Guthrie the Sophists OCR
-
Upload
homologate -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
3
Transcript of Guthrie the Sophists OCR
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 1/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 2/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 3/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 4/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 5/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 6/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 7/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 8/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 9/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 10/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 11/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 12/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 13/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 14/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 15/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 16/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 17/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 18/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 19/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 20/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 21/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 22/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 23/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 24/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 25/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 26/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 27/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 28/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 29/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 30/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 31/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 32/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 33/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 34/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 35/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 36/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 37/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 38/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 39/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 40/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 41/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 42/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 43/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 44/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 45/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 46/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 47/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 48/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 49/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 50/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 51/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 52/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 53/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 54/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 55/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 56/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 57/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 58/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 59/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 60/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 61/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 62/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 63/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 64/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 65/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 66/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 67/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 68/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 69/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 70/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 71/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 72/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 73/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 74/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 75/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 76/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 77/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 78/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 79/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 80/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 81/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 82/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 83/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 84/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 85/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 86/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 87/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 88/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 89/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 90/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 91/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 92/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 93/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 94/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 95/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 96/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 97/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 98/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 99/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 100/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 101/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 102/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 103/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 104/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 105/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 106/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 107/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 108/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 109/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 110/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 111/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 112/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 113/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 114/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 115/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 116/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 117/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 118/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 119/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 120/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 121/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 122/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 123/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 124/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 125/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 126/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 127/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 128/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 129/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 130/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 131/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 132/357
The ' Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis
1 2 2
with which the Eumolpidae [hereditary priests at Eleusis] g i v e their decisions,
l a w s wh ic h no one has been able to invalidate nor dared to contrad ict, nor
do they kno w their aut hor; for in this wa y die y bel ieve that an offender
w i l l pay the penalty not only to men but to the gods.
T h o m s o n has notic ed the str iki ng paral lel be tw ee n the orator 's 'n or
do they k n o w thei r au t hor ' and Ant i go ne ' s wo rd s about unwri t ten
l a w s , that ' n o one kn ow s f rom whe nce they co me ' . 1
Plato 's opini on o f a de moc rac y, in the degenerate and extreme form
in which it leads to tyranny, is that the people 'disregard all laws
wri tt en or un wri tt en, in their dete rmina tion to ha ve no master ov er
t h e m ' . 2 In the Laws he speaks again of the unwritten l a w s .
A l l that we are now discussing [says the Athenian ( 7 9 3a)] is what people
in general call 'unwritten l a w s ' , and all such injunctions amou nt to wh at
they call the 'laws of our ancestors'. 3 And what we said recently, that one
should neither call them laws nor yet pass them over, was w e l l said. They
are the bonds that hold a political society together, 4 links between laws
already on the statute book and those still to be enacted, in truth a body of
ancestral and age -o ld precepts wh ic h if rightly con cei ved and put into
practice protect and safeguard the written laws of die time, but if they
swerve from the right path they cause everything to collapse like a building
when the builders' supports g i v e wa y . Wi th this in mind we must bindyour new city together with everything possible that goes by the name of
l a w, custom or usage.
1 I feel inclin ed to ques tion Eh ren ber g's vi ew of this passage when it leads him to s ay thatfor Pericles 'even the sacred l a w s of Eleusis wer e not par t of a divi ne world contraste d wit h a
man-made order ' (S. and P. 47).2 Rep. 563 d, ίν α δ ή μ η δ α μ η μ η δ ε ί ς α ύ τ ο ΐ ς fj δ ε σ π ό τ η ς , p ro ba bl y a d el ibe ra te r em in de r ot
Demar atus 's boast in the grea t da ys of Gre ece : ε π ε σ τ ιyap σ φ ι δ ε σ π ό τ η ; ν ό μ ο ς (p. 69 above ).
Hirzel pointed to this passa ge of Plat o as a direct contradict ion of Pericle s's eu olo gy of Athe nian
democracy, but Plato is speaking of a state in which the democratic ideal of liberty has reachedthe stage of α π λ η σ τ ί αwhich is its downfall. There is no hint that Athens had reached this
stage in the days of Pericl es, before P lato w as born.3 ά γ ρ α φ α ν ό μ ιμ α and π α τ ρ ί ο υ ς ν ό μ ο υ ς . W hi l e ν ό μ ιμ α could be a v ag ue r term than ν ό μ ο ς , it is
obvious that they could sometimes be used interchange ably. Cf. ν ό μ ιμ α θ ε ώ νat Eur. Suppl.
1 9 wit h τ ο υ ς θ ε ώ νν ό μ ο υ ς at S oph. Aj. 1343 (both referring to burial of the dead), and the vari
ati ons in De m. 23 (Jn Answer.), 61 and 70. In saying that they should not be called ν ό μ ο ι
Plato is recalling his remark at 788a that the e duc ati on of chil dren is a matte r for instru cti on and
admonition rather than law.4 Cf. Devlin, E. of M. 10 : 'S oci et y is not something that is kept toget her phy sic all y; it is
held by the invisible bonds of common t hough t . If the bonds we re too far relaxe d the mem ber s
wo ul d drift apart. A com mon mor al it y is part of the bondag e. T he bo nda ge is part of the pri ce
of soc ie ty; and manki nd, whi ch needs soci ety, must pay its price. ' (Ther e is something ol
Protagor as here too.) To Plato δ ε σ μ ο ί were a necessity, to Antiph on an incubus (lr . 44 A,
col. 4).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 133/357
Written and Unwritten Law
S e x u a l indulgence in public is an example of the kind of thing which
Plato suggests should be discouraged by 'unwrit ten law', habituating
the citi zens to a sense o f sham e, rather than by legal prohibit ion (Laws
841b) ; and (like X e n o p h o n ' s Socra tes) he cites incest as a case w he re
such unwritten law is already an adequate deterrent (ibid. 838 a-b).Aris to t le attacks the subject with his characteristic zeal for classi
fication. H e first, in Rhetoric 1, ch. 10 (1368by), divides law into
particular and univ er sal : 'pa rt ic ular ' is the writ ten la w o f an indivi dual
s ta te , 'universal ' embraces everything that is unwri t ten b ut agre ed
up on b y all. In ch. 13, h o w e v e r , after the same initial di vi si on ( i 3 7 3 b 4 )
into part icular and universal (and an equation o f 'u ni ve rs al ' wi th
'n at ur al ' la w) , he proc eed s to div id e the la w o f particular states itselfinto writ ten and unwr it te n. A t this poi nt it shou ld be stated that the
object o f the chap ter is to classify just and unjust act ion s. T h e di vi si on
o f the la ws is sub or din ate to this end , bec aus e just and unj ust acts
' h a v e been defined relat iv ely to tw o kinds o f l a w ' . 1 The law of nature
exists because ' there really is a natural and universal right and wrong,
apart from any association or covenant ' ; and he quotes as examples
A n t i g o n e ' s famous claim and Empedocles fr. 135. There are then
(1374 a 18) tw o kin ds o f righ t and w r o n g , the one laid d o w n in wr it in g
and the other not, and the second is again divided into (a) virtue and
v i c e in excess of that which the law takes note of, which are visited
with praise, honours and gifts or reproach and dishonour respectively
( i . e . non -le gal rew ard s and pena lti es; exampl es o f the former are
grat itud e for and requit al of benefits and readiness to hel p fri ends) ,
(b) acts wh ic h, th ou gh th ey migh t be the subject of pos it iv e la w, are
omitted b y it o wi n g to the impossibi l i ty o f al l owi ng for eve ry vari ety
o f case wit hin the fr am ewo rk o f gener al ru le s: here wh at is no t wri tt en
is s imply a supp lement to wha t is . I t is kn ow n as equ i ty ( τ ό ε π ιε ικ έ ς ) . 2
1 In the Ethics (i i34bi8ff.) Aristotle argues that there is both a natural and a l e g a l form of
pol i t ica l justice. Some, he s a y s , hav e doubted the existence of a φ ύ σ ε ιδ ί κ α ι ο ν ,because what
i i M .ilural is constant (fire bur ns e ve ry whe re and a l w a y s ) , whereas τ ά δ ί κ α ι α κ ι ν ο ύ μ ε ν αΛ ρ Λ ο ι ν .Thes e are the doubts of the sophistic age , ques tioni ng the certainti es of a Sol on or an
A c ' i c h y l u s . Aristot le counter s them by a some what obscure and unsati sfact ory ar gum en t,
i r l l c c t i n g the conflict between Platonist and sophist in his own mind and ending l a m e l y wi ththe M .ttcment that there is 'only one natural, universal constitution, namely the best'. Barker
an interesting hut probabl y over -subt le comment ary on this passa ge in his intr oduc tion to
( i i e l l i e ' s Nulur.il / .me, WW.
' On die meanin g of eq uit y in Aristotl e see also W. von Leyd en in Philosophy, 1967, 6-8.
1 2 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 134/357
The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis
particular = writ ten
Rhet. A 1 3 , I373b4ff .
universal — unwrit ten
Γparticular universa l (=na tura l )
In addition the classification of r i g h t and wrong act ions at 1 3 7 4 3 1 8 can be shown thus :
right and wr on g action s
determined b y writ ten l a w no t set down in writ ing
e x t r a - l e g a l types of
virtue and vice
1 24
supplementation ofexisting law
A passion fo r r educ ing eve ry th ing t o classified o r tabulated form
is a lways dangerous , and Ari s to t l e has not escaped its snares. A s
Hirzel po in ted o u t , 1 the divis ions are inconsistent , and the passages
in ch. 10 and chs . 13-14 p r o b a b l y b e l o n g t o different discussions.
Ye t , a l t h o u g h there a r e two k inds o f unwr i t t en l a w, t hey are not
con t rad ic to ry, a n d Aris to t le he ld both v i e w s : (a) t he nomoi o f a par t i
cu la r communi ty are both wr i t ten an d unwri t ten , the latter (based o n
i ts customs a n d t radit ions) n o t contradic t ing b u t supp lemen t ing th e
f o r m e r ; (b) ' u n w r i t t e n l a w s ' signifies also the universa l , natural l a w s
as in the Antigone a n d D e m o s t h e n e s .
It must b e r emembered that Ari s to t l e i s w r i t i n g a h a n d b o o k o f
rhetoric, based o n ear l ie r handbooks . H i s objec t is not to see that t he
eternal l a w o f na tu re prevai l s , but to s h o w h o w a pleader can j u g g l e
w i t h the not ions o f wri t t en a nd unwr i t t en law as w i l l best suit his
case. So in ch. 15 he g o e s on to s h o w h o w t h e theor ies which he has
e x p o u n d e d m a y b e appl ied i n pract ice . I f the wri t ten law is against
h im, t he advocate must appeal to the universal l a w, insist ing on i ts
greater equity a n d just ice. T h e w o r d s o f the juror ' s oa th , ' according
to m y hones t opin ion ' , mean that he w i l l n o t s lavishly f o l l o w t he
1 Hirzel, "Α γ ρ . ν ό μ . ί ο .Aristotle's classifications can be put in tabular form thu s:
Rhet. A 10 , I368b7ff .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 135/357
Aristotle s Classification of Laws
writ t en law . T h e unive rsal law is the law o f equi ty, the un ch an gi ng
l aw o f n a t u r e , 1 whe rea s wri t ten l aws are unstable. He w i l l quote the
Antigone, and declare tha t the written laws do not fulfil the t rue pur
pos e of la w, and s o on . If on the ot her h a n d the wri t te n law supp orts
his case, he w i l l expla in that the jur or' s oath is not mean t to ab so lv ehim from f ol lo wi ng the law , but o nl y to save him fro m the guil t o f
perjury if he misunder stands i t ; that no one choo ses absolu te go od ,
but only the good for himself ; 2 that not to use the laws is as bad as
not having any; and tha t it doe s no t p ay to tr y to be cl eve rer than the
doc to r.
These are the tricks that Go rg ia s and his l ike we re already tea chi ng
their pupils and writing in their technai, and the passage shows howthe g r o w t h o f rheto ric and the pass ion for liti gati on a m o n g the
Gre eks contr ibut ed to the unsc rupu lou s subo rdina tion o f ethical
con cep ts to the ex pe di en cy o f the mo me nt . In itself, the doc tri ne o f
unw rit ten la ws , val id at all t imes and for all men — nomoi which are
rooted in physis and at the same time di vi ne ly orda ined and o f a loft y
moral tone —sta nds for the archaic tradit ions, bo th philos ophi cal and
popular, which were now being chal lenged by the new moral i ty.Fo r Hes iod justice rested o n the law o f Ze us , as for Her acli tus all
human laws we re emana tions o f the divine (p. 5 5 a b o v e ) , a n d E m p e d o -
cles (fr. 135) co ul d spea k o f a la w for all , 'e xt en di ng t hr ou gh the w i d e
air and the imme nse l igh t o f he av en ' . T h e rel igi ous ba ck gr ou nd to
this is seen at its bes t in the w o r d s o f So lo n at the en d o f the se ve nt h
century. What the immorta l gods g i v e , no man can escape. Pro spe ri t y
based on evi l co nd uc t is in ev it ab ly insec ure, for Ze us is gu ard ia n o f the
moral law. Soon or late the blow w i l l f a l l , th oug h Ze us ma y be s low
to pun ish a nd the sufferers ma y be the offen der's ch il dr en . It is the ol d
1 Bignone (Studi, 129 , n. 1) sees in these wo rd s a clear reminiscence of Antip hon . It mig ht
•· w e l l be Hippias or others, bu t at least his remark is further evide nce, if that w ere necessary ,that Aris totle is sim ply repeating notion s alr ead y familiar in the hey da y of the Sophi sts. Hirzel
( ' Ay p . vou. 8) finds it difficult t o unders tan d ho w Arist otl e coul d sa y here of τ ό ε π ι ε ι κ έ ςthat
If ά ιΙ μ ί ν ε ικ α Ι ο υ δ έ π ο τ εμ ε τ α β ά λ λ ε ιin vie w of the va ri et y wh ich he has earl ier ascri bed to it. It is
uatnnishing how pr evio us scholars seem to hav e sole mnly analy sed this passage as a se rious
statement of Aristotle's v i e w s , whereas it is one of a pair of contrasting ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ιto be usedη · occasion demands in the interests of victor y in the courts. (S ke mp is an exception, Plato's
Statesman, 198.) On the not ion of ε π ι ε ι κ έ ςsee Cope, Introd. to Rhet. 190-3.1 'Sc. and our written l a w s , which were made for us, may not reach the abstract ideal of
perfection, but they proba bly suit us better than if they di d.' ( R h y s Ro ber ts , Oxf. Tr an s, ad lac.)
