’ choice of subject but
criticizes the genre employed: according to Isocrates, Gorgias’ work is not a real
encomium, as the fifth-century author labelled it, but rather a defence of Helen. Gorgias’
reason for his choice of a defensive tone is to be found in his intention to advance a rational
argument which would lead to the justification of the queen. Isocrates instead claims that
Helen is not in need of a defence but that the queen deserves instead a complete, undiluted
encomium. Isocrates does praise Helen, yet, in the process of his eulogy he happens to
defend and redeem some of the other characters, such as Paris and Theseus, on whose
acknowledged discernment he aims to base the proof of Helen’s beauty, which they
recognized and favoured.
Thus, the two encomia present many subtle differences and nuances which have made the
homonymous works, dealing with the figure of Helen of Troy and the effects of her beauty,
81
Chapter 2: The beauty of Helen in Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ encomia
into icons of different times and theories. Such influences inspired Gorgias to defend Helen
and through his defense to offer a prototype of rational argument, which was more secure
and stable than the deceiving and persuading images and words, on which many of the
fifth-century theories were based. The work of Gorgias was chosen for comparison with the
homonymous work of his pupil in order to shed a clearer light on Isocrates’ Helen, in which
the fourth-century author ignores his masters’ theories and intends to praise, through a
‘pure’ encomium, the importance of a speech’s subject matter, a relevant topic for his
society.
82
Chapter 3
Notions of beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
Introduction
In the previous chapter I have placed in comparison Isocrates’ and Gorgias’ Encomia of
Helen and I have suggested that Isocrates reacts to the ideas expressed in the work of his
predecessor. Isocrates, despite the use of similar language and themes, decided to compose
a homonymous work by abandoning the physiological approach of his teacher and by
producing an encomium based on the praise of non-physical values. In the Helen, he is
mainly concerned with themes and ideas which affect society as a whole and not just the
individual, as has been covered in the Helen of his master. Following the analysis of the
Helen’s position in relation to previous tradition, we now turn to Isocrates’ own period for
the comparison of his text with Plato’s dialogue, the Phaedrus, which mainly deals with the
concept of beauty. The precedence of one work to the other, a factor which structured the
argument in the previous chapter cannot be determined in this case. However, the
Isocratean Helen will be compared to the Phaedrus in order to reveal the ideas and themes
which the two authors appear to share in these works, but which are nonetheless expressed
through different methods.
The Helen of Isocrates, in fact, displays concepts which methodologically contrast yet
ultimately harmonize with Plato’s theory of beauty, as expressed in his dialogue Phaedrus.
83
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
In this chapter, the pragmatic Isocratean theory will be placed in comparison with the
idealistic Platonic view of beauty. I will firstly identify some views which have
concentrated on the personal rivalry between the two authors and which have considered
their opinions on how to reach knowledge as antithetical. However, the present approach
will distinguish itself from other methods in that, through an aesthetical perspective, it will
aim to demonstrate the philosophical and conceptual closeness mainly on the basis of the
evidence found in the works Helen and Phaedrus.
Other accounts have focused on the relationship between Isocrates and Plato and on the
alleged hostility between the two authors. For the purpose of comparing their works it is
important to investigate the way in which this relationship has been conceived in the past.
In the ancient tradition only one anecdote (Andecdote 74, Riginos)1 is found which refers to
Isocrates and Plato as mutually hostile; other than this adecdote, which, as Riginos claims,
does not say much about the personal relationship between the two authors,2 the argument
for their rivalry was based only on Plato’s comment about the young Isocrates in his
Phaedrus (279a). This is the only explicit mention of Isocrates by Plato and, although
appearing to express genuine appreciation of Isocrates, was believed by some scholars to be
an attack on his philosophy.3 On the other hand, at least as is currently believed, the early
passages of the proemium of the Helen of Isocrates are thought to refer to Plato and the
Testimonia: Stobaeus 2.31.110 (2:221 [Wachsmuth]; Flor. Laur. 227.1; Mel. Aug. c.38 n.25: Plavtwn
levgontovV pote jIsokravtouV, wJV divkaia poiei: polu;n misqo;n tou;V maqhta;V eijsprattovmenoV, tou;V me;n
ga;r eujfuei:V wjfelou:n, peri; de;tou;V ajfuei:V poiei:n, ‘toujnantivon’ e[fh, ‘poiei:V, jIsovkrateV· peri; me;n ga;r
tou;V eujfuei:V ouj poiei:V, tou:V de; ajfuei:V oujk wjfelei:V’. Cf. (Riginos, 1976, p. 118). Riginos mentions that
the anecdote consists of Isocrates’ defence of his charging fees for instruction and Plato’s hostile answer to
the concept of fees acceptance.
2
(Riginos, 1976, p. 118).
3
See Howland (Howland, 1937, p. 159) Jaeger (Jaeger, 1945, pp. 67-68) and Eucken (Eucken, 1983, p. 116).
See Dodds for disbelief in the hostility attributed to the relationship between Isocrates and Plato in the
Gorgias, where he instead highlights points of concord between the two (Gorgias 456c6-457c3, 463a6-b1,
484c4-485 e2, 507a4-c7) (Dodds, 1959, p. 27, p. 212, esp. p. 225, p. 272, 335).
1
84
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
Socratics.4 Therefore, the two works have previously been considered as evidence for the
authors’ personal conflict.
What is also known about the philosophers’ private relationship, is that they both
studied under the guidance of Socrates,5 but while Isocrates wrote speeches and pamphlets,
an instrument of propaganda for his political ideas, Plato wrote dialogues in which the
figure of Socrates appears to lead pupils, through his maieutical method, to the discovery of
the truth. Despite the fact that some passages in their works6 reveal that both Isocrates and
Plato criticised other educators, and especially the Sophists,7 for their lack of concern with
the truth, it has thus far been believed that their methods of attaining knowledge and even
their concept of truth were very different.8
Scholars have highlighted the evident differences and supposed antagonisms between
the two authors. Worman parallels the beauty of Helen with the style of epideixis and states
that Isocrates’ intention was to compare to this style the three groups and their professions
criticised by him at the start of the encomium, and to make them appear useless
occupations.9 Hackforth claims that the purpose of the Phaedrus is to vindicate the pursuit
of philosophy as the true culture of the soul10 and that to Isocrates Plato must have seemed
kai; katageghravkasin …oiJ de; diexiovnteV wJV ajndriva kai; sofiva kai; dikaiosuvnh taujtovn ejsti, kai;
fuvsei me;n oujde;n aujtw:n e[comen, miva d’ ejpisthvmh kaq’ aJpavntwn ejstivn, (Helen §1). (Van Hook, 1945, p.
61) and (Poulakos, 1986, p. 6). For a discussion on modern views on the relationship between Isocrates and
Plato see De Vries (De Vries, 1969, pp. 15-18) and (De Vries, 1953).
5
(Benoit, 1991 pp, 60-61, 64) Benoit, taking a middle ground in regard to the philosophers’ antagonism,
claims that Plato’s and Isocrates’ similarity in their moral tone depends mainly on their relationship with
Socrates.
6
Against the Sophists §6, 9; Helen §1; Plato’s Phaedrus 272d-273a; 259e-260a.
7
See Benoit (Benoit, 1991, p. 63). Benoit seems to believe that the divergences between the two authors
about knowledge depend on Plato’s more vigorous antagonism towards the sophists. Benoit mentions
Isocrates’ rejection of absolute knowledge (Against the Sophists § 2, 8 and Antidosis §271) and his preference
for practical knowledge (Helen §5), however he rightly highlights Isocrates’ distinction from the Sophists
whom he deems unconcerned at all with the truth, putting their own interests above the common good
(Benoit, 1991, p. 63-64).
8
See Benoit (Benoit, 1991, p. 64); Perkins (Perkins, 1984, p. 59, ff.).
9
(Worman, 2002 p. 166).
10
(Hackforth, 1952, p. 9).
4
85
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
“an unpractical visionary and hair-splitting eristic”.11 Scholars such as Van Hook, Howland
and Jaeger have taken the early passages of the Helen of Isocrates to be referring in an
antagonistic way to Plato and the school of Socratics, on the basis of their ideas on certain,
abstract knowledge.12
More specifically, the significance of the theme of beauty in the Helen has been
neglected by scholars in favour of the author’s interest in rhetoric to respond to the
contrasting opinions of contemporary groups. Poulakos focuses more specifically on the
main purpose of the encomium and says “If the Helen is about one thing, it is about the
pursuit of beauty”.13 However, his main concern is to prove that behind this beauty lies the
claimed superiority of proper eloquence over eristic discourse:14 “the encomium to Helen is
Isocrates’ response to the eristics”.15 Poulakos further claims that because Isocrates was a
teacher of rhetoric and a stylist, and merely concerned with the ascent of the eristic groups
at that time, he was purely interested in the beauty of language rather than the actual beauty
of Helen, and that he was responding to the contemporary attacks16 on the use of spoken
discourse, epideictic rhetoric and praises. Moreover, with a more specific focus on the topic
of beauty, Poulakos claims that because of Plato’s focus on love of certain, abstract
11
(Hackforth, 1952, pp. 11-12).
(Gaiser, 1990, p. 65). Howland thinks that the proemium is primarily an attack on Plato, Howland
(Howland, 1937, p. 151) and Jaeger (Jaeger, 1945, p. 57, 67-68), similarly believes that the proemium is a
response to the tendency of the Socratic movement (Jaeger, 1945, p. 68). See also Perkins for a discussion of
the different accounts of the authors’ antagonism (Perkins, 1984, p. 51). Cf. Poulakos (Poulakos, 1986, p. 6).
13
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 8).
14
(Poulakos, 1986, pp. 16-17).
15
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 15-16). Here Poulakos claims that Isocrates, a teacher of rhetoric, must have been
concerned about the increasing popularity of eristic disputations and that the main body of the Helen is not
separated from the introduction, but is its extension. See the discussion for criticism on the structure of the
Helen as reported by Poulakos (Poulakos, 1986, p. 2-4).
16
Isocrates was accused of corrupting youth because of teaching them how to gain advantage in the law
courts. In order to defend himself from these accusations Isocrates distinguished himself from the sophists
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 133). Jaeger claims that, placed in comparison with the Sophists, Isocrates must have felt
like Phidias being equalled with those who just stamp clay statutes, or like Parrhasius and Zeuxis compared
with commercial painters (Antid. §2) (Jaeger, 1945, p. 133).
12
86
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
knowledge, to; filosofei:n, the notion of love of beauty, to; filokalei:n, was receding into
the background and that Isocrates’ encomium is an answer to its neglect.17
However, here I intend to demonstrate that, from an aesthetical and conceptual perspective,
the contrast between the two authors is more apparent than real. Perkins claims that the
philosophy of Isocrates “based upon a relativistic and humane ethic and deeply concerned
with the good of the polis, contrasts with but is not necessarily less moral than Plato’s”.18 In
this chapter I intend to expand on this view, at least in terms of their ultimate conclusions
on beauty which can be drawn from a comparison between the Helen and the Phaedrus.
Plato and Isocrates share the idea, which was already well established in the fourth
century,19 about the concept of kalokagathia which summed up all the highest ideals of
perfections of mind and body, and both wished to develop the idea of the morally superior
person through such a theory.20 The more specific objective of this study is to explore the
way in which the Helen of Isocrates shares with the Phaedrus of his contemporary Plato
many of the ideas relating to beauty, highlighting the fact that while Plato treats aesthetical
themes from a more individual and idealistic perspective, Isocrates instead applies similar
notions to the more practical territory of social order.
This chapter will compare the two texts through the analysis of several common themes.
Although Plato appears to be more concerned with the physical factor, in both authors the
connection with the divine prevents the encounter with beauty as resulting in a purely
17
(Poulakos, 1986, p. 10).
(Perkins, 1984, p. 51, Benoit, 1991, p. 64). Benoit, despite finding a sharp difference between the ways in
which the two writers regarded knowledge and persuasion, believes that the similarities between them
depended not only on the writers’ distancing themselves from the Sophistic view and their contact with
Socrates, but also on their sharing some goals such as attracting students and criticizing whoever was
competing against them (Benoit, 1991, p. 63).
19
(Jaeger, 1939, p. 286).
18
87
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
physical experience. In Isocrates, like in Plato, beauty demands a struggle for its
attainment, but while in Plato beauty represents an abstract ideal and the struggle for beauty
occurs in the more individual field of the human soul, in Isocrates the struggle is placed, for
his contemporaries, on a more concrete background, namely the mythological battle of
Troy, presented as the struggle for the right and noble choice and the resistance to hostile
natures. Through such a construction the author seeks to inspire his audience.
In both texts, the battle for the attainment of beauty is driven by the strong passion of
e[rwV, which, in the Phaedrus, defines the burning desire which steers the soul towards the
intelligible form of beauty and therefore of knowledge, while in the Helen, this force, as
shown in the mythological past, represents the enthusiasm which drove human beings into
the concrete battle against external threats, on account of the beautiful Helen. The
legendary campaign for the attainment of beauty will represent Isocrates’ undeniable raison
d'être for the strong exhortation of contemporary citizens to be involved in a new battle for
beauty and the non-physical values it symbolizes; additionally such commitment will
involve an opposition to natural inclinations which deviate from the noble objective.
Eloquence, from the aesthetical perspective, is for both authors the device through
which the appeal for the pursuit of beneficial values can be voiced. The struggle and the
choice of what is righteous and noble is an integral part of the life of the philosopher, who
in both texts appears as the figure of the one who searches for what is true and for what
leads to the best way of living. However, although Plato and Isocrates present different
concepts of philosophy, their common purpose in the Helen and the Phaedrus is that of
depicting the figure of the philosopher as the one who pursues beauty. In Plato the
philosophical life searches for knowledge of intelligible truth; in Isocrates instead it seeks
20
(Perkins, 1984, p. 50). For a further discussion about the constituent parts of the word kalokagathia see
88
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
practical wisdom. Both authors treat the theme of beauty and the encounter with this visible
quality by emphasizing its less visual aspects and by going beyond the purely physical
experience: they use what is physical as the door to reach non-physical values.
Dover (Dover, 1974, pp. 41-45 and 69-70).
89
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
1. Beauty and the divine
Isocrates shares Plato’s idea concerning the relationship between beauty and the divine.
However, in Plato’s Phaedrus beauty is a quality which is part of that intelligible
knowledge by which the divine soul is nourished and which the human soul recollects on
earth. Isocrates in the Helen, instead, connects the divine to beauty on a much more
practical and concrete level, the gods themselves becoming involved and concerned with
this quality which, at the same time, offers human beings a possibility of sharing something
of the divine. In both texts, however, the encounter with beauty is not confined merely to
the physical sphere, but reveals a relationship with the transcendental.
In Plato’s Phaedrus the meeting between human beings and what is divine occurs at first
through the soul in the setting of the intelligible world of Ideas. The soul, as shown in
Plato’s Phaedrus, is immortal and, in continuous motion, travels through the heavens as
long as its wings are not damaged (Phaedrus 246a, ff). The Platonic Socrates, during the
country walk with his disciple Phaedrus, says that the soul of humans is composed of a
charioteer and two horses, one of which is good and fine while the other one is of an
opposing nature (Phaedrus 246a). The task of the wings is that of elevating human beings
to the upper region where the gods live. Of all things connected with the body, the wings
have the greatest affinity with the divine which is endowed with beauty, wisdom, goodness
and every other excellence (kalovn, sofovn, ajgaqovn, kai; pa:n o”ti toiou:ton, Phaedrus
246e). Only the human souls who are most like the divine will be able to rise to where it is
possible to contemplate the blessed vision of abstract Ideas: this reality is without colour or
90
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
shape, and is intelligible, but can be perceived only by the intellect which is the pilot of the
soul (247c). If the soul is no longer able to follow the blessed vision then it falls to earth
(248c-d), into a mortal body.
Thus, visual perception in Plato is important, yet not confined to the physical sphere. In
fact, on earth, the soul will encounter earthly beauty (oJrw:n kavlloV) and will be reminded
of the true Beauty, the pure idea of beauty witnessed in heaven, which, along with other
qualities, provides food to the intellect of the divine (247 d). When a human being sees a
god-like face, or a physical form which truly reflects ideal Beauty, he shivers at first then
he worships it as if it were a god.21 In Plato sense perception is important since sight (o[yiV)
is the sharpest mode of perception and beauty is the quality most manifest to the senses
(250d-e). However, in the Phaedrus, the knowledge of beauty, recollected through the
senses,22 requires a previous meeting in the world of Ideas and access to the reality of
Beauty has as prerequisite divine inspiration. When someone who loves beauty is touched
by this madness he is called a lover (249d). Therefore, in Plato pure Beauty is an idea
which is absolute and resides in heaven. This idea can be recognised on earth only if
previously contemplated in heavenly reality and, through the process of recollection, the
human being can be placed in contact again with the heavenly wisdom.
o”tan qeoeide;V provswpon i[dh/ kavlloV eu\ memimhmevnon h[ tina swvmatoV ijdevan, prw:ton me;n e[frixe
..ei\ta prosorw:n wJV qeo;n sevbetai, Phaedrus 251 a. In Phaedrus 251a Plato describes the figure of the
beloved with the term ajgavlma. In Phaedrus 252 Socrates, struck by the beloved’s beauty, says that the lover
treats the boy as if he were a god and fashions him like a statue in order to worship him. Isocrates in the
Evagoras §73-75 says that while images of the body are beautiful memorials kala; me;n ei\nai mnhmei:a kai;
ta;V tw:n swmavtwn eijkovnaV, of much more value are the images of the deeds and the character of a person
polu; mevntoi pleivonoV ajxivaV ta;V tw:n pravxewn kai; th:V dianoivaV. Images, Isocrates says, are stationary
and often stay in the places where they have been erected; words, on the other hand, can travel across Greece.
Cf. Pindar’s Nemean Ode v, 1 f.
22
Perkins rightly points out that for Plato knowledge cannot be attained through the senses (these senses
represent the morality of man), but only through the power of the soul, (Perkins, 1984, p. 54). Similarly,
Chen, in regard to the Symposium, considers sense perception, in its prompting of recollection, as a necessary
21
91
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
In Isocrates, by contrast, the gods appear to be more concerned and involved with human
affairs: Zeus wishes to become the father of Helen (§16); Paris encounters the three
goddesses, who unanimously choose him as judge of their beauty contest (Helen §42ff.).
Isocrates specifies that Paris, being a mortal of superior intelligence (Helen §47), was
suitable to become the judge of immortals (§47).23 Moreover, Isocrates emphasises the fact
that Paris really could not refuse the choice of beauty when the demi-gods and the gods
themselves were involved in the fight for beauty (§48). For love of trouble (§52) on account
of Helen, the gods24 and their children were ready to participate in the expedition. The
divine in Isocrates appears to be subservient to the quality of beauty which Helen
possesses; it is said that Zeus approaches beauty humbly, (pro;V kavlloV tapeinovV, §59).
In Isocrates’ Helen, beauty attracts the divine and, through beauty, the divine becomes
part of human history and glory. In the Helen it is said that many goddesses seem to have
been won over by mortal beauty, (Helen §60), and that, rather than being ashamed of this,
they celebrated it through a song of glorious deeds. The result of this has been that more
mortals have become immortal because of their beauty than for all their other virtues (§5960). Isocrates does not simply speak of earthly beauty but elevates Helen to the divine level
as well as saying that she did not just obtain immortality but was given power equal to that
of a god (§61). Therefore, while in Plato human beings strive for the connection with
beauty which is found in the divine realm and which, on earth, represents their link with
truth, in Isocrates the quest for beauty and wisdom is played out entirely on an earthly level,
tool to have contact with knowledge of ideas, and contrasts it with the requirement of total detachment from
the body in the Phaedo, where knowledge of ideas occurs after death (Chen, 1983, pp. 73-74).
