Due October 2, 2014
Imitatios
Judgment
is for the repulsive
What is
attractive to a community is commitment, to an individual
independence, to a mind it's own meaning, to an endeavor
effectiveness, to an audience acceptance. Women and men and
boys and girls and the community should take responsibility where
due—the antithesis of is repulsive.
It is the
responsibility of an individual to not only accept those in our
community but to embrace them. I say this when those who criticize
others are within their full rights, in fact judgment is such a
common occurrence that we often do not take notice. It is my duty to
introduce to you a girl who has been often judged and expose you to
her truths as well as society's.
Juliana is
a person that hardly anybody knows.
Yet everyone knows her story as her story reflects us all. Juliana
has a family. She is a child like we have all once been. She attends
school. She has a favorite stuffed animal. The factor that separates
Juliana is that she has Down Syndrome.
Juliana's
differences were made apparent since birth. A fact that has remained
relevant to her for her life. She has educated many, and brought
together people of all different backgrounds. Although these
backgrounds were different, we came together because of our love for
her and our willingness to accept.
The amount
of times that the judgment of her character has come into account are
countless. Whether overtly or secretly whispered.
For it is
divine intervention that I met Juliana and I saw her struggles and
was given a voice to speak them. Whether it is a life guard at a pool
telling her that she cannot swim or en education system that
constantly doubts her or the children that point and whisper to their
mothers as their mothers shoo them away—the judgment and criticism
is prominently there.
It is not
Juliana's fault that she is judged. It's ours.
If it is
our judgment that is Juliana's enemy; why can't we stop? Judgment is
a powerful drug— one in which a person can administer and hide
behind with ease. This judgment has been considered a helpful tool,
it even makes people feel safer.
When
making this argument I realize that it is important to acknowledge
that I fully understand the other side of the issue. Who would I be
if I had never judged anyone before? I will fully admit to using my
judgment towards someone when I am feeling uncomfortable or
unfamiliar. I still don't deny judgment being like a drug though.
Something to hide behind, instead of abolishing and facing full on.
I have
then by means of speech shown you the life of a little girl; I have
observed and set up metaphor at the beginning of the speech and I
have tried to end her injustice at the price of judgment. I wished to
write a speech that would make Juliana and myself proud. Thank you.
Natassja HaynesDue: October 7, 2014
Rough Draft
Rhetoric
Virgin
When
taking this class, the idea of rhetoric was foreign to me. After
learning the definition, I realized I knew all along what rhetoric
was. It seems that the ways of rhetoric aren't foreign but are more
undefined to me. The imitatios assignment's purpose was
to help people understand the techniques that ancient rhetors used
and apply those techniques to an everyday topic. It was my initial
intent to copy the style of Gorgias, who was famous for improvising
his arguments. This was a very intimidating aspect when I sat down to
figure out how to approach improvising an argument. How would I
improvise an argument, using the technique of someone who was foreign
to me before this semester? I instead settled on imitating a Gorgias
speech titled the Econium of Helen.
The
imitatios assignment was written purposefully vague—to see
how students would approach the matter. Like many, I wasn't sure how
closely to follow the speech that I picked. After much deliberation,
I decided that I would closely follow phrasing that I liked. For
other situations where the phrasing wasn't as optimal within Gorgias'
speech I would follow the general constructs and tone.
More
specifically, I copied the sentence structure of the first and last
paragraphs because they were very strongly and powerfully worded. I
saw that within the first paragraph, Gorgias used the device of
alliteration. I read that part of his speech out loud and it rolled
off of my tongue and sounded good to my ears. I realized that this
would a great way to get an audience hooked into the speech. I also
realized that Gorgias would switch between speaking to the macro-side
and then to the micro- side. Initially he would address the city and
then he would address individual’s souls. When writing my speech, I
imitated that method of speech. I copied the use of alliteration and
addressing the audience on both a macro and micro level.
For the
last paragraph of Gorgias' speech he summed up what he said and then
said that he hoped that he had spoken a speech that both he and Helen
would be proud of. I ended up taking the same approach because I
thought that this played to the the emotional side of the audience or
the pathos. It is important to use the rhetorical device of pathos
because that is what gives a speech the soul. Sections that include
pathos are the sections that I am most interested because those are
the sections where it seems like the rhetor is most passionate about
their speech.