I * 1 )
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 136/357
The 'Nemos'—Physis* Antithesis
doct r ine , whi ch w e see a l so wo rk ed out in Ae sc hy lu s , that ' t he doer
shall suffer ' , hybris i s inevi tab ly fo l lowed by ate, do om , under the
author i ty of Zeu s w h o 'wa tc he s ov er the end of ev er y t h i ng ' . In a
str i king s imile So lo n com pa res the judg men t o f Ze us to a spr ing g ale
w h i c h stirs the sea to its very bottom, ravages the crops on earth and at
the same time sweeps the clouds from the sky so that the sun shines
ou t on ce mo re in all i ts str eng th.
S e v e r a l scholars have pointed out that in this pass age ' the v en ge an ce
o f Ze us fal ls wi th the wei gh t and ine vi tab i l i ty o f a natura l p h e n o m e n o n ' ,
that ' S o l o n gi ve s us our first inti mati on o f the lawf ulne ss o f n a t u r e ' 1 —
surely an addit ional reason against supposing that the 'na tura l i s t ic '
unw rit ten la ws o f w h i c h Hipp ias speaks are nece ssari ly different from
those upheld as divine in the Antigone ( p p. n o f . a b o v e ) .
Ar i s to t l e has sh ow n h o w the unwri t ten laws cou ld be in vo ke d b y
an unsc rup ulo us adv oca te in the interests o f a part icular case. T he re
wa s inde ed a da nge r o f their abu se, especi ally w h e n the ideal o f a
be nev ole nt and paternal ar is tocra cy had gi ve n place to the cr ow ni ng
achievement of Greek pol i t ica l genius , the polis or ci ty-state , in which
the wr itt en cons tit uti on w as the gua ran tee o f a cit ize n's righ ts and the
bulwark aga ins t ty ranny or oppress ion , and the watchword wasisonomia, equal i ty before the law. 3 Jus t as physis could be invoked
either to up ho ld human ita ria n ideals or in the interests o f ag gr es si on
and the ov er th ro w o f const i t ut ional g ov er nm en t , so the idea o f un
wri t ten law, wh ic h or ig ina l ly emphas ized the mora l gov er nme nt of
the unive rse, cou ld, in a mor e democ rat i c soc iet y, appear s imp ly as
retro grade and a menac e to the ha rd -w on assurance o f hum an r ights
that n o w was wr i t te n in to the s ta tu te -book. T h e res tored dem oc rac y
at the end o f the fifth c en tu ry de cr ee d that ' the magis tra te sh ou ld in
no case make use o f unwr i t t en l aw ' , that the laws shou ld treat all citizens
alike without dis t inct ion, and that they must be displayed in public
for al l to see (Andocides, De mystt. 85). Theseu s , cond emni ng ty ranny
in the Supplices of Euripides (429ff . ) , says that ' under wr i t ten laws
1 L e s k y , Hist. Gr. Lit. 125 ; Sn ell , Disc, of Mind, 212. Sol on , says Snell, is using the Hom eri c
typ e of simile, bu t for a ne w purpos e, to expre ss 'n ot so much the indivi dual expl osi ons ol
energy but the necessity which prompts them, not the unique event, but the continuous condi
tio n'. Th is insight 'pla ces him on the threshold o f philoso phy*. On e might compare the cosmic
δ ί κ η of Anaxi mand er. ( Th e passages of Solo n referred to occur in fr. 1 Dichl .)1 O n Ισ ο ν ο μ ία ; ind democracy see p. 150, n. 2 , below.
1 2 6
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 137/357
Importance of Written Laws
justice is meted out impartially to the feeble and the wealthy, the
lesser man o ve rc om es the greater if his cause is ju st ' . Th i s happ ens
' when the demos is mast er in the la nd '.
T h e difference be tw ee n Sop hoc le s and Euripide s here is interes ting.
It would seem that Sophocles in the Antigone is a passionate up ho ld er
o f the unwr it ten law, and Euri pide s of the wr it te n. 1 Y e t bo th are
equal ly opp osi ng the tyrant, and Sophoc les , w h o t oo k his ful l share of
public duties, wa s no less a cha mpi on o f consti tuti onal and l egal
safeguards. In the Antigone itself (367 f . ) , the chorus declare that the
amazi ng inge nuit y o f man w i l l on ly lead to g o o d if he remai n wi th in
the framework of the polis and respect the laws of the land, 2 and in the
Oedipus at Colonus The seu s rebukes Cr eo n bec aus e, ' hav in g co me to a
c i t y which observes justice and determines nothing without law, you
reject the legitimate authorities' (9i2ff.) . W e do not need the w o r d
' wr it te n' her e to tell us that Soph ocl es is thi nkin g o f posit ive, for mu
lated law as it wa s und ers to od in the At he ns o f his day . C on v e r s el y the
The seu s o f Euri pid es, in the v er y same pl ay in wh i c h he insists on
the need for written l a w s , is asserting the same sacred du ty as An t i g on e,
the duty o f bu r yi ng the dead. B y do i ng this, he s a y s , I shall pr ese rv e the
c o m m o n nomos of Greece (526f.), and his mother Aethra accuses
C r c o n o f ' f l ou t i n g t he nomima o f the g o d s ' (19).
Tha t there is a difference o f m o o d and emphas is be t we en the t w o
poets no one could deny. It cannot be explained on chronological
grounds,3 yet in a w a y th ey do stand for tw o gener ati ons, beca use
Euripides was so much more attracted than Soph ocle s to the mod er n,
sophistic currents o f th oug ht . L i k e Protagoras , he knew that there
wore two sides to every question, and he enjoyed as much as Hippias
the 'contest o f w o r d s ' in wh ic h his characters ind ul ge . 4 The debate
1 S o Hirzel, "Α γ ρ . ν ο μ . 69-71, in an interesting discussion with which on some points I am
venturing to disagree.1 Pohlenz (Kl. Schr. 11, 352) lik ens Sopho cles to Prot ago ras in his respe ct for la w as ma n' s
highest cultural achievement.
' So far as can be judged, the Antigone was produced about 440, the Supplices of Euripides
about 420, and the Oedipus Coloneus posthumously in 401.4 Cf. fr. 1X9 (from the Antiope):
ίκ π α ν τ ό ς α ν τ ι ς π ρ ά γ μ α τ ο ς δ ι σ σ ώ ν λ ό γ ω ν
α γ ώ ν α θ ε ϊ τ ' &ν ε ϊ λ έ γ ε ι ν ε ΐη σ ο φ ό ς ,
l o r Λ μ ι λ λ α ιor Λ γ ώ ν ι ς λ ό γ ω νsee Suppl. 195, 4 2 7^ > Med. 546, Or. 491. On the agonistic
i l l i i l a i l e r ol sophistic sec p. 41 above.
1 2 7
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 138/357
The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis
1 2 8
b e t w e e n Theseus and the herald as to whether the dead warriors
shou ld b e buried de ve lo ps into a set piece on absolute mo na rc hy
versus dem ocr acy . Al t ho ug h i t is clear wher e Euripid es 's sympath ies
l ie , the herald is no caricat ure o f a bom bas ti c tyran t' s min io n, bu t an
accompl ished sophist and or ator . M y city , he s a y s , has no use formob -r ul e. N o one can sw ay it this w a y or that b y pl ay in g on its
vani ty, pleasing it for the moment but in the long run harming it. 1
S i n c e a whole demos cannot j udg e argument s co rrect ly, h o w can it
direct a c i t y ? Education takes time, and even if a labouring man is no
f o o l , his work prevents him from g i v i n g proper attention to public
affa i rs . ( W h y ha ve these arg ume nts a familiar ri ng? It is Socrate s in
the Gorgias who compla ins that orators in a de mo cr ac y lay th em
s e l v e s out to natter the demos rather than tell it what w i l l be for its
g o o d , and Socrates again who said, like Hume, that ' pover ty and
hard labou r debase the mind s of the c om mo n pe op l e ' and unfit the m
fo r polit ics, wh i c h wa s a matter for trained ex per ts .) 2 Failure (continues
the herald) to co mp ly wi th Cr eo n' s demands means war . Y o u ma y
hop e to wi n : ho pe has been the cause o f ma ny a conflict. E v e r yo n e
thinks that its misfortunes w i l l fal l on others, not himself. (Just so
did the Ath eni ans wa rn the unfort unate Melians of the snares of h op e
in T h u c . 5.i o3-) 3 If, wh en the vo te is taken, each citizen cou ld
v i s u a l i z e his o w n death in battle, Gr eec e w o u l d be safe from wa r-
madnes s. W e all k n o w h o w mu ch better peace is than war, ye t w e
renounce it in our lust to enslave one another, as men and as cities.
A wi se ma n thi nks o f his chi ldr en, his paren ts, and the safety of his
country. A rash leader is a danger: t rue cou rag e l ies in for eth oug ht . 4
Here is a man who has studied the technai o f Go rg i as and others andmastered all the rhetorical tri cks. A n y arg ume nt y o u like can b e
' In similar vein Hip pol ytu s— a ve ry different ch aract er—s ays pro udl y {Hipp. 986) : * I have
no sk i l l to speak to the m o b ; m y wi sd om is rat her for the few, my equa ls . An d this is fitting.
Those who in the e y e s of the wise are of no account—it is they who are more accomplished in
the art of mob-o rator y. '1 Hume, Essays and Treatises (Edinburgh , 1 8 2 5 ) , p. 19 5. For Socr ates see e.g. Xen . Mem.
1 . 2 . 9 , Oec. 4. 2-3, Plato, Rep. 495 d- e, Ari st. Rhet. 1 3 9 3b 3. More of this in Socrates, 89 ff.3 It seems to ha ve been a comm onpl ace of the time. Anti pho n wrot e (fr. 58): ' H o p e s ar e
no t a l w a y s a goo d thing. Th e y hav e bro ugh t ma ny to irrepar able disast er, wh o in the end havesuffered themselves what they t hough t to inflict on their neighbours.'
4 Cf. Poly nice s (another uns ympat heti c character) at Phoen. 599:
α σ φ α λ ή ςγ α ρ ε σ τ 'ά μ ε ίν ω νή θ ρ α σ ϋ ς σ τ ρ α τ η λ ά τ η ς .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 139/357
Written and Unwritten Laws: Summary
subordinated to the oppo r tu nis m o f the mo me nt . Ev en the case for
pacifism (and no on e surpassed Eu rip ide s in his ho rr or o f w a r ; see
fo r instance the chorus in the Helen, 1 1 5 1 ff.) can be v i v i d l y presented
in the interests o f a ruthl ess ul ti ma tu m.
T o sum up a co mp le x s i tuat ion, the term 'u nwr i t ten l a w s ' was appl ied
in the first pl ace to certai n mo ral prin cip les be li ev ed to be un iv er sa ll y
v a l i d , or a l ternat ively val id a l l over the Greek world . 1 T h e i r a u t h o r s
were the go ds , and no breach o f the m coul d remain unp uni shed . T h e y
were al ready c l o s e l y connected wi th the natura l wor ld , for to contras t
man wi th nature instead of seeing him as a par t of i t is a modern ra ther
than a Gr ee k habit . So for instance Heracl i tus , w h o sp ok e o f al l hu ma n
l a w s being nourished by the one divine law, also said that i f the sun
left his course the Furies, agents of D i k e , would find him out. In
contrast to these ord inan ces o f he av en , each co un tr y or ci ty had i ts
o w n nomoi. I t made laws to suit i ts own beliefs and needs, laws which
had no force els ewh ere and in their o w n land mi gh t be al tered to suit
changed circumsta nces . In genera l i t w o u l d be tho ug ht jus t or r ight
to observe these l a w s , b u t th ey ha d not the scop e or force o f the di vi ne
or natural l a w s , and t o the ques tin g mi nd s o f the sophi st ic ag e i t w as
matter for deb ate h o w far dikaion and nomimon coin cide d, the answ er
dep endi ng ve ry mu ch on whe th er or no t a speaker wa s prepa red to
include the divine nomoi under the latter head.
A second mean ing o f ' un wr i t t en l aw ' de r ived f rom the ambig u i t y
o f the word nomos (p. 56 ab o v e) . Since i t mean t the c us to ms o f a
coun t ry as w e l l as i t s law, 'unwri t ten nomoi' s tood for what was be
l i e v e d in that country to be r ight and equi table but could not in
pract ice be included in a cor pus o f wri t ten l aw. Y e t i t w o u l d be taken
into account in judging a part icular case (Ar. Rhet. 13743261?.).
B y the midd le o f the fifth ce nt ur y a secula r tren d o f t h o u g h t is
g a i n i n g gr ou nd a t the expen se o f the theist ic , wh ic h did not h o we v e r
b y an y means disappear co mp le te ly . Side b y side wi t h i t appear s an
1 Sec p. i 2i , n. 3, above. On the so-called 'T hr ee Com man dme nts ' see Ehrenberg, S. and P.
1Λ 7 72, who rig htly claims that the situation wa s much m ore fluid tha n this phrase sug ges ts.
Il In of some interest t hat thre e of Per icle s's unw ri tt en l a w s (to worship God, to obey parents,
mill to show gratitude to benefactors) recur in a modern writer's l i s t of commands which 'Locke
mid most other the oris ts' wo uld incl ude in the law of nature (vo n Leyd en, Philosophy, 1956, 27).
1 29
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 140/357
The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis
1 3 0
impersona l ' n a t u r e ' , whose decrees are as absolute, and their neglect
as in evi tab ly pun ish ed, as thos e o f the go ds had bee n. But they do no t
necessari ly f o l l o w the prec epts o f t radit ional mo ral i ty , for un der the
influence o f mec han ist ic scientific theo ries the natura l world i s no
longer subjec t to mora l government . The effec t i s seen in Ant iphon,
for whom pleasure i s the natura l go al and the old divin e un wri t te n la w
that paren t s sho uld be ho no ur ed i s 'o f ten cont rary to n a t u r e ' . F o r
C a l l i c l e s t he ' l aw o f n a t u r e ' , which eve ry man shou ld f o l l o w w h o
has the str eng th and det er min ati on to do so , justified the c ru des t
hedonism and the most out rageous tyranny.
T h e decline o f rel i gio us sancti ons coin cid ed w it h the r ise o f d e m o
cra tic go ve rn me nt , for wh ic h pos i t ive , wr i t t en la w appeared as a
safeguard against the r e t u r n o f tyr ann y or o l iga rch y based on the
n e w c o n c e p t i o n o f ' n a t u r e ' s l a w ' . T h e la tte r wa s perforce unw ri t t en
and so, finally, the co nc ep t o f 'u n wr it te n l a w ' to o k o n a sinister
mea nin g and wa s banished f ro m the mo der n , mo re near ly egal i ta r ian
soc ie ty.
T h i s was the state o f the ques t i on wh en Pla to to ok it o v e r : a t o ne
extr eme the equ ali ty o f all ci t izens und er a wr i t t en and pu blis hed co de
o f la w, at the othe r the ideal o f the st ro ng ma n, na tu re ' s h e r o , w h o
spurn s the law in his mar ch to abs olu te and self ishly exercise d p o w er .