23
Flacelière commenting on Isocrates’ line that nothing prevents the innocent person from being ill-treated by
the stronger (kakw:V me;n ga;r paqei:n uJpo; tw:n kreittovnwn oujde;n kwluvei kai; tou;V mhde;n
ejxhmarthkovtaV, §47) claims that the author, like Homer, admits that the gods can be unjust towards human
beings, who are weaker by nature (Flacelière, 1961, p. 38).
24
Cf. Panath. §81.
92
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
where the quality of beauty is a beneficial gift which both humans and gods fight for and
are subservient to.
93
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
2. The crusade for beauty
In the difficult quest for beauty both authors highlight a deep struggle between natures in
human beings. In the Phaedrus the struggle of the soul between the savage and the gentle
nature, as mentioned before, is exemplified through the myth of the charioteer (253ff). This
myth, as Franco points out, has its roots in the Greek idea of the charioteer as symbolic of
(self-) control.25 Here, in fact, there is an intense, metaphorical battle going on between the
two horses and their driver: while the horses and charioteers of the gods are all good, in
other beings there is instead a mixture of good and bad. The Platonic Socrates suggests that
there is a power that rules which is made of two horses, and one of them has a noble nature
and is of good stock while the other one is of opposite nature and from the opposite stock
(246b).
When the soul of the lover sees the beauty of the beloved, the obedient horse restrains
itself but the bad horse needs to be restrained (254aff). Such restraint requires violence,26
just like in a struggle. Likewise in the chariot of the beloved, the good horse and the
charioteer resist the impulses of the bad horse towards the lover (256a-b).27 It is only if the
higher elements of the mind are victorious, and once the power of what is evil is defeated,28
25
(Franco, 2003 p. 71).
(Franco, 2003 p. 71, and especially n. 86, p. 104), refers to the Phaedrus 246b, and to the charioteer who
has lost the control of the horses in Aeschylus Choephori 1022. The charioteer, the yoke, the bit, and the reins
are all instruments that humans have received from the divine (Franco, 2003 p. 78).
27
Hackforth claims that both horses want the same satisfaction but the point here is the importance of
subjugating mere lust (Hackforth, 1952 p. 107).
28
If we look for a moment at the representation of the unjust person in the Republic, it is possible to
understand that such a person will feed the animal part in himself and starve the human part, while the just
person does the opposite, which is letting the humanity in him have control (Rep. 589a-b). There is another
analogy: the taking care of the many heads, feeding the tame heads and preventing the savage ones from
growing (Rep. 589 b).
26
94
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
that the souls may have happiness, self control and peace in life, (256b).29 At the sight of
beauty, the driver in the soul is reminded of the form of Beauty in her heavenly seat (254b),
next to the form of Temperance and attempts to approach the beloved in a more decorous
manner, thanks to the reminiscent contact with heavenly wisdom.
The personal journey of the soul towards the divine occurs, according to Plato, through a
passionate desire connected with the quality of beauty. As has previously been suggested,
when someone has recently seen the intelligible virtues in heaven and encounters a
beautiful person on earth, a stream of beauty (tou: kavllouV th;n ajporroh;n) enters his
eyes, and this flow allows the re-growth of the wings which the soul had lost (Phaedrus
251b). At this point the soul experiences a physical sensation of fever and sweating30
provoked by the stream of passion emanated by the beautiful person (Phaedrus 251a-b).
When the stream of beauty emanated from the beloved is received by the lover, the
overflow of the effluences returns to the soul from where it originated (Phaedrus 255c).
Such vision allows comparison with the view of Gorgias,31 who similarly explored theories
of visual perception and beauty, yet Plato diverges from Gorgias’ thought because of the
latter’s lack of concern for the transcendence of physiological phenomena. This physical
experience of beauty, provoked by the passionate desire of love, places the soul living in an
earthly body in contact with the realm of truth and real wisdom, which was previously
viewed in heaven.
29
Through a similar analogy in the Republic, Plato arrives at the main conclusion about what is fine and
beneficial and what is shameful, ta; kala; kai; aijscra; novmima dia; ta; toiau:t’ a]n fai:men gegonevnai
(589c). Fine things are those that make the bestial side obey what is divine, while shameful things instead are
those that subjugate what is gentle to what is savage, ta; me;n kala; ta; uJpo; tw/: ajnqrwvpw/, ma:llon de; i[swV
ta; uJpo; tw:/ qeivw/ ta; qhriwvdh poiou:nta th:V fuvsewV, aijscra; de; ta; uJpo; tw:/ ajgrivw/ to; h”meron
doulouvmena (589c-d). Therefore, in his works, Plato emphasises the distinction between the gentle nature
and the savage nature in the human being, where the former needs to be helped and the latter controlled
30
ijdovnta d’ aujto;n oi|on ejk th:V frivkhV metabolhv te kai; iJdrw;V kai; qermovthV ajhvqhV lambavnei.
31
Cf. Chapter 2, section 1.
95
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
In the Phaedrus, !ErwV is the feeling through which one loses his mind to beauty.32
The internal struggle to reach beauty, in fact, is linked to and dependent on the force of
e[rwV, which drives the soul to a relationship with the divine. The original meanings of the
word e[rwV are “love, god of Love, and love desire”,33 “mostly of sexual passion”.34 The
word e[rwV35 denotes any very strong desire, and as Dover correctly claims “is not used,
except rhetorically or humorously, of the relations between parents and children, brothers
and sisters, masters and servants or rulers and subjects”, but rather signifies the state of
being in love.36
From the first two speeches of the dialogue, e[rwV is presented as response to what is
beautiful.37 In 237d, Socrates mentions that e[rwV38 is some kind of desire39 and also that
men who are not in love have a desire for what is beautiful. In Phaedrus 238 b-c Socrates
defines e[rwV as the desire which pursues the enjoyment of beauty and which acquires from
other desires, akin to it, new strength to advance towards bodily beauty.40 This strength is
32
(Nehamas and Woodruff, 1995, p. xxiii).
“ le sense de e[rwV est également bien mis en valeur par l’usage que Platon fait de cette notion, dans certains
dialogues” (Chantraine, 1970, p. 363). There is, in fact, another word for love, which is ajgapavw meaning
‘charity, God’s love, man’s love for God, and fraternal charity’ (Lampe, 1961, pp. 7-8), which in classical
Greek involves also the sexual meaning (Dover, 1980 p. 1-2). This term is also used in the Helen (§22, 37,
54). The term ajfrodisiva (cf. Plato Symp. 192c) instead refers mainly to sexual intercourse, (Dover, 1980, p.
2).
34
(Liddell, Scott and Jones, 1940, p. 695).
35
In Laws 837a, Plato says that friendship, fivlon, is called the affection of like to like, of equal to equal and
also that of the needy for the rich, which is the opposite kind, and when either of these feelings is intense, it is
called “love”, e[rwV.
36
(Dover, 1980, p. 1). Dover specifies that only in Homer the word love in the form of e[roV signifies appetite
for food and drink.
37
Except in 233b where Phaedrus, reporting Lysias’ speech, claims that one of the goals of e[rwV is to render
what usually would cause no stress an affliction.
38
Throughout the dialogue the word e[rwV as such is only found six times. Other forms of the term e[rwV
appear numerously throughout the dialogue (from 227c to 265d) especially in the forms of ejrw:n (lover) and
ejrwvmenoV (beloved).
39
ejpiqumiva tiV oJ e[rwV (Phaedr.237d). Cf. Prodicus B7 DK.
40
In Plato though the word for lover, ejrasthvV, (cf Phaedrus 231a, 253d, 266b, 228c) intends to describe a
person who feels sexually attracted to another person through a desire which manifests itself as a sickness, it
especially means one who loves beauty and is touched by divine possession (249d).
33
96
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
what provides its name: the strong passion called e[rwV.41 Thus, even before its recantation,
the Phaedrian e[rwV presents a link with the quality of earthly beauty.
However, in the second speech of Socrates, e[rwV is not just the driving force which
approaches beauty, but also the connecting instrument used to reach the transcendental
truth. In fact, after recognizing that e[rwV, in the previous speeches, was insulted and
blasphemed, as a madness to be avoided, Socrates decides to redeem it, by claiming instead
that e[rwV itself is a god or something divine (242e).42 In his second speech (243e-257b), a
detailed picture of the human soul is presented, in the explanation that through e[rwV it is
possible to establish a connection with the divine qualities, the most visible of which is
Beauty. !ErwV represents the passionate effort to attain beauty, that Beauty which is part of
the intelligible world of truth.43 The concept of love as a desire for the beautiful signifies a
yearning for wisdom,44 and erotic love is the means to reach what can be appreciated by the
intellect,45 the wisdom which benefits the integrity of the human soul.
In the Phaedrus, therefore, the meaning of e[rwV is described as holding a strong
connection with the desire for the form of Beauty.46 Beautiful bodies provide the bridge
Phaedrus 238 b-c: hJ ga;r a[neu lovgou dovxhV ejpi; to; ojrqo;n oJrmwvshV krathvsasa ejpiqumiva pro;V hJdonh;n
ajcqei:sa kavllouV, kai; uJpo; au\ tw:n eJauth:V suggenw:n ejpiqumiw:n ejpi; swmavtwn kavlloV ejrrwmevnwV
rJwsqei:sa nikhvsasa ajgwgh/:, ajp’ aujth:V th:V rJwvmhV ejpwnumivan labou:sa, e[rwV ejklhvqh.
42
In Symposium 202e e[rwV is described as something between mortal and immortal world, a great spirit since
everything which is spiritual is divine and mortal, and it makes each supplement the other so that the whole is
combined in one, ejn mevsw/ de; o]n ajmfotevrwn sumplhroi:, w”ste to; pa:n aujto; auJtw:/ sundedevsqai. See also
the word ejrwtikovV in Phaedrus 227c, 248d, 253e, 265b, 275a; ejrastovV 250d.
43
Ludwig claims that in the Symposium Aristophanes’ presentation of e[rwV appears disconnected with the
idea of Beauty, and thus focused on egotistical love, which is mainly self gratification (Ludwig, 2002, p. 217).
44
Similarly in Sympsium 204b wisdom has to do with the most beautiful things and love is a love directed to
what is beautiful e[stin ga;r dh; tw:n kallivstwn hJ sofiva, [ErwV d’ ejsti;n e[rwV peri; to; kalovn.
45
(Dover, 1980, p. 113).
46
In Symposium 204d Diotima asks ‘what is the love of the lover of beautiful things?’ and in 204e she asks
‘what does the lover of good things love?”, oJ ejrw:n tw:n ajgaqw:n tiv ejra/:; (Cf. see also Plato’s Gorgias 474d
and Meno 77b). Therefore anything which is kalovn and looks or sounds good, is also ajgaqovn and so serves a
desirable purpose, (Dover, 1974, p. 73). In Symp. 210ff, Diotima proposes an idea of e[rwV and beauty as
offering the possibility of an encounter with the divine and not as a selfish human experience. Moreover, in
the Symposium, like in the Phaedrus, through the observation of beauty on earth, there is the possibility of a
41
97
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
between Plato’s idea of divine truth (to; kalovn)47 and earthly experiences of beauty.48 As
Ferrari claims, in the Phaedrus Plato conceives the immense power and importance of
beauty as a multifunctional quality, as “the value that has in addition to its intrinsic worth
the function of arresting and directing the attention to the totality of values in a human
life”.49 In the Phaedrus the experience of love, on which Plato particularly focuses, avoids
any collective implication and rather focuses on the internal attainment of something
superior and divine and on the inner well-being of the soul which guarantees the best way
of living. In the Phaedrus the implication of e[rwV relates to the individual experience of
yuvch.50
Through his Palinode,51 Socrates expresses the need to vindicate e[rwV and,
through this passion, he exemplifies the desire for beautiful bodies as the human
characteristic which will connect human souls to the intelligible notion of Beauty and thus
personal happiness.
Isocrates, on the other hand, exemplifies the struggle for the attainment of beauty not
through the Platonic idea of a battle within the individual, but rather by focusing on the
battle for the beautiful Helen of the mythological past and its effects on society. In the
connection with the divine wisdom. Kirby claims that for Plato (in the Phaedrus and the Symposium) sensory
stimuli are the strong call of eros for what is fine, honourable, eternal, divine perfect (Kirby, 1990, p. 222).
47
Phaedrus 246e. Similarly in the Symposium through an observation of beauty on earth there is the
possibility of the connection with the divine and with wisdom (Symp.210 ff.).In Phaedrus (250d), Socrates
says that beauty is the most visible and clear quality for the human senses, and that if other qualities, such as
wisdom, could be clearly viewed, human beings would have as passionate a desire for them as the one they
have for the beautiful, which inspires desire and love, (deinou;V ga;r a]n parei:cen e[rwtaV, ei[ ti toiou:ton
eJauth:V ejnarge;V ei[dwlon pareivceto eijV o[yin ijovn).
48
As Chen claims, striving for immortality and the good begins with striving for the knowledge of beauty
(Chen, 1983, p. 66).
49
Ferrari also rightly claims that the brightness of beauty urges human beings to an immediacy to obtain it,
but that at the same time this is an immediacy which cannot be appreciated immediately because of the
cautious passage from what is earthly to what is intelligible, (Ferrari, 1987, p. 149).
50
The term is often used in the Phaedrus 245, c, e; 246 a, b, e; 247c; 248b; 250b.
51
Isocrates’ Helen also mentions the Palinode of Stesichorus, however, only in order to reveal the power of
Helen (§64). For a more detailed discussion see Eucken (Eucken, 1983, pp. 115ff). See Livingstone for a
98
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
setting of the past, in fact, Isocrates presents the mythological figure of Theseus, as the
winner of beauty but also as the fighter against the savage natures of the external world. In
the Helen Theseus fights against the centaurs, creatures endowed with a double nature. He
then fights the Minotaur, which has a double form, not only composed of a double nature
(§26) but also gifted with a strength which is commensurate with that of a mixed nature,
where different bodies are combined, (§26-28).52 These creatures with a double nature
represent the opposite of what Theseus represents and therefore they are the antithesis of
unity, self control, impartial justice and responsibility (§35, 36, 24, 25, 31-35).53
In the Helen, Isocrates explores more specifically the struggle between different human
internal dispositions, which in the past have affected the course of history. Isocrates isolates
those who have revealed a savage nature in order to elevate those who honoured beauty. In
To Nicocles (§15) the philosopher seems to assume that there is not a great difference
between animals and men who cannot properly control themselves unless they enjoy the
things which they are meant to care for. In the Helen, Isocrates advises on what human
beings should care for and presents desire for beauty as a beneficial attraction: the love for
the beautiful is within human beings and the strength of this desire is as strong as the
superiority which the beautiful things possess (§55).
In paragraph 22 of the Helen,
Isocrates, referring to his contemporaries and those who, after having read his work, desire
to praise Helen, emphasizes a further distinction: in the past, the men who loved and
admired this woman were more deserving of admiration than any other men (§22).54
discussion of the different treatment of Homer’s blindness in the two works in relation to the Palinode
attributed to Stesichorus (Livingstone, 2001, pp. 60-61).
52
For the reference to the annual offering to the beast in Athens see also Plato’s Phaedo 58a.
53
Elsewhere Isocrates seems to make a very clear distinction between those who have a nature which can be
illuminated and those who do not and looks constantly for a benevolent predisposition of the soul in
humanity, see Evagoras §74.
54
Howland drastically interprets paragraph 22 of Isocrates’ Helen as implying the subject matter of the whole
encomium is e[rwV, and suggests that on this basis a strong relationship between the Palinode of the
99
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
Isocrates, in the Helen, describes the antithetical nature to the one which submits to
beauty and service. In particular, he considers savage the attitude of some of the citizens,
contemporaries in myth to Theseus, who used force in order to rule over their fellow
citizens (§32), defiled the temples of the gods, therefore abusing the divine as well as the
best of their fellow citizens, and distrusted those nearest to them. Isocrates holds the lives
of those people in dishonour as worth no more than those awaiting death in prison (§33).55
Isocrates therefore makes a precise distinction between those that abide by the nature that
the worship of beauty demands and those that despise it and whose life is, therefore,
worthless.
In the struggle for beauty, for Isocrates, a hostility towards savage and barbaric forces in
the nature of human beings as well as in the outside world is implied. The triumph in this
struggle is considered to bring concrete benefits to its devotees. Isocrates claims that when
human beings see beautiful people they become well disposed towards them and pay
homage to them as they do to the gods.56 Human beings, in Isocrates’ opinion, prefer to be
slaves of these beautiful people than to rule over others (h”dion douleuvomen toi:V toiouvtoiV
h] tw:n a[llwn a[rcomen, §57). He also mentions that it is important to revile those who fall
under the power of anything other than beauty and to consider such people flatterers,57
Isocratean Helen , in paragraph 64, and that of the Platonic Phaedrus can be established (Howland, 1937, pp.
154-155).
55
sulw:ntaV me;n ta; tw:n qew:n, ajpokteivnontaV de; tou;V beltivstouV tw:n politw:n, ajpistou:ntaV de; toi:V
oijkeiotavtoiV, oujde;n de; rJa/qumovteron zw:ntaV tw:n ejpi; qanavtw/ suneilhmmevnwn.
56
toi:V de; kaloi:V eujqu;V ijdovnteV eu\noi gignovmeqa, kai; movnouV aujtou;V w”sper tou;V qeou;V oujk
ajpagoreuvomen qerapeuvonteV (§56-57). The manuscript G is thought to be the most authoritative and
trustworthy and opens a new door in the reading of Isocrates (Norlin, 1928 p. xlviii). Zajonz points out that
the reading of manuscript G, ijdovnteV, is superior to eijdovteV (QLPN), since the eu[noia is caused by
appearance, (Zajonz, 2002 p. 261). The same confusion between ijdovnteV and eijdovteV occurs in manuscript B
of the Phaedrus 246c.
57
Zajonz correctly proposes that the verb ajpokalou:men is here used by the author in an almost exclusively
derisive sense, (Zajonz, 2002 p. 262).
100
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
while those who are slaves of beauty are to be regarded as lovers of beauty and lovers of
service.58
There is here, therefore, a connection between love for beauty and the civic love of
service. Isocrates seems to attribute a particular power, (dunamevnhn, §66),59 to the figure of
Helen; in fact, upon the figure of Helen Isocrates seems to project a sociological idea of
collective harmony which we see expressed in Helen’s power to exact justice and to
reward, (§66).60 The presence and intervention of Helen, as representative of beauty, is for
Isocrates something that has brought about not just benefits, but a great change for the
Greeks, who, because of her, became united in harmonious accord and in a common
endeavour (oJmonohvsantaV kai; koinh;n strateivan…poihsamevnouV, §67-68). The beauty
and love of service that Isocrates speaks about seems to transmit a message of shared desire
for what is good and noble and for the fatherland, through a unity in thought among the
citizens. The struggle for Helen won the Greeks the arts and the philosophic studies (§67)
but especially freedom from the barbarian threat (mh; douleuvein toi:V barbavroiV, §67).
About such a concept Worman remarks “Isocrates follows his apotheosis of beauty with an
argument for its importance as a civic virtue”.61 Therefore, as I have shown, in Plato the
struggle is experienced within the soul of the human being in the attempt to reach what is
true by repressing the savage forces which linger seeking mere physical satisfaction, and
58
Another reference to this is given by Isocrates in the To Nicocles §15 where he says that it is important to
be a lover of men and a lover of his country (filavnqrwpon ei\nai dei: kai; filovpolin). See also the use of
fil- compound words related to the struggle for beauty, such as filokivndunon (§17), filonikountaV (§48,
51), filokavlouV kai; filopovnouV (§58).
59
Zanjonz claims that this power was already mentioned in paragraph 64, where Isocrates says that Helen
displayed her own power to Stesichorus through the deprivation of his sight. Cf. paragraph 62 (Zajonz, 2002
p. 290).
60
As Howland (Howland, 1937, p. 154) claims the duvnamiV of Helen in paragraph 66 is motivated by love,
however I believe that her power is designated, instead, to punish those who deviate from the important
commitment to beauty.