I could
see how the first paragraph played to general ideas or commonplaces
of the audience and how the last paragraph played to the speakers
pathos. In terms of the generalities that I followed, Gorgias used
the story of Helen as a commonplace to the audience to speak to the
power of language. It was important to me to find a personal story
that related to judgment—one that didn't have any preconceptions.
It was my choice to not choose a specific story that was well known
to everyone. Instead I chose a story where the essence of the story
was something that an audience would be well aware of.
There
would be no way for people to know this, but the little girl in the
speech with Down Syndrome is my sister. I made the choice to not
divulge that information about myself because I thought it is
something that may take away from my credibility or ethos instead of
add to it. I thought that having that story be personal to me would
make me deliver the speech better. Yet, I was worried that if the
audience were to know my connection they would think me irrational
about my point of view.
When doing
the imitatios assignment the hardest part I had was trying to figure
out how the audience would react and then writing my speech around
that. I don't think I have ever been that deliberate towards audience
reactions. This plays back to what the class first learned—kairos.
When I had to write this speech in the shoes of a rhetor—I felt
hyper aware of audience reaction because I felt like that is what
these ancient speeches were mainly based off of. It was an intense
process for me to go through and analyze audience reaction for every
single portion of my speech. Knowing that I may be wrong was also
what was alarming. The way I overcame my struggle of interpreting
audience reaction was by writing out all of my intentions per section
in a separate notebook as I went. Later when I was attempting to
memorize my speech I had something that looked like an actors prompt
book with me to help memorize line delivery.
I believe
that having something similar to an actors prompt book to use in
class would really help students with their intentions when
delivering their speech. Just as intentional rhetors are about the
rhetorical devices they use when delivering their speeches to an
audience—actors are very intentional about how they deliver their
lines to an audience. Actors have developed a method where they will
have their scripts and then they will have three separate columns
that tell them a few more piece of information about delivery. The
first column is labeled blocking—blocking
is where an actor will physically move. The second column is labeled
beats—beats and beat
changes are literally defined as a unit of action or a change in
action. In simpler terms this means that an actor will keep acting
with the same motives (beat) until something happens (a beat change)
and then the actors motives have changed even if their objective has
not. The thirds column is labeled tactics. Tactics are the ways in
which an actor will deliver their line. This will normally include
just a one word reminder called a visceral verb.
I
was thinking that this prompt book could be inducted into class after
the students have written their speech. Instead of the tactics
section consisting of visceral verbs—it could instead include the
types of rhetorical devices used. Again, I believe that this would
help with speeches becoming more intentional—I feel like mine
became more intentional as I wrote down my intentions.
Although,
I ended up using a method that was relevant to me and the ways that I
act. It is hard for me to imagine a rhetor not writing any of their
speech down and not being as intentional as I was through paper.
There is no doubt in my mind that the ancient rhetors were
intentional. It just amazes me that they were intentional without
using the tools that I did.
This
assignment in general gave me a lesson on the value of intentions. I
don't think I have ever written anything so intentionally. I realize
how important it is to pay attention to detail. Particularly to the
kairos-side of written works. I also realize that I can use the
methods on which I act in a rhetorical setting and encourage that
method for all who struggle with this assignment.
The
Econium of Helen
The
order proper to a city is being well-manned; to a body, beauty; to a
soul, wisdom; to a deed, excellence; and to a discourse, truth--and
the opposites of these are disorder. And the praiseworthy man and
woman and discourse and work and city-state and deed one must honor
with praise, while one must assign blame to the unworthy--for it is
equal error and ignorance to blame the praiseworthy and to praise the
blameworthy.
(2)
It being required of the same man both to speak straight and to
refute [crooked speech, one should refute] those blaming Helen, a
woman concerning whom the testimony of those who are called poets has
become univocal and unanimous--likewise the repute of her name, which
has become a byword for calamities. And by bestowing some rationality
on the discourse, I myself wish to absolve this ill-reputed woman
from responsibility, and to show that those who blame her are
lying--and, having shown the truth, to put an end to ignorance.
(3)
It is not unclear, not even to a few, that the woman who is the
subject of this discourse was the foremost of the foremost men and
women, by nature and by birth. For it is clear that her mother was
Leda and her father was in fact the god, but said to be mortal,
Tyndareus and Zeus--of whom the one, by being, seemed, while the
other, by speech, was disproved--and the one was the mightiest of men
while the other was tyrant over all.