T o bo th o f these Pla to opp os ed f irst his co nc ep ti on o f na ture itself as
an intel l igen t and mor al for ce, and sec on dl y (Politicus 292 ff.) hi s
v i s i o n o f the wis e, enl igh ten ed and trained ruler, master o f the science
o f go ver nme n t , wh os e ru l e wo u l d inev i t ab ly bene f it hi s peop le . Su ch
a one would do be t te r wi thout wr i t ten l a w s , imposing the frui ts of his
scientif ic und ers tan din g on subjects wi l l in g or un wi l l in g, ki l l in g orbanis hing w he n necessary for the heal th of the c i ty as a wh ol e . (Ev en
the docile Y o u n g Socrates is moved to a protest at this point .) Codified
l a w is o nl y a set o f cl um sy rules of th um b, w h i ch can no t al lo w for the
infini te varie ty o f part icular cases. A magistrate w h o go ve rn s b y i t ,
as compared with the t rue statesman, w i l l be l ike a lay ma n tr yi ng to
cure a pat ient b y lo o k in g up the disease in a b o o k com par ed to a
skilled and exper ienced phy s ic ia n us ing h is exper t jud gme nt . Th isdrast ic con clus ion i s cons ider ably modif ied wh en Pla to goe s on to
admit that in the absence of the ideal s tatesman a good code of laws
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 141/357
Plato s Attitude to Law
prov ides the bes t ' imi t a t ion ' of h i s rule and in all ordinary states
must b e d r a w n up and enfo rced wi th th e u tmos t r igour.
Final ly, t o remind ourse lves h o w las t ing ha s been this di lemma
w h i c h th e Greeks were the first t o f a c e , w e have on ly t o l ook aga in at
the passages from Rousseau an d L o c k e quoted earl ier (p . 23), an d the
twen t i e th -cen tu ry judgment o f M r C a m p b e l l , t o w h i c h m a y b e
appended as a com men t wha t Ernes t Barke r wro te o f t h e Natura l L a w
schoo l o f t he seven teen th an d e igh teen th cen tu r i e s :
T o begin with, there was the current conception that Natural Law somehow
overbore law positive, so that enactments and acts o f State which ran con
trary to its prescriptions were strictly null and vo id , eve n if in actual practice,
o w i n g to the absence of any machinery for their disal lowan ce, these acts
and enactments retained their validity. Such a conception—applied invarious forms, sometimes with a greater and sometimes with a less degree
o f reverence for actual law—was a ready solvent o f political obligation.
Th e rebel against consti tuted autho rity cou ld easily plead obedien ce to thehigher law, and could readily allege that he was only exerting, or defending,
the natural rights which he enjoyed under that l a w . . . A n English judge
had uttered the obiter dictum, in 1 6 1 4 , that ' e v e n an A c t o f Parliament made
against natural equity . . . is void in itself; for jura naturae sunt immutabilia,
and they are leges legum'.
T h i s c o n c e p t w a s invoked indi fferent ly in the cause o f popu la r i sm
and o f abso lu t i sm, fo r ' na ture c o u l d b e used t o consecra te th e m o n a r c h
as w e l l as the p e o p l e ' . In the A m e r i c a n W a r o f Independence , ' i t w a s
the Law of Nature w h i c h , m o r e than a n y other force , exp lod ed the
author i ty of t he Brit ish Parl iament and the B r i t i s h c o n n e x i o n ' . 1
A P P E N D I X
Pindar on 'nomos'
N o discussion o f the nomos-physis antithesis would b e complete without amention o f Pindar's famous allusion to 'nomos king of all , mortals andimmortals alike', but there is no agreement as to its meaning. I can only setout the alternatives and indicate what appears to me to be most probably
its purport.T h e relevant passage is fr. 152 Bowra, 169 Schr. Plato at Gorg. 484b
ijuutcs the first 4 ji lines and g i v e s the sense down to v. 7 ; w. 1-4 occur also
• Barker, introduction to Gierke ' s Natural Law, pp . x l v i - x l v i i i .
1 3 1
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 142/357
The ' Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis
132
in schol. Pind. Nem. 9. 35, and 5-7 in schol. on Ael . Arist ides ( h i , 408,19 Dindorf). A great gain has been th e publication in 1961 of a papyrus
(OP X X V I , 2450) o f the greater part o f the poem from v. 6 onwards . 1 1 quote
vv. 1-8 : , , , ,ν ο μ ό ς ο τ τ α ν τ ω ν β α σ ιλ ε ύ ςθ ν α τ ώ ν τ εκ α ια θ α ν ά τ ω να /ε ι δ ίκ α ιω ν τ ό β ια ιό τ α τ ο ν2
υ π έ ρ τ α τ αχ ε ιρ ί. τ ε κ μ α ίρ ο μ α ιε ρ γ ο ισ ιν Ή ρ α κ λ έ ο ςέ ττε ί Γ η ρ υ ό ν α β ό α ςΚ υ κ λ ώ τ τ ε ιο νέ τ η ιτ ρ ό θ υ ρ ο ν Ε ύ ρ υ σ θ έ ο ςα ΐτ η τ ά ξ 3τ ε κ α ι ά τ τ ρ ιά τ α ς ε λ α σ ε ν .
T he poem continues with Heracles's theft of the horses o f Diomedes,
including a gruesome description o f a man's bones being crunched b y thehorses.
Plato's Cal l i c l e s quotes the passage in support of his own doctrine
that might is right: Pindar's nomos is not man-made law bu t the supreme
l a w o f nature which justifies th e most extreme violence (or alternatively
does violence to accepted notions o f justice). The irony o f this interpretation
is apparent, but it still remains a question whether nomos has its usual
meaning o f ordinarily accepted custom or stands for a higher law of the god s.
Herodotus (3.38) associates Pindar's words with his own v i e w of therelativity o f nomos as illustrated b y the experiment o f Darius (p . 16 above) .
This is certainly th e sense o f fr. 203 β (215 Schr.)
ά λ λ ο δ ' ά λ λ ο ισ ι ν ό μ ισ μ α , σ φ ε τ έ ρ α ν δ ' α ίν ε ΐ δ ίκ α νέ κ α σ τ ο ς ,
which is in keeping with Herodotus's remark that each would choose hiso w n nomoi as the finest, and shows that Pindar certainly could, on occasion,
speak o f nomos as human and relative. 4 "Wilamowitz and Theiler both g i v enomos in our passage the sense o f ordinary custom or usage (Brauch):
1 S e e also Page in Proc. Camh. Philol. Soc. 1962 a nd Theiler i n Mus. Helv. 1 9 6 5 .3 This i s universal ly agreed to be correct, though the manuscripts of Plato have β ι α ί ω ν
(for β ί α ι ω ν )τ ό δ ι κ α ιό τ α τ ο ν .W e need no t here consider whether this i s a copyist 's error or adeliberately ironic misquotation on Plato's part. See on that Dodds , Gorg. 270-2 , and Theiler,
Mus. Helv. 1965 , 68 f.3 α ί τ η τ ά ς Theiler , compar ing Pl at o' s paraphrase ο ύ τ ε τ τ ρ ιά μ ε υ ο ξ ο ύ τ ε δ ό ν τ ο ς τ ο ΰ Γ . and
Soph. Ο .Τ . 38 4 δ ω ρ η τ ό νο Ο κα ϊ τ η τ ό ν . A ri st id es ' s p ar ap hr as e ( π , 68 Dind. ) is ο ΰ τ ε α ΐ τ η σ α ς
w he nc e B oe ck h' s ά ν α ι τ ή τ α ς w hi ch Sc hr . and Bowra follow, dvcrrel ( ' unpunished ' ) Page loc. cit.1 Few , I imagine, w i l l wish to follow Heinimann (N. u. Ph. 7 1 ) in arguing that even ihis
does not imply the relative ( a n d hence no t universal ly oblig atory) character of l a w s and customs
because each is an expression of the w i l l of Zeus an d therefore binding.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 143/357
Pindar on 'Nomos'
it is customary to accept the viole nce o f Heracles wi th out com ment or
criticism, and tho ugh Pindar has a highe r ethical insight he prefers to say
no more,as he makes clear in ίτ .γ ο Β . (quoted belo w: see Theiler, he.cit. 75).
According to Ae li us Ari stid es (11, 70 Din d. ) Pinda r's lines are an indignant
protest (σ χ ε τ λ ι ά ξ ω ν ) against a nomos which approves such violent deeds as
those of Heracles; and he confirms this by quoting another passage (fr.70 B . , 81 Schr.) in wh ic h Pindar sa ys : Ί am on yo ur side, Ge ry on es , bu t
I w i l l nev er say what is displeas ing to Zeus. ' The cont inuat ion o f the present
poem is in the same sense, for Pindar says that Diomedes in trying to save
his horses acted ' br av el y, not want onl y, for it is better to die p rote cting
one's own than to be a coward' (w. 14-17).
The fullest discussion is that of M. Gigante. 1 He believes Herodotus
wilfu l ly misrepresents the quo ta tio n in the sense of fr. 203 B. , and that to
translate nomos here by custo m closes the w a y to correct understanding.Nomos is ' t h e absolute principle of di vi ni ty '. Pindar intuits ' G o d as the
Absolu te ' : to quote his own words, God becomes 'idea e forza del mondo,
non piu ideale della purezza e della pieta, ma ideale della giustizia che nel
suo compiersi si servi della fo rza '. Pindar admits the right of the stro nger,
but only as the law and w i l l of Zeu s, not for huma n and cont ingent interests.
The most violent action is justified because, being realized by the w i l l o f
Z e u s , it leads to justice and we ll -be ing . Gig an te quotes fr. 48 B . (57 S chr. ),
in w hi ch Zeus is addressed as δ α μ ι ο ρ γ ό ς ε υ ν ο μ ία ς κ α ι δ ίκ α ς . (B ut w h yshould not fr. 203 Β . , ά λ λ ο δ ' ά λ λ ο ι σ ι ν ό μ ισ μ α , be equally apt?)
Untersteiner and Ehrenb erg , thou gh the y eschew mention o f the
Absolute, come to not dissimilar conclusions in their own w a y s . Unter
steiner agrees that in Pindar nomos is 'an inviolable and sacred order', 2
and Ehrenberg says (Rechtsidee, ii£>f.) that, thoug h not a 'Schi cksal s-
gottheit' as Schroeder thought, it is 'ancient and sacred custom', a usage
which can turn violence itself to justice, making holy even what is opposed
to the human sentiment o f what is right. D odds too thinks it unl ike ly thatby nomos Pindar meant m ere ly cust om. It is ' the law o f Fate, whi ch for him
is identical with the w i l l o f Zeu s' , and he too compares fr. 70 Β . : Ί w i l lnever say what is displeasing to Zeus.'
A l l these interpretations seem to ign ore what Pinda r plainly says : not
that nomos is the wi l l of Zeus but that even Zeus is subject to nomos,
which lords it over gods as w e l l as men. Fr. 70 is capable of a less lofty
reference than to 'th e l aw o f fat e'. Heracles wa s Zeu s's son, so na turally
1 Nomos Basileus, chs. 5-7, pp. 7 2 - 1 0 8 . On pp . 79—92 he g i v e s a useful review of previous
discussions of the fragment, to which H. Volkmann, in Gnomon, 195 8, 474f., ad ds E. Wolf ,
d r . HechtsJtnken, 11 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 190if.
' Sophs. 297, n. 30. 1 ie puts the words between quotes.
1 3 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 144/357
The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis
!34
Zeus favoured him, and (gods being the jealous creatures diey are) it would
be unwise for a mortal to take his victim's side too openly. A similar reply
may be made to Heinimann's comment on Pyth. 2 . 8 6 , where nomos =
form of government. The changes between tyranny, democracy and aristo
cracy (for Pindar 'the rule of the wise') are enumerated, and it is said that' the god' favours now this one, now that. This, Heinimann thinks, shows
that although nomos changes it depends not on human caprice but on Zeus
(N . u. Ph. 7 1 ) .What it does show is that a god can be as capricious as a man.
Pindar was pious in the sense that he thought mortals must submit to the
w i l l of the gods, but his religion retains much of the Homeric. He was
defender rather than critic of the Olympians. The more slanderous stories
about them must be rejected and their honour upheld (Ol. 1 . 2 8 f . , 5 2 ) , but
they were still the w i l f u l , amoro us, powerful beings w h o fathered mortal
heroes and must have their way. In general he holds to the traditionally
prudent attitude o f the Greeks that the go ds are jealous and ' mortal things
befit mortals'. 'It is meet that a man speak fair things of the gods, for so
the blame is less.' 1
T o know what was in Pindar's mind in this poem is obviously very
difficult, but I would venture the f o l l o w i n g : Rec ogn ize d custom (usage,
tradition) has immense power. Both gods and men conform to it, and any
act, however wrong or terrible it may seem in itself, w i l l , if only it becomes
sanctioned by nomos, appear to be justified. What could be more violentand seemin gly unjust and cruel than the theft o f Ge ryon ' s cattle or the
horses of Diom edes ? Y e t the po wer o f nomos makes both men and godsaccept it . 2 Pindar may w e l l be shaking his head over this state of affairs,
as Pohlenz said (Kl. Schr. 1 1 ,3 3 7 ) ,but more probably he prefers to make no
judgment. That is the prudent course.
1 1st h. 5 . 1 6 , Ol. 1.35. Th ere ar e simila r sentime nts in Ol. 5.27, Pyth. 2.34 an d 3. 39.1 Dodds's comment (Gorg. 270) that 'the deeds of Heracles are no apt symbol ot the cus
to ma ry ' is beside the point. Wh at custom has done is to justify them ( δ ί κ α ι ω ντ ό β ι α ι ό τ α τ ο ν ) .To illustrat e the universal t ru th express ed in the first three lines the most appro pria te act was
one that was (a) extremely violent , and (b) perpet rated by a di vi ne bei ng, the son of Zeus who
beca me a go d himself.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 145/357
νTHE S O C IA L C O M PA C T1
Op in io ns differ as to h o w far the the or y o f the social con trac t, or
com pac t , as un der sto od in the seven teenth and eigh teent h centuries
A . D . ,wa s anticipated in our pe riod o f Gr ee k th ou gh t, and the differ
ences spr ing larg ely fr om the different meani ng s w h ic h scho lars ha ve
g i v e n to the phr ase . W e shall l o o k at the evi de nc e first (bri efl y in
some cases where it has already been touched on), and may then, if we
w i s h , see how close the Greek conceptions were to those of laterE u r o p e .
O n e ancient bel ief ab ou t law at tr ibuted i t ul t im ately to the go d s .
T h e hum an la wg ive r or cons t i tu t ion -maker (w ho se exis tence wa s
not denied) was only the channel through which the commands of
heaven became k n o w n and effec t ive . In Tyr tae us ' s po em (seventh
centur y, fr. 3 Di eh l) Ly cu rg us 's const i tut i on for Sparta is actua l ly
dictated in detail by A p o l l o at De lp hi . Later, me n tended t o say tha t
L y c u r g u s dr ew up the cons t i tut i on hims elf bu t we nt to De lp hi for
assurance that i t had the god 's approval (Xen. Rep. Lac. 8.5).
