Was Gorgias a Sophist? Author(s): E. L. Harrison Reviewed work(s): Source: Phoenix, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1964), pp.

183-192 Published by: Classical Association of Canada Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1086795 . Accessed: 17/10/2012 00:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

E. L. HARRISON
WORK produced by modern scholars OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT on the subject of the Greek sophistshas been of a negativenature.Over a centuryago Grote, in a now celebratedchapterof his History,got rid of the notionof a school of immoralsceptics;1and some sixtyyears later H. Gomperz showed, with compelling logic, the unwisdom of taking that to the at theirface value, and forgetting sophisticpronouncements content comparativelylittle, perhaps sophist formmeant everything, H. Raeder, by seekingto exclude from even nothingat all.2More recently the titleof sophistno less a person that Gorgias,became a candidate for addition to this list of those who have thus disabused us.3 And he may well find his place on it, since his conclusions have been accepted by It is important, howProfessorDodds in his edition of Plato's Gorgias.4 ever, that beforethis happens the evidence should be closelyscrutinized. For what is involved here is no mere verbal nicety: indeed, to exclude Gorgias fromthe numberof those with whom he is generallyassociated of the will (other considerationsapart) radically alter the significance dialogue which bears his name. For it will then of necessitybecome an attack on an individual and his methods,ratherthan on a leading reprewill sentative of an influential profession;and the scope of its reference be correspondingly reduced.5 Let us considerfirstevidence which seems to support the commonly accepted view, viz. that Plato represents Gorgias as a sophist not essenfromProtagoras,Hippias, and Prodicus. tially different SOME

(i) When Socrates, in the Apology,6 rejects the allegationthat he undertakes to teach people formoney,he ironicallyexpressesadmirationfor Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias, who are so successfulin this field.And he adds that thereis at the momentanotherao46s at Athens,viz. Evenus.
'George Grote, Historyof Greece(London 1850) 8. 479 f. 2HeinrichGomperz, Sophistikund Rhetorik (Leipzig 1912). 3Hans Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten (Proc. Royal Danish Academy [Filos. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk.] 1939) 1-36; Platon und die Rhetoren(ibid. 1956) 1-21. 4Plato, Gorgias, revised text with introduction and commentary, by E. R. Dodds (Oxford 1959) 6 f. Although the view put forward in this note differsfrom that of ProfessorDodds on the point under discussion, it need scarcely be added how indebted the writeris to this work. 'Crucial here is Professor Dodds' antithesis, p. 367: "Plato may well have believed that in fact the 'neutral' education which derived from Gorgias had done more harm than all the teaching of the sophists." 619D-20C. 183
PHOENIX, Vol. 18 (1964) 3.