(4)
Born of such parentage, she had godlike beauty, which having received
she not inconspicuously retained. She produced the greatest erotic
desires in most men. For one body many bodies of men came together,
men greatly purposing great things, of whom some possessed great
wealth, some the glory of ancient and noble lineage, some the vigor
of personal strength, and others the power of acquired cleverness.
And they were all there together out of contentious love and
unconquerable ambition.
(5)
Who it was, then, who fulfilled the love by gaining Helen, and the
means and manner of it, I shall not say; for to tell knowing people
things they know supplies corroboration but does not convey
enjoyment. Having now finished the first section, I shall advance to
the beginning of the next section, and I shall set out the causes
through which Helen's journey to Troy was likely to come about.
(6)
Either by the wishes of Fortune and plans of the gods and decrees of
Necessity she did what she did, or abducted by force, or persuaded by
speeches, <or conquered by Love>. Now in the first case, the
responsible party deserves the responsibility. For the will of a god
cannot be hindered by human forethought. For it is not natural for
the superior to be hindered by the inferior, but for the inferior to
be ruled and led by the superior--for the superior to lead and the
inferior to follow. And a god is superior to a human being in force,
intelligence, etcetera. Accordingly, if one must attribute
responsibility to Fortune and the god, one must acquit Helen of
infamy.
(7)
But if she was abducted by force, unlawfully constrained and unjustly
victimized, it is clear on the one hand that the abductor, as
victimizer, committed injustice--and on the other hand that the
abductee, as victim, met with mishap. Accordingly the barbarian
assailant deserves to meet with barbarous assault, by speech and
custom and deed--deserves to be blamed in speech, dishonored by
custom, and penalized indeed. She who was forced and bereft of
fatherland and orphaned of friends--how is she not to be pitied
rather than reviled? For he did terrible things; she was the victim;
it is accordingly fair to pity her and hate him.
(8)
And if persuasive discourse deceived her soul, it is not on that
account difficult to defend her and absolve her of responsibility,
thus: discourse is a great potentate, which by the smallest and most
secret body accomplishes the most divine works; for it can stop fear
and assuage pain and produce joy and make mercy abound. And I shall
show that these things are so: (9)
explanation to the audience, by means of opinion, is required.
Discourse having meter I suppose and name (in the general sense) to
be poetry. Fearful shuddering and tearful pity and sorrowful longing
come upon those who hear it, and the soul experiences a peculiar
feeling, on account of the words, at the good and bad fortunes of
other people's affairs and bodies. But come, let me proceed from one
section to another.
(10)
By means of words, inspired incantations serve as bringers-on of
pleasure and takers-off of pain. For the incantation's power,
communicating with the soul's opinion, enchants and persuades and
changes it, by trickery. Two distinct methods of trickery and magic
are to be found: errors of soul, and deceptions of opinion.
(11)
Those who have persuaded and do persuade anyone about anything are
shapers of lying discourse. For if all people possessed memory
concerning all things past, and awareness of all things present, and
foreknowledge of all things to come, discourse would not be similarly
similar; hence it is not now easy to remember the past or consider
the present or foretell the future; so that most people on most
subjects furnish themselves with opinion as advisor to the soul. But
opinion, being slippery and unsteady, surrounds those who rely on it
with slippery and unsteady successes.
(12)
Accordingly what cause hinders Helen ... praise-hymn came ...
similarly would ... not being young ... just as if ... means of
forcing ... force was abducted. For the mind of Persuasion was able
... and even if necessity ... the form will have ... it has the same
power. For discourse was the persuader of the soul, which it
persuaded and compelled to believe the things that were said and to
agree to the things that were done. He who persuaded (as constrainer)
did wrong; while she who was persuaded (as one constrained by means
of the discourse) is wrongly blamed.
(13)
Persuasion belonging to discourse shapes the soul at will: witness,
first, the discourses of the astronomers, who by setting aside one
opinion and building up another in its stead make incredible and
obscure things apparent to the eyes of opinion; second, the necessary
debates in which one discourse, artfully written but not truthfully
meant, delights and persuades a numerous crowd; and third, the
competing arguments of the philosophers, in which speed of thought is
shown off, as it renders changeable the credibility of an opinion.
(14)
The power of discourse stands in the same relation to the soul's
organization as the pharmacopoeia does to the physiology of bodies.
For just as different drugs draw off different humors from the body,
and some put an end to disease and others to life, so too of
discourses: some give pain, others delight, others terrify, others
rouse the hearers to courage, and yet others by a certain vile
persuasion drug and trick the soul.