Herodo tus ( 1 . 6 5 ) finds t w o ve rs io ns side b y side , the tradi tion al on e
1 More usu all y kn ow n as the 'socia l contract the ory ', l a r g e l y through the influence ofRousseau's Contrat Social, though Hume also wrote on The Original Contract. Bu t bo th Rousseau
and Hume use more general terms l i k e 'c om pa ct' and 'p ac t' indifferently, and as Pete r Lasletthas pointed out (Locke's Two Treatises, 11 2) , Locke scarcely applies the word ' con tra ct ' to
political matters at al l; it is 'c om pa ct ' or ' ag re em en t' whic h creates a society . In spe akin g of the
Greeks at least, the less specific and l e g a l term is pro bab ly to be preferred.It goes without saying that there were differences in the concept and its application arising
out of differences in historical situation. The people who were discovering their identity and
determining the place of monarchy after the wars of religion and the Reformation were in avery different position from the Sophists. One thing that both have in comm on is the transition
from a rel igi ous to a secula r vie w of l a w, from the age nc y of God to that of man. Kaerst rightly
pointed out (Ztschr.f. Pol. 1909, 506) that the contract theory has two elements which mustbe kept distinct, though they are combined in some modern formulations. These are (a) th e
doctrine of a social contract or compact proper, i.e. an agreement of association between equals,(b) th e pactum subiectionis, whereby die ordinary citizen is bound in subjection to a higher
uii ihori ty or sovereign. Only the former has its origin in Greek speculation. (For the history of
l l ic concept from the ancient wor ld onwa rd see Kaerst 's arti cl e; M. D' Ad di o, L'idea del contralto suciale dai Sojisti alia Rij'orma; and J. W. G ough , The Social Contract.)
135
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 146/357
The Social Compact
I3 6
o f a rel igi ous or ig in for the la ws , and a rati onali stic —ba sed on the
s imi lar i ty o f Spar tan and Cr e tan laws— that Ly cu rg us copied the
const i t ut ion o f Cr et e. T h e Cr eta n law s in their t u r n were said to have
been the work of Zeus (Pla to , Laws, ad init.). Even C le i s thenes , mak ing
his dem ocr ati c ref orm s at the end o f the sixth ce nt ur y, re cei ved the
names for his new tribes from the Pythia (Arist. Ath. Pol. 21-6) , and
pr ob ab ly therefore s ou gh t the oracl e 's rat i f icat ion o f h i s wh o l e sche me . 1
B y the fifth century an impersonal na tu re had in so me men' s min ds
replaced the gods as the wor ldwide power that produced the whole
order o f wh i ch me n are a par t . For others, l ike Hippias, the two can
exist comfortably side by side, and Euripides, when he speaks in
'Pr es ocr a t i c ' l an guag e o f the ' age less order o f immor ta l n a t u r e ' , 2 and
elsewh ere in his po et ry , sho ws a desire to kee p the m united. W h e n
therefore, as w e ha ve seen, the vi e w wa s gai nin g gr ou nd that law is a
purely human inst i tut ion designed to meet part icular needs, with
n o t h i n g p e r m a n e n t or sacred ab ou t it , i t co ul d be contr asted wi th
either a divine or a natura l ord er or bo th . In dr aw in g this contra st the
act o f legis lati on is usu all y said to be the out co me o f an agr eem ent or
c o mp a ct (σ υ ν θ ή κ η ) b e t w ee n the m e mb e rs o f a c o m m u n it y, w h o h a v e
'put together ' , composed, or agreed upon certain ar t icles .3
T h e records of Pro tago ras do not conta in the ac tua l wo rd ' c o m
pa ct ' , but whe n the go ds are re mo ve d from his parable (as in v i e w o f
his agno st ic ism the y must b e) , w e ha ve a picture o f me n perishi ng for
lack o f the art o f li vi ng to ge th er in cities and b y hard exper ience
le ar nin g to act ju st ly an d res pect the rights o f oth er s an d so fo un di ng
1 See further G uthr ie, Gks. and their Gods, 1 8 4 - 9 .2
α θ α ν ά τ ο υφ ύ σ ε ω ςκ ό σ μ ο νά γ ή ρ ω ,fr. 9 1 0 Ν . B ur ne t (EGP, 10 , n. 3) s a y s that ά γ ή ρ ω is g en it iv e,which , th ou gh it soun ds tau tol ogo us, could be right. A nax iman der Β 2 has ά ίδ ι ο νκ α ΐ ά γ ή ρ ω ,which, whil e i t sugges ts that the tau tol ogy could go back to Anaxi mande r himself , also show sthat the form ά γ ή ρ ω could be used for the accusa t ive , as appears a lso f rom examples in LS J .Nauck arbitr ari ly al ters i t to ά γ ή ρ ω νto settle the matter.
3 The prefix σ υ ν - in compound verb s has two use s : (a ) objec t ive , as in σ υ ν τ ί θ η μ ι ( a c t. ) ,to put two or more things together, thus constructing a composite whole; (b) subjec tive, to dosomething conjoindy or in harmony with someone e lse , as in σ ύ μ φ η μ ι ,which does not mean
to sa y tw o or more thi ng s tog ethe r or at the same time, but to s ay some thi ng in uniso n w it hanother person, i.e. to agree with him. The middle voice of σ υ ν τ ί θ η μ ιwas used in both w a y s .It meant, first, ' to put to get her for on es el f, or org an iz e, and also to hea r and und ers tan d (' put
two and two t og et he r ' ) ; second ly to agree wit h others, and (wi th an in f in i t ive) to agree to dosomething. When the object was l a w s , a treaty or the l i k e , it is prob able that both me ani ng s
were pres ent: the constituent art icles are composed or put toget her, and they are mut ual lyagreed upo n ( the reflexive force of the mid dl e a s s i s t i n g ) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 147/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 148/357
The Social Compact
I38
c i t y might prosper better under different l a w s . Similarly Aristot le
later, in dist inguishing between natura l and leg al just ice, equa tes the
la t te r wi th ' jus t ice by agreement ' . 1 T h e f irst wo rd s o f An ti ph on fr.
44 Α ( Ί s ay that justice consists in not transgressing the laws and
usag es o f on e's o w n stat e') and the identification o f just wi th lawful b y
Socra tes in Xenophon (Mem. 4 . 4 . 1 2 , p . i n abo ve) sugges t that this
l e g a l con cept ion o f just ice wa s in v o g u e am on g the adva nced thinkers
o f the time, and the various conclusions to be drawn from it were
under l i v e l y discussion. It left open the question whether justice so
d efi ne d w a s ' b en e fi c ia l ' (σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν ) o r n ot . A t a n y rate we may safely
include Protagoras among those who explained the rise of political
co mmun iti es in terms o f a contr act or agre emen t.
Hippias, for whom law and nature wer e s t ro ngly cont ras ted (Pla to ,
Prot. 337d), defined laws expl ici tly as 'c ov en an ts made b y the citi zens
wh er eb y the y hav e enacted in wri t i ng wh at ou gh t to be done and
wh at no t ' ( la ngua ge reminiscent of An ti ph on , pp. 108f. a bo ve ), and
pointed to the rapidity with which they may be changed as a reason
for not ta kin g the m ve ry seri ousl y (p. 119). An ti ph on , in the same
context of opposi t i on be twe en nature and l aw , al so calls la ws the resu lt
o f agreemen t, whi ch for him (unlike Protag oras ) justifies ig no ri ng
the m in fav our o f the co mm an ds o f nature . Untersteiner perceived the
idea o f the socia l con tr act ag ai n in the w o r d s ' neit her to inflict no r to
suffer inj ury ', w hi c h for med the cont ent o f the co mp ac t ac co rd in g to
G l a u c o n in the Republic.' 2, So me th in g like it is also, as Do d d s said
(Gorg. 266), implicit in the Sisyphus o f Crit ias, wh er e law s and their
sanctions are instituted b y me n to che ck the sav ag er y o f the state o f
nature .O f sli ghtl y later writ ers, w e ha ve seen (p. 76 ab ov e ) h o w the au th or
o f the speech against Aristogeiton combines, in a way natural at the
time th ou gh im pos sib le bef ore or since, the con ce pt ion s o f la w as a
1 . £7 / 11 34 03 2, ν ο μ ικ ό ν κ α ι σ υ ν θ ή κ η .The Theaetctus passage is dealt with more fu l ly on
pp. 17 2 ff. be low.1 Ant iph on, fr. 44, DK , 1 1 , 347 and 355 (pp. 108, 110 ab ov e) ; Untersteine r Sof. iv, 100.
Heinimann (A^. u. Ph. 139) s a y s that since Antiphon speaks of transgression bringing α ίσ χ ύ ν η
a s w e l l as 3η μ 1α , he must be includ ing the 'unwrit ten l a w s ' and so his doct rine is not onl y oneof the social contract as origi n of la w, but also of moralit y as ori gina tin g in deliberate agre ement .
But (α ) I do not feel so cert ain that Antiphon would not associate disgrace with purely l ega lpunishment; (h) it is a ques tio n whet her A nti pho n intend ed his words in a historic al sense.
( S e e pp. 143, 145 below.)
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 149/357
Hippias, Lycophron and Others
1 3 9
hu man co mpa ct and a gift o f div ine pr ov id enc e. But for som e reason
pride of place is always given to Lycophron, known to Aristotle as a
Soph ist and th ou gh t to have been a pup il of Go rg ia s. He is ev en
clai med as the foun der o f the social cont ract th eo ry in its earliest fo rm ,
th ou gh , since he wa s pr ob ab ly no t wr it in g until the fourt h cent ury ,
the evidence already reviewed makes this impossible. 1 Our au thor i ty
is Aristotle in his Politics (1280b 10). Di scu ss in g the perennial que stio n
o f the relation between law and morals, he claims that the end and aim
o f a state is to pr om ot e the g o o d life and th erefore it has a ri gh t and a
du ty to con cer n itself wi t h the mor al go od ne ss of its citizen s. ' Ot h er
w i s e ' , he goes on, ' the political society becomes a mere alliance, differ
i ng on ly in respect of loc ali ty from alliances be twe en distant co un tr ie s;
and law becomes a compact, and as Lycophron the Sophist said, a
gua ran tor o f men 's right s against on e another , n ot a means o f ma k in g
the citizens g o o d and just. '
T h e only words which Aristotle here ascribes to Lycophron as a
description o f l a w are ' a guarantor o f men' s r ights against one an ot he r ' , 3
not the actual no un ' co mp ac t ' , th ou gh no dou bt their contractual
nature f o l l o w s and his definition comes close to that ment ioned by
Glaucon in the Republic as one commonly held. The l imitat ion of
l a w to the neg ati ve role o f pr ote cti ng the citizens against each other
had bee n pu t fo rw ar d earlier as an ideal b y Hi pp od am us , the re mar k
able tow n-p lan ner and political theorist w h o liv ed in At h en s in
the mi dd le o f the fifth ce nt ur y, re bui lt the P ir aeu s on a gr id pl an an d
laid out the new colonial city of Thurii for Pericles. In his ideal state
he would al low three indictable offences on ly , wh ic h m a y be translated
as insult, inju ry (to pe rs on or pr op er ty ) and murder.3 He was moreover
the first to pr op os e a sup reme c our t o f appeal against w r o n g ju dg men ts .
T h e passages are chiefly interesting as showing how l i v e l y in the
Greek world was a controversy that is re cei vin g so mu ch attent ion
from leading authorities on jurisprudence at the present day, namely
' For Ly co ph ro n see pp. 31 3 f. bel ow. As founder of the social cont ract th eor y, PopperQ.S. 114 .
1
Ι γ γ υ η τ ή ςά λ λ ή λ ο ι ;τ ω ν δ ι κ α ί ω ν .The brev ity and neatness of Lyc oph ron 's definition,rather than any orig ina li ty, may have been wh at caused Aristotle to singl e it out for quot ati on.
1 ΰ β ρ ίζ β λ ά β η θ ά ν α τ ο ς . O ur a ut ho ri ty is ag ai n Ar ist ot le, Pol. I26jbj7f[. On Hippodamus
•ec the references in llignone, Stmli, 43, and the brief but lucid account of him in Barker, Pol.
Theory of P. and A. 44-6.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 150/357
The Social Compact
1 4 0
that con ce rn ing the deg ree to wh i ch mor ali ty shou ld be enforc ed b y
l a w. Lycophron and Hippodamus would have agreed wi th J . S . M i l l
that the only purpose for which law could r ightly be enforced against
a me mb er o f the co mm un it y wa s to prev ent harm to othe rs; his o w n
g o o d , physical or moral, was not sufficient warrant. In Aristotle's
e y e s this ignores the real purpose of political association, which is to
ensure no t sim pl y life bu t the g o o d l i fe . He would have s ided wi th
L o r d Si mon ds, w h o in 1962 pro no un ce d i t ' t he supre me and funda
mental pur po se o f the law to cons er ve not on l y the safety and orde r
but also the moral welfare of the State' , and his general conception
would be close to that o f L o r d D e v l i n , that ' wh at mak es a soc ie ty is a
co mm un it y of ideas, not pol itic al ideas alon e bu t also ideas ab ou t the
w a y i ts members should behave and govern their l i v e s ' .1
In Plato 's Crito Socrates expounds in his prison c e l l the doctr ine
o f an agre emen t b et we en hims elf and the la ws o f his ci t y as an ar gu
ment against at tempting to evade the judgment which those laws have
passed up on h im. H e says no th in g abo ut the orig in of law , but there
is no suggest ion that i t wa s div ine . T h e arg ume nt is that , since the
t ime when his parents we re married un der the law s o f At he ns , Socrate s
has o w e d his bir th, e duca tion and l i vel iho od to those l a w s . M o r e o v e r
the y ga ve him freedo m, shoul d he find an yt hi ng object io nable in t hem ,
to leave At he ns wi th all his pr op er ty and settle els ewh ere . Sinc e he
had not ch ose n to do so, he shou ld cons ider hims el f their child and
their servan t. It wa s ' j us t ' for hi m to abide b y their deci sions , and as
he had risk ed his life in batt le at thei r co mm a nd s so he shou ld g i v e it
up now that the y dema nde d i t from him. Tha t wa s the a gree ment
be tw ee n the m (50c, 52d), and it wa s nece ssary to the ve ry existe nce o fthe state. I f pri vat e indiv idu als cou ld set aside the la w' s ju dg me nt s at
their o w n caprice, the wh ol e found atio n o f the ci t y 's l ife wo u l d
c rumble .