184

PHOENIX

He has learnt this fromCallias, "who has spent more moneyon sophists than everybodyelse put together."And Evenus chargesonly fiveminae forhis services. Now it is true,as Raeder points out,' that this passage does not prove that Plato regardedGorgias as a sophist.But in concedingthis point we should not go too farin the opposite direction.Indeed, until convincing evidence to the contrary presentsitself,the probable implicationsof the be can denied: viz. that everyonementionedhere (apart scarcely passage fromCallias) is a sophist, with Gorgias, a notoriouslyexpensive one,8 opening the list,just as Evenus, a remarkablycheap one, closes it. thereare no good grounds (ii) In the Hippias Major, whose authenticity forsuspecting,9 Socrates, in a passage again heavy with irony,10 exploits the vanity of the gullible Hippias. He contrastsunfavourablythe wise men of old, such as Pittacus, Bias, and Thales, who abstained from with men like Hippias himself,Gorgias, politics" and money-making, successful in Prodicus, and Protagoras, who have been so strikingly both spheres.And at the head of the lattergroup he places Fopylasobros 6 AeovTrvos aorJLtrs (282B). Now according to Raeder"2this evidence can be discounted because Gorgias is here put alongsidePittacus and the rest,whichindicatesthat "sophist" is used, not in its fifth-century, professionalsense, but with its original unspecialized meaning of "wise man.""3 But his views are, I believe,untenable forthreereasons: (a) Gorgias is not put alongside Pittacus and the rest, but is in fact once more placed at the head of that very group fromwhich Plato is excluded him. supposed to have specifically (b) He is emphatically contrasted with Pittacus and the rest as a leading representativeof the new type of wise man: and the term "sophist" is actually held over quite pointedlyby Plato to introducehim in thisrole.How pointedly, the awkwardperiphrases indeed,is clear from Plato employsbeforehand to describethe early sages-periphrases from
7Platon und die Sophisten9. 8Cf. Hippias Major 282B; Diod. Sic. 12.53.2; Suidas s.v. is a pity that the standard English edition of this lively dialogue gives the opposite 91It impression (D. Tarant, The Hippias Major [Cambridge 1928]). For its authenticity, see G. M. A. Grube, CQ 20 (1926) 134-138; CP 24 (1929) 369-375; M. Soreth, Zetemata 6 (1953) 1-64; E. de Strycker, Pdntiquit/ Classique 23 (1954) 472-473; 0. Gigon, Gnomon27 (1955) 14-20; A. Capelle, RhM 99 (1956) 178-190; Dodds, Gorgias 7, n. 2. 10281B f. "This statement is of course at variance with the tradition (cf. E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen7 [Leipzig 1923] 1.1.62). But Socrates here is more concerned with ironically leading Hippias on than with recordinghistorical fact. '2Platon und die Sophisten9. 13Onthe historyof the term see H. Sidgwick, 7Ph 4 (1872) 288-307; G. B. Kerferd, CR 64 (1950) 8-10.

WAS GORGIAS

A SOPHIST?

185

(c) The question of money-makingis emphasized throughoutthis passage as being of paramount importance(281B, 282C, 282D, 282E, 283A, 283B). And since "sophist" in the narrow sense and moneyso inseparablyforPlato,"5it is surelyinconceivmakingbelong together able that in such a contextas this the termcould have occurredto him in any othersense. So far, then, we have on the positive side two passages, in each of which Gorgias is grouped with other sophists, with no indication in fromthem.And in the eitherthat he is in any way to be distinguished second of these passages the term "sophist" (used in its narrowsense) seems without any reasonable doubt to be applied specifically to him. Let us turn now to evidence which has been regarded as excluding Gorgias fromthe professionof sophist. of the leading sophistsdescribedin (i) He is absent fromthe gathering the Protagoras,and his absence draws no comment.'"But nothinghere, I think, need carryany implications his status. For, withregard regarding to the firstpoint, chronologicalconsiderationsmay well have played their part;" or Plato may simply have felt that Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus, along with theirnumerousdisciples and hangers-on, were as much as Callias,18or even he himself, could be expected to cope with
to as rcovraXaujv EKELVOVW they are later referred '4Similarly, (282C), withan awkward vagueness which the simple addition of ao'karWuvcould easily have removed. 16Forfurther discussion of this point, see below. '"Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 7. (The "drittes Motiv" mentioned there in Gorgias' status). Cf. Dodds, Gorgias7. proves subsequently to be the alleged difference 17Raederhimselfconcedes this point, op. cit. (see n. 16) 6. Gorgias did not visit Athens till 427 B.C.,some six years afterthe probable dramatic date of the Protagoras (on which, see A. E. Taylor, Plato, The Man and his Work[London 1926] 236). It is true that Plato admits anachronisms into the dialogues (cf. Dodds, Gorgias 17-18), and that such a be decisive. But Apol. 19D f. perhaps supports chronologicalargumentcannot therefore its validity in the present case: forthere Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias are mentioned as currentlyactive, but not Protagoras-presumably because by 399 B.c. he had been dead forseveral years. '8As we saw above, Callias was the man "who spent more money on sophists than everyone else put together" (Apol. 20A; cf. Crat. 391B-C). But on this occasion even his household seems to have felt the strain (Protag. 314C). In this latter passage, incidentally, we are given an interesting sidelighton the associations of the term "sophist." For servants it meant a vagrant who tended to stay over and make extra work for everyone. Hence Socrates secures entry for himselfand Hippocrates only after he has made it quite clear that they are not such persons, and have not come rap& KaXXiav (a sinisteridiom here!) but only to see Protagoras. For a vivid account of this whole scene, see the beginningof ProfessorL. E. Woodbury's article,"Simonides on 'Ape7," TAPA 84 (1953) 135 f.

