 |
| Gorgias (483-375 BCE) |
Some of the best examples of official style usage can be found in the early forms of philosophical writing. The Encomium of Helen was written by Gorgias and edited and translated by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg in The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, second edition. This text was founded in my Introduction to Writing and Rhetoric Studies class, English 333. Gorgias was a Sophist who used Helen, the Queen of Sparta, as an example to debrief on the foundation of truth through paradoxologia. He argued that truth is an illusion, therefore, the truth of Helen could never be known since meaning is constructed through the use of paradoxical terms and their absents. Gorgias’ extensive use of official style has made the interpretations of his writing more challenging.
In order to give reasons to the difficulty behind Gorgias’ writing style, I further analyzed some of the official style strategies he used. Combining strategies are often used to avoid choppy and/or unrelated sentences within a writing. In particular, Gorgias’ writing used a fair number of these strategies for the purpose of combining multiple ideas. However, his use might have caused more confusion, adding to the overall difficulty of his writing. The following excerpt from Gorgias’ writing was used to analyze the most relevant strategies being used.
“To understand that persuasion, when added to speech, is wont also to impress the soul as it wishes, one must study: first, the words of astronomers who, substituting opinion for opinion, taking away one but creating another, make what is incredible and unclear seem true to the eyes of opinion, then, second, logically necessary debates in which a single speech, written with art but not spoken with truth, bends a great crowd and persuades; <and> third, the verbal disputes of philosophers in which the swiftness of thought is also shown making the belief in an opinion subject to easy change. 14.”
It is astonishing that this excerpt is only one sentence. The sentence is almost seven lines long and contains twelve commas (highlighted in red) and, still, with all the words being used, the main point is not entirely clear or understood. This sentence could have been broken into three or more single sentences. Particular strategies aided in the creation of the overall length and confusion of the quoted sentence, however, some strategies also served to provide clarity. The relative clauses that are present within this sentence lengthen the overall ideas by using the relative pronouns who, that, and which in conjunction with a subject and verb. In the second line of the sentence, who is used to connect the subject (astronomers) to the verb (make). This relative clause is hard to identify because it is sandwiching two appositives (highlighted in blue), separating the subject and the verb. The first appositive stating, “substituting opinion for opinion,” and the second, “taking away one but creating another,” are consecutive. The use of two consecutive appositives lengthens the sentence by including two forms of non-essential information, interrupting the flow of the main idea. However, even though the information is non-essential, it does add a sense of clarity to the subject (astronomers). By including these appositives, the reader becomes aware of how astronomers use words for the purpose of persuasion.
If the sentence was not long enough, Gorgias decided to use forms of coordination to further elongate his thoughts. His use of and and but, combined multiple ideas to give them equal emphasis. Using this strategy, Gorgias was able to prolong the use of a period. This sentence also presents the strategy of subordination to deemphasize some of the complete thoughts. When is used as part of an appositive within the first line of the sentence. This deemphases the appositive reading, “when added to speech,” to indicate that it is not the main idea, however, it is necessary to strengthen the main idea. This is also an example of an appositive that adds clarity to the sentence. Without knowing that the sentence was discussing persuasion in speech, a reader could make different interpretations. This sentence also includes the use of an infinite phrase that enhances both the length and the clarity of the text. By using the phrase to understand, the sentence is given a purpose in finding how to understand as the text later lists the things one must study (first, second, and third) in order to understand how persuasion impresses the soul.
The quoted excerpt is slow in its opening which creates an unclear platform. The sentence’s overuse of commas, appositives, connection of clauses, and use of multiple nouns and verbs has split the main idea of the sentence in a puzzling manner. The steps listed (highlighted in yellow) in the sentence have been separated from the main idea of understanding persuasion in speech. The complex word choice used in this sentence is not one that is commonly used in spoken or written word. In the first line it reads, “is wont also to impress.” What does that even mean? I initially would believe that to be a typo. This word choice is distracting and difficult to tongue. However, we must keep in mind that this is a translation and every language has its unique origins, roots, structures, and cultural expressions. Due to the differences between languages, not all words and phrases translate accurately.
The use of official style, in this situation, overcomplicated the purpose of the writing and hid the main points from clear understanding. A readability test seemed to agree on this.
Number of Words
|
Gunning Fog Index
|
SMOG
|
Flesch Reading Ease
|
101
|
25.74
|
18.97
|
22.40
|
Since the average American adult reads at the 7th-grade level, this was obviously not written for the average reader. The Flesch Reading Ease score deems this excerpt as a very difficult style with an estimated 4.5 percent of U.S adults who could actually read and understand this (Principles of Readability). The question arises, who was Gorgias writing to?
Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen was written to persuade his Sophistical position with outcomes of examining the power of persuasion. To do this, he shows that he is able to both defend Helen from her blame and convict her of blame all by the use of his words. Gorgias’ rhetorical reasoning involves his influencers who taught him: Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, and Empedocles, the Sophists who served as his discourse community, other rhetoricians, and Plato who was his biggest critic (Gorgias). His argument that truth is an illusion and all meaning is fabricated counters that of Plato’s. Plato believes in absolute truth through discovery of the soul. Therefore, Gorgias’ writing is meant to satisfy the arguments of other Sophists alike and bring new elements to conversation and it is meant to counteract Plato’s arguments for further debate. Gorgias’ need to impress his influencers and debate with Plato were the likely causes of his extensive usage of official style. Gorgias needed to be exact in his meanings, using multiple, detailed words to explain his intricate thoughts in order to close loopholes Plato might desperately search for. His tendency to overexplain himself likely resulted in his use of multiple appositives and lengthy sentences. Appositives provide extra information that a normal reader might deem unnecessary, however, Plato would have seen the lack of information as an opportunity to find error in Gorgias’ argument. I understand where someone could argue that Gorgias’ official style usage could more likely be due to differences in the formalities of the language between eras, however, I would argue that official style is used with specific intentions. Whatever Gorgias’ purpose, his usage of official style creates difficulties in the interpretations of his work, this is also why I do not believe his work was meant for the average citizen. His style choice aims to create thought-provoking arguments concerning rhetoric. Could his writing be rewritten using less official style to ease the troubles of comprehending his thoughts? Yes, but would it really be his thoughts, then? There are millions of ways pieces could be written differently, but changing the style of the author takes away from the originality of the piece. I will leave you with this last question, if philosophical writings, such as the one being discussed, were written more plainly with explicit explanations, would it be as enjoyable to read and learn from? Think about it.
Carly K. Baumann
No comments:
Post a Comment