Plato declared that “rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” In this quote, we gather that persuasion is not a structured formula but a dynamic and nimble art. While many USP students believe that logical appeal is the predominant persuasion technique, Gorgias’ “Defense of Palamedes” successfully demonstrated that emotional and ethical appeals can be equally convincing if they are employed at the opportune moment. This paper argues that Palamedes actively manipulates his kairos, or timely and situational moments, which compelled him to deliver his ethic and pathetic appeals effectively. As a result, these appeals establish credibility in Palamedes, create emotional distress in the Jury and ultimately absolve Palamedes from his treason charges.
Palamedes tactfully constructs his kairotic context of urgency in order to deliver his virtuous past record. In effect, this acts as a basis for him to substantiate his moral authority in his subsequent self-defence. For example, in paragraph 10 of “Palamedes”, he argues that the trial obliges “the accused” to put forward his credentials that “I must now speak...” The word “must” and “now” indicate the pressing necessity of situation that forces Palamedes to tout his credibility as a defendant there and then. In addition, he stresses that his ostentatious self-praise is “under the compulsion of self-defense.” Hence, Palamedes highlights once more the involuntary nature of such obligation while insinuating Palamedes as otherwise a humble citizen. As a result, Palamedes provides an understandable justification for his motive prior to his ethical appeal through his self-constructed kairos. Following which, Palamedes proceeds to exhaustively list out his seventeen impressive deeds including, inventions (tactics, law, letter), contributions (obedient, active in war) and characters (considerate, merciful). This establishes trustworthiness in Palamedes to defend his innocence. It also evokes readers’ sense of moral consistency and psychological dissonance that the righteous Palamedes they know could be falsely accused. In fact, Palamedes explicitly uses those deeds to emphasize that since his past has been “blameless”, it is then highly improbable that he could commit the treasonous act. By setting up the binding kairotic condition for Palamedes to talk about his own virtues, he implores the jury that it is impossible for him to betray Athens. In addition, Palamedes emotionally threatens the jury with guilt and fear in event that he is wrongly executed and hints the jury to consider such potential fallout. Palamedes establishes his kairos by stating that time only moves in the direction of future. Indeed, “things can be righted by forethought but are irrevocable by afterthought.” This is yet another compulsion by time but accentuates the importance for the jury to take time to do his due diligence and not haste for a judicial conclusion. In fact, Palamedes even urges the jury to “await the passage of time” by delaying judgement while demanding greater evidence from Odysseus so that the Jury’s decision is passed with “truth”. The timing implies that any sentence now is hasty, ill-conceived and unjustified. Once again, Palamedes sets up his kairos such that it is necessary for him to talk about the disastrous ramifications which are infused with his emotional appeal. Palamedes goes on to suggest that the jury could face “great risk of a reputation for injustice,” which highlights the high probability of reputational backlash if the judgement is wrong. “There could be no greater crime” refers to the exaggerated sense of guilt, notoriety and wrath directed at the jury’s conscious. In addition, Palamedes metaphorically described that “the issue is in your hands.” The singular “your” symbolizes the jury’s physical control over the court’s ruling in which he and only he alone will be responsible for all consequences. Through the process, Palamedes arouses emotional uncertainty, isolation and fear in the jury and agitates him to err on the side of caution so that Palamedes would not be convicted.
Yet at the peak of Palamedes’ emotional appeal, he concludes abruptly. I believe this reflects Palamedes’ adroit control over the kairos and self-restraint on his part to prevent his rhetoric from developing into an outright juridical insult. Equally important, Palamedes thoughtfully avoids summarizing his salient arguments in the name that “summary of a long speech is worthwhile…to inferiors.” The quote suggests that recapping arguments in the jury’s setting is degrading and “un-called for” or unwarranted. Yet again, Palamedes sets such a kairos for himself so as to bind him to stop his speech as if he has no other choice. There is a subtle but hidden intention. Palamedes’ sudden conclusion allows the momentum of his prior emotional appeal to timely linger in the jury’s mind. Palamedes cleverly complicates the case to his advantage by showing that more is at stake than his punishment. It convinces the jury to lend a thought to the negative outcomes. At the very least, Palamedes’ emotional appeal blunts any impulsive decision from the jury by illustrating and stirring the dire consequences of such action. Despite our infallible sense of independence, rationality and logic, our infirmity to the sways of rhetorical force is all too real. Logic is not the only persuasive tool. With just two paragraphs, Palamedes has cleverly demonstrated his effective ethos and pathos appeals within appropriate time and space. In all three cases, Palamedes consistently organizes his appeals as a compulsion of situation. This lends him validity, continuity and appropriateness in delivering those appeals. Indeed, the moment we agree to Palamedes’ well-crafted kairotic context, we are unknowingly led through his carefully structured speech and conclude that he is either innocent or untimely for execution. Palamedes’ rhetorical prowess warrants USP students to understand rhetoric beyond mere logical persuasion so that our minds will not be ruled amenable by master rhetoricians such as Gorgias, Plato and the likes.