which the term"sophist" in its widersense could easily have saved him. irtroc/4 (281C) Thus theyare oi iraXatot raL~ rKEVOL, Jv 6V6aTa .Ey'yXa Xey ros and ao4tav
rCov apXaiwv 7repi 7r)V
(281D).14

186

PHOENIX

distinction (520B).21

under one roof.And, with regard to the second point, even successfully if the chronologicalargumentis overlooked,the lack of any reference to Gorgias' absence is stillonlywhat we mightexpect,since silenceabout a rival-or indeed about anyonebut himself-is one of the characteristics of the Platonic sophist.'9 (ii) In the dialogue which bears his name, Gorgias describeshimselfas a specialist in rhetoric(449A); and later in the same dialogue rhetoric is formally distinguishedfromsophistic (465C).20 We shall consideragain the questionof the terminology of the Gorgias: but in the meantimeit can, I think,be shown (a) that the distinction on whichRaeder hererestshis case scarcelymeritsour seriousconsideration, and (b) that even if it did, it would still militateagainst his view, rather than support it. as it is herepresented (a) 1. Socrates' own attitude to the distinction seems anything but serious.For even as he expoundsit he concedes that no one is aware of its existence.(If "the men themselves"[i.e. the sophists and the rhetoricians] and "the restof men" are not clear about it [465E] thenwho is?) Moreover,when he refers back to the passage later (520A) he actuallydoes so, not in terms of thesupposeddifference betweensophist and rhetorician, but in termsof theiridentity and closesimilarity. Only as the argumentproceeds,and it helps him to score a point offCallicles, does he consciously resuscitate and employ once more the earlier

19Onthe rare occasions when they do mentionone another,it is with a view to belittlement (Protag. 318D f., H.Ma. 282D f.) They are cut-throat competitors,not fellowpractitioners. (The partnership between the brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus is in this respect,as in much else, exceptional.) There is no sophistic parallel forSocrates' recommendationof Damon to Nicias (Laches 180D), or for his passing on of would-be pupils to Prodicus and others (Theaet. 151B). Even under the same roofthey keep their parties quite distinct: it is Socrates who brings Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus togetherin the house of Callias (Protag. 314E f.). Flashes of generosity are rare, and involve Socrates only, who is not a professional rival: and even then they have an egocentric basis. Hippias, e.g., praises Socrates' exposition of a poem-but only as a an admirable account of his own (Protag. 347A). And Protagoras' prelude to offering praise of Socrates' wisdom is cited by the sophist, even as he utters it, as proof of his own outstanding liberality and freedom fromenvy (Protag. 361E). All this of course is Plato's picture; but that is what concerns us in this note. 20Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 9-11. It is chieflyon these grounds that he concludes (11): "Fiir uns . . . bleibt nicht anderes als . .. Gorgias aus der Zahl der Sophisten zu streichen." 21This passage, it seems to me, shows vividly how unscrupulous in argument the Socrates of the Gorgiascan be. At 520A Callicles has expressed contempt forthose who claim to impart arete; whereupon Socrates not only mischievously equates this with an attack on sophistryas a whole, and so, by a misleading inference, on Callicles' own guest, Gorgias, but he also proceeds, quite casually and recklessly, to rate sophistry above rhetoricsimply to score another quick point over his opponent. And even the

