Upload
herodoteanfan
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 1/52
Loyola University Chicago
Loyola eCommons
Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations
1939
Sophists and Sophistry in Plato Jeremiah J. O'Callaghan Loyola University Chicago
Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Master's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].
Tis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Aribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 1939 Jeremiah J. O'Callaghan
Recommended CitationO'Callaghan, Jeremiah J., "Sophists and Sophistry in Plato" (1939). Master's Teses. Paper 671.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/671
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 2/52
SOPHISTS AND SOPHISTRY IN PLATO
BY
JEREMIAH J. 0 'CALLAGHAN, S. J.
A TIIESIS
SUJ31IITTED TO THE G I U ~ D U . \ T E "B,ACULTY
OF LOYOIJ.L . UNIV:.i;HSITY, CHICAGO
IN PARTIAL F l J L F I L L M . i ~ . N T OF rrHE
R E C ~ U I R T ; ] · : . E ~ ' ~ T S FOR THE DEGICE OF
JUNE, 1939
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 3/52
T ~ - - ; . B L E OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I . A JUSTIFIC .>.TION OF THE J?ROSOPOGRAPHIC AP:FROACH
I I .
I I I .
IV.
v.
TO THE PLATONIC DIALOGUESPurpose of ThesisContribution
0 • • • • • • • • • •
Method of Procedure
'RESUiviB.: OF 'Y.dE RI3E OF THE SOPHISTS • •Philosophical and Pol i t ical BackgroundNegative ApproachPositive Arproach
. . .PROT)J..GORitS • • • • • • • • • • •
From an Exoteric Point of ViewFrom an Esoteric Point of ViewPositive Merits
• • • • 0 • •
As a Typical SophistPlato 's Str icturesSummary View
G O R G L ~ S o • • • • • •
Gracious TreatmentThe RhetoricianThe SophistHis ApologySurm:nary View
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
FRODICUS • • • • •Rhetorician r ~ l u sPraise
• • • • 0 • 0 • • • • • • •
Censure
Summary View
Page
1
5
9
17
24
VI. HIPPD\.S ••••••••••• o •••• o ••• 31Hostile TreatmentThe Typical SophistRange of His KnowledgeVanitySummary View
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 4/52
..
Chapter
VII . FLiTO 1 S CP.ITICISM OF SOPHISTRY .ri.3 A ' ~ U " ' ' " S I -
PHILOSOPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.i1.S a Philosophy in the Str ic t SenseAs a Philosophy of Life
• • • •
1->.PPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Objectivity of }la to ' s Por t ra i tCriter ia for Historical Evidence
BIBLIOGHAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Page
40
45
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 5/52
Chapter I .
A Just i f icat ion of the Prosopographic Appraach to the
Platonic Dialogues.
The purpose of th is thesis has been part ial ly expressed
a scholar of another century in these words, "veterum
populorum meditandis, ad ant iqui tat is , u t i ta dicam,
penetrare."1 More explic i t ly , i t intends revealing
e mind of Plato in regard to four Sophists, Protogoras, Gor-
Prodicus, and Hippias; his descriptive crit icism of
philosophy, and his cri t icism of Sophistry as a quasi-
Though the Sophists are frequently studied as
this study will inquire into their philosophy
in so fa r as it i s embodied in the man. I t is important
note, as a special character is t ic of th is thesis , that i t s
of information wil l be the dialogues of Plato; any
concerning these men which may have been derived from
sources or authors wil l resolutely be put aside.
Two defini te and outstanding gains should be made by such
study. In the f i r s t place, the Sophists, as men who have
a vivid path in history, are in terest ing and even
people. Men disagree as to what we should cal l
teachers, journal is ts , mountebanks, apostles of l ibera l
i t will be in terest ing to see them, "non
nobis, posteris suis , videri voluerunt, sed quales
aequalium existimatori vis i sunt, velut i in scenam
prodeuntes."3 Secondly, to those who are interested
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 6/52
2
in the world of Plato, this study wil l have the special ad
vantage of enlarging the i r view of the Platonic world and i t s
problems. Just as we should l ike to vis i t the places where
Plato and his companions held forth in disputation, roam the
hallowed grounds of the academy, and drink in the environment
that fed the mind of Plato, so we should l ike to be able to
read the dialogues of Plato, co-thinkers with Plato, in so far
as this i s possible. This study should enable us to come a
l i t t l e closer to Plato 's mind, for we wil l be able to think of
some of his fr iends and enemies as he thought of them.
The question natural ly arises , in how far does Plato
paint adcurate character portra i ts , and how close can we come
to Plato 's mind? The answers to both of these questions are
disputed. Grote, Sidgwick, Zeller , Burnett, and Shorey dis
agree among themselves.4 As Shorey points out, a look a t
Diels 's Fragmenten der Vorsokratiker shows that most of our
knowledge of the Sophists is derived from Plato 's dramatic
pictures of their conversations with Socrates. Since Plato 's
word-pictures of the Sophists are heavily colored with sat i re ,
i t i s diff icu l t to t e l l when we are seeing the true characters
of the Sophists in question, and when we are reading Plato 's
honest estimate of the i r character. This much, however, seems
c l e a ~ ; i t seems much more natural , and much more in harmony wit
Pla to ' s t ru thful character, to argue that he painted his
characters as he real ly saw them. In other words, even i f we
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 7/52
3
are gett ing only Plato 's view of these men, and, consequently,
possibly a prejudiced view, a t leas t we do see them as Plato
saw them. Further, we should bear in mind that the point of
this thesis is not purely objective, that i s , i t does not
attempt precisely to determine the subjects ' characters as
they actual ly were, but rather the i r characters as they were
imaged in the mind of Plato . In l ine of importance, then, i t
seeks primarily to learn more about Plato, secondarily to
learn more about the Sophists.
The method of inquiry is very simple. Firs t the Sophists
are introduced; we are told who they were and how the i r type
happened on the fifth-cdntury Greek scene. Then we are given
Plato 's vignettes of Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias.
Finally, the thesis is summarized with a review of Plato 's
cri t icism of Sophistry as a quasi-philosophy.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 8/52
1.
2.
Notes to Chapter I .
Van Prinsterer, Platonica P r o s o p o g r a ~ h i a , p.2.
Zeller, Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 91; Jackson,
Encyclopedia Brit tanica, ar t . "Sophists", p. 420; Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, ch. on Sophists; L e c l ~ r e , La PhilosophieGracque Avant Socrate, p. 111; Shorey, Vfuat Plato Said,pp. 14-15.
Van prins terer , loc. c i t .- - -There are pointed bibliographical comments on Sophisticl i terature in Henry Jackson's excellent ar t ic le in theBrit tanica on the Sophists; in Shorey, loc. c i t . ; and inLeclere, ~ · c i t . , pp. 125-126. - - - - - -
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 9/52
5
Chapter I I .
t
A Resume of the Rise of the Sophists.