In Pla to ' s w o r k s w e ha ve also seen the conc ept io n of la w as a co m
pact put forward by witnesses hostile to it , C a l l i c l e s and the ' t h e y ' o f
1 See Devlin, Enforcement of Morals, 86 and 88, and cf. p. 1 1 7 , n. 1, above. On Aristot le's
side is also pseudo-Dem. 25 (In Aristog.), 1 6 - 1 7 : th e l a w s a im not on ly a t τ ό δ ίκ α ιο ν bu t al sn
a t τ ό κ α λ ό νκ α ΐ τ ό σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν .They have a twofold purpose, to prevent injustice and by the
punis hment of trans gress ors 't o make the others bette r' . For Dem ocr itu s's v iew see vol. 1 1 ,49 ^1
(fr. 245).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 151/357
Socrates, Callicles, Glaucon
Glaucon (pp . 1 0 3 1 ? . , 98 above) . Those who la id down the l a w s ,
said C a l l i c l e s , are the w e a k ma jo ri ty ; and again , just ice and self-
con t ro l and eve ry th ing that militates against a life o f wa nt on ne ss and
licence are 'human agreements contrary to na tu r e ' . A g a i n s t th e m C a l l i
c le s exalts the sup erma n w h o w i l l burst their bonds and l i v e the lifeo f a se l f - indulgent tyrant . ' T h e y ' , on the o ther h a n d — t h e mass of
mankind as depicted by Glaucon—entertain no such heroic ideas.
T h e y acce pt the existen ce o f the comp ac t as a sec ond -be st to be in g
able to d o exact ly wh at one l ikes , s ince for ev er yo ne to beh av e so is a
practical impos sibi l i ty . Self ish be ha vi ou r is l imited to eva di ng o f the
l a w w h e n i t can be don e wi th ou t fear o f dete ct io n. Pla to him se lf is
o f course an advocate of nomos, as the Crito s ho ws , and in his lat er
years mo un te d a po we rf ul at tack against thos e w h o maintai ned that
i t could be in any way opposed to physis. He therefore oppos es b ot h
the ideal o f the super man w h o b y be in g a la w to hims elf is fo l l ow in g
' n a tu r e ' s jus t ice ' , and the mor e comm on pla ce idea that the laws
should be accepted as a necessary e v i l but broken whenever i t is safe
to do so . 1
C a n w e say h o w far the the ory in Gree ce wa s a 'hi st ori cis t ' on e,
asser t ing or implying tha t in the re mo te past the first la ws t o o k sh ape
in som et hin g l ike a forma l contract be tw ee n me mbe rs o f an or igin al
po l i t i ca l communi ty? Barke r wro te that the social cont ract the ory ,
'which i s not only that of Glaucon but a lso that o f mod ern wr i t e r s
such as Hobbes, has been met by modern thinkers point by point .
In the first place, there n e v e r was any ac tua l o r exp l ic i t " c on t ra c t " :
there is and a lways w i l l be a con di t i on o f th ings , wh ic h i s a con di t ion
o f taci t and implied contract . ' 2 Popper on the other hand claims that
1 It w i l l be seen that I do not follow Popper when he sees 'a complete change of f ron t ' in
Plato between the Gorgias and the Republic. See Popper, O.S. 116.
' G.P.T. 160. It may be releva nt to mention B ark er' s own position, wh ic h is a reconc iliation
of physis and nomos, at least on the human plane. Governmen t is for hi m ' an essential attr ibut e
of political society, which is itself in turn an essential attribute of human nat ure '.
In fairness to Barker it must be added that in his introduction to Gierke 's Nat. Law (1934)
he was more cautious in his expression. He said there (p. x l i x ) : 'Natural-law thinkers were apt
to talk of an unhistorical "state of nature" and of an unhistorical act of contract by which men
issued f rom i t . . . On the other hand . . . the natural-law thinkers were not r e a l l y dealing withthe historical antecedents of the St at e: they wer e concerned wit h its logica l pres uppos iti ons; and
there is still a case to be made for the vi ew that the Stat e, as distinc t from soc iet y, is a l e g a lN K s o c i a t i o n whi ch fundam ental ly rests on the presu pposit ion of contrac t.'
141
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 152/357
The Social Compact
1 4 2
this object ion is not applicable to Lycophron's theory because i t did
not take a historici st fo rm. T h e theori es men tio ned in the Gorgias and
Republic are to be identif ied wi th Ly co ph ro n' s , bu t hav e bee n gi ve n
this form by Plato.
C r o s s and W o o z l e y , wh os e cri ter ion for a th eo ry o f social contractis that it must express a moral obligation to obey the laws con
sequent o n the indi vidu al 's o w n und ert aki ng t o do so, and that a n y
su pp os ed ly histori cal fact ab ou t the ori gin of la w is irrele vant to it ,
insist that wha t Gla uc on pro pou nds i s not ' the S o c i a l C o n t r a c t t h e o r y '
for the very reason which made Barker assert that i t was, namely that
' t he emphas is is enti rely on the factual, or wo u l d - b e historical , p r o
pos i t ion supposedlyg i v i n g
an acc ount o f wh at induce d men to e mer ge
from a state o f na tu re in to the organiza t ion of a soc ia l c om mu ni t y ' . 1
Pe rh ap s the first th in g to no te is the wid es pr ea d acc ept anc e at th is
time of the historical theory o f the ev ol ut io n o f soci ety from a primit i ve
state in wh i ch ev er yo ne wa s for him self alone, unti l the fatal c on
sequence s o f suc h an 'uno rd er ed and brutish l i f e ' compel led men to
sub due their sav ag e instincts in the interests o f a c o m m o n de fence
against hostile nature . This we have already looked at , and prima facie
it w o u l d seem, i f no t t o necessitate a th eo ry o f a historical social
contract , at least to pr ov id e a set t ing hig hl y co nd uc iv e to i t . 2 A s w e
noted, it went with Presocratic scientific theories about the origin of
physical l i fe , and c onst itut ed a react ion again st earlier my th ic al
acco unts o f hu ma n degene rat i on. Prota gor as and Cri t ias bo th he ld
this th eo ry , and bot h bel ie ve d in the social co mp ac t as a historical
1 Comm. on Rep. 71 ff. As there defined, the the ory wou ld cer tai nly excl ude Glauc on's acco unt,
but is it not misle adin g to speak of' the S o c i a l Contract theory' ? (T he capi tals but not the i t a l i c sar e their s.) Wh a t the auth ors them selv es say of Hobbe s, L ock e and Rous sea u, all of wh om the y
admit as contractualists, shows that it is rather a question of this or that philosopher 's theory
of a social contract, each one holding it in a somewhat different form; and it can hardly be denied
that Glaucon's is a contractualist theory (359a σ υ ν θ έ σ θ α ιό λ λ ή λ ο ι ς . . .ν ό μ ο υ ς τ ί θ ε σ θ α ικ α ΐ
σ υ ν θ ή κ α ς ) .To say that the only social contract theory is one that does not r e l y on ahistorical statement, and is therefore im mun e from the objections br oug ht agai nst it in that form,
i s surely to beg a big question. It seems more helpful to start with the fact that there are two
main forms of the theory, as Popper does whe n he dist ingui shes the theoretic al form, c oncer ned
s o l e l y wi th the end of the state (whic h he himsel f sees in Ly co ph ro n) , from the 'tr adi tio nal
historicist theory of the social contract' (O.S. 11 4 ) .1 For this theory see pp. 6off. and Appendix (79ff.) above. Even Sophocles in the Antigone
chorus (355) mentions the l e g a l regulation of social l ife as someth ing whic h man ' deve loped for
hi s own benefi t, by his own effor ts ' . (So Jebb expla ins έ δ ιο ά ξ α τ ο . )
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 153/357
Was Greek Theory Historicist?
'
fact . The v i e w s o f An ti ph on and (as reporte d) o f Hippi as ma ke no
e x p l i c i t reference to hist oric al ori gin s, bu t neither d o th ey fulf i l the
C r o s s - W o o z l e y condi t ions for ' th e Socia l Con tra c t the or y ' b y affi rm
i ng a mor al obl ig at io n to ob e y the law . In their e ye s the fact that l aws
are not natural b u t merely agr ee men ts releases the citi zen fro m a du tyto o b e y the m in all cir cum sta nce s. In the four th c en tu ry the au th or o f
the speech agains t Ar is togei ton drew the opposi te moral : laws were
instituted against na ture because na ture i s 'd is or de r l y ' and law in t r o
duc es impar tiali ty and eq ual justice for all. A s the decis ions o f wi se
men guided by the go ds , they hav e been accepted b y c om m on agre e
ment and must be obe ye d. T h e evide nce for Ly co p hr on is s l ight , but
in cal l ing the la ws ' a gua ran tor o f mutu al r ig ht s ' he mus t ha ve had asimilar v i e w in mind.
I f on e accepts as essential mark s o f a socia l cont rac t t he or y that it
shou ld make no historical s tatement abo ut the ori gin of law but ho ld
that ev er y memb er o f a state has a moral obligation to obey i ts laws
because he him sel f has contrac ted or underta ken, at least impl ici t ly,
to do so , then the on e unm ist aka ble adher ent o f it at this pe rio d is
Socra tes .1
I t can hardly be doubted that the Crito is t rue to his convict ions, which Plato shared when he wrote i t . He held that h i s who le
l i fe , l ike that o f ev er y othe r ci t izen , had been the act i ng -ou t o f a
contract and agre eme nt acc or di ng to wh ic h, in re tu rn for their bene
fits, he wa s un de r ob li ga ti on to reg ard the law s as maste rs to be
o b e y e d . Infringement o f this principle w o u l d tear apart t he whole
fabric of society.
Th er e is anoth er poss ibi l i ty to be consi dered, that a ph i losophermay put his theory in historical form without intending i t to be
li teral ly so und ers too d. He may intend o nl y a 'g en et ic defin i t ion ' , an
analysis of a state o f thin gs into i ts const i tuent elements , be l i ev in g that
the best way to make its structure clear is to represent it as being
buil t up bit b y bit out o f the elements wit ho ut i mp ly in g that such a
' H u m e noted this , call ing the Crito ' the only passage I meet with in antiquity, where the
obligation of obedience to gover nment is ascribed to a prom ise '. 'T h u s ' , he commen ts, 'h e
|Socra tes | builds a Tory conse quenc e of passive obedie nce on a Whig foundation of the ori gina l
contract. ' (Of the Original Contract, a J Jin. W . C . ed. p. 236.) Th e attribut ion to Socra tes is
undoubt edly historical. As I)e Stryc ker has justl y pointed out (Melanges Gregoircs, 208), his
alt itud e is confirmed not onl y by the maimer of his death but by his soli tary champi onsh ip of the
la w against an infil l i . i t i-d t /emos in the ease of the gene ral s after A rgi nus ae (Socrates, pp. 59 1.).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 154/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 155/357
Historicism and Genetic Definition
1 4 5
' S u c h was , or may w e l l ha ve been , the orig in o f so ci et y ' , and on the
next page, after repeating that the actual originating cause of political
socie ties is indifferent to his ar gu me nt , he pr oc ee ds to g i v e reasons
w h y the on e he has put f or wa rd is ' the mo st nat ur al ' an d to defen d
it against other s. Sim ila rly wi th L o c k e , Cross and W o o z l e y say (withno reference given) that ' as L o c k e sa w more clear ly than Hobbes , the
factual prop osi t io n, ev en if i t wer e true, w o u l d pr ov id e no suppo rt for
the theory ' . Yet §§99-100 of the Second Treatise show pla in ly that
for Locke i t was a historical fact. He not only makes the unequivocal
s ta tement : 'T hi s i s that , and that only, which did or could g i v e b e g i n
ning to any lawful government in the world ' , but goes on to state and
rebut the objection that no historical instances can be quoted of the
sett ing up of a go ve rn me nt in this w a y . Re co rd ed hist ory, he poin ts
out , can only begin when c i v i l society has already been in existence
l o n g en ou gh to al lo w the dev el opm ent o f let tered leis ure. 1
O f the Gr ee k theori sts, Pr ot ago ras see ms the mo st lik el y to b e
g i v i n g a gen et ic definiti on. H is aim is no t a hist ori cal acc ou nt o f the
ori gin o f civi l izat i on bu t an answe r to Socrates 's quest i on, whe the r
poli t ical virtue can be taught; and it is a matter o f indifference to h im
wh et he r he co n v e y s this answ er in the for m of a reason ed ar gu me nt
or o f a narrat ive. Mo re ov er the narrat ive, wh en i t co me s, has a fairy
tale flavour 2 and ma ny myth ica l element s. Ye t i t takes so mu ch from
seriousl y held theories o f hist ory that , l ike his po st- Ren ais sanc e
successors, he pr ob ab ly kep t a foo t in bot h ca mp s. 3 O f the others
wh o m w e have cons ide red, Hipp ias , An t ip hon and Ly co ph ro n , so
far as our evidence goes, g i v e no sign o f pr op ou nd in g a historical
th eor y of the ori gi n o f la w, no r is it apparent in the speech agains t
Aris togei ton or in Pla to ' s C a l l i c l e s .4 Socrat es's is emph at ica ll y no t a
1 References for this paragraph: Hobbes, Leviathan, pt . I , ch. 13 (ed. Wal ler , p. 8;) ; Rous seau,
Origin of Inequality, trans. Cole (Everyman), 169, 1 7 5 f., 221 f., S.C. ( W. C . ed. ) , 254. Cross and
Wooz ley, P.'s Rep. 72 .
' Th e beginning, ή ν γ ά ρ π ο τ έ χ ρ ό ν ο ς (once upon a time ), echoes the leg enda ry poets Linu s
and Orpheus and was used again in verse by Critias and Moschion. (References in Kern, Orph.
Frr. p. 303.)
' Al l that he s a y s on the subject in the logos that follows the mythos i s : 'T h e State sets u p
the l a w s , whic h are the invent ions of good law gi ver s of ancient times, and compels the citizens
to rule and be ruled in accordance with them ' (32 6d) .4 Popper (O.S. l i d ) s a y s that Plat o here put s the th eor y in hist oric ist form, but I do not
find it so. At (iorg. 483 b the present tense is use d throughout .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 156/357
The Social Compact
1 46
historicist doctrine .J O n l y G l a u c o n i n Rep. 2 claims to be g i v i n g a
his tor ica l account .
Fina l ly, in as k in g wh et her the Gr ee ks be l iev ed in the socia l cont ra c t
theory, we are putt ing to them a quest ion which they did not ask
themse lves . T h e ques t ion the y d id ask wa s wh et he r ' ju s t ' wa s thesame as ' l a w f u l ' . T h e answers we re o f tw o types , no rma t i ve and
factual . Eit her justi ce retai ned its me an in g of an ethi cal idea l, an d this
idea l was equated wi th keeping the l a w s , or i t was claimed tha t w h e n
me n used the h i gh -s ou nd in g w o r d ' jus t ic e ' a ll th ey meant b y i t wa s
observance of the ex is t ing l a w s , which could in fact be an unwise
or harmful cou rse . Pr ot ag or as is represented in the Protagoras as
tak ing the f i rs t l i ne : just ic e, w h i c h is an essential element in ' hu ma n
exce l l ence ' as a whole (325a) , i s ident i fied wi th 'po l i t i ca l exc e l l enc e ' ,
the respect for la w w h i c h has raised man fro m a state of sa va ge ry a nd
wi t hou t wh ic h soc i e t y wo u l d co l l apse . In t he Theaetetus he appe ars to
ado pt the sec ond , factual interpre tat ion, as his th eo ry of ' m a n the
me as ur e ' de ma nd s: w ha t is just is on ly wh at one 's state declares to b e
just . The state may be persuaded tha t i t was at fault and amend its
l a w s , wh er eb y the content o f jus t ac t ion in tha t state w i l l be al tered.