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

187

3. Finally it is not irrelevantto note that Socrates' concern in presentingthe system is not the relationshipbetween sophistic and but that between rhetoricand justice. And as the subsequent rhetoric, unfoldsit becomesfairly clear that the introduction of sophistic argument of is in fact of that the (like gymnastic) unnecessaryelaboration part whose relevance and implicationsseem not to have been fullythought out.25 (b) But even if we accept the distinctionat its face value, Raeder's case, it seems to me, still falls down. For the distinctionboils down to as the sham counterpartof justice, involves forensic this: that rhetoric, whereas the art of legislation, involvesits eloquence, sophistic, mimicking deliberativeform.And Gorgias earlier tells us (452E) that the blessing he conferson a man is "to be able to convince by speech membersof
way in which this is done is itselfworth noting: for what looks like a hurriedreference back to the earlier system (520B) is, in its essential, nothing of the sort. There was nothing in that system to suggest any hierarchy among the genuine r7Xvat such as he now glibly takes for granted in order to make his freshpoint. On Socrates' role in the Gorgias,cf. ProfessorG. Rudberg, SymbolaeOsloenses30 (1953) 30 f.; and my note, Eranos 61 (1963) 63-64 on Gorg.449D f. And for a vindication of Socrates' tactics cf. F. M. Cornford,Beforeand AfterSocrates (Cambridge 1962) 45. 22Cf.Sophist 227B, Politicus 266D. 230n Polus' outburst cf. Professor H. L. Tracy's observation ("Plato as Satirist," 33 [1937-8] 160): "This is as beautifullyworded, as impressive,as any advertisement C_7 -and just as devoid of meaning." Socrates' reply, it seems to me, is not entirelyfree from the same defects. 240n this term, see Dodds, Gorgias 189. Because the piece is such an unadulterated in fitting it into a nominallydialectical framework: "display," Plato clearlyhad difficulty hence the extremelyawkward opening, with Socrates putting the vital initial question into Polus' mouth (463D), and hence the conclusion, with his rather lame apology for has become a genuine having indulged in uaKpoXoyLya (465E). Later, when tLaLpEOa~ dialectical process, there is no need forsuch manoeuvres. only half the systemproves strictlyrelevant,withjustice, aped by rhetoric, 26Ineffect, promotingthe good of the soul as medicine,aped by cookery,promotesthat of the body (465D, 480A f. Cf. 500E f., 521E).

system is introduced (aL6rtESco 464B).24

2. The impression conveyed by this cavalier attitude on the part in questionis captious and artificial of Socrates-viz. that the distinction of consideration the formin which it makes its -is strengthened by For the classification on which it is based is poles apart from appearance. has achieved the the type we meet in later dialogues, where b&alp~au the status of a genuine dialectical "method.""22 Indeed, system we are with here is so elaborate that it is difficult to unnecessarily presented that Socrates' performance is designedas a counterblast avoid the feeling of Polus (448C),"2 which he noted at once to the earlierpretentiousness not and did too (461D). And this impression subsequentlyforget (448D) consideration of the term with which is considerably the by strengthened

188

PHOENIX

juries, the Boule, and the Ecclesia." In otherwords,his concernis with both typesof eloquence: whichwould make him,not a rhetoras opposed to a sophist,but rhetorand sophist at the same time."6 (iii) There are two passages in the dialogues whichindicate that Gorgias and such a claim was a distinctive rejected the claim to impart arete:27 featureof the sophisticprofession."8 But again thereare, I believe, strongobjections to our concludingon these groundsthat Gorgias was not a sophist. (a) In neitherpassage does the speaker concernedimply anythingof the sort.29 Indeed, the language of the Meno passage (95B f.) seems to to the opposite conclusion: point 2M. ni i 6'1);ol aovofiral oOLoi'hot, otirep utovot rawyoXXorrac , BOKOLOC
WL AaKaXoL etvc aipei77js; MEN. Kal Fop'yLovuMXara, Wi2 ~KpaCLres, rC ra &YaaCpa, 6r7 obK iv rore o atsv 6rav aTorV aKo VoC~ tLrXouVO, aXXa KIC 7riv &AXXwv Tour KcrTayE, VWV. urtaLXovOV/. cKOuvT7