From the beginning of the f i f th century, there began to
prevai l among the Greeks certain views the dissemination of
which af ter some decades wrought an important change in the
manner of thought of the cultured circles and in the tendency
of scient if ic l i f e . These views were the legitimate offspring
of a cr i s i s in philosophy. The materialism of the Atomists,
the idealism of the Eleat ics, and the doctrine of universql
change, which was a tenet of the School of Heracl i tus--al l
these tendencies resulted in a condition of unrest, out of
which philosophy could not advance to a more sat isfactory s ta te
unt i l an enquiry was made into the problem of the value of
knowledge. This rest lessness of sp i r i t , however, must also
be attr ibuted to the general development of Greek national
l i f e . The greater and more rapid was the progress of universal
culture since the Persian War in the whole of Hellas, and above
a l l in Athens, which was now the center of i t s in te l lec tua l and
pol i t ica l l i fe , the more did the necessity of a special prep
arat ion for pol i t ica l act ivi ty assert i t s e l f in regard to those
who desired to dist inguish themselves; the more completely vic
torious democracy gradually se t aside a l l the l imits which
custom and law had hitherto placed to the wil l of the sover
eign people, and the more br i l l ian t the prospects thus opened
to anyone who could win over the people to himself, the more
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 10/52
valuable and indispensable must have appeared the instruct ion,
by means of which a man could become an orator and popular
leader. This peculiar state of the national l i fe and the
chaotic state of philosophy gave rise to a new class of men,
the Sophists.1
The Sophists did not propose a solution to the Question
of the aptitude of the mind for t ruth and the cr i ter ion of
t ruth and cert i tude. They did focus at tent ion on the problem.
The Sophists may be called the f i r s t sceptics2
and it is be-
cause we have sceptics that we have evolved a system of
epistemology. This might be considered a negative approach to
an understanding of the Sophists. Posit ively, i t was the Sophists
who announced themselves ready to rain men for eminence in
private and civi l l i fe .3
Various Sophists used various means
to achieve this end. Some, l ike Protagoras, used grammar,
style, poetry and oratory. This t raining resembled a higher
education supplementing the ordinary t raining in music and
gymnastics with which the older Greeks had contented themselves.
Other Sophists l ike Hippias of Elis , widened the range of
instruct ion, including scient i f ic and techinical subjects, but
handling them, and teaching their pupils to handle them in a
popular way. Gorgias of Leontini brought the Sophists a new
tool from Sicily, where the technical study of rhetor ic-
especially forensic rhetor ic-- had reached a degree of prefec
t ion. The teaching of the Sophists had posit ive merit; i t re-
cognized
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 11/52
.and to some extent undertook to supply the demands of a l ibera l
7
l i terary education. I t i s also reasonable to assume that the
program of the Sophists as extended by men l ike Hippias, had
not a l i t t l e to do with the development of that versa t i l i ty
which was so notable an element of the Greek character.
Counterbalancing these merits, the teaching of the Sophists
had one outstanding, regret table defect, i t s indifference to
t ruth.4 We wil l not say that the Sophists were the foes of
t ruth, though some of them did not hesi ta te a t times to sacra-
fice the t ruth to their own ends, but the dialogues of Plato
make i t quite clear that the Sophists were guil ty of shameful
indifference to the t ruth.
I t wil l be suff ic ient for our purposes i f we note two
facts . Firs t , the Sophists, though they did not consti tute
a school of philosophers, were philosophers of a sort , and
were philosophers of the same school in so far as they a l l had
a sceptical at t i tude, refusing to give credence to any philo-
sophical system of their predecessors, and scept ical of pro-
posing any system themselves. Second, they were educators,
supplementing the ordinary Greek education with a higher educat on
in a grand diversi ty of subjects. Plato would natural ly be in
terested in these men who were quasi-philosophers and rea l
educators. 'v've proceed now to a ful ler description of the
Sophists, together with a cri t icism of thei r philosophical te -
nets and thei r pedagogy, as we read of them in the dialogues
of Plato.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 12/52
1.
2.
Notes to Chapter I I .
Cf. Jackson, Encyclopedia Brit tanica, ar t . "Sophists";Shorey, Vfuat Plato Said, pp. 14-15; Zeller, Outlines ofGreek Philosophy, p. 91.
Cf. Turner, History of Philosophr, ch. on Sophists .
Vf. Protagoras, 318.D-319.A.
8
Cf. Protagoras, 331.0, 336.0; Theaetetus, 152.A; Gorgias,459.0; Phaedrus, 26?.A; Greater Hippias, 288.A, 298.B.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 13/52
9
Chapter I I I .
Protagoras
Of the four Sophists to be t reated in th is thesis , the
f i r s t on the scene i s Protagoras, "qui Sophistarum duxit ag
men".1 According to Plato 's Athenian standards Protagoras was
a foreigner, a ci t izen of Abdera. Among the Greek people in
general, whether in Athens or abroad, he was held the wisest
of thei r generation.2
In fact this reputation for wisdom and
his abi l i ty to teach i t to others so captivated the Greek
mind, that the th r i l led Hippocrates did not hesitate to rouse
Socrates from sleep a t early dawn to announce the exciting
news of Protagoras' advent to the ci ty .3
In the narration of
this incident Plato gives us a vivid picture of ~ h e grip tha t
the sophisims of Protagoras had on the Greek mind, and the
consequent reputation for wisdom and cleverness tha t he enjoyed
among the generali ty of the Greeks. Plato, however, did not
subscribe to th is popular opinion. Though he does not say so
in so many words, s t i l l the br i l l i an t Platonic sat i re reveals
his rea l mind. I t is quite clear that Plato i s giving us Pro-
tagoras ' reputation for wisdom as it actual ly flourished among
the Greeks, not as Plato himself would have i t .
The esteem Protagoras enjoyed among the Greeks as a
general run vvas but an echo of the reverence he received from
his own disciples. These men, who were from various ci t ies
and had l e f t whatever calling they had in order to follow him,
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 14/52
10
hung on Protagorast l ips and dogged his footsteps. "He en-
chants them with his voice l ike Opheus, while they follow
where the voice sounds, enchanted."4 In an admirable l i t t l e
passage in the Protagoras, Plato describes these spellbound
disciples when he pictures a scene in which Protagoras is
s trol l ing along while he discourses, with his pupils t ra i l ing
af ter him, eager to be as close to him as possible, yet
cautious l e s t they come to close and coll ide with him should
he make a sudden stop. "As for me," narrates Socrates, "I
was delighted with the admirable care they took not to hinder
Protaros a t any monent by gett ing in front; but whenever
the master turnedabout and those with him, i t was fine to see
the orderly manner in which his t ra in of l i s teners sp l i t up
into two part ies on this side and on that , and reeling round
formed up again each time in his rear most admi.rably." 5 I t
seems that here Plato shows a mild rancor over an adulation
shovm to Protagoras, and an adulation of more modest proportion
than that shown la ter to Plato himself by the humanists of the
I tal ian Renaisance.
Protagoras was not a ret i r ing genius. He had no mean
estimation of his own gif ts and vms confident of his abi l i ty
to teach others vir tue.6
He l iked to make a display before
people, reveled in their applause, and gave himself ai rs on
the personal attachment shown by his followers.? All of which
leads us to pidture Plato 's Protagoras as a man who had
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 15/52
11
achieved a reputation far beyond his deserts , and one who was
vain of his false repute.
Plato gives some reasons to account for Protagoras ' fame.