61
(Worman, 2002 p. 168). See Benoit for a discussion on Isocrates’ intermediate position between the theory
of Plato and that of the Sophists.
101
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
the force which drives them to the intelligible. In Isocrates, instead, we find a concrete
struggle occurring in the mythological past, which brought considerable benefits to Greek
society, thanks to its power to unite and inspire noble actions. It is through the pursuit of
beauty that people are made noble.
In Isocrates, as in the text of his contemporary, e[rwV is considered to be the strong
passion which inspired people to involvement in the struggle for beauty. Flacelière and
Zajonz describe e[rwV as “désir ardent, passionné”,62 “leidenschaftliches Verlangen”.63
However, this desire demands not an internal quest for the concept of beauty, but rather it
calls for concrete action in the struggle for beauty, as Isocrates aims to show through the
setting of the Trojan War. The Isocratean e[rwV, in fact, does not resemble the persuasive
physical power on account of which Helen was forced to flee with Paris, as it appears in the
text of his teacher Gorgias, nor is it the passionate desire which allures the soul and
establishes a connection with the intelligible beauty as in the text of his contemporary; it is
rather a passionate desire for beauty in its more concrete sense.
The word e[rwV is used by Isocrates only in the Helen (§52, 55), and appears to imply an
intended connection between this term and the concept of beauty, considered seriously in
this text. This desire is not for physical pleasure but refers to the non-physical virtues which
the story of Helen symbolizes.64 In Isocrates’ Helen e[rwV is not strictly connected with
Helen but implies a strong passion connected with the idea of love and concern among
people which draws them together in a common cause, and has repercussions for the
collective body, in the more practical and concrete realm of society.65
62
(Flacelière, 1961, p. 40).
(Zajonz, 2002, p. 246).
64
Cf. the discussion in chapter one of Paris’ less obvious motives (Helen §41ff).
65
While in Isocrates beauty is not physically described, Perkins points out that in Plato also the vision of
beauty cannot in any way be identified with anything that exists, rather it is represented as an eternal oneness
63
102
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
In the Helen this term refers to the passion which, in the past, drew people together in
the achievement of a common goal. In paragraph 52 e[rwV is used to highlight the intensity
with which not just Greeks but also barbarians and even gods entered into the war of Troy:
they had a great passion for the struggles and for participation in it.66 Such remarks on e[rwV
seem to fit in with the pragmatic style of Isocrates, who, through the reminders of the war
of Troy, seems to call his fellow citizens to a similar kind of passion for a new struggle for
beauty (peri; kavllouV, §41, 48) against the barbarian threat,67 the pursuit of what benefits
the whole society.
In paragraph 55, Isocrates again speaks specifically of the desire for beautiful objects.
He says that in regard to basic human needs, people only wish to possess them and the
desire of their heart is set on nothing further than this; however, for beautiful things they
have an in inborn passion and the strength of this desire is as strong as the quality of the
desired object, (tw:n de; kalw:n e[rwV hJmi:n ejggivgnhtai,68 tosouvtw/ meivzw tou: bouvlesqai
rJwvmhn e[cwn, o”sw/ per kai; to; pra:gma krei:ttovn ejstin). Therefore, e[rwV here is that
passion which has a strength of desire (tou: bouvlesqai rJwvmhn) proportionate to the object
which is sought. Isocrates speaks specifically of concrete objects (pravgmata) of desire,
which, as Flacelière rightly points out, is here equivalent of to; kavlloV “le bel objet, la
chose belle”.69 This beauty urged people, such as Theseus and Paris, to love this quality to
an extent which was reflected in their concrete actions: the former had fought against what
(Perkins, 1984, p. 55). Plato explicitly specifies in the Symposium (211a) that the true essence of beauty will
not take the shape of a face, hands or anything which is flesh but “exists in singularity of form independent by
itself.”
66
tosou:toV d’ e[rwV ejnevpese tw:n povnwn kai; th:V strateivaV ejkeivnhV ouj movnon toi:V {Ellhsi kai; toi:V
barbavroiV ajlla; kai; toi:V qeoi:V.
67
The Thucydidean Pericles emphasises the importance of admiring the power of the city of Athens and of
becoming its lovers: it is important for the Athenians to adopt the attitude of the fallen th;n th:V povlewV
duvnamin kaq’ hJmevran e[rgw/ qewmevnouV kai; ejrasta;V gignomevnouV aujth:V, ii.43.1.
68
See Zajonz’s comment on ejggivgnhtai in Isocrates as implying developing emotions, (Zajonz, 2002, p.
259), Cf. ejgiggnomevnhn in Antidosis §217.
103
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
was savage within and outside the society and chose beauty above all the riches he enjoyed
as the well-respected ruler of Athens (§18, 25ff); similarly the latter chose to ignore the
more obvious pleasures and possessions which he could have from other choices and
preferred beauty (§42ff).
Isocrates reveals that this desire for beauty, which arises in human beings, is superior to
all other qualities because it urges people to go beyond their mere possessions, and
encourages them to have a desire for things which is proportionate to the importance of
what is sought. In fact, Isocrates claims that it is possible to know the superiority of beauty
to other qualities simply by observing how people are affected by them.70 Thus, Isocrates,
in the Helen, encourages his readers to observe the effects that different qualities have on
human beings, as has already been demonstrated in stories from the past, and to recognize
that beauty has had the best effects on the Greeks, as a value which has unified and
encouraged them, urged by the force of e[rwV, to pursue, to the extent required, noble
objects.
69
(Flacelière, 1961, p. 42).
gnoivh d’ a[n tiV kajkei:qen o{son diafevrei tw:n o[ntwn, e[x w|n aujtoi; diatiqevmeqa pro;V e{kaston aujtw:n,
§55.
70
104
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
3. Beautiful eloquence
In Isocrates, as well as in Plato, beauty has a connection to eloquence but while Plato seeks
the possibility of making fine speeches in the knowledge of truth, Isocrates considers what
is useful and beneficial to society as fundamental to the efficacy of rhetoric. Socrates in the
Theaetetus (185e3-5) says: “Your are beautiful (kalovV), you know, Theaetetus, and not
ugly as Theodorus said; because anyone who speaks beautifully (kalw:V) is himself
beautiful and good (kalovV te kai; ajgaqovV)”.71 Therefore, there appears to exist a
relationship between the soul of a human being and the speeches which he delivers. In the
Phaedrus, Plato sees in the pursuit of philosophy the possibility of making beautiful
speeches which would be regarded as beautiful offspring of the gestation of the seed of
wisdom: Socrates (Phaedrus 261a) says “come to us then noble creatures, convince
Phaedrus of the beautiful offspring that unless he pursues philosophy well enough, he will
never be able to speak well enough about anything.72 In Plato, possession by the Muses is
considered a madness which, when it touches a gentle and undefiled soul, it elevates it to
inspired expression in lyrics and other kinds of poetry and glorifies the many deeds of the
heroes of old, teaching them to posterity (Phaedrus 245a).
71
Campbell claims that this expression reveals Socrates’ enthusiasm for the fact that Theaetetus has accepted
the theory that the mind has perceptions which do not merely depend on the senses, and is pleased with the
fact that these divine revelations sink into the human minds of those who hear, (Campbell, 1883 p. 161). In
regard to the word kalovV see (Dover, 1974, pp.69-70).
72
Cf. Phaedrus 254c: Socrates says that every speech must be put together as a living creature with a body of
its own; see also Alcidamas about extemporaneous speech Peri; Sofistw:n (28).
105
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
In the Helen of Isocrates, similarly, eloquence reflects the disposition of human nature but,
as previously explored, rhetoric is aimed at expressing beneficial and noble content.73 The
beauty of Helen in the encomium of Isocrates has often been explained and identified with
rhetorical issues by scholars such as Poulakos and Worman,74 however the analysis of this
thesis aims at isolating a deeper reason for Isocrates’ choice of Helen’s beauty and its
intrinsic meaning. In the Helen Isocrates claims that Helen, wishing to make the deaths of
those who participated in the struggle of the Trojan War immortal and more envied than the
lives of the rest of mankind (Helen §65), was herself the Muse of Homer and it was because
of her, apart from Homer’s skill, that his poem achieved such great fame, (§65-66).
Isocrates claims that philosophers should say something about Helen which is worthy of
those who are devoted to her (§66).
Therefore, the effect of beauty is to provoke a didactic function and the result is the
dissemination of the glorious deeds of the past. However, what Isocrates wants to
emphasise in the Helen is the importance and the magnitude of the struggle for Helen as a
useful event which has brought concrete benefits to Greece. In paragraph 13, Isocrates says
that while it is easy to surpass trivial themes through eloquence, it is difficult to reach the
heights of greatness of important themes. The rhetorical criticism of the proemium is
therefore not the main theme of the Helen, as previous scholars have claimed; rhetoric is
the vehicle through which the exhortation to the pursuit of usefulness, and the search for
wisdom,75 which is privileged over trivialities, can be propagated.
73
Especially in rhetoric Isocrates spells out that the main purpose of his prose and the aim of the highest kind
of oratory is to be beneficial to those who hear (Panegyricus §4), see also Poulakos (Poulakos, 1986, p. 8).
74
Poulakos (Poulakos, 1986) identifies the beauty of Helen with pure eloquence, and similarly Worman sees
Helen’s beauty as an emblem of epideictic style, saying that Isocrates “promotes her as the paradigmatic
object of praise, precisely because she is the paradigmatic beauty” (Worman, 2002 p. 166).
75
Cf. Antidosis §277: the power to speak well and think well are going to reward the man who approaches the
art of speaking with love of wisdom and love of honour.
106
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
The figure of Helen does not seem to be simply a paradigmatic figure of style, rather the
encomium of Helen is, as Kennedy points out, “a worthy theme, not to be compared with
trivialities”.76 However the dichotomy of Poulakos’ reproach of Kennedy’s neglect of the
‘literary high point of the speech which is the power of beauty”,77 and his own view of the
concept of beauty as a symbol of eloquence, comes together in the Isocratean union of the
ethics of proper eloquence with the power of beauty. Therefore, the focus of the Helen
seems to reside in the importance of the struggle for what has value and worth, and this
focus represents the connection with the criticisms of the useless disputations which
Isocrates anticipates in the proemium.
It is also important to point out that the type of myth chosen by Isocrates carries
considerable importance in respect to his purpose. Isocrates, rather than using made up
myths in the style of Plato, makes use instead of known mythological tales in order to
emphasize the importance of content. Isocrates uses myths in order to invest his works with
greater authority, using a world which transcends the audience where settings and
characters cannot be contested: no one could deny that Heracles faced dangers or that
Theseus was the benefactor of Attica or that Helen was beautiful.78 In the figure of Helen,
with her undeniable beauty, the Greeks are to find the reasons to enter into the struggle
76
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 79). Worman and Poulakos both see the encomium of Helen as an emblematic structure
of rhetorical style, however Poulakos agrees to some extent with Kennedy’s view that the main body of the
encomium is a “serious effort to praise Hellenism”. Poulakos disagrees in thinking that “at stake is not the
reputation of Hellenism but a choice, the choice between competing kinds of education”, (Poulakos, 1986, p.
17). See also Guardini (Guardini, 1987, p. 336).
77
(Poulakos, 1986, p.4) and (Kennedy, 1958, p. 82).
78
Poulakos explains Isocrates’ use of myth in the Helen as an instrument employed by the author in order
accomplish what admonitions could not achieve and emphasises Isocrates’ resort to myths in the To Nicocles
§48, (Poulakos, 1986, p. 11). Poulakos argues later on that Isocrates however did not use mythological tales
for their own sake; rather he sought to conceptualise them respectively in the contemporary issues about
practical discourse, eristic discourse and eloquence, (Poulakos, 1986, p. 14-15).
107
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
against what is brutal and savage, according to Isocrates, and to focus on what is beneficial
and useful for the welfare of Greek civilization.79
79
See Papillion’s article on the use of myth in Isocrates (Papillon, 1996).
108
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
4. The philosophic pursuit of beauty.
Beauty, in both texts, is used as the instrument which inspires men to the search for and
love of wisdom, filosofiva. In Plato’s Phaedrus the philosophic life is one guided by a
concern for good and by the urge of reconciling the outer form with the interior one. The
wish of Socrates in the last prayer epitomises Plato’s thought about the harmony between
the exterior and the interior, when he asks to become beautiful inside, and that what he
possesses outside may be in harmony with what is within, (Phaedrus 279b-c). In the
Phaedrus the role of the philosopher is that of pursuing beauty.
The Platonic beauty experienced by the human being in this work occurs on an
individual level, when compared to the communal experience of Isocrates, yet not in an
egotistical manner. Socrates himself in the Phaedrus speaks of not remaining entwined in
the toils of sexual desire and pleasure (255e2-256b7), but also of the role of the philosopher
as that of searching for beauty in the broader sense of the word. Similarly, in the
Symposium, the philosopher is the one who searches for the beauty of souls,80 rather than
being won over by physical passions. In the Phaedrus Socrates claims that he who is
guided by the philosophic life will be blessed in his existence on earth with happiness since
the power of evil in the soul has been overcome and the power of goodness liberated
(256b). However, Socrates allows two different kinds of reaction to the sight of beauty:81
one is the surrender to physical pleasure (250e4) and the other is a kind of reverence
(251a5) which is linked eventually to philosophic love (250e1-251a5). Love for someone
encourages a person to care for them, in this case the one who is beautiful, and it therefore
80
(Ferrari, 1987 p. 143).
109
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
opens a horizon much broader than the selfish one offered by a merely physical
experience.82
The philosophic life is an intricate journey to the discovery of beauty within oneself and
the proper behaviour that this beauty inspires in the human soul. When he encounters
beauty, the philosopher recognises that he wants to live a philosophic life. The philosophic
life is one in which he finds the reflection of the best life a human being can possibly lead.
Perkins claims that the philosopher-leader, according to Plato, is the only citizen with a
nature which can be predisposed to lead the community, guided by compulsion to direct
events in the polis.83 The philosopher-leader must, in fact, ensure that the citizens do not go
beyond what the laws have fixed, obviously behaving according to absolute moral
standards.84 Such reflection, however, involves a struggle between the different parts of the
soul and this battle essentially constitutes the philosophic type.85 The philosophic and unphilosophic reactions in the Phaedrus, neither of which “are simply isolated sensations of
aesthetic pleasure but rather locate the sensation within a forward-looking structure of care,
are…discoveries of self”.86 Therefore, beauty provokes reactions in the soul which affect
the self and the collective. In the context of the Helen, although references to the terms for
philosophy and philosopher in the Isocratean work are few,87 it is possible to observe that
the philosopher is the one who pursues beauty.
Before I continue with the interpretation of the role of the philosopher in both texts, I
would like to emphasize the difference between Isocrates’ and Plato’s concept of
81
Ferrari adds that the myths of Plato in the Phaedrus are there to emphasize the importance of the passion of
love “hence the contingency of physical beauty– in the philosophic life” (Ferrari, 1987 p. 140), in this way
summarizing the connection between love and beauty through the link of passion.
82
(Ferrari, 1987 p. 147).
83
(Perkins, 1984, p. 56).
84
(Perkins, 1984, p. 56). See Laws 660, 664, 659-720, 722.
85
(Ferrari, 1987 p. 147ff.).
86
(Ferrari, 1987 p. 147).
110
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
philosophy. Plato’s philosophy distinctly refers to the pursuit of wisdom and its use is
much more consistent whereas in Isocrates the term philosophy has produced controversial
discussions, owing to the fact that the fourth-century author holds an intermediate position
between the fields of rhetoric and philosophy, taking the terms in their Platonic (and
modern) senses as distinct or even opposite concepts. Some scholars have discarded his role
as a teacher of philosophy and considered him rather as a teacher of rhetoric. They claim
that when Isocrates refers to philosophy he actually means rhetoric.88 I am inclined to
support Schiappa’s view that with the term philosophy Isocrates denotes higher learning
and also refers to his own teachings.89 Isocrates, in fact, placed more importance on the
goal of producing students of good character rather than producing clever speakers (To
Demonicus §4; Panathenaicus §87).90 It has also been pointed out that in this period
‘philosophy’ meant higher learning in general.91 Isocrates thinks that learning and speaking
well come easier to those who have a love of wisdom and honour (Antidosis §277); thus he
believes that the moral and intellectual growth of students go hand in hand.92 Isocrates
Filosofiva appears in paragraphs §6, 67 and filovsofoV in paragraph §66.
(Norlin, 1928, p. 124); (Van Hook, 1945, p. 438); (Too, 1995, p. 190); (Poulakos, 1995, p. 116).
89
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 168); (Timmerman, 1998).
90
Cf. (Schiappa, 1999, p. 170).
91
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 172); (Wilcox, 1943, p. 115).
92
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 173). Isocrates’ use of the word philosophy does not seem to distinguish between
cultivation of the soul and rhetorical practices (Against the Sophists §8; To Demonicus §6; Evagoras §41, 80).
For Isocrates’ and Plato’s philosophy see Wilcox who explores the way in which Isocrates himself, through
his texts, is aware of the fact that his philosophy was criticised by his contemporaries, and that the reasons lie
in the fact that, especially in Antidosis (§304), Isocrates encourages teachers to persuade youth into devotion
to higher education. Isocrates, through this aim, was accused of destroying other forms of education and of
teaching pupils how to cheat in the courtrooms, (Wilcox, 1943, pp. 114ff, p. 131). For a more insightful
analysis of Isocrates’ and Plato’s concept of morality and philosophy as methodically different yet concordant
on many fronts, see Goggin and Elenore who claim that both philosophers were faced with the inaccessibility
of certain knowledge of how to take moral action (Goggin and Elenore, 1993, p. 302). Through the
reformation of rhetoric one wanted to revitalise the political and social situation of the Hellenic states, the
other the spiritual and individual situation of humanity. Goggin, Elenore (Goggin and Elenore, 1993 pp, 308309) and Jaeger (Jaeger, 1945, p. 50) believe that despite Isocrates’ concern for social well-being which
distances him from Plato, both were involved and interested in morality and epistemology, maybe thanks to
the figure of Socrates. On Plato’s idea of philosophy as attainment of the transcendental see Gauss (Gauss,
1937, 58ff).
87
88
111
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
unites “philosophy with civic virtue, mind and soul, speech and thought”.93 Thus for
Isocrates philosophy is a training for the soul, which then motivates peoples’ involvement
in matters of moral worth and of a civic nature. Therefore, although the philosophy of Plato
is specifically oriented to acquisition of the intelligible virtues,94 Isocrates’ instead contains
a practical component. In terms of the works in consideration, the philosopher is one who
pursues beauty for the welfare of the human being, both within the society and as an
individual.
Isocrates’ philosopher is the pursuer of wisdom, the intellectual, who does not, however,
search for the abstract knowledge in which Plato is interested, but opts for practical insights
to gain what is good and noble. In the To Demonicus §40, Isocrates advises striving with
one’s body to be a lover of toil, filovponoV, but with the soul to be a lover of wisdom,
filovsofoV. In the Antidosis §271, he plainly claims that it is not possible for man to obtain
the knowledge through which he can know what is good to do, rather he regards as sofoiv
those who through plausible conjecture can arrive at the best way and filovsofoi those who
spend their time on studies which will allow them to attain that insight in the quickest
amount of time.
In paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Helen, Isocrates claims that philosophers, filovsofoi
(§66), should speak of Helen in a manner worthy of her merits. As Flacelière claims,95 the
term stands for cultured men, intellectuals, and belongs to the paideutic belief in a genuine
93
(Schiappa, 1999, p. 173). Therefore, bad speeches come from poor intellect (Nicocles §7). (Schiappa, 1999,
p. 172). See Levi for a view on Isocrates’ use of philosophy as a medium to nurture the intellectual and
cultural superiority of men (Levi, 1987, p. 1164-65).