Here the implicationsof the arrangement ol cocpcrcalfollowedfirst by are and then by rawv clear Popylov surely enough.30 &aXXov (b) A closer look at Gorgias' disclaimerstrongly suggeststhat it was a calculated manoeuvrebased on the ambiguityof the termarete,3and on him a distinctiondevoid of any real substance. aimed at conferring For when the sophistsclaimed to impartarete,theymeant primarily by
*6Forsimilar misgivingsabout the practical value of the distinctionin question cf. H. Sidgwick,op. cit. (see n. 13) 295-296; H. Gomperz, Sophistikund Rhetorik 44. Raeder believes such misgivingsare groundless, and that "die Unterscheidungist in der Tat deutlich genug" (op. cit. [see n. 2] 11, n. 2); but he does not show us how. "Meno 95B f., Gorg.519E f. 349A, Meno 91B, 95B f., Hippias Major 283C, Sophist 223A. Oddly enough *sProtag. Raeder makes no referenceto this argument: but it clearly needs to be taken into account, and can be convenientlydealt with here. On the basis of the Meno passage Grote concluded (HistoryofGreece8. 521): "If the line could be clearly drawn between rhetorsand sophists, Gorgias ought rather to be ranked with the former"; and Pohlenz reached a similarconclusion withoutany such reservations:"Er fiihlt sich als Redelehrer und sondertsich deshalb von Sophistik ab" (Max Pohlenz, Aus Platos Werdezeit [Berlin 1913] 200). Cf. Dodds, Gorgias 7. '9As J. S. Morrison (Phoenix 15 [1961] 238) and R. S. Bluck (CR n.s. 11 [1961] 29) point out, Callicles' expressionof disgust at those who claim to educate men Et' &pE7rlY that his honoured guest, Gorgias, made (Gorg. 519E f.) does nothingmore than confirm no such claim. It is importantto note, one might add, that it is an eristic Socrates who equates this disapproval with an attack on sophistryas a whole (cf. n. 21). "oCf.R. S. Bluck, Plato's Meno (Cambridge 1961) 206: "At 95C Meno seems to imply that Gorgias was an (exceptional) sophist." 31Foran account of this term's developmentsee A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility(Oxford 1960) passim.