8
He t e l l s us that Protagoras was a very clever speaker. Even
Socrates seems to admit Protagoras' mastery of speech. In
fact , though Protagoras i s made to pause at times by Socrates '
questionings, he proves himself an adroi t disputant, seldom
a t a loss for words, and a t times star t l ingly clever.9 So
that there appears to have been some reason why r·rotagoras
yielded to no man in abi l i ty to argue, or in understanding
the interchange of reason.10
Plato merely hints a t the breadt
of Protagoras 's knowledge when he instances his knowledge of
the poets, a knowledge which Protagoras considered of the
greatest importance. 11
In general, however, Protagoras owed h is fame to the fact
that he was a Sophist.12
Plato complains that i t is diff icu l t
to say jus t what a Sophist i s .13 He pictures him as "a sor t
of merchant or dealer in provisions on which the soul is
nourished, hawking them about to any odd purchaser who may
desire them."14 Though Protagoras knew that there were many
who blushed to admit that theywere Sophists and t r ied to oon-
ceal the fact by various subterfuges, 13 he himself enlarges
complacently on his own frank practice of openly avowing his
possibly invidious profession, even being the f i r s t to chrage
a fee for his services.16
Protagoras seemed to convey to his
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 16/52
12
followers the exalted view he himself had of Sophistry. He
made i t out an ancient ar t , and many famous men he claimed
were Sophists, e .g . , Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides.17
Some of
his followers came to him with the intention of becoming pro-
fessional Sophists, others came for a more generic education;
they watned to become clever speakers, quick ra ther than deep. 1
Protagoras claimed that he could teach them what they wanted.
He said tha t he improved both the old and the young through
association with himself. He thought that among a l l the Sophis s
he alone had the correct method--he did not teach his followers
arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music, but "good judgment
in the i r own affar is , showing a man how best to order his own
home; and in the affa i rs of the city showing how he may have
most influence on public affa i rs , both in speech and in action. •19
In a word, he taught them to be good ci t izens.
Plato did not concede to Protagoras a l l of the vir tues
with which he considered himself possessed. He admitted he
was clever in speaking, well versed in the subt let ies of argu
mentation. He denied Protagoras' abi l i ty to teach men to be
d i t. 20 . . 1 h d"d t d • t th t . t
oo c 1zens,s1nce 1n genera
e 1no
am1
av1r ue
was teachable. Even as regards his clever-ness a t speech and
argumentation Plato had a blighting word to say. He said
that compared to Prodicus, a t l eas t , Protagoras was not expert
t d . t• . h" d 21 I t• 1 h d"d t t1s 1ngu1s 1ng war s . n par 1cu ar, e 1 no seem o
22distinguish between a discussion and a harangue. In fact
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 17/52
13
Protagoras' prol ixi ty in argumentation was quite a t r a i l to
Plato. "He spins out a lecture on each question--beating off
the arguments, refusing to give a reason, and so dilat ing un
t i l most of the hearers have forgotten the point a t issue.n 23
Protagoras' long-winded answers, evasive repl ies , and childish
vanity jarred the smooth, polished, philosophic mind of Plato.
Yet, since he knew that Protagoras was resentful i f his ig
norance was manifested, Plato had to feed his vanity i f the
discussion was to be continued.24 He realized that Protagoras
was too vain to care much for the ideas of others; a defect he
manifested when he patronishingly approved Socrates ' zeal in
argumentation, declaring that he himself was neither i l l -
natured nor envious.25
Finally, Protagoras showed a certain levity of mind in the
way in which he boasted that he did not even bother to consider
whether the gods existed or not, excluding them from a l l dis
cussion, oral or \vritten.26
There was not much room for the
gods in Protagoras's scheme of l i f e , for man was for him the
measure of a l l things.27
This was a less blatant way of saying
that for Protagoras, Protagoras was the measure of a l l things.The existence of the gods would only complicate the case.
The Frotagoras which Flato portarys for us, then, i s on
the other hand a thoroughly talented man, versed in many
branches of learning, clever a t discourseand argumentation,
and with a certain charm of manner. On the other hand Pro-
toagoras
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 18/52
14
had the defects of a Sophist, a levi ty and t r ickery of the min
and a lack of prolonged ser ious purpose, combined with a
scarcely pardonable vanity. This is the Protagoras which the
f if th-century mind of Plato reveals to us.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 19/52
Notes to Chapter I I I .
1. Platonica Prosopographia, p. 79.
2. Protagoras, 309.D; Theaetetus, 160.D; Meno, 91.E.
3. Protagoras ·309 .E.
4• Protagoras, 315.A.
5· Protagoras, 314.E - 315.A; cf. Republic, 6oO.B.
6. Protagoras, 316.D.
l-5
7• Cf., Protagoras, 317.C, 320.C, 328.B; Theaetetus, 179.A.
8. Protagoras, 310.E, 320.D, 328.D; Phaedrus, 267.c.
9. Protagoras, 350.c, 339.E.
10. Protagoras, 336.c.
11. Protagoras, 339.A, 352.D.
12. Protagoras, 3ll .E.
13. Protagoras, 312.D.
14. Protagoras, 313.C, D.
15. Protagoras, 312.A.
16. Protagoras, 316.B, 328.B.
17. Protagoras, 316.c, D, E.
18. Protagoras,. 315.A, 312.B, D.
19. Protagoras,318.D - 319.A.
20. Protagoras, 3lO.D, 319.B.
21. Protagoras, 341.A.
22. Protagoras, 336.A.
23. Protagoras, 336.c.
24. Protagoras, 329.C.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 20/52
16
£5. Protagoras, 361.E.
26. Theaetetus, 162. E.
27. Theaetetus, 152. A, et passim.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 21/52
17
Chapter IV.
Gorgias
Our dramatist gives Gorgias of Leontini a much more
gracious entrance than that accorded to Protagoras. As pro
fessor Shorey points out, "The discussion with Gorgias is
conducted in terms of s t r i c t courtesy. Instead of the con
troversy in the Protagoras, a studiously poli te and cautious
appeal from Socrates induces Gorgias to substi tute the method
of brief question and answer, in which he also claims to ex
cel l , for the long speeches to which he i s more accustomed."l
Gorgias appears to have been amiable and fr iendly, and in
pleasant contrast to the quick-tempered Polus he i s wise and
gentlemanly. He shows consideration for his l is teners , l e s t
the conversation prove tedious to them, and for his fellow
isputants he plays the part of the mild-mannered peacemaker,
the o il of tact on the turbulent waters of the dis-
. 2c u s s ~ o n .
Generally when Plato speaks of Gorgias he refers to his
as a rhetorician. This is Gorgias' t i t l e to fame, and
f this t i t l e he enjoys a master 's pride. He boasts that he
s not only a rhetorician, but a good rhetorician as such he
be addressed. Plato has Prodicus, no mean rhetorician
t e l l us, "I have often heard Gorgias constantly main
that the a r t of persuasion surpasses a l l others; for th is ,
said, makes a l l things subject to i t se l f , not by force, but
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 22/52
18
bY the i r free wil l , and i t is by far the best of the ar ts ."3
This was too much for Plato, so that he had Socrates parody
Gorgias' sublime notions about rhetoric.4 Evidently Gorgias'
eye was single, and his singlemess of purpose meant being a goo
rhetorician, with the profi ts consequent upon th is achievement.
As a resul t , nearly everything Plato has to t e l l us is some-
thing in reference to Gorgias, the rhetorician par excellence.
Gorgias could regale a crowd with such a feast of words
that they would s i t for hours l i s tening to his lengthy dis-
courses, heavy with Gorgian features and affectat ions. After
such a t rea t the speaker dared to run a question-box, le t t ing
his hearers heckle him with questions on any subject . Such
an invitat ion would undoubtedly bring forth numerous diff icu l t
questions from the ar t fu l Greeks. Nevertheless, Gorgias
maintained that no one had asked him anything new for many
years. This i s really no slur on the ingenuity of the Greeks,
because Gorgias was not noted for any scrupuleousness in
sticking to the point . Rather, his discourse was generally
lengthy and in tr icate enough to lose his ihterragator in a
labyrinth of words, so that his rhetoric served him as a cloak
with which to hide his ignorance of the other ar t s .5
His genious for rhetoric gained for Gorgias both a name
and a l ivelihood. 6 "Gorgias, the Sophist frlDm Leontini,"
recounts Socrates, "came here from home in the public capacity
of envoy, as being best able of a l l the cit izens of Leontini
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 23/52
19
to attend to the interes ts of the community, and i t was the
general opinion that he spoke excellently in the public as-
sembly, and in his prive capacity; by giving exhibitions and
associating with the young, he earned and received a great
deal of money from this ci ty."? Plato t e l l s us that even he
gave the Thessalians, who of old were famous and admired among
the Greeks for the i r r iding and the i r r iches, a name for
wisdom. ttFor this you have to thank Gorgias," he explains,
"for when he came to that ci ty he made the leading men of the
Aleudae and the Thessalians generally enamoured of wisdom.