B u t he would s t i l l ho ld tha t obs erv anc e o f those faul ty l a w s , unt i l they
we re al tered b y pr op er const i tut iona l proces ses, w as mo ra l l y right as
an al ternat ive to the ch ao s w hi c h w o u l d ensu e if ev e ry ci t iz en fel t f ree
to disr egard the m. A n ti ph on an d Hip pia s on the othe r hand mainta ined
tha t , because al l tha t was meant by jus t ice was conformi ty to nomos, it
carr ied no moral obl igat ion and one might do bet ter to f o l l o w the
cont rary precepts of physis. Such a bel ie f cou ld , th ou gh it need not ,
lead to the brutal selfishness exemplified by C a l l i c l e s .Socra tes agreed wi th Pro tagoras tha t it was just (in the sense of
mora l ly ob l i ga to ry ) to obe y the law s or e l se ge t them c han ged b y
peaceful pers uasi on ( this al ternat ive is me nti one d in the Crito), and
tha t fai lure to do so w o u l d disrupt soc iet y. Bu t t w o further poi nts
m a y be note d. Firs t, there is a hin t in the Crito o f s o m e t h i n g w h i c h
does not oc cur e l sew here , nam el y a d is t inc t ion be t we en the laws the m
selves and thei r adminis t ra t ion . In Socra tes ' s ima gin ary conve rsa t i onw i t h the laws of Athens , they say tha t , if he abides b y the de cis ion o f
the cou rt and agrees to be exe cut ed instead of t r yi ng to escape, ' y o u
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 157/357
The Question in Greek Terms
w i l l be the vict im o f a w r o n g done to yo u not b y us, the laws , but b y
y ou r fel low me n' . I f on the other hand h e r u n s away, he w i l l be
be hav in g dish onoura bly b y break ing his agreements and contrac ts
with the laws themselves. In other words, once a verdict has been
l e g a l l y g i v e n the re is no le gal alterna tive to its ex ec ut io n. Socra tes s aw
not hin g wr o n g wi th this ev en in the case o f his o w n death-sentence,
but it seems that there wa s ro om for Hipp odam us ' s pro posal for a
court o f appeal . Sec on dl y, in sa yi ng that ' j us t ' wa s ident ica l wi th
' l a w f u l ' , Socrates wa s inc lud ing the universal and divin e unwr it t en
l a w s and t aki ng into acc ou nt ju dg me nt in a future life as w e l l as in this.
Fo r the unwr it t en laws w e have the evi den ce o f X e n o p ho n , and in the
Crito the law s g o on imm ed ia te ly fro m the poi nt just men ti one d to say
that the laws in the next world w i l l not receive hi m kind ly if they
k n o w that he has tried to destroy their brothers in this. 1
' Th at Socr ates bel iev ed in a future life is disp uted (see Socrates, pp. 156 ff. be lo w) . Fo r the
idea of judgment pursuing a man from this world to the next cf. Aesch. Suppl. 2 2 8 - 3 1 .
1 47
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 158/357
V I
E Q U A L I T Y
( i ) P O L I T I C A L E Q U A L I T Y
In the fi fth ce nt ury d em oc ra cy , bo th as an establ ished pol i t ical c on
stitut ion and as an idea l, rea che d its cl ima x in A t h e n s and s om e oth er
G r e e k ci t ies . Ag ai ns t i t s t oo d ol i ga rc hy , b y no means a spent for ce,
and wheth er in p o w e r or in opp os i t io n a l wa ys a foe to be r eck one d
w i t h . Natu ra l ly therefore an ideo logic a l conf l ic t de ve lo pe d 1 w h i c h
led men on beyond cons t i tu t iona l ques t ions to la rger problems ofh u m a n na tu re and human r e l a ti ons. Dem oc ra cy wa s par t o f a gene ra l
mo ve me nt towa rds equal i ty, and the need to defend dem ocr acy wa s a
spur to further a rgu ment s in i t s fav our. Thu cy di de s pro vid es so me
o f the best examples of this , for instance in the speech of Athenagoras,
democra t ic leader o f Syra cuse , w h o says to the y o u n g o l igarc hs o f
his ci ty ( 6 . 3 8 . 5 ) :
D o y o u dislike be in g polit ical ly on an equality wit h a large num ber ? Buth o w is it just for members of the same state to be denied the same rights?
I shall be told that democracy is neither sensible nor fair [literally 'equal'],
and that the wealthy are also the best fitted to rule; but I reply, first, thatdemos means the whole state, oligarchy only a par t ; secondly, that the
wealthy ma y be the best guardia ns o f pro per ty, b ut the best counse llors
are the intelligent, and the best at listening to and jud gi ng argu ments are
the many. An d in a de moc ra cy all these, whe the r acting separately or toge ther ,
have an equal share.
He re w e ha ve the ideal o f a de mo cr ac y, in w h ic h the r ich ha ve their
place , but it is for the most intelligent to g i v e c o u n s e l — p o s s i b l y
conf l ic t ing counse l , for there are t w o s ides to ev er y ques t ion —and
the decisio n is in the hand s o f the w ho le pe op le , w h e n they ha ve
listened to the arguments and sized them up. In practice it did not
1 A classic statement of it is the debat e wh ic h H e r o d o t u s somewhat incongruously re
presents as taki ng place betw een the three Persian usurpers on the respective merits of monarchy,
olig arch y and dem ocra cy. So far as the latter tw o are concerned, it is cast in an entirely Cre ek
mould. (Hdt . 3 .80 - 2 . )
I4 8
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 159/357
Homonoia
a l w a y swork out l ike that, for demos no less than oligoi could be applied to
a section only o f the popula t ion—could mean plebs as w e l l as populus 1-—
and as suc h co ul d be ruth less i n its trea tmen t o f the ric h or i nte lle ctua l.
More even than democracy, the concept most c l o s e l y connected wi th
equali ty was perhaps homonoia, con cor d ( l i tera lly 'b e i ng o f one mi nd ' ) .
In the th ou gh t o f this per iod , the not ion s of justice, co nc or d, friend
sh ip 2 and equa lit y we re seen as inte rdep ende nt i f no t identica l, and
essential to the pre ser vat ion o f the political order . Euri pid es ( to be
quo ted in con tex t sh ort ly ) sees equ ali ty as a bo n d o f un io n, un it in g
friend to friend, city to city, a l l y to a l l y. For Protagoras, i t is just ice
that 'b ri ng s orde r in to ou r cities and creates a bo nd o f friendship
and union ' (Pla to , Prot. 322c), and Socrates in the co ur se o fdemonstra t ing that the just is coextensive with the l a w f u l says that
co nc or d is the best o f all thi ngs f or a ci ty and its ob je ct is to secu re
obedience to the laws (Xen. Mem. 4 . 4 . 1 6 ) . In the Republic ( 3 5 i d )
the pursuit o f justice leads to co nc or d and friendship, and A ri st ot le
s a y s that i f the citizens are friends justice ma y wi th er aw ay . Leg isl at ors
are even more concerned with fr iendship than w i t h justi ce, for their
aim is to replace factio n b y co nc or d, and con co rd resemble s friends hip.Els ewh ere he defines co nc or d as 'fri endsh ip in the polit ical sp he re ' . T o
inculcate friendship is the statesman's c h i e f end, for friends do not
co mm it injustice agains t each other . Indeed, ' jus tic e and friendship
are either the same or nearly so' . Concord does not mean simply
communi ty o f be l i e f s . Th at cou ld exist be tw ee n strangers, or m ere ly
on an academic subject like astronomy. No, concord is a word applied
to cities w h en the citiz ens agre e ab ou t their c o m m o n interests, ma ke' Cf . V las to s, Ί σ . τ τ ο λ . 8, η . ι : ' T he ambig u i ty i n δ ή μ ο ς(pleps or populus) is all to the go od.
Opponents of demo cra cy can take it in the first s e n s e . . . whi le thoughtful demo crat s ca n
Invoke the second.'' Philia, a wor d of re mar kab ly wi de applicat ion. Am on g hum an be in gs it is friendship or
•flection, but it extends be yon d t he human sphere. Arist ode (EN ι155a 18) saw it am on g bird send animals as w e l l , in the relati on betw een parents and offspring, and Theo phra stus eve n amo ngplants. In the earlie r and more myth ica l cos mog ony of Pher ecy des (fr. 3) the wo rl d was c reatedb y α conflation of the opposites thr ough philia, and in Plato (Tim. 32c) cosmic philia resultedfrom the geome tric struct ure of the wor ld. S i m i l a r l y in the Gorgias (508a) ' the w i s e ' say that
hcuven and eart h and god s and men are all hel d toge ther by com mu ni ty , philia, orderliness,temp eran ce a nd justice . It is conne cted with the old doctr ine of ' l i k e to l i k e ' , for 'the wise menwho have written about nature and the whole say that l i ke must a l w a y s be philon to l i k e '(l.y.\is 114b). In Umpcdoclcs the cosmic spirit of philia unites unlik es, but o nly because it has(he power of assimilating them to each other (fr. 22.5), as the opposites were made to blendIn Pherecydes.
149
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 160/357
Equality
I 5 0
the same practical choices a n d carry them o u t . 1 D o w n to the t ime o f
Pla to an d Ari s to t l e , homonoia w a s mainly conceived as confined within
the polis, b e i n g i n fact the vi r tue b y w h i c h i t k e p t i ts un i ty and main
tained its elf agains t out sider s, a preven t ive o f that stasis (fact ion,
c i v i l str i fe) which so bedev i l l ed the life o f t he Greek city states.
' W a g i n g w ar ' i s f o r D e m o c r i t u s (fr. 250) a m o n g the ' g r ea t deeds '
wh ich concord alone makes possible for a c i ty. Gorg ia s however
seems t o have used it in a pan-Hellenic sense, when he chose it as the
subject o f h i s ora t ion to the inter-state assembly at O l y m p i a (fr. 8 a) ,
and this accords with his declarat ion that vic tor ies o f Greeks ove r
Greeks w e r e matter f o r s o r r o w (p. 162 b e l o w ) .
A t a t ime when democracy might i n practice mean not the equal
part icipat ion o f t h e whole c i ty i n g o v e r n m e n t but the seizing o f p o w e rb y the h i the r to p o o r a n d underp r iv i l eged at the expense of the r ich
and we l l -bo rn , t h e ideal o f homonoia, o f a concordia ordinum, m i g h t
w e l l seem t o offer a bet ter an d t ruer concep t ion o f equali ty. Equal
or equality i tself is the most frequent catchword in the middle an d
late fifth century, and the ideal i s equal political and judicial r ights . 2
Pericles puts i t ( T h u c . 2 . 3 7 . 1 ) t h a t in the Athen ian democracy power
is in the hands o f t he peop le , i n private disputes everyone i s equal
before t h e l aw, a n d public responsibilities are al lot ted n o t accord ing t o
1 A r . EN H55a22 ff . , EE I 2 4 i a 3 2 f f . , I234B22FF., EN 1 1 6 7 3 2 2 . F o r references to ο μ ό ν ο ια
see further Schmid, Gesch. 163. Bignone {Studi, ZjR.) argued for a close relation between themoral doctrine of concord in Antiphon's π . ο μ ο ν ο ί α ςand his doctrine of justice as developedin the Α λ ή θ ε ια .In the CUtopho, he noted, one of Socrates's pupils i s said to have maintainedthat φ ι λ ί α was the product of δ ι κ α ι ο σ ύ ν ηan d ο μ ό ν ο ια the truest manifestation of φ ι λ ί α(409 a- e, a ddi ng tha t it is not ό μ ο δ ο ξ ία ,so that the whole passage stands in a very close relationto Aristotle, especially EN 1 i 6 7 a 2 2 f f . ) . Bignone might have added Rep. 3 51 d, where Socrates
t e l l s Thrasymachus that injustice leads to hatred an d fighting b u t justice to ο μ ό ν ο ι αand φ ι λ ί α .
In spite of the interesting passages which h e adduces fo r comparison, Bignone hardly makes hispoint. Unfortunately, the extant fragments o f th e π . δ μ . make no reference to ο μ ό ν ο ιαat all,so we are quite in the dark as to what Antip hon said about i t . Moreover, in reconcil ing 'Α λ .an d π . ό μ . he completely ignores col . 5 of OP 1364 fr. 1 ( D K , 1 1 , 349 f . ) , where Antiphon s a y sthat people who do not attack others unless provoked, and who return the bad treatment oftheir parents with kindness, are acting contrary to nature.
a Ισ ο ς , Ι σ ό τ η ς , Ι σ ο ν ο μ ία , Ισ ο ν ο μ ε ϊσ θ ο π .For the meaning of Ι σ ο ν ο μ ίαsee Ehrenberg s.v.in RE, Suppl. v n , 293 ff. Vlastos h as argued against Gomme that, although not synonymouswith democracy, i t was a l w a y s identified with it in the fifth century. (Vlas tos , Ί σ ο ν . π ο λ ι τ ι κ ή .J a e g e r agreed, Paid. 1, 1 0 1 , n. 1. ) This seems to be in general true, though I cannot go all thew a y wit h Vlast os whe n h e claims that the mention of ο λ ι γ α ρ χ ία Ισ ό ν ο μ ο ςat Thuc. 3 .62 .3
fits h i s theories perfectly. If, as he s a y s , the connotations of the two words are different, it isnot surprising if their denotations too should occasionally differ, if only to gain a special effect.Cf. Ehrenberg, loc. cit. 296.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 161/357
Political Equality
an y class sys tem but s ole ly on merit, n or is p ov er ty ev er a bar to
off ice . The new emphasis on equality as an ideal is perhaps best seen
in the pla ys o f Eur ipi des . O n dem oc ra cy itself his Th es eu s ech oes the
sentiments o f At he na go ra s and Pericles {SuppL 404): ' T h e ci ty is
free, the people rule in yearly t u rn s o f off ice , and the poor man is
g i v e n an equ al share w i t h the ric h.' F o r the praise o f eq ua li ty as such
w e have the Phoenissae (531 ff.), where Jocasta pleads with her son to
renounce the pernicious daimon Am bi t i on , and hon our ins tead Equal i ty,
who unites friend to friend, city to city and allies to their allies. Wh a t is
equal is a stable element in human l ife, but the less is al ways foe to the
greater and ushers in the day of hatred. Equality it is who established
measures and weights for men and delimited number. Equal in the year's
circuit are the path o f dark night and o f the sun's light , and neither gr ud ge s
the other his vi ct or y. Shall day and nigh t serve mortals and yo u no t br oo k
to g i v e your brother equal share in the dynasty with yourself? Where in
this is justice?