94
(Guthrie, 1975, p. 32 ff, 412ff). However, it is important to point out that in the Phaedrus Plato says that in
Isocrates there is by nature tiV filosofiva 279a-b.
95
(Flacelière, 1961, p. 47).
112
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
intellectual and spiritual culture,96 well established by the time of Isocrates and Plato.
Isocrates, therefore, sees in the seeker of wisdom the filovsofoV, the man who, through
plausible intellectual conjecture (§5), strives for the knowledge of what is good and noble.
Moreover, in the Helen it is specifically mentioned that the reason why people should
honour the beautiful queen is because her figure is closely connected with what the Greeks
have enjoyed as part of their culture, from the mythological past until the time in which
Isocrates is writing. Arts, philosophical studies (filosofivai) and all other positive cultural
features are attributed to Helen and to the Trojan war, and it is really thanks to Helen that
the Greeks can enjoy what they possess since they have not
become slaves to the
barbarians (Helen §67).
Therefore, Isocrates places a particular importance on the role of the philosopher and
accordingly of philosophical studies and the pursuit of wisdom (filosofiva)97 by
connecting these concepts to the story of Helen. The symbol of the beautiful queen appears
in the Helen to encapsulate much of what the Greek citizen is encouraged to pursue. This
beauty involves the lives of both mortals and immortals; it exhorts human beings to
struggle for what is good and to fight what is savage, prompted by the driving force of the
passion of e[rwV for what is beautiful; it uses eloquence as the vehicle to disseminate what
is noble; and it inspires people to search for love of wisdom.
96
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 286).
In the Helen, Isocrates mentions for the first time the term philosophy, filosofiva, when referring, in a
negative way, to the practice of eristic disputations (§6). Isocrates, in his initial exordium on rhetoric,
reproaches teachers who waste their time in verbal quarrels and lose sight of the truth and of important
matters (§4-5): this result is produced by their philosophy, filosofiva, which is applied to eristic disputations,
or debates (§6).
97
113
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
Conclusion
In conclusion, Isocrates, as suggested in the previous chapter, distinguishes himself from
his master Gorgias because of the latter’s materialistic approach to beauty, as well as from
his famous contemporary because of Plato’s essentially transcendent approach. I have
demonstrated that although scholars have focused in the past on the personal rivalry
between Isocrates and Plato, differences as well as a conceptual closeness can be found
through a close analysis of the Helen and the Phaedrus. Both works speak of the
connection which beauty provides with the divine. However, while in the Platonic text this
relationship is set in the intelligible world of ideas, in the Isocratean work it is instead
applied to the concrete events and characters of the mythological society. In both works the
struggle for beauty is emphasized, but while for Plato this struggle is lived solely within the
internal plane of the soul, for Isocrates it takes flesh in the external battle for Helen. The
passion of e[rwV is mentioned in both works, and in the Phaedrus, as is revealed in
Socrates’ second speech, it is portrayed as the passionate desire which is beneficial to the
soul, which is prompted by earthly beauty and, importantly, establishes a connection with
its divine counterpart.
In the Phaedrus, this more intense experience places the human soul in contact with the
heavenly truth previously beheld, and is mainly lived in the personal sphere. In Isocrates,
on the other hand, although e[rwV is not given the emphasis with which Plato describes the
114
Chapter 3: Notions of Beauty in the Helen and in the Phaedrus
passionate experience of beauty, the author carefully uses the term in order to enhance his
overall purpose. The word e[rwV is only mentioned twice in the Isocratean works, both
occurrences being in the Helen. Yet Isocrates intends through it to describe this passionate
desire as a strong longing for beautiful things and the force which, in the past, encouraged
people to enter the fight for beauty, which was greatly beneficial to the Greeks. Eloquence
in both texts is the result of the attainment of some deeper abstract value, which is
exemplified in the concept of beauty. Finally, while the figure of the philosopher in the
Phaedrus represents one who pursues beauty, and therefore truth, in the Helen the
philosopher is more closely connected to the struggle for Helen as the mouth piece for the
concrete benefits which the effect of beauty brought to the Greeks.
Thus, Isocrates holds an intermediate position between his predecessor and his
contemporary, between materialism and idealism. In the Helen, instead of showing concern
with the internal functioning of the soul, he reveals a deeper interest in the external actions
of the collective group. As I will demonstrate in the following chapter, in the Helen
Isocrates, through the concept of beauty, intends to focus not on the inner experience of the
soul, but rather on the activities and behaviours not only of those within the society, but
also of those who reside outside the code of Greek civilization and of those beyond the
Greek borders.
115
Chapter 4
The beauty of Hellas
This final chapter will reveal, based on the previous discoveries, the purpose of Isocrates’
choice of beauty as the subject for his Helen. The philological observations of the first
chapter pointed to the fact that Isocrates describes in the Helen the quality of beauty
primarily as a non-physical value which is defined by the noun kavlloV and its adjective
kalovV. The author, moreover, emphasizes the non-sensual effects that this quality exercises
on the human being. In the second chapter, it was shown that Isocrates incorporated in the
figure of Helen a response to the previous treatment and representation of this character by
the homonymous text of his teacher Gorgias. The analysis of the philological similarities
between the texts of the two authors reveals that Isocrates’ approach to the subject of Helen
is to challenge the physiological and scientific view of his master by focusing on the nonvisual effects of Helen’s beauty. Contrasting notions of beauty have been analyzed in the
comparison between the Helen and the Platonic Phaedrus and have revealed that Isocrates’
aesthetic relates to epistemological topics not in an idealized manner, as in Plato, but in a
pragmatic way, applied to the needs of the mythological society described in the Helen.
Moreover, in Isocrates’ work, striving for the attainment of the beneficial power of beauty
benefits not just the individual, as in Platonic theory, but the whole community.
After having discussed contrasting uses of Helen and different notions of beauty, we
now turn more directly to Isocrates’ Helen in order to determine the purpose for which the
116
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
fourth-century author used both themes. The aim of this final chapter is to explore
Isocrates’ use of the theme of love of beauty in terms of beauty’s beneficial
characteristics, as suggested in the previous chapters. Beauty, in the Helen, will be explored
for its civic and collective import to the community but especially as a distinguishing
Greek, and specifically Athenian, feature. Moreover, I will attempt to reveal the author’s
motives for developing the theme of beauty and to explore his objectives in the Helen more
closely in connection with the social and political background of the fourth century.
These aims will be achieved, firstly, through an evaluation of the significance of the
Greek notion of beauty, where the term kavlloV, used to describe beauty in the Helen, will
be considered for its linguistic implications in Greek culture. Secondly, the notion of beauty
presented in the Helen will be explored in relation to the author’s construction of opposing
and threatening elements to the Greek ideology on beauty. Thirdly, Isocrates’ interest and
appreciation of beauty will be studied as a reflection of the Athenian approach to this
quality. Athenian concern for– indeed, infatuation with– beauty and their city, reflected
also in the artistic outlook of the polis, will be traced in this chapter through the
representation of the mythological figure of Theseus in the Helen. Isocrates will be
compared to other important Athenian figures who anticipated the author in expressing
their love of beauty as their civic identity. Finally, Isocrates’ purposes will be considered
against the social and political background of the fourth century in order to disclose the
author’s more intrinsic motives for his eulogy of beauty in the Helen.
117
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
1. Beauty and Greece
In this section I will explore the way in which Isocrates conceives of the love and pursuit of
beauty as a Greek value in the Helen. The quality of beauty in the Helen, although
presented against the background of a mythological past, has a connection with the
condition of the contemporary Greek world, the welfare of the polis, and it is the
distinguishing mark between Greeks and barbarians. The beauty of Helen in the text of
Isocrates has not been thoroughly explored in the past. The interpretations posed for the
significance of this quality in the Helen are contrasting: while Poulakos criticizes the theory
of Kennedy that the Helen is purely a praise of Hellenism,1 he claims that Kennedy does
not account for what he himself calls “the literary high-point of the speech”, namely
beauty.2 However, I propose that the themes of Hellenism and of beauty are intrinsically
combined in the Helen into what Isocrates implies is the beauty of Greece. It is important to
recapitulate Isocrates’ notion of beauty in the Helen for a final assessment and evaluation of
this quality.
In the Helen, Isocrates reserves a superior place for beauty in relation to other traditional
values in Greek culture. Beauty, as Isocrates argues through a series of superlatives, is the
most venerated, valued and divine of all things, and it is easy to determine its power (Helen
§54). Isocrates’ tone becomes gradually more resolute when he states that, while things that
lack courage, wisdom and justice may still be valued, things which do not have beauty are
not beloved. Such qualities, in fact, will be despised unless they possess, to some extent,
1
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 80).
118
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
the form of beauty (§54). Virtue itself, Isocrates claims, is highly esteemed because it is the
most beautiful of the ways of living (§54-55). In order to reinforce his view on the
superiority of beauty, Isocrates turns to tales from the past where Zeus himself wanted to
have the privilege of being called the father of Helen.3 Zeus confers on Helen the gift of
beauty which is also able to overcome the power of strength, represented by Heracles (§17).
Further, Isocrates highlights an important aspect of this beauty, namely its contentious
nature. He claims that the gift of beauty attracts the admiration of all who see it and inspires
contention in all men (§17). Therefore, beauty is firstly mentioned as a visual quality,
which has an effect on the lives of those who contemplate it.
Isocrates mentions the visual aspect of the quality of beauty and focuses his interest on
the reactions that its enchantment produces. Isocrates intends to reveal the concrete and
beneficial effects that the vision of beauty produces in human beings.4 Characters from the
past are seen to be overwhelmed by physical beauty: Theseus is overcome by Helen’s
charm (Helen §18), Paris by the sight of the goddesses (§42) and he is praised for valuing
rather than despising the gift of beauty (§48). Zeus and the goddesses are overcome by
mortal beauty (§42, 60). Isocrates presents those who see Helen, shows the results of her
beauty through their actions, and makes them, unlike the spectators in the Goriganic Helen,
responsible for what they see.5
Isocrates describes what happens in humans at their
encounter with beauty: ‘at a glance’(eujqu;V ijdovnteV, §56), and therefore at the first visual
2
(Kennedy, 1958, p. 82); (Poulakos, 1986a, p. 4). Papillon claims that the love of beauty in the Helen is tied
to the earlier Bronze Age or Homeric ideas of klevoV, kavlloV and ajrethv and that kavlloV is what offers
klevoV and immortality to human beings (Papillon, 1997, p. 12).
3
Isocrates emphasises the importance of beauty by presenting it as a value which is cherished much more
among the gods than among men (Helen §60); Zeus, who rules over all, approaches this quality in humility
(Helen §59) and then claims that more mortals have been made immortal because of beauty than for any other
virtue (Helen §61). From paragraphs 61 to 66 Isocrates presents the figure of Helen not only as one who
possesses beauty but also as one who was made immortal and who, as a consequence, holds divine powers.
For a discussion on the importance of Helen’s apotheosis see Zagagi (Zagagi, 1985, p. 82).
4
Nowhere in the Helen are the Spartan queen’s physical characteristics described.
119
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
contact, human beings become well disposed towards those who possess physical beauty,
and pay homage only to the possessors of beauty as they do to the gods (§56). Isocrates
also mentions the inborn attraction that the human heart feels for beautiful things as
opposed to desire for other objects: humans have an inborn passion for beauty which is as
strong as the object for which they long (§55).
I suggest that, in Isocrates, the beauty represented in Helen, despite its apparent physical
definitions, is seen as a quality which affects the internal, existential and behavioural status
of a person, by inspiring those captivated by it to follow a virtuous path. Isocrates shifts to
the more abstract and valuable effects that this quality exercises on human behaviour. He
claims that it is important to revile anyone who is under the power of anything other than
beauty and calls them flatterers, while those who are subservient to beauty are regarded as
lovers of beauty and lovers of service (Helen §57-58). Isocrates, in the Helen, wishes to
represent beauty as a quality which is worshipped by Greeks and the devotion shown to it
distinguishes those who benefit the country and the city from those who are useless. The
reverence and the solicitude that the Greeks feel for such a quality, Isocrates claims, are so
strong that those who misuse it are held in greater dishonour than those who are violent
(§58). Isocrates admires (§58) those who regard youthful beauty, identified in the youthful
body of Helen,6 as a holy shrine. This quality is inaccessible to base people, and thus those
who pursue it are considered benefactors of the city as a whole (§58). Theseus was
captivated by Helen’s beauty and, as a result, he considered his life as not worth living,
even among the blessings he already possessed, if he did not obtain Helen (§18). To the
physical attraction which the hero feels for Helen, Isocrates adds that, unlike Heracles who
5
(Papillon, 1997, pp. 11-12).
Isocrates presents the figure of Helen in a youthful, beautiful body since when she arrived in Sparta she was
just of marriageable age (Helen §39).
6
120
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
performed labours for himself but brought no benefit to others (§24), Theseus chose to
perform deeds more useful and of more vital worth to the Greeks (§24) and to undergo
struggles which would make him a benefactor of Greece and Athens (§25).7 Thus, Isocrates
shifts from the visual beauty of youth into the non-physical and virtuous effects of this
quality, which translate into service as well as useful and beneficial actions.
Similarly from a linguistic perspective, the term kavlloV, and its cognates, with which the
concept of beauty is defined in the Helen, also seems to indicate not only a physical
attractiveness but also, more generally, whoever is loved and appreciated by the Greeks.
KalovV, as it was mentioned in the first chapter, when applied to a person or any material
object, means ‘beautiful’, ‘handsome’ ‘attractive’ and its antonym is aijscrovV ‘ugly’.8
Thus, although the characteristics of a person who is kalovV are usually visual,9 orators have
used the terms kalovV and aijscrovV in order to define actions, behaviour and achievements
which evoke either praise or blame.10 The adjective kalovV, from this perspective, as Dover
points out, corresponds to what is ‘admirable’, ‘creditable’, ‘honourable’, and aijscrovV as
‘disgraceful’, ‘shameful’, ‘scandalous’.11 Therefore, in Greek literature, under the term for
beauty it is possible to group actions, behaviours and attitudes which were admired by the
Greeks.
7
Cf. He (Theseus) bestowed benefits to the people in common (Helen §36).
Eur. Hel. 263, Hdt. vi 60.2. The meaning of this word is defined in the dictionary as opposite to kalovV and
signifies, on the level of appearance, someone (or something) ugly or deformed (Hdt. i.196; Hipp. Art. 790),
and in the moral sense, someone (or something) who is shameful, base, disgraceful (Hdt. iii. 155; Aech. Th.
685; Soph. El. 621, Aj. 473, 1159; Eur. Hec. 806); it can also have the meaning of ‘ill-suited’ (Dem. 287.25;
Xen. Mem 3.8, 7), (Liddell, Scott and Jones, 1940, p. 43).
9
Hdt. i 196.2, Soph. Oed. Col. 576-8; cf. (Dover, 1974, p. 69).
10
Aiskhines i 127 and ii 17f; Dem. lviii 67, Isoc. xix 4, Lyk.111.
11
(Dover, 1974, p. 70). Cf. (Austin, 1994, p. 37 ff.); (Redfield, 1985, p. 133 ff.).
8
121
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
More specifically, in aristocratic Greek culture, the notion of physical beauty (to;
kavlloV) was associated with the ideal of virtue.12 In Homer beauty was an important
component of the physical ideal of the heroic warrior and the possession of this beauty
contributed to the person’s ajrethv. In Greek literature, physical charm began to be
associated more and more with the aristocratic idea of refinement and with the
distinguishing quality of the cultural upper classes in Greece.13 Pindar, in his songs,
describes the victor as kalovV14 and as achieving kavllista, thus linking beauty to noble
deeds.15 In Isocrates’ Helen beauty encompasses everything which is loved and cherished
as good, while what does not partake of it is despised (Helen §54).16
In the Helen Isocrates wants to reveal that it is owing to Helen, the symbol of beauty, and to
the Trojan War, the struggle to obtain beauty, that the Greeks are possessors of the arts and
philosophic studies and all the other benefits, thus depicting them as possessing an
undeniably superior culture. Moreover, it is thanks to the beautiful queen that the Greeks
are not slaves to the barbarians (Helen §67). Isocrates shows that it is for the body of Helen,
which, in this text, emblemizes both the visual aesthetic and the abstract beneficial virtue
12
(Donlan, 1973, p. 369); see also Wankel (Wankel, 1961, pp. 16-23). Austin also claims that the aristocracy
named itself with the term kalos kai agathos and aimed to be the best, the most noble and the most beautiful
(Austin, 1994, p. 61). Cf. (Loraux, 1986, p. 103).
13
(Donlan, 1973, p. 370). There is evidence from Attic vase paintings from the sixth century until the last
quarter of the fifth century which reveal the inscription oJ pai:V kalovV. Boys are depicted with long hair and
luxurious dress as distinguishing mark of well-born Athenians (Donlan, 1973, p. 371); See also Walcot who
claims, when speaking about the beauty contest for Paris, that physical beauty had great importance in a
society where members were obsessed with personal honour. Outward display established a claim to honour
while physical ugliness or deformity inspired dislike and pitilessness (Walcot, 1977, p. 36).
14
Pindar Ol. viii 19-20; ‘shapely to see’ Isthm. vii.22. See also beauty of deeds Pindar, Nem. vi.29ff.
15
Further on he links beauty, wisdom and fame together by claiming that they are due to the man who is
sofovV or kalovV or ajglaovV ( Ol. xiv 5-7). In Plato, Gorgias 475e, kalovn is interpreted to mean something
which is useful, pleasant, while aijscrovn as something which is hurtful or painful. See Mackenzie on the
definition of the terms in the passage (Mackenzie, 1982, p. 86 ff.).
16
Dodds claims that the application to conduct of the terms kalovn and aijscrovn denote that an action looks
‘handsome’ or ‘ugly’ in the eyes of public opinion (Dodds, 1951, p. 26, note 109). Cf. (Adkins, 1960, pp.
154-158, 185 ff).
122
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
that the Greeks fight the barbarians (§51): the victory and the possession of Helen have
brought to the Greeks the arts that make their civilization superior to all others. The Greeks
found in the Homeric poems the notions of all the arts.17 The philosophical studies, in the
Helen, are to be interpreted as those occupations which lead to practical knowledge.18
Isocrates mentions the values of the Greek civilization and its pre-eminence in the arts and
sciences in connection with Helen and her beauty in order to emphasize the superiority of
the Greek culture. In the image of Greek supremacy which Isocrates constructs in the Helen
it is possible to observe the struggle of ‘beauty’, as something which is loved and admired
as a Greek value, against the barbarian way of life.
The author reminds the audience that in the past the struggle to protect beauty has
succeeded in bringing the Greeks together. Isocrates tells us that for the beauty of Helen
and in the struggle to obtain her, kings and rulers of the time united in communal accord, as
they were of one opinion about Helen (Helen §39). They all went to Sparta to pursue her
and they swore unanimously to help to win Helen back in case she was abducted (§3941).19 Isocrates highlights the depth of this Greek quality by showing the lengths to which
its pursuers went: the Greeks entered the fight to have Helen as if all of Greece had been
destroyed and the barbarians were as filled with pride as if they had conquered all the
Greeks (§49). Isocrates, moreover, emphasizes that although there had been other causes of
(Flacelière, 1961, p. 48); Zajonz mentions the development of tevcnai as a result of the Trojan War, in
particular in the military field (Zajonz, 2002, pp. 292-293).
18
Cf. Chapter 3. Flacelière mentions that Isocrates has not placed the word filosofiw:n between tecnw:n and
wjfeleiw:n by chance, since to Isocrates philosophy does not have the ideal meaning as for Plato but is a
practical art. Moreover he reminds the reader that the word sofovV has the meaning of ‘skilful’ as much as that
of ‘scientist’ and ‘wise’ (p. 48). Zajonz comments that the word filosofivai needs explanation, as opposed to
the arts which are clearly to be found as a development of the Trojan War, and that it is here to be understood
in the general sense (Zajonz, 2002, p. 292). Both commentators point out the particularity of this word
(filosofivai) appearing in the plural ((Flacelière, 1961, p. 48, Zajonz, 2002, p. 292).