Nay more, he has given you the regular habit of answering any
chance question in a fearless, magnificent manner, as befi ts
those who know; for he sets the example of offering himself
to be questioned by any Greek who chooses, and on any point
one l i ~ e s , and he has an answer for everybody." 8 He was able,
besides, to e l ic i t from the cautious Socrates himself the en-
viable name of Nestory.9 This is praise from one who was not
t one with Gorgias' views. Even so, Socrates gives credit
here credit is due, and i f he has any faul t to find with
orgias, i t is not because Gorgias is deficient in his chosen
fei ld; on the contrary, he had attained a disastrous proficienc •
Plato has Socrates t e l l us various things about Gorgias
did not l ike or with which he disagreed.10
In general
was a foe of the Sophists, and he frequently puts Gorgias
the i r number. Plato knew that Gorgias insisted tha t
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 24/52
he should not be called a Sophist but ra ther a rhetorician.
Plato dismisses the dist inct ion, "Sophist and orator," he
says, "are the same thing, or very much of a piece.n11
20
Further, Plato denied that Gorgias could make any one a rhetor-
ician. Even i f he should succeed Plato would consider the
pupil to have acquired a very unenviable ta len t . He says
that the rhetorician uses his a r t to mask his ignorance. Just
as a lazy man might use fancy garments to give shape 1 and
comliness to his body, instead of t raining i t by gymnastics,
so the rhetorician cloaks his ignorance with al lur ing figures
of speech, paying no heed to rea l i ty , but only to appearances.
In th is vein he says, "Gorgias saw that probabil i t ies are more
to be esteemed than t ruths; he makes small things seem great
nd grea&tthings small by the power of his words, and new
things old and old things the reverse, and he invented con-
ciseness of speech and measurless length on a l l subjects." 12
though he admits that Gorgias has a more pleasant
of t raining those about him, gorging them with abun-
of nice things of every sor t , s t i l l he is confident
hat only by his own diff icu l t method of a s t r i c t discipl ine
f the Tiind wil l the young men of Athens b ~ made good ci t izens.
while the f lat tery of Gorgias, for so Plato denominates
is rhetoric, wil l bring the applause of the crowd, the
draughts of Socrates ' logic wil l be swallowed with
s t i l l , only the s te rner regimen wil l fashion good
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 25/52
cit izens, imbued with the t ruth and wary of appearances.
Gorgias does not suffer the s t r ic tures of Socrates
without a word in his own defense.13 He wil l not admit that
he is a Sophist unless a dist inct ion i s drawn. He i s not of
the number of those who trap the i r fellovv-s with the snares of
an insidious logic . Nor does he heedlessly promise to teach
21
others vir tue . We read in the Meno: Socrates, "Well, and what
of the Sophists? Do you consider these, wisdoms only professor ,
to be teachers of virtue?" Meno repl ies , "That i s the point,
socrates, for which I a d ~ t r e Gorgias; you vnll never hear him
promising th is , and he r idicules others when he hears them
promise i t . Ski l l in speaking i s what he takes it to be the i r
business to produee.n14 Gorgias purposes to teach men to per-
suade with speeches. Since he maintains that "virtue i s the
power of governing rnanldnd, nl5 he wil l teach virtue incidental
because it wil l be the rhetorician who will have the power of
swaying the minds of his fellow men. Gorgias himself deprecate
the evi l use of rhetoric , but says logically enough that we
should blame the individual person not the a r t .16
His own de-
fense i sweak,
it bogs dovm a ta very
importantpoint, for he d es
not show how in h is own speech his ar t i s but a medium not a
substitute for his thought. This is a weakness which Socrates
made pungently clear, for in the Gorgias, our friend is abashed
when tricked into a contradiction by Socrates ' rhetoric . l7
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 26/52
22
v'fuen we review Plato 's port ra i t of Gorgias we find that he
considered him a poli te , considerate gentleman, ever mindful
of the convenience of his l is teners and the personal feelings
of his opponents in debate. His sk i l l in polished i f flowery
speech is unmatched by the Greeks of his time. In paying
tr ibute to the splendor of Gorgias' speech he does not intend
to say that it was remarkable for content. Rather he censures
Gorgias for the shallowness of his art--point ing out a t the
same time the answer to such censure, "blame the a r t i s t not the
ar t" . He places Gorgias in the damning category of Sophist ,
and wil l not l i s ten to Gorgias' contention that a dist inction
must be drawn between the Sophist and orator . Plato, evidently,
was firmly convinced that the sk i l l which Gorgias had to teach
would only prove an instrument of undoing in the hands of the
.a.thenian youth. In general, Plato 's Gorgias proves to be the
Gorgias of history.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 27/52
z.
6.
8.
Notes to ~ Chapter 2£ Gorgias.
Shorey, ~ m a t Plato Said, p . 134.
Cf. Gorgias, 447.B, C, 461.0, 506.B.
Philebus, 58.A.
Cf. Gorgias, 449.A, C, 448.D, 449.0, 456,A & B.
Cf. Gorgias, 447,A. C, 448,A. 457.E, 458.B, C, 466.B,459.C; Symposium, 198.c.
Apology, 19.E; Theages, 128.A.
Greater Hippias, 282.B
Meno, 70.B
Fhaedrus, 26l.C.
10. Cf. Gorgias, 458.E, 463.A, B, 513.A, 52l.D, E, 522.A;Meno, 73.c, 76.c.
11. Gorgias, 520.A.
12. Phaedrus, 267.A.
13. Cf. Gorgias, 520.A, 452.E, 457.A, B, C, 494.D.
14. ~ ' 95.C.
15. liieno, 73.0.
16. Gorgias, 457.A, B, c.
17. Gorgias, 494.D.
23
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 28/52
Chapter v.
Prodicus
In an exposition of Plato 's portra i t of Frodicus of Ceos
one could easily be guil ty of over-simplif ication. I t is t rue
that by far the greater number of references to Prodicus in the
dialogues have to do with Prodicus the genius for synonyms.
