How Rhetoric Liberates: A Feminist Analysis of the Encomium of Helen by Gorgias and Lysistrata by Aristophanes

June 27^th, 2017

Aristotle once argued that “the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject” (Aristotle). His thoughts do much to reveal the sentiments held in Ancient Athens regarding women: that they alone were lustful beasts, not truly human, suited only for rearing children and putting their husbands in good temper. Few Hellenic works even feature everyday women, and even fewer discuss them in any meaningful depth. The Encomium of Helen by the sophist Gorgias and Lysistrata by the comedic playwright Aristophanes are unique in this regard, as they deal with and act in service of women. While the views of both male authors likely aligned with those of Aristotle, they are – in both the literal and literary sense of the word – dead. This essay does not argue that these men were feminists ahead of their time, but rather that their texts could be read as arguing for the equal status of women, thereby enacting a ‘noble’ rhetoric. The difference between them, however, is that Gorgias speaks on Helen’s behalf to suggest that she is as weak as any man, while Aristophanes gives Lysistrata her own voice to suggest that she is as strong as any man. This essay will first demonstrate how both characters are made equal as a function of rhetoric, and then examine the specific arguments used to venerate their gender as a whole.

In the popular consciousness of Athens, Helen of Troy – the woman who instigated the Trojan War by leaving her husband for a Trojan prince – is judged as someone to be shamed for her selfish desire. This conception plays into stereotypes of the time which recognized women as vain, lustful, and irrational. Gorgias, however, challenges this conception by stating that “man and women and speech and deed … should be honored with praise if praiseworthy and incur blame if unworthy” (Gorgias 44). By placing ‘man and women’ on equal footing, Gorgias effectively argues that all people, regardless of gender, should be judged only according to their actions. This implicitly calls attention to the fact that Helen’s standing in society is less a consequence of her actual actions, and more a result of how men judge her – how her actions fit into the existing stereotypes of women. Gorgias continues, saying that he wishes to “free her from ignorance” by “introducing some reasoning into [his] speech” (Gorgias 44). He is not simply arguing to dispel ignorant conceptions about women, he is doing it through logic and eloquence. This marks the work as a clear rhetorical piece. However, he does not intend to wield rhetoric in the stereotypical Sophist conception, as something malicious used only to one’s own advantage, but for a moral purpose. He effectively enacts a noble rhetoric on Helen’s behalf, using the incredible power of speech to “nurture pity” for her plight, as he explains this is one of its functions (Gorgias 45). The term ‘pity’ is significant in that that much of Gorgias argument frames Helen as a victim, without any agency of her own; he frees her from ignorance, he nurtures pity on her behalf. Gorgias’ argument, regardless of purpose, is yet another example of a man constructing a woman in his own voice. She is only made equal by being acted upon by rhetoric – she does not use it in her own right.

In contrast to Helen, Lysistrata advocates for the status of her gender by wielding rhetoric herself. She is immediately introduced as a character of agency within the narrative, capable of understanding and enacting the powers of rhetoric to her own ends. For example, at the very beginning of the play she rallies the women of Athens and Sparta to her cause by calling attention to the injustice of their position in society. When the women discover that her plan involves abstaining for sex, and are at their most dejected, she explains, “Our sex is fitly food for Tragic Poets, our whole life’s but a pile of kisses and babies … if you join with me, all may be righted yet” (Aristophanes 292-293). By directly identifying the core injustice that governs their lives, she evokes emotion – pathos – and thereby sways the women to her cause. This demonstrates a keen understanding of rhetoric in that she is able to identify the best available means of persuasion, regardless of her situation. It is also significant as it solidifies the fact that, while her objective within the narrative is to end the Peloponnesian war, her ultimate goal is to promote the status of women and realize the equality that they eventually achieve at the end of the play. Through her understanding of rhetoric, Lysistrata comes to prove that women are just as intelligent and capable as men are. This comes to a head with the climax of the play, when Lysistrata effectively brokers peace between Athens and Sparta through an appeal to ethos, her own character. She says, “I am a woman, but I’m not a fool. And what of natural intelligence I own has been filled out with the remembered precepts my father and the city elders taught me” (Aristophanes 323). In Ancient Athens, public life was governed by the secularization of the logos. Athenian culture valued eloquence and rhetoric above all, and a man’s influence was measured by his ability to wield it. By claiming that she learned rhetoric by watching her father and elders, Lysistrata effectively aligns herself with the male power of the city. By directly confronting the stereotypes of her gender, she proves that with the right education, women do not have to be fools. Unlike Helen, Lysistrata is not simply absolved of shame, but uses rhetoric to elevate herself to a position beyond all other characters. As the Spartan ambassador says, “I’ve never seen a nobler woman anywhere” (Aristophanes 324). Lysistrata acts as a symbol of what women can be.