19
Isocrates ignores the shameful act of Paris in abducting Helen and sparking the Trojan War; he concentrates
on the beneficial effect that this beauty had on Paris and the noble choices he was inspired to make (§41ff).
Papillon rightly claims that Isocrates chooses characters unworthy of praise in the mythological tradition
17
123
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
contention between Greeks and the Trojans, it was only on account of Helen that they
waged the greatest war. The Trojans, Isocrates says, could have surrendered her to the
Greeks and avoided further problems, while the Greeks could have been indifferent to her
fate and lived in peace, but instead the former preferred having their cities destroyed and
the latter spending their years in war in a foreign land, rather than letting Helen go (§4950). To possess Helen meant owning all the arts, philosophies and beauties which rendered
their culture superior to others and on account of which they fought as a unified body: for
this noble pursuit, Isocrates says, the Trojans uphold the cause of Asia and the Greeks that
of Europe (§51). 20
(such as Paris) not as antagonists to greater characters but to show that many great figures, such as Theseus
and Paris, acknowledged the beauty and importance of Helen (Papillon, 1996a, pp. 11 and 13).
20
However, such feelings of hatred towards the barbarians, as concrete enemies of Greece, can be traced back
to the Greek belief that war against the barbarians was reasonable and desirable and that the pursuing and
killing of the enemy as well as the material spoils were a satisfactory gain (Xen. Hiero ii.15; Isoc. vi, 49-51,
Thuc. iv 59.2). Cf. (Dover, 1974, pp. 313-314).
124
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
2. The barbarian as antithesis to Greek beauty
In the Helen, Isocrates frames this struggle for supremacy within a familiar context for the
fourth-century audience. As Bacon claims, the relation of Greeks and non-Greeks is a
universal theme of mythology which could not be avoided by writers who used mythology
as the main source of their plots.21 The mythological struggle of the Trojan War signified
the past of the Greeks,22 and represented an important topic in the fourth century.23 In the
Panhellenic discourse and political propaganda of the fourth century, such as Isocrates’
Helen, the war of Troy served as a historical precedent when speaking of unity among the
Greeks and as a tool of instigation to sustain the fight against the barbarians.24 In the Helen
he calls the war the most useful (§67-8) campaign ever undertaken, a turning point in the
relationship between Greeks and barbarians.25 It appears clear from Isocrates’ writings that
the common enemy to which he alludes in the Helen is the Persian Empire. Isocrates, in the
To Philip, calls the king of the Persians a bavrbaroV (§139).26 In this work Isocrates urges
Philip to lead the Greeks against the barbarians, the Persian Empire. Isocrates tells the
Macedonian king that he should be praised because throughout his life he has done
21
(Bacon, 1961, p. 9).
See Alexiou’s discussion on the link between myth and history, past and present, (Alexiou, 2002, p. 156 ff).
23
The tension between Asia and Europe is a theme which Herodotus explores at length and compares the
importance of the Trojan war to the battle of Marathon (vi, 112). For Herodotus’ negative attitude to wars see
Herodotus i, 87; i, 4. Thucydides, indifferent to the figure of Helen, analyses the information with rationality
and considers the Trojan War as the first communal effort of the Greeks (i, 3,1).
24
(Said, 1984, p. 71).
25
For references regarding the great distinction between Greeks and barbarians in the Euripidean tragedies
see Said (Said, 1984, pp. 71 ff.).
26
Cf. To Philip §56, §154 Isocrates says that Philip should be inspired not only by Isocrates’ own words but
also by his forefathers, the cowardice of the Persians, and all those who have become demigods because of
their campaigns against the barbarians (§137) and that he should find a way in which he can become trusted
by the Greeks and feared by the barbarians (§80).
22
125
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
everything in his power to battle against the barbarians (§130),27 and Isocrates placed great
faith in his ability to lead the Greeks against Persia.28
In the Helen Isocrates highlights the fight between beauty, which, as previously
suggested, represented values which Greeks love as their own, and for which they
unanimously fought, and the ‘ugliness’ of the barbarian threat. In fact, although there are
fragmentary traces in lyric poetry of wonder at, and admiration for, the power and wealth of
Greece’s neighboring countries,29 there is no doubt that the hostility between Greeks and
barbarians became more wide spread after the Persian Wars, whence all the people under
the Great King were considered as barbarians and as a threat to Greece and its
civilization.30
From the second half of the fifth century it is possible to see the Greek image and
depiction of the barbarians worsening,31 a phenomenon that intensified in the fourth
century.32 Peoples formerly bearing the names Thracian, Persian, Scythian or Egyptian,
later appear in literature under the same genos and term of ‘barbarian’, to which were
obviously attributed characteristics of behaviour.33 In tragedy, we see that the barbarians
27
Cf. To Philip §152.
(Norlin, 1928, pp.xl-xlii).
29
Alcman fr.13; Sappho fr.96; Alc. fr.69.
30
(Baldry, 1965, pp. 21-22). The Greeks’ participation as a nation in struggles gave rise to a feeling of
national pride, (Schlaifer, 1936, p. 166).
31
In iconography we also find images of the Persians as barbarians after the Persian wars, as well as
caricatures in the fifth century on wine jars. Other icononography represents male/female, man /animal, and
Greek /barbarian categories (Lissarrague, 1997, pp. 117-120).
32
(Briant, 1989, p. 200). Isocrates refers in fact to the Persians denouncing their ways and highlighting their
military and educational inferiority as the result of the socio-political regime under which they lived, (Briant,
1989, p. 197-8 and 152). See Evagoras where Isocrates claims that those who possess intelligence should not
be the slaves of those who think perversely (§7). In paragraph 20 he uses the active voice of douleuvw and
ejkbarbarovw to highlight the danger that the barbarians pose to the Greek race. Further on Isocrates mentions
Evagoras’ entrance to power over the city of Salamis which was reduced to the state of barbarism,
ejkbarbarwmevnh, because ruled by the barbarian race of the Phoenicians, (§47). The lives of the Persians and
especially of their leaders are made of insolence towards some and servility to others (Panegyricus §151). For
barbarians referred to as slaves see Panegyricus §181.
33
(Nippel, 1996, pp. 290-91). Demosthenes (xxiii56) mentions that the friends and enemies of Athens are
recognized not by their race but by their record of behaviour. Cf. (Dover, 1974, p. 87)
28
126
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
allowed themselves to be ruled as slaves;34 the next logical step was that the Greeks felt
they had to be in command of these slaves.35 Moreover the identification of slaves with
barbarians was made easier by the fact that the slaves present in Greece were mainly nonGreeks (Asiatics, Thracians, Scythians)36 and the hierarchy made the Greek free man
superior to the slave barbarian. People were liable to be condemned for having a barbarian
mind, ignorant of the laws of hospitality and thus the term could be used to denounce the
behaviour of Greeks in society.37 From then on the term bavrbaroV defined not just people
but also bad practices such as evil actions,38 lack of gratitude or friendship,39 pitiless
behaviour,40 and barbarous nature.41 The Persians in the Panegyricus (§150f) are deprived
of religious sensitivity in order to highlight their lack of moral and political qualities. Thus
they reveal their moral poverty and their lifestyle shows a lack of moral order, which makes
them weak also from the political point of view. 42
Moreover, the idea of this natural distinction between the two races was confirmed by
the belief that the barbarians lived in political slavery at home.43 The Greeks seem to
criticize the readiness of barbarians to submit to absolute monarchy, which was often
defined with the term douleiva.44 Isocrates speaks of their military inferiority45 as the result
of the socio-political regime under which they live and moreover he claims that the
34
Eur. Helen 276.
Eur. Iphig. in Aulis 1400. See Schlaifer for a discussion on the rights of slaves in Athens (Schlaifer, 1936,
p. 182).
36
(Nippel, 1996, p. 291).
37
See more references to Euripidean works in Said (Said, 1984, pp. 88-89).
38
Eur. Hcld. 130 f.
39
Eur. Hec. 328-31.
40
(Helen 501f). Cf. Menander Epitr. 898f., a Greek reproaching himself as ‘barbarous and pitiless’.
41
Eur. fr. 139.
42
(Bearzot, 1981, pp. 100-101).
43
(Baldry, 1965, p. 23).
44
Aesch. Persae 241-242; Hdt. vii 135cf. vi 44; See Schlaifer for the idea that later on Plato and Aristotle
considered barbarians as lacking the governing element of the soul (Schlaifer, 1936, p. 168 ff.).
45
Paneg. §141, 162, 165 and 150-1.
35
127
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
education given to the young Persians leads them into paths which he denounces.46 The
Greeks, for Isocrates, are superior to the barbarians just like human beings are above
animals (Areopagiticus §293); however it is also thanks to them that the Greeks, as victors,
are regarded as superior47 and as possessors of a democratic government which trains
people in bravery (The Team of Two Horses §27). This spirit of celebration of the Greeks
was preserved by the ancestors and the hatred of the barbarians was inherited from the
Trojan War (Panathenaicus §42). In the Helen Isocrates claims that now Greece needs to
do the same: to free itself from the barbarians and to be slaves only to the beauty of their
civilization.
In the Helen Isocrates, through the verb douleuvw, wishes to emphasize the beneficial
slavery to beauty and to condemn submission to anything other than this quality. In
paragraph 32, Isocrates claims that those who seek to rule by force are themselves slaves of
others (douleuvonteV). It is only to the quality of beauty to which citizens are allowed to be
enslaved and faithful; for Isocrates claims that at first sight citizens become well disposed
towards those who possess beauty and to those alone as to the gods they need to pay
homage (Helen §56),48 submitting more willingly to be the slaves (douleuvomen) of these
than to rule over others (§57). In the final sections of the Helen, Isocrates brings the theme
of slavery to beauty as the only acceptable type of slavery for Greeks back to the figure of
Helen and claims that it is thanks to her that Greek are not slaves (douleuvein) to barbarians
(§67).49
46
(Briant, 1989, pp. 197-8, and 152).
(Areop. §6, 76 and Archid. §42ff, and Paneg. §71-72).
48
For a discussion on the religious view of Isocrates and the agnostic attitude of the author towards the divine
see Bearzot (Bearzot, 1981, p. 97, 104). Bearzot claims that despite Isocrates’ agnosticism, religion in the
fourth century preserves its vitality. Cf. (Claché, 1963, pp. 16-18).
49
Austin points out that in the Helen tradition as a whole it is possible to notice that Helen, although captured,
will never be made a slave but always remains a free woman, since beauty writes its own laws and Helen and
her beauty belong to an economic category of their own (Austin, 1994, pp. 24-25). Isocrates in Panegyricus
47
128
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
In addition to the theme of the Greek distinction on account of ‘beauty’ is the
importance which Isocrates attaches to the unification of Greece through the quest to
possess and safeguard this beauty against its antagonist. Isocrates wants to arrive at unity
among Greeks, which he thought possible to reach through a war against the foreign,
hereditary enemy.50 Isocrates, through the contentious beauty of Helen, gives inspiration to
the struggle between Greeks and barbarians and highlights the collective benefit of unity
and accord which resulted from the initiative to confront outsiders. Isocrates introduces the
beauty of Helen– her body– as that Greek value which will be the decisive element that
brings fortune to one land or the other (Helen §51). Both races, for this reason, have
preferred to undergo the destruction and loss of their lands rather than leaving Helen behind
(§50). For Helen the Greeks united in harmonious accord and organized a common
expedition against the barbarian, and there for the first time Europe erected a trophy of
victory over Asia (§67).
Isocrates, in the Helen, promotes a collective hostile
predisposition towards the barbarians, probably because he perceived that it was easier to
unite on account of a common enemy than for self-benefit. In paragraph 17 Isocrates claims
that Zeus, knowing that distinction and renown come through struggle, gave Helen the
beauty which draws the admiration of all who see her and which inspires conflict; Isocrates
highlights throughout his works the exhortation to create a communion between the Greek
cities and to campaign together against the barbarians through an expedition, namely
against Persia.51 However, as Hall points out, the opposition to barbarian despotism and
(§62) reminds the Spartans to show respect and not to dare to make enslaved (douleuvein) the city (Athens)
which risked itself for the descendants of Heracles.
50
Panath §159.
51
To Philip §141, 16, 83 Panegyricus §185, 20, 173, 99, 3 Panathenaicus §13, Areop. §77.
129
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
slavery was not a general ideal of Greek city-states; more specifically democracy and
rhetoric in praise of democracy was an Athenian invention.52
52
The Greeks were called to be democrats and supporters of Athens in the school of Hellas, (Hall, 1989, p.
16) cf. (Loraux, 1986).
130
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
3. Athens and love of beauty
In this section, it will be argued that, in the Helen, Isocrates reveals an approach to, and an
appreciation of, the value of beauty as a distinctively Athenian characteristic. The love of
beauty was reflected in the artistic images which adorned the city of Athens and which
emblemized the cultural superiority of its citizens. In the Helen, Isocrates represents the
Athenian appreciation of beauty as well as the idea of national supremacy through the
figure of Theseus. Isocrates, as it will be argued, draws on an ideology of Athenian identity
which was present in the past and which he develops in the Helen through the myth of
Theseus and his relationship with the city of Athens.
In the Helen, Isocrates reflects the Athenian appreciation of the beautiful which was
expressed in artistic works. One of the striking features of Greek classical culture is the
interest in the physical harmony and perfection of the human body.53 However, through
aesthetics, the Greeks did not just model their physical superiority but also their social and
political supremacy. Thus, artists created a concept of their race and of the human person54
and this new art and the development towards democracy created a link between beauty and
the political structure of Athens: monuments were erected to symbolize the power and
superiority of the Greek culture, as “symbols of political actions and concepts”.55 Images,
Boedeker rightly points out, express a public message and demand a collective response.
53
Hence the practice of athleticism; painters and sculptors were concerned with the perfection of man’s body
(Lenfant, 1999, p. 208). Dansen claims that “iconography reflects the sensitivity of the Greeks to the human
body, its proportions and its integrity” (Dasen, 1993, p. 165).
54
See Bonfante where the depiction in art of the nude human body was created for aesthetic reasons for
decoration, pleasure and beauty. Heroes were often represented naked (or just with a belt) in art. In Greek art
the nude statue of the Kouros (as opposed to the clothed female statue of the Kore) represented the glory of
the aristocratic group as kalos kagathos ‘beautiful and noble’. These statues in Archaic Greece were the
symbol of aristocracy as the archetypes of the ideals of beauty and nobility (Bonfante, 1989, pp. 544-546). In
Classical Greece the custom of nudity changes from the ritual one of the Kouros to the civic one where nudity
represents one of the distinct ‘costumes’ which differentiated the Greeks from outsiders, who instead affirmed
their wealth by wearing luxurious clothes (Bonfante, 1989, p. 556). cf. Hdt i.10.3; Thucydides ii.5-6.
131
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
Monuments create and make present an ideological identity.56 The Greek appreciation for
physical beauty was possible to observe in the grandeur and magnificence of the city of
Athens, especially during the classical period. Athens was the greatest democracy,57 and if
the Agora was the material setting of democracy, the Acropolis was the site of Athens’ self
image.58 The embellishment of the city in the classical period reflects the Greek interest in
portraying the greatness of their city and culture in images. Greek mythical ancestors and
Athenian victories were depicted in places such as the ‘Painted Stoa’ in the Agora, in the
shield of Athena ‘Promachos’ and the colossal Parthenon. In these images Greek and
Athenian heroes defend against foreign and monstrous foreign enemies such as Centaurs,
Giants, and Amazons who were the metaphorical representations of the Persian threat and
of opposition and danger to the Greek way of life.59 The monstrosity and the ugliness of
outsiders certainly deviated from the Greek aesthetic model.60 The Greeks reflected in art
the appreciation for what is beautiful and distaste for what is ugly, such as foreign and
monstrous people, thus defining themselves as superior to all other races.
In the Helen Isocrates combines in the figure of Theseus, as representative of Athens
and democracy, the Greek superiority over the barbarians and the love and appreciation of
the beauty of Helen. The hero displays the opposite of barbarian behaviour and is
represented as the bulwark against savagery, as well as the emblem of the city of Athens
55
(Hölscher, 1998, p. 156).
(Hölscher, 1998, p. 156). The great Bronze Athena commemorates the victory over the Persians; the Old
Temple of Athena on the north side of the Acropolis and the temple of Athena Nike at the entrance of the
Acropolis were both renewed in the late fifth century during Pericles’ building program; the Parthenon was
distinctively a victory monument (Shapiro, 1998, pp. 128-129).
57
(Csapo and Miller, 1988, p. 88).
58
(Shapiro, 1998, p. 129).
59
(Hölscher, 1998, p. 166). Athens received the funds from the members of the Delian League, which were
intended for defence from Persian threat (Thuc. i. 96-97), however Pericles used these contributions for the
construction of artistic works to glorify Athens (Plutarch, Pericles xii, 1 ff). Pericles was criticised for having
used the surplus of the funds for the embellishment of Athens “as if it was a vain woman decking herself out
with costly stones, and statues and temples worth millions of money” (Plutarch, Pericles xii. 2).
60
(Lenfant, 1999, p. 208). Herodotus locates monstrous people in foreign countries like Scythia iv.23.
56
132
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
and its civilized political structure.61 Democracy, freedom and equality were in fact a
fundamental trio in the Athenian ideology.62 The Athenians are democratic and egalitarian
while the barbarians are tyrannical and hierarchical.63 In the On the Peace (§91), he
establishes the difference between being a tyrant and being a ruler, the former being
someone who searches for his own pleasure,64 and the latter one who seeks the common
good and happiness. He also maintains in On the Peace (§112) that those who reach
unlimited power are compelled to make war on other citizens and hate those who have done
them no wrong, suspecting their own friends and also feeling insecure with their nearest
kin.65
In the Helen Theseus represents the opposite of despotic governments and behaviour:66
Isocrates claims that he did not impose labours on other citizens but he made the dangers
his own and bestowed benefits on other people (Helen §36). Theseus was beloved by the
people and not the object of their plots; he did not need the security of military force, as
tyrants did, since he was protected by the good will of the citizens (§37). Finally, he
61
In art, Theseus is the hero who best combines the character of both democracy and imperialism; although
being a king he becomes, in tragedy, the spokesman of Athenian democracy (Eur. Suppl. 403-408).
62
Pl. Rep. 563b; Isoc. Areop. §20; Arist. Pol. 1310a28-33.
63
(Hall, 1989, pp. 1-3). See Bisiecker (Biesecker, 1992, p. 106-107) for the opposite view that Isocrates’
works present the Athenians as hierarchical and promoting the elite and aristocracy at the expense of the
individual will. Hall rightly points out that the Athenian propagandist always chose to place in contrast fellow
autochthonous citizens, such as Theseus, with figures like Cadmus and Danaus, who were the barbarian
progenitors of the Thebans and Peloponnesians (Hall, 1992, p. 142). Isocrates, in the Helen, says that Danaus
and Cadmus were barbarians who were once in misfortune and expected to be rulers over the Greek cities
(Argos and Thebes), but that, after the Trojan War, the Greeks surpassed them and expanded control over all
the barbarian territory (§68).
64
In Antidosis §221 Isocrates calls the citizens not to neglect their true interests by rushing after pleasure. In
the To Demodicus §21, Isocrates affirms that “it is shameful to rule over one’s slaves and yet be a slave to
one’s desires”.
65
Cf. Isocrates’ Helen §33.
