Having thus endeavoured to ascertain what was Plato's opinion of the class in general, we will now pass on to Aristotle, and return by and by to examine the special statements and descriptions of particular members of it scattered through the Platonic and other writings.

In speaking of the general characteristics by which they were distinguished from their predecessors and contemporaries in the art of teaching, I have already alluded to that combination of qualities, effrontery and imposture-summed up in the word aλagoveía, which is the main ingredient in their character as they are depicted by Plato; is expressed by Aristotle in the phrase pawvoμév σopía which he applies to them and their reasoning, so constantly that it almost becomes technical, in the treatise 10 Пepì Σop. λéyx.; and used to designate them (as I suppose), by Xenophon, Mem. 1. 7; by Aristophanes, Nub. 102, 1492; and by Isocrates κατὰ τῶν Σοφ. § 1.

Mr Grote treats the evidence of Aristotle, to whose statements we have now to direct our attention, in a very summary way. "Aristotle following the example of his master," p. 484,

in the second member of the sentence, unless it were conveyed by the first, that the Sophists are mischievous instructors, only in an inferior degree? Clauses such as διαφθειρομένους . . . ὅτι καὶ ἄξιον λόγου, which are introduced by way of contrast or comparison with the rest of the sentence, are usually prefaced by μév; the apodosis, which is, as Buttmann expresses it, the "caput rei" (see his notes on Mid. § 7. a, 49. c, 56. d; Men. § 34. a; Gr. Gr. § 149) being commonly introduced by dé. Deviations from this usage however sometimes occur, and the sentence is left to explain itself, as it were, without the help of the particles. The only example that occurs to me at present is Rom. vi. 19, χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ ὅτι ητε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτ τίας, ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας, κ.τ.λ. The peculiarity of this construction is, that the first clause has either no meaning, or is untrue, when taken by itself without the apodosis. As in the instance above quoted, St Paul thanks God that the Romans were the servants of sin,

only upon consideration of the present happy change in their condition.

10 The treatise π. Z. X., as the author himself implies, c. 2, and the Scholiast Alexander Aphrodisiensis informs us, was written as a supplement to the Books of the Analytics: in the latter Aristotle teaches the true art of reason. ing, and the theory of the syllogism; in this work he takes to pieces the false or sham art which apes it for the purpose of imposition, and exposes its many tricks, see c. 5. Mr Grote says that the Sophists pay the penalty of the modern signification of their name: on the contrary, it was their practice which first gave the name its invidious sense; and it is likely enough that this very treatise of Aristotle contributed mainly to fix upon sophistry that peculiar signification which it bears in modern languages, fallacious deceitful reasoning; at any rate it appears from this work, that such reasoning was the peculiar and acknow. ledged characteristic of the Sophists.

"Aristotle following the Platonic vein," p. 499, which is all that is said to mitigate the force of his censures. To this we may reply with equal brevity: in what else did Aristotle follow the example of his master? His whole philosophy was different; and a large space of his works is occupied in combating his opinions and why should he have made a special exception in the case of the Sophists, and taken up an unfounded prejudice merely because his master was influenced by it? If he thought it "a sacred duty" to prefer truth to Plato, and permitted himself so freely to criticise his theory of ideas-and indeed nearly every opinion that he held-how could he allow an unworthy prejudice against a whole class of men to retain possession of his mind, grounded on nothing but his master's propensity to satire,—and not only so, but write a long treatise levelled against them, which in that case would be misdirected and misapplied? If ever there was a writer undeserving of such a suspicion, less likely than another to imbibe or foster such a prepossession, I think we must admit that it was Aristotle.