One notices again the readiness with which the Greek calls on nature
at large to endo rse a cou rse o f hu ma n ac ti on ; and as a remi nder that
w e are in the ag e o f ferment wh er e ev er y arg um ent has tw o sides w e
may notice that in the Ajax of Sophocles (668 ff.) the yielding of
wint er to sum mer and ni gh t to da y is used to sup po rt the con tr ar y
moral that e v e r y w h e r e there are rulers and subj ects, and su bm is si on
o f one to the other is necessar y. (Shakes pear e to o tho ug ht that the
course of nature confirmed the indispensabil i ty o f ' de gr ee ' . ) Interes t
ing also is the connexion in thought between equality in the social
and pol it ical field an d in the field o f me tr ic al s tandards and mathe
matical calculation. Evidently it was in the air before Archytas the
Pythagorean made his claim that the art o f calc ula tio n ' ends fa ctio n and
promotes unanimity ' ( see v o l . 1,336), and (as w e see fr om Pl at o and Is o-
crates) led to a co nt ro ve rs y bet wee n th e ' t w o equali t ies ' , the geo metr ical
(anti-tyr annical bu t aristocratic) and the arithmetical (d em oc ra ti c) . 1
1 lsoc. Areop. 21, Plato, Gorg. 508a, Laws 7 5 7 3 - 7 5 8 3 .It is interesting that to describe demo
cratic equality in the Laws Plato uses the same three words as Euripides in the same order: it is
τ ή ν μ ί τ ρ ω Ι σ η ν κ α Ι σ τ α θ μ ω κ α ΐ α ρ ιθ μ ώ , and in her praise of Ί σ ό τ η ς Jocas tas a y s (541 f.) :
κ α ΐγ α ρ μ έ τ ρ 'ά ν θ ρ ώ τ τ ο ι σ ικ α ι μ έ ρ ησ τ α θ μ ώ νΊ σ ό τ η ςέ τ α ξ εκ ά ρ ιθ μ ό ν δ ι ώ ρ ι σ ε .
S ee uleo Soph. fr. 399 Ν . The phrase ο ϋ τ ' ά ρ ιθ μ φ ο ύ τ ε σ τ α θ μ ω at Xen.Symp. 4·43 suggests a
proverbial clement.
6 1 5 1 o s Ρ
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 162/357
Equality
(2) E Q U A L I T Y O F W E A L T H
A s to wealth there is, in its con tex t, some th in g almo st C hris tian in
Jocas ta's des ign ati on o f it as a t rus t from heaven (555): ' W e m o rt a ls
do not hol d our we al th as a priv ate poss es si on; it is the god s' , and w e
have the care of it , but when they wish they take it back again. ' Actual
redi stri butio n o f we al th o n an egalita ria n bas is, ev en if in a, to u s,
imperfect form, was first proposed by a certain Phaleas of Chalcedon,
pr ob ab ly ab out the end of the fifth centur y. ( O n his date see G o mp e r z ,
Gr. Th. 1, 578.) Ari s to t l e (Pol. 1266339 ff., o u r o n t y source) says he
w a s the first to affirm that the citizens of a state ought to have equal
possess ions . 1 By abolishing want he hoped to abolish crime, but
Aris to t le comment s that cold and hunger are not the sole incentivesto cri me, and in fact the great est cr ime s are cau sed by excess and no t
b y nec es si ty: it is not me n's pos sessi ons but their desires and ambi tion s
that must be equalized, and this needs suitable education. Phaleas had
tho ugh t o f this to o, and wa s mod ern e no ug h to prop ose that no t
o n l y wealth but also educat ion should be provided 'equally ' by the
stat e: but, says Ari st otl e, i t is no use ev er yo ne ha vi ng the same edu ca
tion i f it is o f the w r o n g sor t, and Phal eas sho ul d tell us wha t kind o f
education he proposes.
(3) S O C I A L E Q U A L I T Y
T h e spirit o f egalitarianism led to a que st ion ing o f distinctions based
not only on wealth but on birth or race, and even to that b e t w e e n
master and slav e, wh i c h hither to h ad seemed to mos t Gr ee ks natura l
and fundamental . An ti ph on , the oppo nent o f nomos in all its fo rm s,
issued his cha ll eng e on b ot h nobl e bir th and race in an im por ta nt
par agr aph so far omi tte d fro m our summ ar y o f the pa pyr us fr agme nts . 2
It runs t h u s :
1 ί σ α ;ε ί ν α ιτ ά ς κ τ ή σ ε ι ςτ ώ ν π ο λ ι τ ώ ν .Later however (126 709 ) Aristot le s a y s that he limited
this to the possession of land. Of cour se the e qua li ty, as wo ul d be expected at this time, appli ed
only between citizens, and Phaleas even proposed that all artisans should be publicl y ow ned
slaves ( 1 2 6 7 ^ 5 ) .1
OP 136 4, fr. 2, DK , fr. 44 B . It is thus from the fragment who se auth enti cit y is guar ant eed ,though i ts relat ion to fr. 1 is un kno wn . (S ee OP, vol. x i , 93.) Consi derabl e restoration has
been necessary in the first few l i n e s , but their sense can be taken as certain.
152
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 163/357
Antiphon on Birth and Race
T h e sons o f nob le fathers we respect and lo ok up to , but those from hum ble
homes we neither respect nor l oo k up t o. In this w e behav e to one another
l ike barbarians, 1 since by nature we are all made to be alike in all respects,
both barbarians and Greeks.* This can be seen from the needs which all
men have. [They can all be provided in the same way by all men, and in all
this] 3 none o f us is marked off as either barbarian or G r e e k ; for we allbreathe the air wi th our mout h and nostrils and [eat wi th our h a n d s ? ] . . .
I f the l o g i c o f this passa ge appears str ange ( ' W e pa y gre at attenti on
to hi gh birth, but this is to beh av e l ike barbarians, for (έ π ε ί) in
reality there is no difference be tw ee n barbarians and G r e e k s ' ) , that
may be due to the fragmentary state o f the te xt , 4 and at least Antiphon's
message is plain, that in nature there is n o essential dis tin cti on either
be tween high and low birth or between different r a c e s . 5 A n o t h e r w h o
at about the same time or rather later (there is mu ch unc ert ain ty abo ut
his date) castigated distinctions based on birth was the Sophist
Ly c o p h r o n . W e kn o w o f thi s f rom Ar i s tod e , 6 who in a dialogue On
Nobility of Birth mad e one o f the speakers confess his be wi ld er me nt as
to the appli cati on o f the term. His co mp an io n replies that this is very
natural, for there is mu ch divi sion and o bscu rit y abo ut i ts significance,
even more among phi losophers than am on g ordinary men.
1 Barbaroi stric tly means all non- Gre ek- spe aki ng people, and is often use d to mak e thisfactual distinction with no der ogat ory implica tion. Nevertheless the Gree ks had a strong sense
of their superiority to other men, and more often the derogato ry implication wa s promine nt.
In ordinary speech the word carried an imputation of ignorance, stupidity, or l a c k of moralsense. It is an insult when Tyndareus s a y s to Menelaus (Eur. Or. 485) β ε β α ρ β ά ρ ω σ α ι , χ ρ ό ν ι ο ; ώ ν
iv β ά ρ β α ρ ο ι ;.1 If this is the translation, the Greek is rather unusual. Grenfell and H u n t render : 'we are
a ll by nature a l i k e fu l ly adapted to be either barbarian s or Hell enes ', whi ch is prob ably more
accurate. Nevertheless the following sentences show that the intention is in fact to obliterate thedistinction between the two. The double emphasis in φ ύ σ ε ιτ τ ε φ ύ κ α μ ε νis lost in English.
' Of the word s in squar e bra cke ts little is left in the Greek, and the tr anslat ion f ollo wsBignone ' s restoration in Studi, p. 65, for which he finds hints in a passage of Porphyry's De
abilinentia (3.25, p. 221 Nauck).
* And no doubt also to a soph isti c str ain ing after rhet oric al effect b y mea ns of the do ubl e
(factual and pejora t ive) s igni f icance of β ά ρ β α ρ ο ; . The whole argument may have been some
thing l i ke thi s: ' W e pa y too muc h attention to a man' s race or, withi n our o wn race , to his
descent. We ca l l the rest of mankind barbaroi, and use the term to mean ignorant or uncivilized;
and ut the same time we respect or despise people according to their ancestry. If barbaros means
•tupid, are we not the real barbaroi here? In point of fact there is no difference in nature between
Gre eks and non-G ree ks. All men are the same at bot tom, with the same needs and means of
satisfying them. Nor is there an essential difference between high and low born. '
' Turn's point that only biological equality is in question has been adequately dealt with by
Merlun, CP (1950), 164, and Baldry, Unity, 43 ff.' Fr. 91 Hose, p. 59 Ros s (Oxf. trans .). For Lyc oph ron see pp. 3 1 3f. below.
I 5 3 6-2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 164/357
Equality
1 54
Is it a precious and good thing, or as Lycophron the Sophist wrote, some
thing altogether em pt y? C omp ar in g it wi th other g oo ds , he says that its
splendour is not apparent, and its dignity lies in words, maintaining that to
prefer it is a matter o f opinion, whereas in truth there is no difference between
l o w born and high born.
S i m i l a r sentiment s on the subjec t o f nob le birth are freq uentl y on
the lips of the characters in Euripides, and it is typical of him that in
his Electro, he marries the daugh ter o f A g a m e m n o n to a po or peasant
remarkabl e for the cour tes y and nob il i ty o f his charact er. 1 His vir tues
p r o v o k e Ores tes to reflect ions l ike these (367ff .) : ' A b o u t ma nl y
virtue nothing is clear, for there is confusion in the natures of men.
I ha ve seen a wo rt hl es s so n o f a no bl e father, and fine chi ldr en sp ru ng
from the unw or t hy , po v e rt y in the wi t o f a ric h man and a great mi nd
in a poor man's body. ' More outspoken is an unidentif ied character in
the Dictys (fr. 336): ' O f hi gh birth I ha ve little g o o d to say. In m y
e y e s the go o d ma n is the nob le , and the unjust b as e- bor n th ou gh his
father be a greater than Z e u s . ' In keeping with this are several passages
on bastar dy wh i c h insist that the bastard is b y nature the equal o f the
legi t imate, and only inferior by nomos, or in name. 2 The subject of the
Alexander (Pri nce Pri am di sguise d as a slav e-herd sman) g a v e Euripidesan op po rt un it y of raisin g the questio ns o f bir th and of sl av er y fro m
bo t h sides.3 O n bir th the ch or us si ng (fr. 52):
W e g o to o far if w e praise nob le birt h among mortals. Wh e n first, lo ng
a g o , the human race wa s born , and Earth our mother br ou gh t them for th, 4
1 In the interests of accuracy it must be said that in the prologue the peasant proclaims him
se l f the descendant of a noble line, who has come down in the world, but as he s a y s , ' p o v e r t y
wipes out nobility', and in view of Orestes's remarks it seems that litt le signi ficance is to be
attache d to the fact. In Greece, even in Euri pide s's time, noble li neag e and material posses sions
st i l l went together more than they do with us (Nestle, Euripides, 323), and the helplessness of
the first wit hou t the second is emphas ized els ewher e in Eurip ides (frr. 22, 95, 326). For his
attitude to mo ney i n gen eral , see Nest le, Eur. 334ff. That poverty need not destroy inherited
nob ili ty of charac ter is repeated in a fragment of hi s Archelaus (fr. 232). But one must nev er
forget tha t his lines are spoken in character. Fr. 235 expresses utter contempt for wealth, but
fr. 248 appears to revil e pov ert y, an d all three fr agments are from the same pla y.1 Androm. 638, frr. 14 1, 168, 377 . Th at the well- bor n are the virtu ous is said to have been
maintained by Antisthenes (DL, 6.10).3 For the plot of the play and context of fragments see Vogt, Sklaverei, i6f .4 The choice of verb here ( δ ι έ κ ρ ι ν ε )bet ray s the poet's interest in natural science, for to
hi s contempor ary Anaxa gora s and other philos opher s the process whic h ga ve birth to the
cosmos and all liv ing creatur es in it wa s one of conti nuous 's epa ra ti on '. T his primal uni form ity
of mankind appears also in Sophocles's Tereus (fr. 532).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 165/357
Nolle Birth: Slavery
the land engen dere d all to l oo k alike. W e hav e no pecu liar traits, h ig h an d
low born are the same stock, but time through nomos has made birth a
matter of pride.
T h e obscu r i ty and confu s ion wh ic h Eur ip ides and L y co p h r o n found
in this topic were na tura l en o ug h a t a t ime w h e n the d ivi s io n ar is to
c r a t - co mm on er b y no means necessa r i ly co inc i ded wi th the po l i t i ca l
d iv i s ion o l i g a r c h - d e m o c r a t . ' T h e w h o l e d e v e l o p m e n t s h o w s tha t u p
to the end o f the fifth ce nt ur y in At h en s the no bi l i ty fo rm ed a po w e r
w h i c h could make i ts influence strongly fel t as much on the side of the
democra t i c cons t i tu t i on as occas iona l l y in vehe ment o ppo s i t ion to i t . ' 1
Fo r Eur ip ides the test i s mor al . N o long er can no bl e and g o o d , base-
born and bad, be in terchangeable terms as they were for a Theognis ,
w h o s e wo r d s are o b v i o u sl y adap ted to a mor al sense in the l ines
' N o b i l i t y consor t s no t wi th the bad , bu t wi th the good ' (Alex. fr. 53).
(4) S L A V E R Y
Fo r mos t Gr eek s soc i e ty wi t ho u t s l ave ry was un th in kab le . T h e
t r ea tment o f s laves , and the w o r k they were g i ve n to do , va r i ed w id e l y . 2
A t Ath ens they wer e em pl oy ed in domes t i c se rv ice , in p r iv a te ly ow ne d
factories, in mines (where the condi t ions might be h a r d indeed) , and
to a smaller exte nt on the land,3 wh ic h in At t i ca wa s mo st ly c ul t iv ate d
b y smal l peasant ho lde rs . T h e lo t o f dom est ic s laves natura l ly var i ed ,
but Aris top han es depic ts them as spe aki ng f ree ly, and som et i mes
imp ude nt l y, to thei r masters . Th e in te l l igent we re g i v en pos ts o f
responsibi l i ty as secre tar ies or bank-managers , and might u l t imate ly
be f reed by thei r ow ne rs . In the four th ce ntu ry Arches t ra tus beq uea the d
his ban k to his for mer slav e Pa sio n, w h o in t u rn leased i t to his own
freed slav e. A co m m o n practice w a s for ow ne rs of industr ial s l aves to
a l l o w them to w o r k ind epen den t ly, pa yi ng a f ixed sum from thei r
earnings and keep in g the rest , and these mi gh t save en ou g h to b u y
1 Nestle, Euripides, 324. Cf. p. 38, n. 1, above.' For authorit ies see Α . II . M. Jones in Slavery, ed. Finle y. Th e other e s s a y s in this c o l l e c
tion are also to be recommended; also Nestle, Euripides, 348 ff., and J . Vo gt , Sklaverei und
llumuniiilt, 1 — 1 9 .V. Cttflley in JHI, 1966, deal s wit h it und er four he ad s: (1) as an i mpos itio nof l a t e , (1) as the justifiable position of inferiors, (3) communal s l a v e r y, wi th , as a fourth,tnrliiphiirical s l a v e r y of a man to hi s ow n base desi res.