Nevertheless, i t i s possible in a number of instances in the
dialogues to glimpse Prodicus the man. Witness this b i t where-
in Socrates discovers in the Protagoras that Prodicus is among
those present. ~ a y more, Tantalus also did I there behold,
for you know Prodicus of Ceos is in Athens too: he was in a
certain apartment formerly used by Hipponicus as a strong-room,
but now cleard out by Callias to make more space for his
numerous vis i tors , and turned into a guest-chamber. Well,
Prodicus was s t i l l abed, wrapped up in sundry fleeces and rugs,
and plenty of them too, i t seeme.d. ,l A scholar of the early
nineteenth century, comrnenting on this passage, has this obser
vation to make: "Plato cer t de ipsius moribus non honorifice
sensit •••• mollem eum et voluptarium fuisse, idem, neque admo-
dum obscure, indicavit . Porro non sine causa ••• suspicatur
appellations Tantali hominis tangi avarit iam."2
Appealing to
another passage he defends th is l a s t statement: "Nam avarus
profecto fui t , cuius interiores doctrinae recessus nonnisi
grandi soluta pecunia patebant; quamvis, ne sci l ice t ullam quaes us
faciendi rationem omitteret , mediocrem mediocris ins t i tu t ionis
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 29/52
25
mercedem statuebat .n 3 He refers to the following passage in th
Cratylus: "Now i f i had attended Prodicus' fifty-drachma o
course of lectures, af ter which, as he himself says, a man has
complete education on this subject, there would be nothing to
hinder your learning the t ruth about the corrections of names
at once; but I have heard only the one-drachma course, and so
I do not know what the t ruth is about such n:a t t e rs . n4 Vvhether
or not we agree entire ly with the interpretat ion of Plato w h ~ c hwe have given above, i t does seem Plato means us to know that
Prodicus was not of the "daily dozen school". Whether because
of ill health or because of a very human degree of laziness,
Prodicus was one to enjoy a certain physical snugness. And
while we are speaking of the very human side of Prodicus, we
might mention that as Plato describes him he was not altogether
of a sense of humor, or l eas t he had a gentlemans'
knack for smoothing over a rough si tuat ion, for more than once
Plato mentions Prodicus laughing.5
Vve do have to be cautious in saying that Plato would have
us believe that Prodicus was guil ty of avarice. The reference
to Tantalus may well have been a mock serious and mock epicr ~ n n e r of introducing a Sophist who enjoyed a reputation beyond
his deserts . St i l l i t is quite true that Plato was annoyed
that Prodicus should demand a fee for his instructions and he
indicates that Prodicus made no mean prof i t . He te l l s us: "He
received a marvelous sum of money •
his
• • earning more money from
"6
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 30/52
26
plato was piqued a t seeing the young men pay a grateful fee to
prodicus when they could learn from others free of charge.
"He is so wise that he goes to our ci t ies and persuades the
noblest and weatthiest of our young men - - who have the choice
of learning from any cit izen they choose, free of charge - - he
persuades them to abandon that instruction and learn from him,
with a deposit , besides, of a large sum of money as his fee,
and to feel thankful in addit ion."? According to Plato 's mind,
Prodicus' pupils were paying fon something that would do them
more harm than good.
Plato gives us reason to believe that he did not altogethe
disapprove of Prodicus ' teaching, because in a number of places
. 8Socrates is also called the pupil of Prod1cus. I t i s reason-
able to suppose that he would admit Prodicus' dictum, "Firs t
of a l l you have to learn about the correct use of words." 9
This would be a logical point ilif departure in any system of
pedagogy. In the Theaetetus Socrates, the midwife of thought,
te l l s his l i s tener that he did not hesitate to send some pupils
to Prodicus - - pupils who did not seem to respond to the
Socratic method. "But in some cases, Theaetetus, when I see
that they have no need of me, I act with perefect good-will as
a match-maker, and, under God, I guess very successfully with
whom they can associate profi tably, and I have handed over many of
them to Prodicus, and many to other wise men."10
We cannot
imagine Socrates sending any one to a teacher whose methods he
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 31/52
27
repudiated.
I t may be a doubtful compliment, but this much may be said
of Prodicus and his methods, he was a pupular success. In a
private way we note this in the Protagoras where we see that
Prodicus had a circle of his ovvn within the larger group of
Protagoras ' followers. 11 Plato makes mention of a more public
following of Prodicus in a passage in the Greater Hippias.
"Prodicus," he narrates, "often went to other places in a publi
capacity, and the l a s t time, jus t lately when he came here in
a public capacity from Ceos; he gained great reputation by his
speaking before the Council, and in his private capacity, by gi ing
exhibit ions and associating with the young, he received a great
12sum of money.u \!Then we associate with th is a passage from
the Republic, we ascertain Plato 's mind in regard to Prodicus '
success. He t e l l s us: u••• Prodicus of Ceos, and a host of
other persons, can, as we see, persuade the men of thei±ddy by
private intercourse, that they will be incapable of managing
their own houses and c i ty , unless they superintend thei r ed-
ucation; and so ••• the wisdom implied in this assures to
these teachers an affect ion so unbounded, that they are almost
ld . . "13carried about on the shou ers of the1r compan1ons.
Evidently Plato is making mention of a popular triumph of which
he is ut ter ly unenvious, yet it remains in some sense a triumph.
Prodicus was not timid about proclaiming his contributions
to Greek rhetoric. In a discussion concerning the advances mad
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 32/52
28
y various rhetoricians, "Prodicus, when he heard of the i r in
ventions, laughed and said that he alone had discovered the ar t
of proper speech, that discourses should be neither long nor
short, but of reasonable length.n14 When we consider the succes
had in winning over a crowd vre must acknowledge that he
gi f t for clever speech. From what Jlato te l l s us,
i t seems that Prodicus ' reputation rested on his
to dist inguish synonyms. Occasinally Plato seems to be
in his admiration for Frodicus' gi f t , as for instance,
he appeals to Prodicus' label for those who t rained orators
or the law courts, " whom Prodicus described as on the border
between philosoph(flr and pol i t ician."15
As a rule Plato 's
of Prodicus ' genius is t inged with irony. In i l lust rat ior
f th is we may quote a very gem of a passage from the Protagoras
Shorey seems to have preserved i t s savor in the follow
ng version: "The auditors of such a debate ought to be impar-
but not neutral in the i r sentiments. They should l is ten
o both impartially but take the part of the wisers, not the
And I implore you, Socrates and Protagoras, to make
concessions and to contravene but not to controvert. For
is the argument of friends, but controversy i s the
opponents. Thus wil l you, the speakers, receive
but not acclamation from us, since approbation i s
he cr i t i ca l judgment of themdnd, while acclamation may be the
f lat tery of the tongue. And we, your hearers, wil l
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 33/52
29
grat i f icat ion, not delectat ion, for grat i f icat ion is the
delight in learning and delectat ion is the body's
in eat ing."l6 I f , we suppose, Plato ' s :parody smacks
f the rea l Prodicus, it i s easy to understand why, "Prodicus
s supposed to be the cleverest of the Sophists a t dist inguish-
ng terms."
In surmoory, Plato ' s del ineat ion of the Sophist Prodicus
to us a very human character, who enjoyed a t leas t his
of the amenities of th is l i fe ; ateacher who considered
eminently worthy of his hire . Prodicus was a man whose
as a rhetorician were unquestioned by the p.r.ofanum
and whose subtle dist inction of synonyms was the envy
f his fellow subjects and Sophists. The great Socrates called
h is :pupil. His fellow townsmen sent him as an ambassado
o match wits with the wily Athenians. His achievements in his
capacit ies made him a :popular hero. Plato considered
thwa;rted genius, since, according to his mind, Prodicus
t ru th in a maze of dist inct ions.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 34/52
1. Protagoras, 315.C
2. Platonica Frosopographia, Van Prinsterer, p. 89.
3. Ibid.
4• Cratylus, 384.B
5· Cf. Protagoras, 358.B; Phaedrus, 267.B.
6. Greater Hippias, 286.c, D.
7• Theages, 128.A; cf. Apology, 19.E.
30
8. Cf. Cratylus, 384.B; Protagoras, 34l.A; Charmides, 163.D.
9. Euthydemus, 305.c.
10. Theaetetus, 15l.B.
11. Protaeioras 317.E.
12. Greater Hippias, 282,
3. Re;eublic, 600. c.
4. Phaedrus, 267. B.
5. Euthydemus, 305. C.
c'
D.