66
For Theseus as a representative of democracy see Eur. Suppl. 353; 438ff; Soph. O.C. 913; Hipp. 421ff. In
the fourth century see Isoc. Panath. 128-29, Dem lix.74-75; Paus. i.22.3. Cf. see Davie for a representation of
Theseus’ character shift from king to democrat, (Davie, 1982, esp. pp. 29 ff). Hölscher claims that the history
of Athenian political monuments begins with the statue group of tyrant-slayers (Harmodios and Aristogiton)
as images of Athenian development of identity in opposition to tyranny (Hölscher, 1998, p. 160); the
equivalent of tyrant-slayer on the mythological level is Theseus. See also Taylor for the representation of
Theseus as a tyrant-slayer in art (Taylor, 1991, p. 36 ff).
133
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
administered Athens so justly and well that to the present day the city enjoys traces of his
clemency in its institutions (§38). If the Greeks thought that they were morally superior to
the barbarians, Athenians believed that they were superior to all other Greeks.67 Through
the love and pursuit of beauty as a Greek value Isocrates intends to elevate the Athenians to
a higher level and at the same time he wishes to offer “…Athens an opportunity of
participating in beauty, which is recognized as the highest right”.68
Firstly, however, it is important to reveal what Theseus represents in the Helen.
Although scholars have treated the chapters dedicated to Theseus as a mistake, I am
inclined to believe that in the Helen the figure of Theseus represents the civilized and
superior culture which is beautiful and as such is in contrast with what is barbarous and
ugly and which does not share in the love and appreciation of aesthetics as a Greek value.
Scholars have followed Isocrates’ words in Helen (§29) when he says: “I perceive that I am
being carried beyond the proper limits of my theme and I fear that some may think that I
am more concerned with Theseus than with the subject which I originally chose”.69 Van
Hook, agreeing with Isocrates’ apparent view that this is a diversion from his main topic
(Helen §29), declares that the section on Theseus is a mistake.70 Poulakos claims that the
story of Theseus in the Helen creates more problems than it solves since it belongs more to
the Panathenian than the Panhellenic theme.71 Heilbrunn, on the other hand, thinks that the
Helen does not have a unifying political point and that even a parallel between Helen and
Panhellenism, initially only possible through the digression on Theseus (§18-37), does not
67
(Dover, 1974, p. 83, ff., Jaeger, 1945, p. 71, ff).
(Tuszynska - Maciejewska, 1987, p. 285).
69
See O’Sullivan on the use of kairovV in Isocrates intended as an internal element in conformity with the
subject matter which was initially considered, (O’Sullivan, 1992, p. 93).
70
(Van Hook, 1945, p. 58).
71
Poulakos identifies Theseus, later on in his work, with useful, political rhetoric (Poulakos, 1986a, p. 5,
12ff).
68
134
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
support Kennedy’s theory of Athenian hegemony in Greece as the leading city in the war
against Asia.72
However, the choice of the character of Theseus in the Helen is not a mistake. A great
part of this work is dedicated to the figure of Theseus, which is about one quarter of its
length (Helen §18-37). The figure of Theseus is used by Isocrates in the Helen especially to
exemplify in the hero a positive response to beauty, a response not dictated by violence but
rather emblemized in the devotion to the quality which Greece cherishes as her own.
Isocrates reminds his audience that Theseus, as the one who turned Athens into a city-state,
the polis, rightly belongs to the Athenian tradition (§35).73 In fact, the image of Athens as a
civilizing city was born even before the Persian Wars and was shaped by the Theseus myth
and others.74
Isocrates presents in Theseus the one who has freed the city of Athens from what is
monstrous and of barbaric behaviour. The concern with barbarous behaviour seems to
reflect the Greek contempt of similar acts of vandalism against the city of Athens itself at
the hands of the Persians in 480 B.C., when they sacked and burned the city. Then, after the
Persian Wars and during the campaigns of the 470s, Athens led the Greek armies against
the barbarians in the ‘new Trojan War’.75 Theseus in the Helen represents the image of the
Athenian who frees the citizens of Athens from the fear and anxiety over the bull of
Marathon which was destroying the country.76 Moreover, Theseus freed Athens from the
sacrifice owed to the Minotaur and thought that it was better to die than to live as the ruler
72
(Heilbrunn, 1977, p. 107, 148). Kennedy claims that Theseus is worthy of Helen whom he snatched from
Sparta and, in the Panegyricus, Athens is worthy of the hegemony that it should take from Sparta (Kennedy,
1958, p. 81).
73
Cf. Thucyd. ii.15.
74
(Mills, 1997, p. 34).
75
(Mills, 1997, p. 64). See Mills for the importance of povnoV which Theseus endures for the benefit of
humanity. In the Helen the filovponoi are considered as those who are subservient to beauty (Helen §57).
76
Tomassetti translates th;n povlin mentioned in paragraph 25 as ‘Athens’ (Tomassetti, 1960, p. 49).
135
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
of a city compelled to pay a terrible tribute (§27). But above all, Theseus is remembered
because he united all the scattered villages and made Athens into a city-state so great that
until the present time it was considered the greatest state in Greece (§35).
Theseus is presented by Isocrates as the hero who defends Athens from savagery as well
as the one who frees the citizens from improper behaviour. He is a champion of freedom:
Theseus knew that honours bestowed by high-minded men are better than those awarded by
slaves.77 The hero in fact saw that those who are looking to rule over their fellow citizens
by force are themselves slaves of others and those who exercise this power over others live
themselves in fear and are compelled to make war (Helen §33). Such people are envied for
their external qualities but they are miserable inside (§32-35). Moreover, Theseus saw them
despoiling the temples of the gods, putting to death their fellow citizens and distrusting
those who were nearest to them, in this way living lives like those who are waiting to die in
prison (§33).
In the Helen Isocrates highlights one of the important qualities which most belongs to
the Greek race: freedom. Since slaves were often of foreign birth their relation to the
Athenian citizens was usually one of enmity and resentment.78 Slaves had no power in the
city’s choice of action, so they were not expected to reveal the virtues of loyalty and good
faith.79 On the other hand, the free citizen was expected not to be overwhelmed by fear but
to make a sound judgment when there was a choice between pleasure and honour or service
to the community. The free man should take a longer view rather than be concerned with
77
Cf. Paneg. §38-39: Isocrates speaks of Athens as the first to establish laws and regulations for the Greeks
scattered around or oppressed by tyrannies or perishing because of anarchies and claims that all the benefits
which citizens possess are due to her.
78
(Dover, 1974, p. 114).
79
Lys. xiii 18; about trusting a slave Men. Farmer 55-58; Dover specifies that this did not mean that slaves
were not loyal and could not be loved by their owners Eur. Ba. 1027; Hel. 728-33 Iph .Aul 312. Moreover, the
theme of a good slave being better than a bad free man also appears Eur. Ion 854-856; fr 831, cf. fr. 511; Men.
fr.722, (Dover, 1974, p. 115).
136
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
short-term pleasure.80 The contrast between democracy and other political systems was
often expressed in terms of freedom and slavery.81 Herodotus says that when the Athenians
were ruled by tyrants they acted poorly in war since their hearts were enslaved to their
masters, while under the democracy they fought bravely and successfully since they felt
that they were fighting for themselves.82 Thus Theseus loves beauty and denounces slavery
to any other thing: Mills describes Theseus as “a moralised, and civilizing hero; a safe and
morally unchallengeable reflection of typical Athenian behaviour”.83 Isocrates focuses on
Theseus’ love and choice of Helen,84 since although he had a great fatherland and a secure
kingdom, he thought that life was not worth living unless he could enjoy intimacy with
Helen (Helen §18-19).85 Isocrates himself says that those who loved and admired Helen,
such as the Athenian hero, were themselves not at all weak but rather more admirable than
other men (Helen §22).
Theseus in the Helen is represented as the one who cherishes Helen, and therefore
beauty, and who fights against what is instead ugly and monstrous, which represents
barbarity. In fact, Theseus defeats monsters in defense of the city of Athens. He subdues the
bull which was ravaging Attica (Helen §25). He fights and destroys the Centaurs, who were
creatures of double natures who were swift, strong and daring and who were sacking and
80
Men. Heros fr. 3, 534, Odysseus in Soph. Phil. 1006 is presented as deceitful and as having an unfree mind
(cf. Soph. Trach. 453f.) since the free man speaks the truth while falsehood implies fear and need (Dover,
1974, p. 115). The fears and desires which prevent a person from behaving appropriately were described in
terms of mastery or enslavement to them (Pohlenz, 1966, pp. 67-71, 81 ff).
81
(Dover, 1974, p. 116).
82
Hdt. v. 78. Cf. (Dover, 1974, p.116). Isocrates mentions that the suitors of Helen swore to provide
assistance in case Helen was abducted and that each was providing this commitment for himself (Helen §40).
83
(Mills, 1997, p. 6). See North on the figure of Theseus in the Helen as symbol also of moral virtues
nonetheless connected and developed with the concept of the polis (North, 1966, p. 170 ff).
84
It is important to notice that Theseus, unlike Heracles, despite his interest in women, never shows a great
appetite for sex or food, (Mills, 1997, p. 5).
85
Isocrates speaks in a similar way about Paris who thought that the connection with Helen was greater and
more glorious than sovereignty over other countries, (Helen §43). In the Helen Papillon points out “Paris
chose Helen in the Judgment (it is not described as a rape here) because he was not selfish. He chose her so
that his children would be the offspring of Zeus” (Papillon, 1996a, p. 13).
137
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
threatening cities (Helen §26).86 He then fights the monster of Crete who demanded the
sacrifice of children and had a body half-man and half-bull with a strength comparable to
its nature (§27-28).87 Thus, Theseus, champion of Greek and specifically Athenian
democratic culture which promotes freedom and proper behaviour and loves beauty, is
victor over the barbarous, monstrous-looking creatures which threaten the country.
For his eulogy of beauty and the representation of the hero Theseus as an Athenian and
lover of beauty, Isocrates draws on notions which belong to the Athenian civic ideology,
and which were expressed by writers and orators before him. The fifth-century Athenian
historian Thucydides, in quoting the leader Pericles, offers an important contribution to the
picture of Athenian self-perception. The language which voiced feelings of proud
belonging to, and infatuation with, the city of Athens emerged, in fact, in the political
setting of the fifth century. Thucydides, Pericles and Cleon all seem to express the same
concept in regard to the ideology that Athenians are superior and concerned with the
beautiful and the polis.
The historian Thucydides exalts beauty as a Greek and especially Athenian value.
Thucydides and Isocrates seem to present different approaches to aesthetics as connected to
the situation of Athens and Greece during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.. The historian
and the philosopher respectively reflect “cognitive processes of scientific judgments and
the processes of moral, religious, and aesthetic judgments”88 in their vision of Athens.
Thucydides portrays in his Funeral Oration the concerned political leader Pericles who
86
For the representation of Theseus fighting monsters in Greek art see Carpenter, (Carpenter, 1992,
pp.160ff.).
87
Davie claims that Theseus normally represents the struggle against barbarism which takes shape in the
Greek against the Persian, Lapiths against Centaurs or Greeks against Amazons. In Attic vases he is
represented as the hero who hunts for the Kalydonian Boar, and see also Pheidias’ inclusion of Theseus and
Heracles in the battle against the Amazons on the throne of the Chryselephantine Zeus in the temple of
Olympia (Paus. v.11.4) (Davie, 1982, p. 27). See Lada-Richards on definitions and representations of
monstrosity (Lada-Richards, 1998, p. 43, ff).
138
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
emphasizes the glory of Athens as worth dying for. Despite the basic differences between
Thucydides and Isocrates, such as that the former wished to report events without mythic
material (to; mh; muqw:deV)89 and without overtly injecting his own moral views on what he
reported, while the latter relied on well known tales in order to advance his objectives, both
authors focus on the kalav belonging to the Athenian culture.
Thucydides highlights the importance of freedom which is a quality proper to the
Athenian citizens,90 and the trust that the Greeks have in free men.91 Thucydides
encourages the Athenians to consider freedom as courage and happiness and not to fear the
dangers of war.92 The superiority of the Athenian race and their inclination to, and love of,
beauty is evident in the Funeral Oration in which Pericles speaks of the choice of beauty, of
the importance of Athens and of the exemplary qualities of the Athenians. In ii.40.1,
Pericles says filokalou:mevn te ga;r met’ eujteleivaV kai; filosofou:men a[neu malakivaV.
The phrase has been considered hard to interpret.93 Aspects of this phrase seem to coincide
with Isocrates’ views of love of beauty and love of knowledge. Firstly, as we have noticed
for Isocrates, Pericles also seems to have his eyes fixed on Athens. The political leader
declares, like Isocrates, that the race of the Athenians does not pass unobserved: they do not
copy the laws of their neighbours but rather they, and their dhmokrativa, set an example to
others (ii.37.1). Pericles’ words quoted in Thucydides, especially in chapters 39 and 40,
seems to address qualities which belong to the self-image of Athenians: in particular their
88
(Wilson, 1966 , p. 63).
Thuc. i.22.4. See Papillon on the view that Isocrates, although emphasising the usefulness of nationalism,
shares Thucydides’ view on the distinction between useless to; muqw:deV (cf. Panath. 1) and beneficial mu:qoi
(cf. To Dem.50; Paneg. 158) (Papillon, 1996a, pp. 14 ff.).
90
ejleuqevrwV de; tav te pro;V to; koino;n politeuvomen …Thuc. ii. 37.2. Here Hornblower says that the idea of
free relates to the idea that the Athenians show a generous and extrovert manner which is a characteristic of a
free state. (Hornblower, 1991, p. 301).
91
Thuc ii.40.5.
92
Thuc. ii.43.4. Cf. ii.40.3.
93
(Gomme, 1956 , p. 119) and (Wardman, 1959, pp. 38-42).
89
139
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
ability to judge and to discuss decisions, so that neither ignorance nor too many
calculations prevent their deeds as they do with others, for as Athenians they use such
qualities in a different way from others (ii.40.3). In Pericles’ speech he affirms that the city
is the school of all Greece94 as well as pointing out the importance of admiring the power of
the city of Athens and becoming its lovers.95
Connor claims that it is through the figure of Cleon that a new vocabulary96 and process
in the Athenian political scenario begins to take root: Cleon was a man who spoke of the
devotion he had for the citizens of Athens, and in Aristophanes’ Knights Cleon said “I love
you Demos (people) and I am your erastes (lover)” (732).97 Cleon seemed to be portrayed
as a lover of the city of Athens and of its people and to have developed a spirit of
infatuation with the polis. He reflects the Athenian attitude of appreciation of the city,
which Pericles98 appears to encourage others to adopt in the speech reported by
Thucydides.
Isocrates himself says that when Pericles came to power he did not look for his own
enrichment (On the Peace §126), as Thucydides also claimed,99 but that he looked for the
povlin th:V JEllavdoV paivdeusin ii.41.1. Plato, Protag. 337d: Athens is the prytaneion of wisdom.
Hornblower mentions that we do not know the way in which Athens was a model to the rest of the world;
some like Habicht claims that it is only intended in the political way (Habicht, 1988, p. 1), while Hornblower
admits that Pericles could have been speaking “in a more elevated and cultural way”, (Hornblower, 1991, p.
308).
95
th;n th:V povlewV duvnamin kaq’ hJmevran e[rgw/ qewmevnouV kai; ejrasta;V gignomevnouV aujth:V Thuc. ii.43.
Hornblower and Dover claim that the aujth:V refers to Athens and not to the other two feminine nouns
(Hornblower p. 1991 p. 311).
96
For a discussion on the appearance of the words that describe feelings for the polis see Connor (pp. 100ff).
He claims that “the language of politics turns words and images which formerly and properly applied to
relationships between individuals to a new kind of civic discourse” (p.105). Connor claims thanks to the welldocumented era of the 430s and 420s it is possible to trace the way in which people spoke (Connor, 1971, p.
99): the terminology begins to include attributes such as ‘demos (people)-lovers’ or ‘demos-haters’, (Connor,
1971, p. 100). However, there is not enough evidence from the period prior to this to verify Connor’s theory
with certainty.
97
Cf. Knights 1340-44.
98
For a discussion on Cleon as a distorted figure of Pericles see (Connor, 1971, p. 119). Cf. Thucydides ii.65
who speaks of the incorruptibility of Pericles and of his qualities as an exemplary ruler, concerned for the
actual problems of the city.
99
Cf. Thucyd. ii.65.
94
140
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
enrichment of the city, by making it beautiful. Pericles sought to render the city of Athens
also aesthetically worthy to rule over others (Antidosis §234).100 Isocrates and Thucydides,
as well as Cleon and Pericles, seemed to have expressed their belief in the supremacy of
Athens in the Greek world and in the love and appreciation which is due to its beauty.101
100
The city of Athens appears to be a city blessed by gifts which distinguish its inhabitants from others.
“adsunt Athenienses unde humanitas, doctrina, religio, fruges, iura, leges ortae atque in omnes terras
distributae putantur”, Cicero’s Pro Flacco 62.
101
Contrary to Wilson’s claims about the differences between Isocrates and Thucydides in regard to history
and Isocrates’ distortion of the truth (Wilson, 1966, p. 59, ff.), the two authors appear to agree in thought,
despite their different approaches.
141
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
4. Isocrates’ purpose in the beauty of the Helen
The reasons which brought Isocrates to project the concept of beauty and civilisation on the
well-known theme of Helen and the Trojan War find their roots in the political situation of
the fourth century. The fourth century saw conflict between two aims: unity in Greece and
the independence of the Greek cities. Greek unity, and a sense of Panhellenism, were
partial and temporary results of the Persian wars in 490 and 480. However, the enthusiasm
produced by the Persian wars102 was fractured by later events in history. Isocrates claims in
Antidosis §319 that the Athenians were in a devastated situation: they had been plunged
into war (the Peloponnesian War), they had seen their fellow countrymen suffer, some
dying, some made prisoners of war, some reduced to extreme poverty, and that in this war
they had witnessed the democracy being overthrown twice, and been enslaved.103 After the
Peloponnesian Wars, and the consequent oppressive Spartan dominion, for Athens the
sentiment for unity in Greece was partly revived by its leadership in the second Athenian
League in 378,104 just as in the past this desire was more comprehensively embodied in the
Athenian leadership in the Confederacy of Delos (478).105 However, the growing sense of
individualism in the city,106 the decreased feeling of patriotism among the citizens and the
incessant fights among the Greek states because of the lack of any leadership created the
102
“Victory over the Persians gives particular credibility to the idea that Athenians are active fighters for
justice and civilization”, (Mills, 1997, p. 54).
103
Norlin refers to by the overthrow the oligarchies of the Four Hundred (411 B.C.) and the Thirty Tyrants
(404 B.C.) and to the demolition of the Athenian “Long walls” as one of the terms of peace at the end of the
war (Norlin, 1929, p. 362, note e, f).
104
(Bury and Meiggs, 1975, p. 351 ff).
105
(Bury and Meiggs, 1975, p. 203). The League was established as a voluntary confederacy under Athens.
The purpose of the League was to defend the Greeks against Persia and to avenge the Persian invasion of 480.
The League differed from the first confederacy of Delos on the basis of its more egalitarian system in the
relationship between Athens and its members.
106
The individualistic view was reflected in the character of fourth-century art, as opposed to that of the fifth
century (Bury and Meiggs, 1975, p. 362).
142
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
background to the time of Isocrates.107 Isocrates saw three main evils: the ceasing of the
growth of the communal wealth after the Peloponnesian War, the egotism of personal
ambition, and the growing number of political exiles (To Archidamus §9-10).
Isocrates’ idealistic intention is to revive Athens and its political structure from its
foundation.108 Isocrates saw that the State was so internally devastated that it was certainly
not able to adopt a position in foreign policy (On The Peace §46).109 Isocrates was in fact
dissatisfied with the present government policy.110 In the Areopagiticus §16, Isocrates says
he wants to speak in favour of democracy inherited from their forefathers. However, and as
Jaegar also observes,111 Isocrates appears still to find fault with the democracy of the
time112 and presents the democracy instituted by Solon and re-established by Cleisthenes,
who drove out the tyrants and placed the people back in power, as the political solution for
Athens. It is thanks to these changes that Athens can still enjoy these benefits (Antidosis
§232). Isocrates appears to criticise the way in which democracy was used as a pretext to
do whatever one pleased,113 and promotes instead the democracies of Solon and
107
(Bury and Meiggs, 1975, pp. 356-365); (Hammond, 1959, p. 521 ff).