As previously explained, the Encomium of Helen uses rhetoric to absolve Helen of blame; however, in examining the logical arguments of the text, one finds messages that effectively affirm the humanity of all women. These arguments convey that anyone, regardless of sex, can be influenced by forces beyond their control. One of Gorgias’ arguments responds to the possibility that Helen was convinced to join Paris through his speech. He says, “The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies … in the case of speeches, some distress, others delight” (Gorgias 46). This description of speech as a powerful, almost magical force in the Sophist conception seems to suggest that the powers of rhetoric would be too much to resist even for a man. Gorgias makes no suggestion that Helen would be more vulnerable to speech due to her gender, thereby implicitly conveying the idea that men and women are both equal in mental weakness; they both display a distinct human vulnerability. This is true also in the case of love, which Gorgias addresses as a possible influence on Helen. He excuses it by explaining that certain sights (for example, those of war) have the power to evoke in men incredible fear – that these people loose “presence of mind for the present moment,” which “extinguishes and excludes thought” (Gorgias 46). If one saw a sight, as Helen possibly did, of such perfection that it compelled her to abandon all conscious thought in pursuit of desire, it would only be natural. She would be bowing to a uniquely human affliction that all people, men and women, are affected by. The weight of this argument is derived from its substance, the rhetorical logos, in that it draws on natural evidence of transcendent human actions. It is widely understood that fear and love may lead people to think irrationally. Though this explanation does nothing to fault the stereotype of women as lustful, it does nothing to say that lust is a uniquely female quality. This is consistent with Lysistrata in that much of the humor of the play is derived from the mutual desire men and women feel for each other. While this upholds the conception of women as sexual creatures, the reality that men feel and act in the same way affirms the equality of the two sexes – that they are both passionate, both human, and both flawed.

In examining not only her character, but also the actual arguments made within the texts and by Lysistrata herself, one finds that her staunchest defense of women occurs in the middle of the play, with the agon: the rhetorical struggle through which contrasting views are put against one another to arrive at the truth. Her argument against the Magistrate – the central male figure and antagonist of the play – calls attention to the fact that the women have come to occupy the treasury, as they are, in Lysistrata’s view, the most capable people to administer it. She says, “Of our capabilities you have had various clear evidences. Firstly remember we have always administered soundly the budget of all home expenses” (Aristophanes 303). This cutting remark essentially says that women have been dutifully administering household finances for years, a task that obviously requires great intelligence, yet the men still regard them as lesser. They do not manage the treasury or take part in other aspects of public life, not because they are incapable of doing so, but only due to the artificial restrictions imposed by their patriarchal society. From a utilitarian perspective, it makes no logical sense. Lysistrata’s character and skill in rhetoric have already been clearly established; this passage is instead significant as it demonstrates logos, the substance and validity of her arguments in revealing the inequities of female life. It is also significant in that agon is strangely one-sided, as the Magistrate offers little in the way of argument against Lysistrata, often interjecting only with snide remarks or encouragement for her to continue. For example, he once says plainly: “What do you mean? Please explain” (Aristophanes 306). He seemingly exists only as a rhetorical function that enables Lysistrata to more effectively communicate her ideas. If one agrees with the conception of the agon as a forum through which truth is revealed, this likely suggests that Lysistrata’s truth is the only truth. The text agrees with her belief that women should be equal to men, and cannot conceptualize any substantive argument to oppose her. While the play is obviously a comedy, and much of the laugher would have come from the preposterous idea of women taking change, one must examine the content of the text itself. If Lysistrata’s revolution is truly a joke – if she is truly meant to be an up-start woman heedlessly wielding male power – one would expect her to eventually receive comeuppance for violating the social order. However, she does not. She is not lampooned, or flawed in any way. She defeats all challenges in her path and succeeds in her ultimate vision. Lysistrata, the play, acts as a work of rhetoric in itself to convey a clear idea. While Lysistrata explicitly uses logical argument to promote the status of women, the text itself implicitly recognizes the validity of her struggle, and thus all rhetorical aspects of the work come together for a noble purpose.

Ultimately, both Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen and Aristophanes’ Lysistrata argue, each in their own way, for a noble purpose. Both works are extremely relevant and unique to the field of rhetoric as they confront the negative stereotypes which slander women, and argue for their equal status in relation to men. However, both are affected by and employ rhetoric in different ways. Helen is constructed by rhetoric – while Gorgias effectively argues on her behalf, the work only endeavors to vindicate her of blame. She is still characterized as a victim, and the logical arguments of the work only show her as equal to men in that she shares their weaknesses. Lysistrata, however, is an actor in her own right, cognizant of the difficulties that she and all women face. She wields rhetoric herself to exercise agency within the plot, counteract the tyranny of men, and elevate herself above all other characters. She is the eponymous hero; she is everything. Though the original authors may differ in their interpretations, their opinions do no matter. The works stand on their own, and by their very nature convey the fact that women are valid, that they are more than others perceive them to be.

References

Aristophanes. “Lysistrata.” The Complete Plays of Aristophanes. N.p.: Bantam Books, 1984.

288-328. Print.

Aristotle. "Politics." Perseus Digital Library. Tufts University, n.d. Web. 25 June 2017.

<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn%3Acts%3AgreekLit%3Atlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1%3A1.1254b>.

Gorgias. "Encomium of Helen." The Rhetorical Tradition. N.p.: Bedford Books, 2001. 44-46.

Print.