6. Frotagoras, 337.A; What Plato Said, p . 127.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 35/52
31
Chapter VI.
Hippias
The bi t teres t barbs of Plato 's sat i re are reversed for
of Elis . The very authentici tyof the Hippias dialmgues
questioned, since i t has been maintained that Plato
ould never have writ ten so sa t i r i ca l a dialogue as ei ther
or the Greater Hippias; and certainly not about a
n of such universal i ty of learning and vocation.1
Be that as
t may, the Hippias whom Plato engages in the Protagoras is
on the same l ines , i f not in such defini te proportions,
s the Hippias of the dialogues of tha t name. The few referen-
es we find to him in other dialogues are in harmony with the
we see in the Hippias dialogues; certainly they do not
a picture of a contradictory nature. Besides, the Hippias
are not a mere diatr ibe directed against Hippias; i f
were, we should besurprised to find Plato mentioning so
things for which Hippias has won the admiration and s t i -
the imitation of the moderns.
In some respects Hippias was a typical Sophist. He profess d
o be able to cure the ignorance of those whom he taught, and
that through association with himself men were made better
n vir tue. I t i s character is t ic of Hippias that he should say
2he was by far the best in transmitting virtue to others.
made quite a point of the fact tha t even the virtuous
were in some sense his pupils, though they could not
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 36/52
32
3him the usual fee since foreigh education was taboo. Pro-
hints a t the point of s t ress in Hippias' teaching when
insinuates tha t Hippias erred in requiring of his pupils that
learn ari thmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music. 4 Like a
Sophist , Hippias was careful tha t his charges learn to use
knowledge to the best advantage, so he did not f a i l to see
versed in dialect ics and rhe tor ic . We even find him in -
the redoutable Socrates to become his disciple in order
he might learn i r refutable answers to a l l questions.5
pupils were also taught the social graces, and he
that ,he, the most pol i te of men, could best teach good
6As vvas to be expected of a Sopl;rist, Hippias was not
with his knowledge. He had a high estimation of his
as a teacher and his fees for professional service vms
high. He was proud to say that while other
had made an amazing amount of maney as teachers, he
made more money than any other two Sophists together.7
Like his fellow Sophists, Hippias had a devoted coter ie of
among \\Thorn he had a reputation for profound wisdom.
8
would expound to them on a surprising divers i ty of topics .s fame overspread the bounds of his immediate circ le of admir
rs and carried in i t s wake the noisy devotion of nhoi polloe". 9
cautious Spartans bowed to his wisdom as to a master; no
owed his conquest of these more s to l id Greeks to his
10nimble vvit . The honor which he won from those
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 37/52
33
outside his own ci ty was no greater than tha t which his fellow
citizens rendered to him. Plato himself has Hippias t e l l us
that vvhenever Elis had any business to t ransact with any of
the s ta tes , she always came to Hippias f i r s t of a l l her ci t izens
and chose him as envoy, believing him the ables t judge in
pol i t ica l af fa i r s . He took great pride in the fact tha t the
diJ:'ficul t missions to the suspicious Spartants v1ere consis tent ly
ntrusted to him.11
I f there was any one thing which more than
else would account fo r Hippias' well-nigh universal
it vras his reputation for wide learning.
Vihen vve -consider the range of Hippias ' knowledge as pre-
to us by Plato, it i s l i t t l e wonder tha t among some of
he moderns, uHippias i s celebrated as the representat ivie of
education, universal i ty of culture, manual t ra ining,
not what else" . 12 He wa,s expert in geometry, 13
in calcul&ting;14
he probed the processes of thought,1
the value of l e t t e rs and syl lables and rl;_ythms and har
Great as was his knowledge of these subjects , he ex-
17in the science of astronomy; in this f ie ld he was
thout a peer. In addit ion to being a sc ient is t he was a poet
cr i t i c of the poets. In the Protagoras he commends
exposition of a poem of Simonides and volunteers to
a ready-made, elegant discourse on the same subject . In
he Lesser l i ippias he i s mentioned giving a grandiloquent
on the I l l i ad and Odyssey, even responding accurately
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 38/52
34
to Socrates ' questions about detai ls of the poerns .18 In order
o have a subject of in teres t to the Spartans, he learned by
and pract iced thorouehly the genealogies of men and heroes
n d the foundations of c i t ies and about ant iqui ty in general .1
9
had more than a pract ica l r ~ n ' s knowledge of pol i t ics , for
i n t e l l ec t compassed both p ri vu.. te and p1j.blic aff.::iris.20
in one of such genius we are surprised to find a t a lent for
clothes; yet that i s vrhat we \Jitness in the case of
, · , ~ e are told that once when he vvent to OlympiC:t., eveery-
he had on his person was h is ovm work--his r ing, his seal ,
s t r i g i l and an oi l - f lask . He made his sandals and vmve his
and tunic . Hi·s girdle , which \Vas l ike the Iers ian girdles
f the cos t l ies t kind, and which drew the admiration of a l l ,
21the \i'lork of his own hands. I t i s probably adding l i t t l e
o such a long l i s t of achievements Hhen we say that he had
the t r icky rules of et iquet te .22
His lmovvledge of a l l
subjects was ·the more easi ly grasped and retained due to
is excel lent memory. Once heard he could remember f i f ty names. )3vronder
that in tlie dialogues Hippias is called wise, learned,
he wisest of men in the greates t nu: ,ber of ar t s , so famous for
a l l the Greeks.24 He is even cal led a f inished
man.25 Can we wonder t ha t such a man had a fear less
in h is in te l lec t ; he t e l l s Socrates , "Naturally,
I am in this s ta te : for since I began to contend a t
he Olympic games, I have never yet met any one bet ter than
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 39/52
35
l f. h ' 26 . . .1n anyt 1ng." I t i s 1Ilpplas' overween1ng pride of
nte l lec t which seems to chafe Plato most.
Hippias ' knowledge did not 12e dormant, since he had a t his
c o r . ~ a n d an instrument by which he could turn it to convenient
that i s , he was the master of a sophist ic species of
and rea l oratory. In speaking of rhetoric Socrates
him in the same breath with Protagoras, Gorgias, and
a l l of whom attained a certain e ~ i n e n c e due to the i r
m.Ehiner of speaking. In the. P r o t a g o r a ~ Plato gives us
speech of Hippias in which he descants on the opposition of
and law and is prodigal of synonyms and f lor id imagery.
speaks of an noverprecise, maticuluous, mincing, and logic-
dialect ic" . He cautians Protagoras les t he "sa i l
on the vast sea of eloquence with a l l canvas unfurled".
n argumentation he ins is ted that he was anybody' s match. He
up rather poorly under Socrates ' barrage of ~ u e s t i o n s ,ut th is i s because Socrates is too ins i s ten t on accuracy of
and is too narrovr-minded, seeking only tha t the rea l
might appear. Hippias ' idea of correct argumentation
in manner and in purpose. He was sa t i s f ied i f he was
and with the parry and quick with the "coup de grace".