Jaeger says that Isocrates was a man who criticised the democracy of his day: Isocrates saw a definite
problem with the radical form that Athenian society had assumed with its mass rule, (Jaeger, 1945, p. 113).
109
The Areop.§54 and On the Peace §46 an 90 represent the Athenians as at times having plenty and at others
being in want, impoverished by the war yet still relying on it for profit, but unwilling to make any sacrifices
for the war (On the Peace §44, ff).
110
(Hammond, 1959, p. 352).
111
Jaeger adds that despite trying to defend himself from being suspected of anti-democratic sentiments he
was nonetheless an admirer of the democracy of Solon and Cleisthenes, Panath §68. Isocrates speaks of other
states paying tribute to Athens in the past to preserve their own freedom and democracy, rather than falling
into disaster by setting up oligarchies.
112
Isocrates seems to fear that through democracy people may abuse the power conferred on them, which
could result in anarchy, while, on the other hand, individual achievement could be lost in the masses and not
sufficiently recognised (Nicocles §15-16).
113
Isocrates is concerned about the misconceptions that people had about democracy. Insolence, lawlessness,
imprudence of speech and unrestricted freedom were being mistaken for attributes of democracy, namely
freedom, equality, and happiness. All this he considered a parody of democracy (Areop. §20-27 and Panath
§131).
108
143
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
Cleisthenes114 where powerful people chose and submitted themselves to the best leaders, a
political setting that came close to an aristocratic structure.115 In the Helen Isocrates
projects, in Theseus, the ideal of the good ruler who never did anything contrary to the will
of the people and made them masters of the government, while they, on the other hand,
thought that it was best that he ruled alone, as a leader more trusted and honest than their
own democracy (Helen §36). The irony lies in the fact that democracy, the emblem of
civilisation, is celebrated through the glory of a king: the opposition of democracy to
oligarchy or tyranny has the effect that Athens is under the rule of a good king while it is at
the same time a democracy.116 Despite his criticism of the Persian way of ruling, Isocrates,
in his work the Busiris, will turn the cannibalistic king Busiris into the emblem of the just
monarchy and organiser of society. Thus, the image of the king, formerly considered the
antithesis to the polis, it is now represented as the power which placates civil strife.117 “It is
to Theseus’ and Athens’ credit that they (the Athenians) recognize the superiority of
democracy”.118 Therefore, despite the fact that some have highlighted Isocrates’ tendency
towards monarchical and oligarchic ideals,119 it is important to interpret Isocrates’ political
ideas not as focused on a particular political system, but rather aimed at revitalising the
114
Herodotus (v.66) claims that Cleisthenes adopted a successful technique and gave the right example as a
ruler: he begins to look for the support of citizens with good will, making them his friends, and considering
them an unbiased assembly to vote, (Connor, 1971, pp. 90-91).
115
(Norlin, 1928, pp. xxxviii, note e). However, the sympathy for aristocracy was not confined to the internal
structure of Athens: Mills argues that in the fifth century there is an increasing preference in Athens for the
portrayal of Athenians as the aristocrats of the Greek world (Mills, 1997, p. 63). Mills comments “the idea of
aristocracy retained its glamour also even in the radical democracy” (Mills, 1997, p. 72). The elevation of the
ordinary Athenian to the level of the king of old, or civilizing hero, produced an aristocratic democracy in
Athens (Mills, 1997, p. 72). See also (Loraux, 1986, p. 150 ff and 172 ff.).
116
(Mills, 1997, p. 72).
117
(Hartog, 1986, p. 220).
118
(Mills, 1997, p. 100).
119
(Poulakos, 1997, p. 30 ff.).
144
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
political structure in order to reaffirm a collective superiority based on qualities, such as
beauty, considered uniquely Greek.120
However, Isocrates in the Helen does not only have the intention of inspiring a racial war
but rather his intentions are more directed towards the creation of an intellectual elite which
is superior because of the culture that its members share.121 Isocrates, as previously
mentioned,122 identifies his philosophy with the pursuit of practical wisdom (frovnhsiV)123
as well as eloquence (lovgoV), the fundamental communicative instrument for the
transmission of noble subjects.124 It is speech and wisdom which make Greeks superior to
barbarians and raise Athenians above the rest of the Greeks (Antidosis §293-294).125
Isocrates (Panegyricus §50) thinks that Athens is above the world, both in thought and
speech, and that her pupils have become the teachers of the rest of the world and therefore
that the name of Hellenes no longer means a race but rather an intelligence: diavnoia.126
The distinction between Greeks and barbarians is not a racial one but one of culture, one
of intellect rather than physical make up.127 Thus, the Persians are servile, weak and
cowardly because of their upbringing and political institutions, which provide a way of life
which corrupts the nature of man (Panegyricus §150-151). However, the nature of man can
120
(Mathieu, 1925, p. 7 ff.).
Jaeger (Jaeger, 1945, p. 153) claims that Isocrates intends to create an intellectual elite in place of the old
aristocracy.
122
Chapter 3, section 2.
123
Cf. Helen §22; Evagoras §41; Antidosis §293-294.
124
Isocrates in the Panegyricus (§130) points out that a distinction must be made between denouncing with
the intent to harm someone (crh; de; kathgorei:n me;n hJgei:sqai tou;V ejpi; blavbh/ toiau:ta levgontaV)/ and
advising in order to benefit someone (nouqetei:n de; tou;V ejp’ wjfwleiva/ loidorou:nteV). Isocrates’ admiration
for the poet Homer and his use, especially in the Helen, of the tale of the Trojan and Persian wars to reinforce
the Athenian culture as superior serve this purpose.
125
In Panathicus §163 Isocrates claims that lovgoV raises men above animals.
126
This is the very quality (diavnoia) which Paris shows in his choice of Helen over all the other offers in the
Helen §47.
127
(Baldry, 1965, p. 69 ff).
121
145
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
respond to paideiva and can be trained.128 De Romilly remarks that Isocrates sees between
Europe and Asia a difference of culture.129 Thucydides (ii.41.1) called Athens the school of
Greece but Isocrates says that it was the spiritual achievement of Athens that made Greece
mean not a race but a stage, the highest stage of the intellect: “The one who shares our
paideiva (education/school) is a Greek in a higher sense than he who shares only our blood”
(Paneg.§51). Isocrates still seems to consider ties of blood important and, as Jaeger claims
“he is constructing a Panhellenic morality on the consciousness of racial unity”.130 With
this new moral system he intends to place boundaries on the “egotistic power-politics of the
separate Greek states”,131 however he believes intellectual nationalism to be nobler than
racial nationalism. What seems a contradiction, as Jaeger remarks, is not one in the sense
that this superior paideiva provides more justification for Greek imperialism and the
conquest of Asia.132 Isocrates, therefore, by concentrating on the internal nucleus of Greece,
the city, and on its political setting, the democracy,133 expresses through the Helen his
appeal for moral renewal and education, through a fight to preserve this beauty against the
enemies of civilization which he constructs through the figure of the barbarian.
128
Isocrates elsewhere claims that the nature of human beings can change if lions can be tamed and bears can
be trained to have skills (Antid. §209-14; To Nicocl. §12). Cf. also Evagoras who made the inhabitants of
Cyprus friendly towards the Greeks (Evagoras §47-50). Conversely, as is mentioned in the Evagoras (§1920), barbarians have the power to turn citizens into slaves and ultimately barbarians.
129
(De Romilly, 1992, p. 39).
130
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 79).
131
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 79).
132
(Jaeger, 1945, p. 79-80).
133
Isocrates in On the Peace §64 claims that Athenians would be better men and benefactors of their city if
they stopped setting their hearts on the empire at sea, which caused their ancestors’ downfall and theirs at the
present, and has exposed all the other Greeks. In Against Lochites §1 he confirms that the protection of each
single person is the concern of all men and that it is to this end that they have their hearts set on the
democratic form of government, to which all the activities of their lives are directed.
146
Chapter 4: The beauty of Hellas
Conclusion
In this chapter it has been argued that in the Helen Isocrates adopts the theme of beauty in
order to emblemize the superiority of the Greek culture as well as to represent everything
that is loved and appreciated by the Greeks. With this notion, expressed in Greek culture by
the term kavlloV, the author contrasts the figure of the barbarian, which he associates to the
physical threat represented by the Persians, but also relates to attitudes, modes of behaviour
and ways of governing of which the term bavrbaroV became the expression. Isocrates
constructs the images of barbarians in antithesis to the Greek notion of beauty, by depicting
them as icons of ugliness and monstrosity. In the Helen the author argues for the superiority
of the Greeks over the barbarians and uses the tale of the Trojan War, fought on account of
beauty, to promote the victory and superiority of the Greeks over what does not share in
their culture. Isocrates presents beauty as a quality especially valued by Athenians. He
embodies in the Athenian figure of Theseus both the defender against the barbarian threat
and the lover of beauty. Isocrates develops the theme of love of beauty from previous
public figures who similarly expressed their interest in beauty as a distinctive Athenian
attitude and as an expression of their relationship with the city. An overview of the fourthcentury political scenario has suggested that in his Helen Isocrates, through his eulogy of
beauty as a value unanimously loved by Greeks, aimed to promote unanimity in a time of
civil strife and to advocate a concept of Greek superiority not only in terms of blood but
especially in terms of culture.
147
Conclusion
Helen of Troy’s beauty, it is argued in this thesis, holds particular importance in the
encomium of the fourth-century author Isocrates. From the early Spartan tradition, the
figure of Helen represented beauty. Epic, lyric poetry and tragedy in particular have evoked
feelings now of censure, now of acquittal towards the beautiful queen: for Homer she
beautiful and responsible; for Sappho, Helen was won over by desire and beauty; for the
poets Stesichorus and Euripides she never went to Troy. In prose, Gorgias too attempts to
exonerate the beautiful Helen who, he claims, could not resist the compelling of power of
superior forces.
Isocrates devises an innovative treatment of the figure of Helen, in which her beauty is
not condemned or exonerated but eulogized in the pure language of prose. Modern scholars
have followed Aristotle’s suggestion that encomiastic rhetoric lacked seriousness of
purpose because of its disjointed structure. The adoption of this interpretation has resulted
in the neglect of the significance of Helen’s beauty in the encomium in favour of its
rhetorical arrangement. The limited scholarly attention given to the role of beauty in the
Helen confined the eulogy of the queen and her beauty exclusively to either a patriotic
encomium or to a panegyric on the importance of eloquence.
The present study has uncovered the enigmatic connotations of this quality in Isocrates’
Helen.
Beauty
in
the
Isocratean
work
is
never
specifically
described
by
Isocrates and the reasons for which he chose to praise beauty have never been specifically
addressed. In the course of this thesis I have argued that in Isocrates’ Helen the praise of
beauty and that of Hellenism are combined, giving life to a work in which beauty is
148
Conclusion
admired and worshipped as a uniquely Greek quality, designed to distinguish and to elevate
the Greek culture above all others.
In the Helen the queen is presented as free from the issue of guilt or innocence which the
previous tradition placed on her and her beauty, and thus she becomes the symbol of beauty
par excellence. It has been concluded, through a textual exploration, that in his works
Isocrates occasionally uses both the noun kavlloV and its cognate adjective kalovV to
describe physical characteristics but that normally the author employs these terms to refer
to beauty’s less obvious features, its non-physical meanings. In the Helen, the concept of
physical beauty is subordinated to that of more abstract values. Isocrates uses the terms for
beauty to describe the nobility of actions, achievements, modes of behaviour and character
traits. In the Helen it is possible to observe the usage of these terms in a confined field and
it has been argued that the author slides between the different connotations of beauty,
presenting this quality as a visual one yet emphasizing its non-sensual effects. Although the
force of this beauty infatuated and attracted mythological characters, Isocrates focuses on
less obvious motives than the quest for pleasure and physical attraction; rather, the physical
attraction to Helen is subordinated to a non- physical decision in favour of beauty.
It was demonstrated, by observing Isocrates’ use of vocabulary, that the idea of beauty
which he presents in the Helen is manifested through the actions and achievements of
characters of myth. Isocrates’ intention is to display the popular figures of Theseus and
Paris and turn them into mirrors of the beneficial effects that the more abstract force of
beauty exercises on them. Isocrates shows that Theseus and Paris, although captivated by
Helen’s physical charm, responded with sound choices not of what was mere physical
gratification but of what was beneficial to others. Isocrates combined the narrative of
149
Conclusion
beauty’s noble effects in the mythological past with the more specific and timeless
encomium of beauty as the quality which is able to inspire commendable deeds and exhorts
his audience to demonstrate complete submission and even slavery to this quality.
In the course of this thesis it has been possible to delineate the features and
characteristics which beauty emblemizes. Through a comparative analysis of Isocrates’
Helen and that of his teacher Gorgias it was discovered that the fourth-century author wrote
in response to the treatment of Helen in the preceding tradition. Through his encomium,
Isocrates aimed to challenge the scientific and physiological approach of his master to
Helen and the juridical treatment which aimed to make an ajpologiva for Helen rather than
an ejgkwvmion.
Isocrates’ Helen diverges from his masters’ physical approach and, although still
including ideas on visual perception, it deals more specifically with the effects of beauty on
the human personality, and the choice of noble actions and conduct of life which resulted
from such an impact. Gorgias is interested in the physiological impression that beauty and
its sight had on mythological characters, including Helen, and in the theory of the visual
impact of external images upon human soul. The Gorgianic approach to beauty reflected
the preceding and current theories of sensory perception. Sight in Isocrates, instead, has
been shown to create in the beholders of this visual charm not a sensual response but a
desire for altruistic service. In his composition Isocrates intends to emphasize the
communally beneficial, abstract meaning of beauty.
Thus, while using a similar
vocabulary, Isocrates distances himself from and responds to his master’s theory of the
physiological alteration of the soul’s make up by external influences with his more abstract
approach and focuses on the beneficial, moralizing power of beauty on the community.
150
Conclusion
In the Helen Isocrates responds to the scientifically-based treatment of his master, where
epistemological instruments are analyzed in terms of the way they affect the human mind,
by considering these tools from a more conceptual and philosophical perspective. The
epistemological comparison between the two authors has been possible by questioning the
assumption that Gorgias’ Helen is merely a rhetorical composition, devoid of any interest in
the truth. It has been argued that in the Gorgianic Helen scientific theories constitute the
author’s cognitive enquiry into truth and deception, an argument which Gorgias uses in his
speech with the intention to redeem Helen.
For Isocrates Helen, instead, is in no need of pardon but rather she and her beauty
deserve praise and devotion. Isocrates employs the epistemological instruments analyzed
by his master for the purpose of praising Helen and turns them into means to reach what is
useful and noble, which is worthy to be communicated, through rhetoric, for the benefit of
the entire community. The Isocratean dovxa, compared with the more individualistic use of
this term by his master, has been found to serve two functions in the Helen. Firstly, dovxa
represents the collective opinion that existed in the past on the importance of the struggle
which the obtainment of Helen involved, the common opinion which united heroes such as
Theseus, Paris and the suitors of Helen. This Isocratean concept contrasts with the more
subjective effect which dovxa exercises on the mind of the individual in Gorgias’ Helen, in
which opinion represents a deceptive tool of interpretation. Secondly, the Isocratean dovxa is
also used as an instrument to arrive at wisdom. Isocrates, like Gorgias, does not mention
anywhere the possibility of reaching absolute knowledge, but in the Helen claims that it is
important to arrive at the truth through plausible conjecture (doxavzein).
Gorgias regarded lovgoi as deceptive because based on opinion and not on truth, but he
maintained that they could be redeemed through the injection of logismovV, reasoning,
151
Conclusion
which is a secure basis from which to analyze. Isocrates represents lovgoV as potentially
deceptive, as his master claims, but he restricts this tendency to the work of other writers
and emphasizes the truthfulness of speeches, not in their rational argumentation but in their
adoption and communication of rhetorically important subjects, such as the beauty of Helen
and the beneficial effects which she brought to Greece.
The epistemological analysis of the two texts places the theme of beauty in relation to
the criticized role of the proemium. Isocrates criticizes contemporary and past intellectuals
for misusing lovgoi by fabricating speeches on subjects unworthy of praise, which were still
advertised as being important. Isocrates distinguishes his own lovgoV for adopting the wellknown subject of Helen and her beauty as a theme worthy of praise. In this way, he
challenges the practices of intellectuals who displayed useless topics from obscure fields,
thus meeting with no challenges, with the sole purpose of persuading the crowds.
Isocrates, through his choice of genre, intends to distinguish his work from that of his
teacher by arguing that although Gorgias chose a worthy subject, he failed nevertheless to
understand the importance of praising rather than defending something valuable. Moreover,
Isocrates opposes his encomiastic work to the contemporary tendencies mentioned in the
proemium and their contrasting use of paradoxical topics for rhetorical purposes. Isocrates
in the Helen intends to encourage contemporary intellectuals to adopt subjects that showed
seriousness and civic relevance. He thus praises, and does not defend, the beauty of Helen,
as a theme of relevance for the Greeks. Isocrates’ notion of the figure of Helen, with its
ennobling characteristics and its non-sensual effects, therefore contrasts with the treatment
of this figure by the fifth-century writer Gorgias.
The notion of beauty in Isocrates’ Helen has been revealed in its practical and
collectively beneficial aspect, through a comparison with the Platonic Phaedrus, the
152
Conclusion
principal contemporary work which mainly deals with the concept of beauty. Although
previous scholarship has highlighted the personal rivalry between the two authors, through
a thematic comparison it has been discovered that the topics related to beauty in the Helen
methodologically contrast yet ultimately agree with those expressed in the Phaedrus. In the
Phaedrus the meeting between the soul and beauty resides in the ideal world of intelligible
truths. Beauty is part of the ideal realm of knowledge; it is seen by the soul in heaven yet
can be accessed on earth through the process of recollection.
Isocrates’ interpretation of the pursuit of beauty, instead, is entirely played out in the
more material setting of the Trojan War where warriors were ready to die for the noble
value of beauty. In the Helen e[rwV represents the enthusiastic desire to participate in the
concrete battle on account of the beautiful Helen. In the Phaedrus the physical experience
of beauty is provoked by the passionate desire of love (e[rwV) which drives the human soul
towards the realm of truth, revealing the Platonic concern with individual benefit. In the
Helen Isocrates emphasizes, through the noble fight for beauty, the collective importance of
the struggle for beauty to the community of the Greeks rather than for the individual as in
the Phaedrus. Isocrates highlights the fact that the Greeks, inspired by beauty in the past,
united in an expedition for a noble cause. Although Plato’s concept of philosophy differs in
his idealistic approach from Isocrates’ pursuit of practical knowledge, in both the Phaedrus
and the Helen the figure of the philosopher is the one who pursues beauty, which in the
former is an ideal, intelligible truth and in the latter a practical value. The type of narrative
of the two works differs according to their different purposes: Plato invented the myth of
the charioteer in order to focus on the individual journey of the soul towards truth and
beauty, while Isocrates uses well known myths as examples from the past which will
stimulate infatuation with beauty and demonstrate the useful and beneficial values that it
153
Conclusion
transmitted to the Greeks. Thus, Isocrates’ notion of beauty in the Helen differs from the
one described by his contemporary in the Phaedrus in its practical and collective concern.
Finally, I have argued that the beauty of Helen in the Isocratean work represents the
beauty of Hellas and is a value which Isocrates considers as belonging to the Greek culture.