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

189

that term political ability based on oratory:32 and there is nothingto set Gorgias' claims in this fieldapart fromthose of othermembersof the It can therefore only have been as a result of sophistic profession."33 the term areteso that it meant "moral goodness" that he transvaluing was able to make a showof rejectingthe sophisticslogan34 in theway that he did. And that he in fact did so transvalueit in this contextis implied 456C f.,whereGorgiasdisclaimsany responsibility for byGorg. subsequent misconducton the part of the young men who pass throughhis hands. Doubtless it was important,in the highly competitive professionof to cultivate special characteristics of this sort: hence Gorgias' sophistry, use of such comparable "gimmicks" as his distinctivepurple robe, and his acting as a one-man"brains-trust."35 But presumablybecause it was such a "gimmick," and nothingmore, Gorgias' profession not to teach areteseems to have lacked any real substance. For in the Meno, priorto the passage alreadycited, Meno informs us that Gorgias did not hesitate to use the termareteto denote the kindof abilityhe did claim to impart.36 Moreover,when pressed by Socrates, Gorgias is depicted as yieldinghis with a casualness that belies any ground on the issue of responsibility deeply held conviction.37 Small wonder is it, then, that the surviving relative who erected a statue in Gorgias' memorypassed over the dis82Cf.Werner Jaeger, Paideia, translated by Gilbert Highet (Oxford 1939) 1. 287-288. Pohlenz (dus Platos Werdezeit195) equates it with on the basis of Gorg. 5LKrtLOaTvf its captious argument-Socrates 519C. But in this passage-already noted (n. 21) for (who knew well enough what sophists meant by arete, cf. e.g., Protag. 319A f.) has obviously transvalued it to make a neat but scarcely valid point against them. "Compare Gorg.452D f. with Protag. 318E f., Euthyd.272A, H. Ma. 304A f. (which doubtless clarifiesfor us Hippias' earlier claim to impart arete,283C) and Rep. 600C f. "It is worth noting, I think,that Euthydemus also seems to have had his own way of using thearetelabel. But whereas Gorgias made a show ofremovingitaltogetherfrom his wares, Euthydemus simply shiftedit fromone set to another. For although he and his brother, like sophists generally, claim to impart political competence of a sort (Euthyd. 272A), arete is used by them to describe instead their major concern-skill in eristic (273D f., cf. 283B, 285D). "On these, see Dodds, Gorgias9 and 190. Protagoras' version of the modern "moneyback" guarantee perhaps belongs to thesame category(Protag. 328B f.); and on occasions one gets the impressionthat the sophist's attitude towards the various reXvaL degenerates to the same level, with Hippias posing as the supreme masterof them all (Hippias Major 285B f.,Hippias Minor 368B f.), Protagoras at pains to disclaim any such interest (Protag. 318D f.), and Gorgias going one better and saying that rhetoricmakes all the others superfluous(Gorg.459B f.; cf. 456A f.). 73C. There can be no doubt that Gorgias is meant to be associated with Meno's Na71E, replies, for although Socrates begins in the usual way, by excluding him fromthe discussion because he is absent (71D cf. Protag. 347E, Gorg.471E, Hippias Minor 365C f.), this in fact proves to be an empty gesture, and Gorgias' name is all the more pointedly included by Socrates in the cross-examinationwhich immediately follows (71D, 73C). 460A. Polus' indignation at 461C is also instructive: Socrates is perverse for 37Gorg. failing to see that of course Gorgias' position on this issue is not unshakable.

190

PHOENIX

withits subtletransvaluation ofarete, and put therecordstraight claimer, once and forall with the inscription:
Fop-yiov cLaK?)7oL 1IVXV X'PEvApc EpV' KaXXL0ov' o0V'Es TrW Ovvr-jqv
L V7COV

vA8

(iv) Finally, Raeder points out that whereasProtagoras,in the dialogue a sophist,in theGorgiasthecase is different. named after him,calls himself There, when Socrates inquiresabout his profession, Gorgias answersthat rhetoricis his art, and he should be called a rhetor."Den Unterschied zwischen Protagoras und Gorgias hat Platon also deutlich gekennzeichnet."39 It is importantto note, however,that the statementsin question are made in different dialogues: forit seems to me that the change in terminology can be explained quite naturally in terms of a change of emphasis or perspective on Plato's part when he came to write the Gorgias.We are concernedhereof course,once more,with the distinction betweensophist and rhetor:and I have triedalready to show that there are a numberof reasons forrejectingas a serious statementof the case withits whollyartificial in theGorgias, solutionoffered the formal attempt to divide oratorsinto two separate groups. But to show what I mean by a change of emphasis on Plato's part the distinctionnow needs to be considered further. The Platonic sophist is a complex figure;but beneath the complexity commonto themall. (a) They teach rhetoric,40 thereare twobasic features and (b) theyexact paymentfortheirservices.To take (a) first: that this seems clear enough. In a democraticcity-statethat had is fundamental become the powerfuland thrivingcentre of a commercialempire, the ability to influencepublic assemblies and law-courts would naturally prove the royal road to success in public and private life. And in fact thereis convincingevidence in the dialogues to show, on the one hand, that rhetoricwas the subject of primaryinterestto the sophist's prosin the sophist's and, on theother,that it invariablyfigured pectivepupil,41
380n the interpretationof these lines, cf. H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik37; those verbal contests in the assemblies and law-courts that inevitably awaited ,'-ycveS any ambitious young man. (Cf. Gorg.485D, where Callicles, a product of Gorgias' training,follows Homer in regarding the agora as the place where men become d&prper6ts.) 4. 39Platonund die Sophisten9. Cf. Platon und die Rhetoren 40H. Gomperz' thesis that rhetoricis fundamental (Sophistik und Rhetorik, passim) has never, I believe, been upset. In particular, the professionto impart arete,regarded as more crucial, e.g., by Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit 195) and Jaeger (Paideia 1.290), seems to be a secondary feature,the natural, though (as we have seen in Gorgias' case) not inevitable corollary of the teaching of rhetoric. 41Hippocrates, the prospective pupil of Protagoras, defines a sophist as "one who knows how to make a man clever at speaking" (Protag. 312D): evidence that is especially here is rhetoric,the Apes-7 -~4xvY