That the work is directed chiefly if not entirely against them and their art, appears from the definition of σopiotikη, c. 1, p. 165. a. 21, ἔστι γὰρ ἡ σοφιστικὴ φαινομένη σοφία, οὖσα δ ̓ οὔ, καὶ ὁ σοφιστὴς χρηματιστὴς ἀπὸ φαινομένης σοφίας ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ οὔσης, with Alexander's commentary; "this is shown in the case of the Hippiases, and Protagorases, and Gorgiases, and Prodicuses: and if any one desires to inform himself of the nature of their wisdom' and the wealth that it enabled them to amass, he has only to consult the dialogues of Plato which bear their names." In fact, without the aid of the commentary, it is plain that the words χρηματισTs anò σopías, must include the persons above named, their associates and followers, and the addition of paivoués excludes the professors and teachers of the ordinary arts, music, grammar, &c. The same thing appears from ch. 12, 173. a. 7, sq., where he distinguishes two classes of Sophists, oi apxaîo, amongst whom he ranks Callicles 11 (see Mr Grote's Hist. p. 531, "Callicles himself is not a Sophist") and those of his own time, of vv. They both had recourse to the same method of reasoning, apádoga déyew; for which purpose they employed the distinction of rà karà þúơi

11 As Callicles was not a professional Sophist, but a young man of station, whom Gorgias had educated for public VOL. I. June, 1854.

life, he is only included here in the class as one who shared their opinions and method of reasoning.

11

and rà κarà vóμov [which we have before shown to have been familiarly used by the Sophists] in order to mystify those with whom they argued, and lead them astray from the real point at issue: "their rule being to meet an opponent who was speaking Karà púσw (of things, that is, as they really are, according to their true nature) with an answer karà vóμov (according to the customary or conventional notions of them) and vice versa." If oi apxaîo does not here mean "the old Sophists," Gorgias, Protagoras, Polus, &c., it can only mean the "old philosophers," a sense which it sometimes bears in Aristotle (comp. de Anim. ш. 3, p. 51. 18. Bekk.); but not a word of what follows would be true of them. Further, continual reference is made to ἐριστικοὶ ΟΙ ἀγωνιστικοὶ λόγοι; for example, c. 2, 165. b. 7, 11; which are identified with σopiσrikoì λóyou, and defined 1. c. οἱ ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων ἐνδόξων μὴ ὄντων δὲ συλλογιστικοὶ ἢ φαινόμενοι συλλoyiorikoi: (every thing about their arguments is sham:) comp. c. 11, p. 171, b. 25, οἱ μὲν οὖν τῆς νίκης αὐτῆς χάριν τοιοῦτοι ἐριστικοὶ ἄνθρωποι καὶ φιλέριδες δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, οἱ δὲ δόξης χάριν τῆς εἰς χρηματισμὸν σοφιστικοί. So that the ἐριστικοί λόγοι differ from the σοφιστικοί not in the nature of the arguments themselves, but only in the purpose for which they are employed; the latter being used by those who make a trade of philosophical discussion, diò pavouéνῆς ἀποδείξεως ἐφίενται. These ἐριστικοί λόγοι are precisely those ascribed to the Sophists by Plato, sometimes under the same name, sometimes by the equivalent terms ἀντιλογικός, ἀγωνιστικός. Sophist. 225. B. C. Phileb. 17. A. Men. 75. c. Phæd. 90. B. C. 91. A. 101. E. Rep. v. 454. a. The persons who are designated by these various names have all the same character, viz. that they are not true philosophers; that they have no serious scientific purpose in view, but talk merely for the sake of show and of gaining the victory by any means in argument: and by this they are distinguished from the Platonic diaλEKTIKOί, the true men of science and precisely to the same effect is Aristotle's description, c. 11. p. 172. a. 34, ἀτέχνως γὰρ μετέχουσι τούτου οὗ ἐντέχνως ἡ διαλεκτική ἐστιν. And finally, all this φαινομένη σοφία with its φαινόμενοι ἔλεγχοι, and συλλογισμοί, and ἀποδείξεις, and its ἐριστικοὶ λόγοι νίκης ἢ δόξης χάριν, is in strict accordance with the Protagorean doctrine by which "to be" and "to seem to be" are identified. Theæt. 166. D. Compare Metaph. III. 2. 1004. b. 17.