pruposed befogging the real issue and was oontertt i f his
were convinced of a falsehood undetected. 'ilhen
fears tha t his l i s teners wil l find faul t with one of
is arguments, Hippias i s a t hand to suggest, nperhaps, Socrates
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 40/52
36
things might s l ip past the man unnoticed. n27
Hippias re
his ovm mind in these vvords from the Greater Hip-pias:
But novv, Sd>crates, what do you think a l l this q_uestioning
to? I t i s mere scrapings and shavings of discourses,
s I said a while ago, divided into bi t s ; but that other abi l i ty
s beaut i fu l and of great Vlorth, the abi l i ty to produce a dis-
vvell and beaut i f l ly in a court of law or a council-house
r before any other public body before which the discourse may
delivered, tili convince the audience and to carry off , not
he smallest , but the greatest pr izes, the salvat ion of one
one's property, and one's fr iends. For these things,
one must s t r ive , renouncing these petty arguments,
one may not , by busying oneself , as a t present, with mere
28and nonsense, appear to be a fool." Here he shows
he differed from Plato; he sal l ied forth to verbal
Plato was constrained by the t ru th .29
We glean another character is t ic of our subject from the
in which Hippias i s lured into discussion with i l l -
f l a t t e ry . Hippias is revealed as an affected genius,
esthetein the sense tha t he was a pretender to f ine tas te
d ar t i s t i c culture.30
During the discussion, Hippias remonstr
with Socrates, for his t rained ears are shocked a t Socrates
examples. "Quite r ight , my f r iend," says Socrates, "for
t would not be appropriate for you to be f i l led up with such
you vvho are so beaut i ful ly clad, so beaut i ful ly shod,
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 41/52
37
nd so famous for wisdom among a l l the Greeks.n31
The presence
f others cramped the subtle vrorkings of his mind. "1Jhen he i s
loss fdr an answer to one of Socrates ' questions he says,
I know tha t i f I should go away into soli tude and meditate
by myself, I could t e l l i t to you with the most perfect32
Socrates responds vd tll gibes he has been saving
many passages of the dialogue, "Ah, don' t boast,
t ''
Pla to ' s sketch of the Sophist from Elis has clear out-
"de see Hippias as a man of many ta lents for an amazing
of tasks, both in te l lec tua l and manual. understand
the Greeks considered him the best of the Greeks a t the
number of a r t s , he w ~ s a sc ien t i s t , ar t i s t , poet,
rhetorician, teacher, and man oi' affa i rs . His vanity
s obnoxious, his search fo r t ru th was very l imited in i t s
His manner, in spi te of i t s being affected, won the
"hoi pollo i" . Plato was·bi t ter ly disappointed
one of such ta lents should f r i t t e r them avvay. He expresses
in the l as t l ines of the Lesser H±ppias: "I go
up and davvn, and never hold the same opinion; and tha t I
any ordinary man, go astray i s not surpris ing; but i f you
men likevvise go astray, that i s a te r r ib le thing for us
also, i f even when we have come to you we are not to cease from
33
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 42/52
Notes to Chapter ££ Hippias
. Cf. Shorey, ~ P l a t o Said, pp. 89, 470.
. Cf. Protagoras, 357.E; Greater Hippias, 28).C, 284.A.
Greater Hipptas, 284.C.
Frotagoras, 318.E.
Greater Hippias, 287.A.
. Lesser Hipnias, 364.D.
Cf. Apology, 19.E; Greater Hippias, 281.B, 282.E.
. Cf. Frotagoras, 315.C; Lesser Hinpias, 363.A.
· Greater Hippias, 28l.C; Lesser Hippias, 346.B.
0. Greater Hippias, 284.C.
1. Greater Hippias 128l •.A.
2. Shorey, .Ql?.• c i t . , p. 15.
3. Greater Hi nuias, 285.C; Lesser Hippias, 367.E.
4. Lesser Hippias, )66.D.
5. Greater Hippias, 285.C.
6. " "n
38
7. Protagoras, 315.C; Greater Hippias, 285.C; Lesser Hippias,)68.A.
8. Protagoras, 347.A; Lesser Hippias, 364.E.
9. Greater Hippias, 285.D.
. Greater Hippias, 2an.B.
. Lesser Hippias, 368.B.-
2. Lesser Hippias, 364,D.
3. Greater Hippias, 285 .D, E.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 43/52
24· Cf. P r o t a ~ o r a s , 314.c, 337.C; G r ~ a t e r H i p ~ i a s , 28l.A,283.C, 28 ,E, 29l.A; Lesser H i p p ~ a s , 364.fi, 368.B.
25· Greater Hippias, 28+, B.
6. Lesser Hippias, 364.A.
· Greater Hippias, 298.B.
Greater Hippias, 304.A, B.
39
For references to Hippias' rhetoric and dialectic cf.Phaedrus, 267.B; Protagoras, 337.C, 347.A, 348.E; GreaterHippias, 285.C, 286,A, 2S7.A, 288.A, 298.B, 300.C, 30l.B, D,304.A, B, C; ~ e s s e r Hippias, 363.A, c.
. Cf. Greater Hippias, 288.D, 290.E, 29l.A, 292.C, 295.A;
Lesser Hippias, 364.D.
Greater Hippias, 29l.A.
Greater Hippias, 295.A.
· Lesser Hippias, 376.c.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 44/52
Chapter VII.
Plato 's Criticism of Sophistry as a ~ u a s i - P h i l o s o : p h y .This chapter is to serve as a supplement and a summary.
t wil l serve as a supplement in so far as we shal l consider
might be called the :philosophy of the Sophists, using
he word in the scient i f ic sense. This wil l be in contrast
o a summary of what we might term the Sophists ' :philosophy
f l i fe or :philosophy of values. In the foregoing :portion of
40
we have avoided, as foreign to our purpose, any
of :philosophy as such, admitting :philosophical con
only in so far as they were i l lus t ra t ive of
Consequently, in order to round off our consider-
of the Sophists as Plato saw them, we should mention the
things he has to say of the Sophists :philosophy. We shal l
that we have already considered the Sophists ' :philosophy
f l i fe when we studied Plato 's :pen sketches of Protagoras,
Prodicus, and Hi:p:pias. I t wil l serve a useful :purpose
f we gather from these sketches what appears to be COI!1."Tlon to
quasi-philosophy, Sophistry.
The fundamental weakness of the Sophists ' :philosophy
s in their epistemology. I t is epitomized in Protagoras'
th-'3. t "Man i s the measure of a l l things. " l This destrys
he notion of an objective and universal t ruth. " ' ~ l l t ruth is
subjective and relative--hence scepticism. Frotagoras
this view with a superf icial psycological observation,
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 45/52
41
namely, tha t the same thing makes an entirely different im
pression on dif ferent persons. He also appealed to the faulty
ut convenient metaphysics of Heracl i tus, "a l l things are in
From what we learn of the Sophists from the Platonic
we must say that the Sophists did not carry out the i r
thei r logical conclusions. They are the mouth-
not the corrupters of public opinion. St i l l , we do
them saying tha t virtue i s power, or in other words, the i r
of ethics approached dangerously close to that re la t iv i ty
2o which thei r premises should have led them. Protagoras
a mater ia l i s t ic , almost a the is t ic , a t t i tude , which i s
a t in other places, when he says, "I exclude the question of
the i r existence or non-existence, from a l l discussion,
or writ ten."3
Finally, in a passage of the Protagoras,
seems to a t t r ibute hedonism to the Sophists.4 Protagoras
not wish opnely to avow this doctrine, but neither he nor
is fellovr SOl)hists seem anxious to refute i t ; quite the con-
Plato himself has seen f i t to summarize his opinions about
he Sophists c:.nd the i r a r t . Of the Sophist he says, "Firs t , he
s a paid hunter af t e r the young and wealthy. Secondly, a kind
f merchant in ar t ic les of knowledge for the soul . Thirdly, a
of his own productions of knowledge. Fif thly , an athlete
of words, who makes for his own a r t the a r t of
Sixthly, a purger of souls, who removes opinions
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 46/52
obstruct learning."5 He describes the a r t of such a man
s "The imit::ttive kind of t.he dissembling par t of the a r t of
and belongs to the fantast ic class of image
ar t , and is not divine, but human, and has bee defined
n arguments as the juggling part of productive act iv i ty--he
42
says tha t the t rue Sophist i s of th is descent and blood wil l
n my opinion speak the exact truth.rr6
Upon examination, this
to be fa i r ly accurate summary of what Plato said to us
the Sophists ~ n d the manner of l i fe which they professed
d taught.