(15)
It has been said that if she was persuaded by discourse, she did no
wrong but rather was unfortunate; I proceed to the fourth cause in a
fourth section. If it was love that brought all these things to pass,
she escapes without difficulty from the blame for the sin alleged to
have taken place. For the things we see do not have whatever nature
we will, but rather that which befalls each. The soul receives an
impression in its own ways through the sight.
(16)
For example, whenever hostile bodies put on their bronze and iron
war-gear of ward and defense against enemies, if the visual sense
beholds this, it is troubled and it troubles the soul, so that often
panic-stricken men flee future danger <as if it were> present.
For the strong habitual force of law is banished because of the fear
prompted by the sight, which makes one heedless both of what is
judged by custom to be admirable, and of the good that comes about by
victory.
(17)
Some who have seen dreadful things have lost their presence of mind
in the present time; thus fear extinguishes and drives out
understanding. And many fall into useless troubles and terrible
diseases and incurable dementias; thus sight engraves in the mind
images of things seen. And the frightening ones, many of them,
remain; and those that remain are just like things said.
(18)
But truly whenever the painters perfectly complete one body and
figure from many colors and bodies, they delight the sight; and the
making of statues and production of figurines furnishes a pleasant
sight to the eyes. Thus it is in the nature of the visual sense to
long for some things and for other things to give it pain. And in
many there is produced much love and desire for many things and
bodies.
(19)
Accordingly, if Helen's eye, taking pleasure in Alexander's body,
transmitted to her soul the eagerness and struggle of Love, is it any
wonder? If Love, <being> a god, <has> the divine power of
gods, how could the weaker being have the power to reject this and to
ward it off? But if it is a human disease and an error of the soul,
it ought not to be blamed as a sin but ought rather to be accounted a
misfortune. For she went, as she started out, in the clutches of
fortune, not by plans of the mind; and by the constraints of love,
not the preparations of art.
(20)
How then is it necessary to regard as just the blame of Helen, who
either passionately in love or persuaded by discourse or abducted by
force or constrained by divine constraints did the things she did,
escaping responsibility every way?
(21)
By this discourse I have removed infamy from a woman; I have
continued in the mode I established at the beginning. I tried to put
an end to the injustice of blame and ignorance of opinion; I wanted
to write the discourse, Helen's encomium and my
plaything.
Brian Donovan's copyright notice
Brian Donovan's copyright notice
Translation
©1999 by Brian R. Donovan. This translation is offered by the
translator (a Professor of English at Bemidji State University) for
the free and unrestricted use of students, teachers, and scholars
everywhere, consistent with academic integrity. The translation may
be non-commercially reproduced in full in any format, provided that
such reproduction includes this copyright notice. Quotations from
this translation should be accompanied by due acknowledgment of their
source. Commercial publishers wishing to make use of this translation
should contact the translator.
Translator's Note
The
source text is that of H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker, 6th ed., vol. 2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1952, rpt. Dublin
1966), as reproduced on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD ROM #D
(compilation ©1992 by the Regents of the University of California).
Other available translations are those by George Kennedy, in Rosamond
Kent Sprague (ed.) The Older Sophists (Columbia: U. of South Carolina
P., 1972, rpt. 1990), and by Kathleen Freeman in her Ancilla to the
Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1948).
I
have made no attempt here to reproduce or imitate the obtrusively
artful and paronomastic style of the original, as Kennedy did;
rather, my focus has been on reproducing literal meaning. Where the
literal meaning of this translation differs from Kennedy's
translation and/or Freeman's, I would suggest that all three versions
represent valid optional interpretations.
Notable
among my departures from the lead of Kennedy and Freeman are my
division of the discourse into five Roman-numbered sections, and my
fragmented rendition (in italics) of the first half of
Arabic-numbered section 12. All but the last of the Roman-numbered
sections are explicitly identified as distinct sections, in my view,
by the original's use of the term logos, which in these instances I
have translated "section"; and the last seems obviously
enough a distinct peroration or coda. As to the first half of
Arabic-numbered section 12, which Diels/Kranz aptly describes as
"heillos verderbt," I have opted for the admittedly
peculiar procedure of "translating" the unemended original
mess, partly because Freeman and Kennedy had already gone the other
way, translating from the emended Greek version suggested in the
Diels/Kranz apparatus. This was thus the road less traveled.