So much for Aristotle's opinion of the Sophistical method of

philosophizing, as conveyed in the treatise Tepì Eop. ¿λéyx. I will now cite a passage from the Nicom. Ethics, Ix. 1, by which their aλagoveía is further illustrated. After mentioning Protagoras' fair dealing in the matter of taking fees from his pupils (comp. Plat. Protag. 328. B), he continues, "but those that take the money beforehand, if they then fail to perform every thing they have undertaken by reason of the exaggeration of their professions, are justly subject to censure: for they do not fulfil their contract. But perhaps the Sophists are obliged to act in this way, because no one would pay them for what they do know;" which certainly conveys no favourable impression of their intellectual and moral qualifications as teachers of youth. Add to these passages Rhet. I. 1. 4. (quoted by Mr Grote, p. 484, not. 1), where the author "explains the Sophist to be a person who has the same powers as the dialectician, but abuses them for a bad purpose;" and we have enough to show what was Aristotle's judgment of the class generally. Leaving, as before, notices of particular Sophists till we come to treat of them separately, we will proceed to examine the rest of our witnesses.

The testimony of Aristophanes Mr Grote refuses altogether to admit and says that if he is a witness against any one it is against Socrates, who is singled out for attack in the Clouds. This is disposing of that author rather too summarily. It is true that Aristophanes attributes to Socrates a mass of opinions and practices, some of which belonged to other philosophers, and some perhaps were purely fictitious; and that he was altogether mistaken in his selection of Socrates as the representative of the Sophists; but it does not follow from this that the thing he describes had no real existence: on the contrary, the mere fact of his making the attack upon the sophistical spirit embodied in the odd and grotesque figure of Socrates, and the pale face of his friend Chærephon, is a proof of the strong popular antipathy already growing against a new set of teachers called Sophists, which must no doubt have had some real foundation: Interdum vulgus recte videt: and the singularly bitter spirit which pervades the whole play, and interferes considerably with the comic effect, shows that this time at least Aristophanes was in real earnest. Aristophanes' evidence unsupported would be worth little it is the business of a comic poet and satirist to exaggerate and distort; but it gains weight when confirmed, as

:

it is, by the testimony of other writers of much higher historical authority. At the very lowest, and putting out of the question his own opinion of the mischievous nature of the teaching which he was assailing-which however we are by no means called upon to do we may accept the Clouds as good evidence of a strong popular feeling against the Sophists, grounded it can hardly be doubted, and indeed as appears from the play itself, upon the sceptical and subversive character of their opinions upon religion and morals. Of course it may be said that the blow was aimed at all philosophers and philosophy indiscriminately: and I do not say that Aristophanes made any very nice distinctions between them; but there are at any rate two express allusions to Protagoras' known peculiarities, one to his opeоereía and the distinctions of gender which he introduced into grammar, Nub. 659, sq. (comp. Arist. Rhet. III. 5), and the other to his rhetori cal teaching and his profession τὸν ἥττω λόγον κρείττω ποιεῖν (comp. Arist. Rhet. II. 26). Prodicus is also mentioned, and with commendation, v. 361, but only by way of contrast to the rest of the Sophists represented by Socrates: and the value of the compliment is still further diminished by the notices of him in two other plays, Aves 691, where he is classed with the others as a μeтewρоσopioтns, and Tagenista (Fragm. 6. Dind.), in which he is reckoned amongst the adoλéoxa-a name by which Aristophanes expressed his sense of the value and importance of the studies and occupations of the Sophists. Nub. 1480. 1485.

Mr Grote is again disposed to get rid of Socrates as a witness against the Sophists. All that he says about him is, parenthetically, p. 487: "It is Plato and not Socrates who was peculiarly hostile 12 to them, as may be seen by the absence of any such

12 Socrates was a good-natured man and not "hostile" to any body, and ready to converse on easy and equal terms with all men, and all classes of society of which there are some remarkable examples in the Memorabilia. Mr Grote might just as well argue that Socrates was not "hostile to courtesans," because he goes to pay a visit to Theodote (Mem. III. II) and instructs her in the arts of attraction. If the Symposium of Plato could be considered as in any way founded on fact, (which how

ever I am very far from maintaining), the terms on which he is there represented as conversing with Aristophanes, would be a very striking illustration of his good nature and forgiving disposition in fact, this easy cheerful temper, εὐκολία and εὐθυμία, appears in every thing that is related of him. But even Plato does not represent him as embittered against the Sophists; he simply confutes and exposes them: but his known opinions and character, and the direct opposition of his habits, views of