WAS GORGIAS

A SOPHIST?

191

whatever other skills he may or may not have claimed to curriculum, When we turn to consider(b) we must be carefulto avoid the impart.42 errorof regardingthe question of payment as merelysecondary.43 For, howeverwe may tend to view such mattersourselves,nothingemerges moreclearlyfrom the dialogues than the factthat, forPlato, this feature of sophistry was crucial.44 Indeed, it is no exaggerationto say that he is almost incapable of using the term sophist without at the same time to this professionalism.45 And it comes as makingsome explicitreference no surprisewhen this same professionalism looms largerthan any other element in each of the definitions of the sophist which appear in the of that name.46 dialogue How next can we definethe rhetor?Essentially,he is a man skilled
valuable, since it is naturally freefromthe "gimmicks" which tend to obscure the pronouncements of the sophists themselves. Pohlenz discards this definitionas worthless, on the grounds that it fails to stand up to Socrates' probing (Aus Platos Werdezeit 199). But this failure stems of course not from the inadequacy of Hippocrates' definition, but fromthe nature of sophistic. Cf. also Theaet. 178E f., where Socrates stresses that nobody would have paid high fees to converse with Protagoras had he not been able to foreseeargumentswhich would succeed in a court of law. Even sophists of the eristical sort (cf. below, n. 46) would have had no customershad they not promised instruction in legal and political argument (Sophist 232D). 42Cf.Protag. 318E f., Gorg.452D f., Euthyd. 272A, Meno 95C, Theaet. 178E. Hippias may have professed to impart a variety of skills besides rhetoric (cf. Protag. 318E, H. Mi. 368B f.): but his speech at H. Major 304A f. would make nonsense if rhetoric had not been his main concern. 43Sidgwick(op.cit. [see n. 13] 294) calls it an accident rather than a property (cf. also Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten6); and that is the natural way forus to look at it. But for Plato it clearly was an essential property: cf. below. 44For referencesto the sophist's pay, cf. Laches 186C; Protag. 310D, 311B, 311D, 313B, 313D, 328B f.,349A, 357E; Euthyd.272A, 304A, 304C; Crat.384B, 391B; Hippias Major 281B, 282C, 282D, 283B, 283D, 284A, 285B; Gorg. 519C; Rep. 439A; Theaet. 167C; Sophist 222D, 223A, 223B, 225E, 226A, 231D, 234A. This almost compulsive association no doubt explains the dramatic flaw at Rep. 337D, where Thrasymachus is depicted as asking for a fee before continuing the conversation. "Incredible, even for a sophist," as D. J. Allan observes (Plato, Republic 1 [London 1940] ad loc.). However, we surely ought not to make matters worse there by having Glaucon actually take a zu den Dialogen Platons collection, as H. Gauss does (PhilosophischerHandkommentar [Bern 1954] 1.2.124). 45Thisis clear fromthe majority of the passages cited above, n. 44. Cf. also Protag. Tc 311E: cOs "pa TEXOVTES ao''LcTT-7) -CLXLT,'ra. ipX6.Oea s, XppLt-ara; 46Sophist223B (notice and v&ov wXovaiwv) and ptoaapVLK VO/tLaRTOTrwXLKfs, 226A (XprWlarTLurLK6v, These definitions referof course to the eristical type KTrTLK)T). of sophist, whose preciseoriginshave been much discussed. But it makes little difference whetherhe is a genuine successor of Protagoras or merely a degenerate Socratic: he is still a true sophist in the Platonic sense, i.e., he teaches rhetoricand makes money out of it (cf. Euthyd.272A, Sophist232D etc.). (For an earlier parallel to the XP-q/la7LTLKob of Sophist 226A, cf. Protag. 313C f., where the sophist is described hyevos by Socrates as "a merchant or dealer in goods fromwhich the soul is nourished."