Plato accueses the Sophists of exploit ing tha t which he
most, philosophy. Vlhence he cal l s the Sophists , "hire-
huntsmen of r ich young men". He says that the Sophists ,
of whom were foreigners in Athenian eyes, imported sp i r i t -
al wares and peddled the same. For them, certainly, knowledge
not i t s ovm end. Then of those things for which they could
some original i ty , l ike Hippias, they were peddlers, not
expositors; they made debate an end in i t se l f , approach
ng it as a game, not an ar t , whence they are called, "athle tes
f er i s t i c debate." When they are called "purgers of souls"
are not to be mistaken for t rue philosophers whom they re
as the wolf resembles the dog. In a l l these cri t icisms
does not seem to be absolutely object ive. \Je see the
Plato passing s t r ic ture as a person not as an objective
When, however, he accuses the Sophists of being
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 47/52
43
object ively the poison of Sophistry, a l l personal venom put
His chief cr i t ic ism of Sophistry is tha t according to i t
are more to be esteemed than t ru ths , and it
small things great and e;reat things small by the power of7 Truth in Sophist hands becomes pros t i tu te . For Plato,
s we know him through his dialogues, t:u.uth Wf!S his goddess.
he has an added gr ief . The Sophists vmre not content with
t ru th themselves. They juggled the opinions they held
n such wise tha t they won the minds of the ...:ithenians, young
nd old, and fashioned an i r ~ g e so seductive that it lured the
from the i r t rue goddess to whom Plato meant to draw
That was the s in of Sophistry, it professed to give man
it actual ly made man sat is f ied with a welter of opinions
nd the shallow mask of rhetor ic . "I:Ien come to you Sophists",
Socrates, "for guidance; but i.f you, vase though you be,
astray, tha t i s a te r r ib le thing, i f even when they have
to you they are not to cease from the i r straying."8
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 48/52
44Notes to Chapter VII.
1. Theaetetus, 152.A f f .
2. Meno, 73.0.
3. Theaetetus, 162.E.
4• Protagoras, 361.A, B; cf. Shorey, ££• c i t . , p. 131.
5. Sophist, 231.D.
6. Sophist, 268.D.
7. Phaedrus, 267.A.
8. Lesser Hippias, 367.0.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 49/52
45
.APPENDIX
A consideration of this thesis raises a concomitant
question. Granted that we now know what Plato said about the
Sophist , in how far is Plato 's picture accurate? Does Plato
represent the Sophists as theyactually were, or does he ex
aggerate his picture out of a l l proportion? In other words,
in how far does Plato 's subjective view of the Sophists coin
cide with objective real i ty?
A decisive answer to this question might well be the work
of another thesis . I t was only natural , however, that in the c rs
of our study of Plato 's dialogues, we should come to our own
opinion as to the objective validi ty of Plato ' s representation
of the Sophists and Sophistry. To round off the work of this
thesis , we wil l give our reasoned opinion here.
For many reasons, it seems to us that the Platonic idea
of the Sophists which we have presented in the preceding
chapters i s objectively valid. In the f i r s t place, Plato was
speaking about that which he knew. The Sophists were Plato ' s
contemporaries; Plato read the writings of the Sophists. When
are determining the t ruthof a thing which we know from
uman testimony, the f i r s t thing we ~ o is to attempt to find
witness of the fact . Plato was an immediate
of Sophistry. On the face of i t , then, Plato ' s t es t i -
bears more weight than that of witnesses of our times,
such as Gomperz and Grate--especially when we remember that
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 50/52
most of our f i rs t-han d knowledge of the Sophists comes from
Plato.
Furthermore, Plato was a competent witness. He was
indisputably qualif ied from an in te l lec tual point of view.
The philosophical writ ings of Plato render th is point beyond
cavil . Vfuat is oftentimes los t sight of i s the fact that
P+ato was tempermentally and emotionally better f i t ted than
his modern cr i t ic s . ·;/hy? Because Plato was a f i f th-century
Greek. As such, he was capable of a keen appreciation of the
temper of the Sophists ' philosophy, and of i t s effect on a
people with whom he was one in environment, upbring, and
sympathies. Classical scholars t e l l us that i f we are to
understand anything Greek, we must see it through Greek eyes.
vre are often told to orientate ourselves. As a consequence
we must see that Plato is a more than acceptable witness of
Sophistry, since he was a Greek putt ing Greeks to the scrut iny.
Finally, Plato was an honest witness. His honesty seems
established, f i r s t ly , because of the quali ty of the man we
glean from his writings; secondly, because of the si lence of
other Greeks who would cer ta in ly have sprung to the defence ofthe Sophists had Plato not painted them t rue, a t l eas t in
general contour; and, thirdly, because Plato had nothing to
gain by not being honest. Some might impugn this l a s t argu-
m.ent. They might say tha t Plato used the Sophists, and in such
vvise as to extol his master, Socrates. To us also i t appears
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 51/52
Plato does exaggerate his picture in the Sophist and in
he Hippias dialogues. Nevertheless, it seems clear to us,
of a l l the arguments vve have brought forward, that ,
Plato may be guil ty of some exaggeration, his por t ra i t
f the Sophists is fundamentally correct and honest.
In conclusion, le t i t be said that the pen-pictures we
presented in the preceding chapters, dravm as they were
the dialogues of Plato, serve primarily to reveal to us
facet of the Platonic mind. Furthermore, because of
he reasonings we have advanced in this appendix, they appear
o serve as well to give us a fundamentally sound and object
rea l view of the Sophists.
7/27/2019 Sophists and Sophistry in Plato
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sophists-and-sophistry-in-plato 52/52
Bibliography
Campbell, Lewis, Religion in Greek Literature; London, LongmansGreen, and Co., 1898.... Theaetetus of Plato; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edit ion,
1883.
Diels, Hermann, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker; Berlin:Weidmann, 3 vols, 4th edit ion, 1922.
Gomperz, Theodor, Greek Thinkers; t ranslated by Laurie I:1.lagnus;London: John I.'!urray, 1901.
Grote, George, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates; Lond n:John Murray, 3 vols. , --r875.
Jowett, Benjamin, The Dialogues of Plato; Oxford; ClarendonPress, 5 vols . , 3rd edit ion, 1892.
Leclere, Albert , La Philosophie GreQue avant Socrate; Faris :Librairie Bloud e t Cie. , 1908.
Loeb Classical Libraty, texts and t ranslat ions of the dialog-ues of Fla to : Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,11 vols . ,
xford University Texts of Plato; London: Oxford University
Press.
Constantin, The Essence of Plato ' s Philosophy; t ran-.s lated by Adam Altes; London: G . . l l e n and Unwin, 1933.
• • • Platen; Hunchen: Beck, 1910.
3horey, Paul, Vlhat Plato Said; Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1 ~ 3 z : - - - - - -
Prinsterer , Platonica F r o s o p o g r a p h i a ~ Lugduni Batavorum:
H. w. Hazenberg, 1823.
eller , Eduard, Outlines of Greek Philosophy; London: Longmans,Green, and Co., 1886.