From a linguistic perspective the word for beauty (kavlloV), as well as its cognates, is used
by the author to represent something which is loved and appreciated by the Greeks, and to
define what is honourable and noble. Isocrates adopts the term kavlloV often used to
describe the aristocratic ideal where physical beauty was associated with personal virtue
and which distinguished a cultural superiority of class. In the Helen Isocrates intends to
expand this concept of superiority to the broader field in which the city of Athens, and
Greece as a whole, are indisputably superior for their arts and culture. Sculptures,
monuments and paintings displayed in Athens were created as reminder of the citizen’s
cultural identity as Greeks and more specifically as Athenians. In architectural monuments,
as well as in vase paintings, the fight between Greeks and outsiders (Centaurs, Giants,
Amazons) was depicted and the monstrosity and ugliness of these creatures deviated from
the aesthetic canons through which the Greeks identified their civilization. The preeminence of Athens in Greece and in the rest of the world is celebrated by another Athenian
writer, Thucydides, who, in his record of Pericles’ funeral speech, shows that the Athenians
regarded the love of beauty as one of their distinctive features and as something which
bound them even closer to their city.
Further, it has been argued that through the figure of Theseus, Isocrates wishes to
exemplify the love for beauty and the Greek victory over the barbarians. This thesis has
suggested that the commonly misinterpreted chapters of the Helen dedicated to Theseus are
not a mistake but rather Isocrates embodies resistance to what is savage in the figure of the
154
Conclusion
hero and presents him as the liberator of Athens. Theseus traditionally represents Athens
and the democracy as well as the antithesis to the despotic government which was usually
assigned to the barbarians. However, Isocrates in the Helen, borrowing from the hero’s
traditional role, presents Theseus as a lover of beauty and as the enemy of anything which
does not share in the beauty of Greek culture, whether within that society or beyond Greek
borders.
Isocrates attributes to Helen and the struggle for beauty the arts, the philosophic studies
and the other benefits which render the Greeks superior to those who do not share these
gifts, this beauty. In the Helen Isocrates makes clear that it was in the name of beauty that
Greeks fought with barbarians in the past. The fight for beauty is emphasized as the one
which, previously, successfully united the Greeks in a common expedition. The Trojan War
is chosen as a suitable scenario for this theoretical argument and because it offers a
mythical, historical precedent to urge the unity of the Greeks against the old enemy of the
Persian wars.
I have implied that the term bavrbaroi, as other Isocratean works suggest, was identified
with the Persians but also has a moral connotation. The term for barbarian, beginning from
the fifth century, represented a code of behaviour as well as a form of government which
was considered savage by the Greeks and the barbarian political regime was often referred
to as douleiva. Isocrates constructs in the struggle for Helen and her beauty the reason for
which the Greeks are not slaves of barbarians and enjoy instead enslavement to shared
values such as freedom and democracy. In the Helen, Isocrates proposes, by the
recollection of this fight against the barbarians, a struggle which the political and social
situation of the fourth century demanded.
155
Conclusion
This thesis has suggested that the reason for Isocrates’ championing of beauty are to be
discovered in the political situation of the fourth century, where a growing sense of
individualism had undermined the concept of Greek unity. As a sense of Panhellenism was
partly and temporarily a result of the Persian Wars, the Athenians experienced the break
down of this development with the social, economical and political disasters wrought by
the Peloponnesian Wars. The desire for individual enterprise and the incessant fights
developing in the city states caused the decline of feelings of unity. Isocrates responded to
this situation by reviving, through the Helen, the sense of superiority of civilization which
Greeks and in particular Athenians felt to be their own. Artistic and literary arts, the ideal
values of democracy and the superiority of Greek culture to that of peoples outside Greek
borders are themes which Isocrates eulogizes, as part of his paideutic theory, through the
idea of beauty in the Helen. In this work Isocrates emblemizes in the beauty of Helen the
intellectual superiority of Athenians, and emphasizes the beauty of Greece and especially of
Athens as being not only the distinguishing mark of racial but moreover of cultural
superiority. Isocrates turned the beautiful face of Helen, known for launching a thousand
ships, into an emblem of cultural supremacy.
156
Bibliography
Adkins, A. W. H. (1960), Merit and Responsability, Oxford.
Alexiou, M. (2002), After Antiquity: Greek Language, Myth, and Metaphor, Ithaca.
Asmis, E. (1984), Epicurus' Scientific Method, Ithaca.
Austin, N. (1994), Helen of Troy and her shameless phantom, Ithaca.
Bacon, H. H. (1961), Barbarians in Greek Tragedy, New Haven.
Bailey, C. (1928), The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, Oxford.
-------- (Ed.) (1947), Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura, II, Oxford.
Baldry, H. C. (1965), The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought, Oxford.
Bassi, K. (1993), 'Helen and the Discourse of Denial in Steisichorus Palinode', Arethusa,
26, 51-75.
Bearzot, C. (1981), 'Religione e politica in Isocrate', in Religione e politica nel mondo
antico, Ed. Sordi, M., Milano.
Benoit, W. L. (1991), 'Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education', Rhetoric
Society Quarterly, 21.1, 61-71.
Bergren, A. L. T. (1983), 'Language and the Female in Early Greek Thought', Arethusa, 16,
69-95.
Bettini, M. and Brillante, C. (2002), Il Mito di Elena, Torino.
Biesecker, S. (1992), 'Rhetoric, Possibility and Women's Status in Ancient Athens: Gorgias
and Isocrates' Encomiums of Helen', Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 22, 99-108.
Bona, G. (1974), 'LOGOS e ALETHEIA nell' Encomio di Elena di Gorgia', Rivista di
Filologia Classica, 5-33.
157
Bibliography
Bonfante, L. (1989), 'Nudity as a Costume in Classical Art', American Journal of
Archaeology, 93, 543-570.
Bourriot, F. (1995), Kalos kagathos, kalokagathia: D'un terme de propagande de sophistes
à une notion sociale et philosophique. Étude d' Histoire Athénienne, I, Zurich.
Briant, P. (1989), 'History and Ideology: the Greeks and 'Persian Decadence', in Greeks and
Barbarians, Ed. Harrison, T., Edinburgh.
Buchheit, V. (1960), Untersuchungen zu Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis
Aristoteles, Munchen.
Bury, J. B. and Meiggs, F. B. A. (1975), A History of Greece: to the death of Alexander the
Great, London.
Campbell, L. (Ed.) (1883), The Theaetetus of Plato, Oxford.
Capriglione, J. C. (1983), 'Elena tra Gorgia e Isocrate ovvero se l'amore diventa politica', in
Atti del convegno internazionale Gorgia e la sofistica, Lentini-Catania.
Carpenter, T. (1992), Art and Myth in Ancient Greece, London.
Chantraine, P. (1970), Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque: histoire des mots,
II, Paris.
Chen, L. C. H. (1983), 'Knowledge of beauty on Plato's Symposium', Classical Quarterly,
33, 66-74.
Claché, P. (1963), Isocrate et son temps, Paris.
Connor, R. W. (1971), New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens, Princeton.
Consigny, S. (2001), Gorgias: Sophist and Artist, Columbia.
Csapo, E. and Miller, M. (1988), 'Democracy, Empire and Art: Toward a Politics of Time
and Narrative', in Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, Eds.
Boedeker, D. and Raaflaub, K. A., Cambridge.
158
Bibliography
Dasen, V. (1993), Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Oxford.
Davie, J. N. (1982), 'Theseus the King of Fifth-Century Athens', Greece and Rome, 29, 2534.
De Romilly, J. (1958), 'Eunoia in Isocrates or the Political Importance of Creating Good
Will', Journal of Hellenic Studies, 78, 92-101.
-------- (1973), 'Gorgias et le pouvoir de la poésie', Journal of Hellenic Studies, 63, 155162.
-------- (1975), Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Cambridge.
-------- (1992), 'Isocrates and Europe', Greece and Rome, 39 n.1, 2-13.
De Vries, G. J. (1953), 'Isocrates' Reaction to the Phaedrus', Mnemosyne, 6, 39-45.
-------- (1969), A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato, Amsterdam.
Diels, H. and Kranz, W. (1964), Die Fragmente Der Vorsokratiker, III, Berlin.
-------- (1964), Die Fragmente Der Vorsokratiker, II, Berlin.
Dodds, E. R. (1951), The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley.
-------- (Ed.) (1959), Plato's Gorgias, Oxford.
Donlan, D. (1973), 'The origin of kalos kagathos', American Journal of Philology, 94, 365374.
Dover, K. (1974), Greek Popular Morality: In the time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford.
------------ (1968), Aristophanes’ Clouds, Oxford.
-------- (Ed.) (1980), Plato: Symposium, Cambridge.
-------- (Ed.) (1994), Aristophanes’ Frogs, Oxford.
Eucken, C. (1983), Isokrates: Seine Positionen in der Auseinandersetzung mit den
zeitgenösichen Philosophen, Berlin.
Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987), Listening to the Cicadas: a study of Plato's Phaedrus, Cambridge.
159
Bibliography
Flacelière, R. (Ed.) (1961), Isocrates Cinq Discours, Paris.
Franco, C. (2003), Senza ritegno: Il cane e la donna nell' immaginario della Grecia antica,
Bologna.
Gaiser, K. (1990), L' oro della sapienza: sulla preghiera del filosofo a conclusione del
"Fedro" di Platone, Milano.
Gauss, H. (1937), Plato's Conception of Philosophy, London.
Giuliani, A. (1998), 'Perdonare Elena, bellezza e guistizia negli intellettuali della crisi
(Gorgia, Euripide, Isocrate)', in Responabilità, perdono e vendetta nel mondo
antico, Vol. XXIV, Ed. Sordi, M., Milano.
Goggin, M. D. and Elenore, L. (1993), 'A tincture of Philosophy, a Tincture of Hope: the
Portrayal of Isocrates in Plato's Phaedrus', Rhetoric Review, 11, 301-324.
Gomme, A. W. (1956), A Historical Commentary on Thucydides , II, Oxford.
Gomperz, H. (1912), Sophistik und Rhetorik, Leipzig.
Goodwin, W. W. (1929), Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb, London.
Guardini, M. L. (1987), Il Mito di Elena: Euripide e Isocrate, Dosson.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1965), A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge.
-------- (1971), A History of Greek Philosophy: the Sophists, Cambridge.
-------- (1975), A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge.
-------- (1981), A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge.
Habicht, C. (1988), Hellenistic Athens and her Philosophers, Princeton.
Hackforth, R. (Ed.) (1952), Plato's Phaedrus, Cambridge.
Hall, E. (1989), Inventing the barbarian, Oxford.
-------- (1992),'When is a Myth Not a Myth? Bernal's 'Ancient Model'', in Greeks and
Barbarians, Ed. Harrison, T., Edinburgh.
160
Bibliography
Hammond, N. G. L. (1959), The History of Greece (to 322 B.C.), Oxford.
Hartog, F. (1986), 'The Greeks as Egyptologists', in Greeks and Barbarians, Ed. Harrison,
T., Edinburgh.
Heilbrunn, G. (1977), 'The Composition of Isocrates' Helen', Transactions of the American
Philological Association, 107, 147-159.
Hölscher, T. (1998), 'Images and Political Identity: The Case of Athens', in Democracy,
Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, Eds. Boedeker, D. and Raaflaub, K.
A., Cambridge.
Hornblower, S. (1991), A commentary on Thucydides, I, Oxford.
Howland, R. L. (1937), 'The Attack on Isocrates in the Phaedrus', Classical Quarterly, 31,
151-59.
Immisch, O. (Ed.) (1927), Gorgiae Helena, Berlin.
Jaeger, W. (1939), Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, I, London.
-------- (1945), Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, III, Oxford.
Jebb, R. C. (1893), Attic Orators: from Antiphon to Isaeus, II, London.
-------- (1893), Attic Orators: from Antiphon to Isaeus, I, London.
Kannicht, R. (1969), Euripides: Helena, Heidelberg.
Kennedy, G. A. (1980), Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and secular Tradition From
Ancient to Modern Times, Chapel Hill.
-------- (1958), 'Isocrates' Encomium of Helen: a Panhellenic Document', Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 89.
-------- The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton.
Kerferd, G. B. (1981), The Sophistic Movement, Cambridge.
Kirby, J. T. (1990), 'The " Great Triangle" in early Greek rhetoric and poetics"', Rhetorica,
161
Bibliography
8, 213-228.
Lada-Richards (1998), '"Foul monster or good saviour?". Reflections on ritual monsters', in
Monsters and Monstrosity in Greek and Roman Culture, Bari.
Lampe, G. W. H. (1961), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford.
Lenfant, D. (1999), 'Monsters in Greek Ethnography and Society in the Fifth and Fourth
Centuries BCE', in From Myth to Reason?, Ed. Buxton, R., Oxford.
Levi, M. A. (Ed.) (1987), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini, II, Milan.
Liddell, H., Scott, R. and Jones, H. S. (1940), A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford.
Lissarrague, F. (1997), 'The Athenian Image of the Foreigner', in Greeks and Barbarians,
Ed. Harrison, T., Edinburgh.
Livingstone, N. (2001), A Commentary on Isocrates' Busiris, Leiden.
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1979), Magic, Reason and Experience, Cambridge.
Loraux, N. (1986), The Invention of Athens: the Funeral Oration in the Classical City,
London.
Ludwig, P. W. (2002), Eros and Polis: Desire and Community in Greek Political Theory,
Cambridge.
MacDowell (Ed.) (1982), Gorgias' Encomium of Helen, Bristol.
Mackenzie, M. M. (1982), 'A Pyrrhic Victory: Gorgias 474b-477a', Classical Quarterly,
32, 84-88.
Mareddu, P. (1991), 'La parola che "incanta": note all' Elena di Gorgia', Sileno, 17, 249258.
Mariano, B. M. and Pacati, C. M. (1990), Il Teatro, il Discorso, la Città, Firenze.
Mathieu, G. (1925), Les Idées Politiques d' Isocrate, Société d' Édition ", Paris.
Mathieu, G. and Brémond, E. (Eds.) (1963), Isocrate: discours, I, Paris.
162
Bibliography
Meagher, R. E. (2002), The meaning of Helen. In search of an Ancient Icon, Waconda.
Mills, S. (1997), Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire, Oxford.
Moreschini, C. (Ed.) (1959), Gorgia, frammenti, Torino.
Natali, C. (1983), 'Evitare gorgia: la posizione di Isocrate verso il suo maestro' in Gorgia e
la Sofistica: Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Ed. a cura di L. Montenari, F. R.,
Leontini-Catania.
Nehamas, A. and Woodruff, P. (Eds.) (1995), Plato: Phaedrus, Indianapolis.
Nippel, W. (1996), 'The Construction of the 'Other'', in Greeks and Barbarians, Ed.
Harrison, T., Edinburgh.
Norlin, G. (1928), Isocrates I, London.
-------- (1929), Isocrates II, London.
North, H. H. (1966), 'Canons and Hierarchies of the Cardinal Virtues in Greek and Latin
Literature', in The Classical Tradition, Ed. Caplan, H., Ithaca.
O'Sullivan, N. (1992), Alcidamas, Aristophanes and the Beginnings of Greek Stylistic
Theory, Stuttgart.
Papillon, T. (1996), 'Isocrates on Gorgias and Helen: the Unity of the Helen', Classical
Journal, 91, 377-391.
-------- (1996), 'Isocrates and the use of myth', Hermathena, 161, 9-21.
-------- (1997), ‘The Identity of Gorgias in Isocrates’ Helen’, Digital Library and archives
Electronic Antiquity: Communicating the Classics, Volume III, Issue 6, Virginia.
Pease, A. S. (1926), 'Things without Honor', Classical Philology, 21, n. 1, 27-42.
Perkins, T. M. (1984), 'Isocrates and Plato: Relativism vs. Idealism', The Southern Speech
Communication Journal, 50, 49-66.
Pohlenz, M. (1966), Freedom in Greek Life and Thought, Dordrecht.
163
Bibliography
Poulakos, J. (1983), 'Gorgias' Encomium to Helen and defence of rhetoric', Rhetoric, 1, 116.
-------- (1986a), 'Argument, Practicality and Eloquence in Isocrates' Helen', Rhetorica, 4.1,
1-19.
-------- (1986b), 'Gorgias' and Isocrates' Encomium', Southern Communication Journal, 51,
300-307.
-------- (1995), Sophistical Rhetoric in Classical Greece, Columbia.
Poulakos, T. (1997), Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates' Rhetorical Education, South
Crolina.
Preuss, S. (1904), Index Isocrateus, Hildesheim.
Race, W. H. (1987), 'Pindaric Encomium and Isokrates' Evagoras', TAPA, 117, 131-155.
Redfield, J. (1985), 'Herodotus the Tourist', in Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh.
Riginos, A. S. (1976), Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato,
III, Leiden.
Roscalla, F. (2004), 'Kalokagathia e kaloikagathoi', in Xenophon and his world. Papers
from a conference held in Liverpool 1999, Ed. Tuplin, C., Stuttgart.
Said, S. (1984), 'Greeks and Barbarians in Euripides' Tragedies: The end of Differences?',
in Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh.
Schiappa, E. (1999), The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, London.
Schlaifer, R. (1936), 'Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to Aristotle', Harvard Studies
in Classical Philology, 47, 165-204.
Scholl, A. (1994), 'POLYTALANTA MNHMEIA: Zur Literarischen und monumentalen
Überlieferung aufwendiger Grabmäler im spätklassischen Athen', Jahrbuch des
deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 109, 239-271.
164
Bibliography
Schwarze, S. (1999), 'Performing 'Phronesis': The Case of Isocrates' Helen', Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 32.
Sedley, D. (1998), Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, Cambridge.
Segal, C. (1962), 'Gorgias and the Psychology of the Logos', Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology, 66, 99-155.
Shapiro, H. A. (1998), 'Autochthony and the Visual Arts in Fifth-Century Athens', in
Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, Eds. Boedeker, D. and
Raaflaub, K. A., Cambridge.
Stanford, W. B. (Ed.) (1961), The Odyssey of Homer, I, London.
Tasinato, M. (1990), Elena, Velenosa Bellezza, Milan.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1970), History of Aesthetics, I, Paris.
Taylor, M. W. (1991), The Tyrant Slayers, Salem.
Timmerman, D. (1998), 'Isocrates' Competing Conceptualization of Philosophy',
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 31, 145-159.
Tomassetti, T. G. (Ed.) (1960), Encomio di Elena, Roma.
Too, Y. L. (1995), The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy,
Cambridge.
Tuszynska - Maciejewska, K. (1987), 'Gorgias' and Isocrates' different Encomia of Helen',
Eos, 75, 279-289.
Untersteiner, M. (1967), I Sofisti, Milan.
Van Hook, L. (1945), Isocrates, III, London.
-------- (1913), 'The Encomium of Helen, by Gorgias', Classical Weekly, 6, 122-123.
Verdenius, W. J. (1981), 'Gorgias' doctrine of deception', in The Sophists and Their Legacy,
Ed. Kerferd, G. B., Steiner.
165
Bibliography
Walcot, P. (1977), 'The judgment of Paris', Greece and Rome, 24, 31-39.
Wardman, A. E. (1959), 'Thucydides 2.40.1', Classical Quarterly, 53 n.s.9, 38-42.
Wankel, H. (1961), KALOS KAI AGATHOS (Dissertation), Frankfurt.
Wilcox, S. (1943), 'Criticisms of Isocrates and his Philosophia', Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 74, 113-33.
Wilson, C. H. (1966), 'Thucydides, Isocrates and the Athenian Empire', Greece and Rome,
13, 54-63.
Worman, N. (1997), 'The Body as Argument: Helen in Four Greek Texts', Classical
Antiquity, 16, 151-203.
-------- (2001),'This Voice Which Is Not One: Helen's Verbal Guises in Homeric Epic', in
Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society, Eds.
Lardinois, A. and McClure, L., Princeton.
-------- (2002), The Cast of Character: style in Greek Literature, Austin.
Zagagi, N. (1985), 'Helen of Troy: Encomium and Apology', Wiener Studien, 19, 63-88.
Zajonz, S. (2002), Isokrates' Enkomion auf Helena. Ein Kommentar, Göttingen.
166