192

PHOENIX

in the art of rhetoric:and as such he may impart this skill to others,or exerciseit in the Assemblyor in the law-courts.47 It is of course the first of these alternativesthat interests us here: for,as is clear from what has been said already,the sophistqualifiesforthe titleof rhetor in this sense should one choose to describe him in purely functional Now in terms.48 Plato did not so choose. His concerntherewas to portray the Protagoras the sophist as an over-confident professionalmatched in a dialectical with the struggle unassumingamateur,Socrates,and foundwanting:and the term "sophist" was therefore entirelyappropriate for his purpose, it to was as make several explicitreferences to the proappropriate just this term implies,"49 to satirize the vanity and bombast of fessionalism the personit denoted,50 and to leave the shadowyfigure of his prospective and in the pupil, Hippocrates,neglected forgotten wings.In the Gorgias, on the other hand, Plato's standpoint has clearly changed.51 Now it is indeed the role of the sophist as teacher of rhetoricthat is important, ratherthan the man himself. Thus the dominantfigure in the dialogue is not in fact Gorgias at all, but the finishedproduct of his teaching, Callicles. So too, thereis littleattemptat satirizing sophisticvanityand since of considerations this sort are now bombast, comparativelyirreleabove all And so with a resentment obsessed vant.52 of Plato, usually now avoids sophisticmoney-making, carefully obscuringthe real issue by the dialogue there yieldingto this obsession.53 Hence, just as throughout is no explicitreference to Gorgias' (undoubted) professionalism, so also he is describedin it, not as a sophist,whichwould inevitablycarrywith ofthatprofessionalism, it theimplication but as a rhetor, whichdoes not.54
194. 47Cf. Dodds,Gorgias no doubt Gorg. 48Hence 465C: &re 6'4yyibs 6v7rw'v cpovraL &vr7 abr4 Kal 7repl I Kal ''ropes. 520A: Ti ?aKPLe, racrbr& j~rwp, Kat aowral toLS7) rairbv,, Kal The real truth is to be gleaned from the unguarded i yhyb asides 7rL Lov. lrapa'rX~ rather thanfrom thecarefully devisedsystem. 310D, 311B, 311D, 313B, 313D, 328B f.,349A,357E. 49Protag. 317C (end), 328B, 335A,337A f.,337C f. Protag. S6Cf. 510n therelative 18 f. cf. Dodds,Gorgias dating, theform of theGorgias, withits return to direct dramatic particular, 52In representawhichmarkstheopening sceneof tion,putsout of the questionany of the burlesque the Protagoras. Cf. Paul Friedlinder, Platon2 (Berlin1957) 227: "Damit verzichtet er aufallenHintergrund, alle Raumsymbolik, undlisst alleindie Menschen in h6chster Klarheit sichselbstund ihresachlichen Gegensitzeaussprechen." whothinks thatthesuddenabsenceof anyreference to pay in dealingwith 65Anyone such a notorious as Gorgias is not theresult ofconscious effort on Plato's money-maker 311B f. withGorg. 448B f.These twopassages,as is often partshouldcompare Protag. there are no less thaneight pointed out,are remarkably succesparallel:butin thefirst sive references to pay,in thelatter, none. "Plato's actual choiceof Gorgiasto bear the brunt of his attackon thesophistas teachercould similarly be explained in terms of concentrating on essentials, since for rhetoric was notmerely theprincipal it was theonly Gorgias subjecton hiscurriculum: one (cf. Gorg. 58A f.). 459C, Philebus