I l l u l sec Finley in Slavery, 14H f.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 166/357
Equality
i 5 6
the ir f r eedom. The compla in t o f t he O l d Ol ig a r ch ' (p se udo- Xen .
Ath. Pol. ι . 10) is w e l l k n o w n : slaves at At he ns are an insolent lot w h o
w i l l no t get ou t o f y o u r w a y in the street, and y o u are no t all ow ed to
strike them for the simple reason that there is no th in g in their dress
and general appearance to distinguish them from free Athenians.Demosthenes too says that slaves at At he ns ha ve greater righ ts o f free
speech than th e citize ns o f oth er states, and the re wa s a la w un de r
w h i c h anyone could be prosecuted for an act of hybris against slave
as w e l l as ci t izen. 1 In spi te o f all this the har d fac t re ma in ed that the
slave wa s a chattel to be bo ug ht and sold. So me we al th y men bo ug ht
large numbers and made a good income by leasing them out as
labourers .
I f slavery as an institution was accepted, there was a general feeling
agains t ens laving Greeks , 2 and mos t slaves we re obta ined , b y w a r o r
raids, from no n- Gr ee k countries. In this w a y the quest ion o f s la very
wa s con nec ted in the Gr ee k min d, as in the Am er ic an , wi th that o f
racial inferi ority. A s Iphi geni a says in Euri pid es (LA. 1400): ' I t is
right for Gr ee ks to rule ov e r barbaria ns, but not barbarians ov er
G r e e k s , for the y are slave s, bu t w e are free.' It is li ke ly ther efore that
A n t i p h o n , who denied any natural distinction between Greek and
barbarian, also opp ose d the doctr ine o f 'natura l s l ave s ' wh i ch pre
do min at ed at the tim e and wa s later defe nded b y Ar is to tl e ;3 bu t the
fact is not explici t l y record ed. C o lo ur wa s gi ve n to the idea o f
barbaria n inferiority by the Gr ee k vi ct or y ov er the Persians and b y
the ten den cy o f othe r peopl es to be despo tic all y ruled, for sub miss ion
to a human despot rather than to la w wa s in Gre ek eye s equ iva len t
to slave ry. M or eo ve r the mor al and intellectual inferi ority o f theirslaves w a s a fact, the inev it abl e effect, no t o f natu re, bu t o f the c o m
plete depri vat i on of ini t iat ive th rou gh be in g em pl oy ed as ' l iv in g
t o o l s ' , a life o f ' a l w a y s app eas ing the masters, for this is best for slav es,
and to please their lords in whatever task is assigned them Ά
1 Demosth. Phil. 3 . 3 , In Meid. 46-8. Cf. Eur. Hec. 2oif. On the l a w s of slavery at Athens
see Harrison, The Laws of Athens (1968), pt. I, ch. 6.2 For further infor mation, see Ne wman , Politics, vol. I, 142 f.3
So Nestle, VM^uL, 377. But on A rist otle' s description of the slave as a ' l iv in g t ool' ,see Harrison, The Laws of Athens, 163 , n. 2.
4 Eur. fr. 93. Th is enforced de terior ation w as alre ady recog nize d in Homer. See Od. 1 7 . 3 2 z f . :
s l a v e r y robs a man of ha lf h i s ά ρ ίτ ή .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 167/357
Criticismsof Slavery
A c c o r d i n g to R . Schlaifer, o f all critici sm o f sla ver y as an insti tutio n
(as distinct from errors and abuses in its application) ' t h e r e are only
three sur vi vin g scra ps: a sentence o f A l c i d a m a s ,a reference in Aristotle,
and an ec ho in P h i l e m o n ' . N o n e o f these be lo ng s to the fifth cen tu ry .
Schlaifer ho we ve r has excluded Eur ipides on the gr ou nd that, t h o u g h
he proclaims that the slave may be better than his mast er and ther efor e
w r o n g l y enslaved, he shared the common belief that some were by
nature fitted only for slavery. 1 T o isolate his o w n v i e w s is difficult,
since he wa s a drama tist and hi s char acter s ut ter opposing sent iments ,
but at the ve ry least he prov id es eviden ce o f a mo un ti ng t ide of p ro
test against slav er y in his lifetime. T h e them e o f the Alexandros, as
w e have seen, made it a natural fo rum o f oppo s ing v i e w s , on the one
hand the splend id affirmation o f the equal ity of all me n (p p. i54f .
a b o v e ) , and on the other sentiments like these:
fr. 48:' There is no greater burden, no more worthless and useless pos
session in a house than a slave with thoughts above his station' (cf. fr. 2 1 6 ) .
fr. 49: 'So ev i l is the race of s laves , all bel ly, never lo ok in g to the future.'
fr. 50: 'Slaves who are w e l l disposed towards their master's house incur
great hostility from their equals.'fr. 5 1 : 'I t is a bad th ing to have slaves w h o are to o go o d for their
masters.' (Cf. fr. 251.)
Fr. 86, from the Alcmaeon, says that a n y o n e w h o t rusts a slave is a f o o l .
From other passages we can be sure that these wo r ds we re uttered b y
unsym pathe tic characters. T h e freq uenc y wi th wh ic h a slave is sh ow n
as symp athe tic, and the relationship b et we en slaves and their masters
described in favou rable, eve n tou chi ng , terms, does not o f i tself pr ov e
an antipathy to slavery as such, 2 bu t is nevertheless str ikin g. T h e
wretchedness of a slave's lot was alluded to in the Archelaus (fr. 245):
' O n e thing I ad vi se : nev er let yo ur se lf be taken al ive into slav ery
if you have a chance of dying as a free man.' But it need not always
be s o : ' H o w pleasan t it is for sla ves to find g o o d mast ers , and for the
1 See Schlaifer's in format ive essay in Finley, p. 127. But for Eur ip ides ' s belief in natura l s lavery
hct relics entirely on fr. 57, whereas (a) it is comple te ly without context , an d s o u n d s as if it
wrro upokcn by a ty ran t or other unpleasant character, (k) the text itself is uncer ta in and the
word φ ύ σ ι ιan emendat ion .
' I ' l . H o , who was no aboli t ionist , says tha t slaves have often p roved better than brothers or
•ο η · , unci have saved their mas ters ' lives, prope r ty and whole families (Laws 776a).
1 57
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 168/357
Equality
1 5»
masters to have a w e l l dis pose d slave in the h o m e ' (fr. 529). T h e
slaves o f A l c e s t i s are dist raug ht w it h gr ie f at the death o f her wh o wa s
a mother to them (Ale. 1921!., 769 f.) , t h o u g h th ey ad mit it is no t
e v e r y w h e r e thus (ibid. 2 i o f . ) , and there are many other passages
in the same strain.1
Hippolytus listens and replies seriously when hisslave offers ad vi ce , and the same slav e doe s not sh rink f rom def end ing
him against his father's anger (Hipp. 88 ff., i249ff.). B ot h the faithful
ness and the pat hos o f a slave are reflected in the wo r ds o f A n d r o
mache's handmaid agreeing to go on a dangerous mission for her
mistress (Andr. 89): ' I w i l l g o , and i f anyt h ing happens to me —w el l ,
the life of a slave-woman is of little worth'; and in the Helena (1639)
another handmaid defends her mistress with the words: ' K i l l no t your
sister bu t me , for to no bl e sla ves it is a g l o r y to di e for their lo rd s. '
T h e freedom o f speech al lo wed to slaves in Euripid es wa s br ou gh t
against him by Aristophanes (Frogs 949), an d the gen er al l ac k o f it
is repe ated ly men tio ned in his play s as a feature o f the slave 's hard l o t . 2
I f in these passages Euri pid es do es no mo re than s h o w s y m p a t h y
for sla ves, and per haps reflect an actuall y exi sti ng relationship w h e n
at its best, else whe re he go e s further in cla imi ng that a slave may be
the equ al or sup eri or o f the free. A t Helena 730 a slav e cla ims to ha ve
't he min d, t ho ug h not the na me, o f a free man ', 3 just as in a fragmen t
f rom the Melanippe (511) it is said that ' t he na me o f s lave w i l l no t
cor rup t a g o o d man , and m a ny sla ves are better than the free' , and
f rom the Phrixus (831) : ' t o ma ny slaves the name brin gs disgrace
though in heart they belong more to the free than those who are not
s l a v e s ' .4 In the Ion the statement is gi ve n univ ersa l for m. T h e old
slave-tutor of Creusa's father, whom she hails as a friend and w e l l -wisher and promises to cherish as her own father (730 ff . ) , after de-
* Ion 725-34 , 566; Med. 54, Bacch. 1027. S l a v e s share the j o y s and sorro ws of the h ous e
hold.1 Phoen. 392, Ion 674, fr. 313.3 Even So phocle s wa s prepared to let a character go as far as this. See fr. 854 tl σ ώ μ α
δ ο ϋ λ ο ν ,ά λ λ ' ό voOs ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ ο ; ;and the accidental character of slavery, at least in a special case,
i s bro ugh t out by the chorus in Aes chy lus 's Agamemnon (1084), when they say of C assa ndra 's
gift of prophecy μ έ ν ε ιτ ό θ ε ί ο νδ ο υ λ ί α π ε ρ έ νφ ρ ε ν ί .4
Fr. 495 · 4 ' ff-> see ms to mean that the bra ve and just, even if of slave stock, are nobler thanothers wh o are full of vai n fancie s; bu t I do not find the text altoge ther cle ar, nor does the literal
translation in Nestle's note (Eur. p. 546) seem to correspond very w e l l with his version in the
text (p . 35 8) . Co nt ra st fr. 97ο ά κ ά λ α σ θ 'ό μ ιλ ε Τ νγ ί γ ν ε τ α ι δ ο ύ λ ω ντ έ κ ν α .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 169/357
Euripides and Alcidamas on Slavery
clar ing that he is ready to die in her service adds (854): ' O n e t h i n g
alon e br in gs sh ame u p o n sla ves , the na me. In all else the sl av e, i f he
be a good man, is no worse than the free.' In these passages, taken
with fr. 52, or a line like fr. 336, 2 — ' t h e well-born man is the good
ma n' —i t w ou l d be perve rse not to reco gniz e an out rig ht denial o f
natural div isi ons wi th in the hu man race wh er eb y one can be bo rn to
serve and another to rule, with the corollary that s lavery is wrong in
itself. A slave as such is of no less worth than a free man. If he is
morally inferior, that is due either to his own individual character or
to slav ery itself, wh i c h has ruined an ori gin all y g o o d ma n. 1
Apar t from Euripides (who died in 406), the only surviving affirma
tion o f this bef ore the time o f Ar is to tl e is a quo tat ion fr om a pupi l o f
G o r g i a s named A l c i d a m a s : ' G o d has se t a ll men free; nature has made
no man a slave. ' This occurred in a speech to the Spartans recom
men di ng them to liberate Messene , wh os e inhabitants had bee n serfs
o f theirs for centuries, but no reference to the historical context can
w e a k e n the uni ver sal ity o f the princi ple as enunci ated. Th at is gu ara n
teed by the wor ds ' G o d ' , ' a l l ' and 'na tu r e ' . 3 Sla ver y wa s already, as
N e w m a n pointed out (Politics, 1, 143), 'undergoing a rigorous ex
aminati on, in the cour se of wh i ch one for m o f it after anot her wa s
bei ng we ig he d in the balance and f oun d wa nt in g, and first ensl ave ment
for debt, then the enslav ement of Gr ee ks, then ensla vement th ro ug h
w a r, wer e successivel y be in g eliminated, so that a total con demn ati on
o f the institution might w e l l seem to be at ha nd '. N o w it has bee n
' Th is is wel l an d forcefully put b y Nes tle , Eur. 359.
* I therefore confine suc h refe rence to a footnote. The actual words ( ε λ ε υ θ έ ρ ο υ ;ό φ η κ επ ά ν τ α ;θ ε ό ; · ο ύ δ έ ν αδ ο ϋ λ ο νή φ ύ σ ι ; π ε π ο ί η κ ε ν )are quoted by a scholiast on Ar. Rhet 1 3 7 3 b ,where Aristotle is ar gui ng for the existence of a natura l as distinct from a mer el y leg al justic e.
A l l c r quot ing the familiar line s of the Antigone about the eternal unwritten l a w s , and a passage
In lite same strain from Em pedo cles , he ad ds : 'an d so also Alc ida mas in his Messe nian speech '.
Thus Aristotle himself had no doubt that Alci dama s was speaking of a universa l law of nature,
/ . f i l e r however (quoted by Newman, Politics, 1, 14 1, n. 1) thought that to hav e atta cked the
whole Institution of slaver y wo ul d not have served the purpose of his speech, therefore he
would not have done so, and Levinson agrees (D. of P. 142 ): i t is 'ext reme ly unlik ely that he
woul d have been led on to make a unive rsal application of his pri nc ipl e' (an excelle nt exampl e
11Γ ihr textbook rhetorical argume nt έ κ τ ο ΰ ε ΐ κ ό τ ο ;.See pp. 178 f. be lo w) . But the fact is thatthe uliilenicnt is universal, and no conjectures about what was prudent or tactful can stand up
ι ΐμ ,ι ιΙ ι ΐΝ ΐthe wor ds themselves . Th e Sophist 's since rity, or his capa city for doub le- thi nk, do
nut enter the question. Hrzoska (RE, I, 1536) supposed that the wor k was not a gen uin e speech
for the occasion but only a 'Schulstuck'. The scholiast's use of the verb μ ε λ ε τ ά ν (Ο π ε ρΜ ι ο ο η ν Ι ω νμ ι ιλ ι τ φκ α ΐ λ έ γ ε ι )suppo rts this. For Al cid ama s see pp. 31 iff. bel ow.
'59
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 170/357
Equality
(5) R A C I A L E Q U A L I T Y
T h e ans wer lies in the g r o w t h o f the co sm op ol it an idea, for, since the
ens lavement of Gr ee k b y Gr ee k was genera l ly unpopular , s laverycou ld only be theoret ical ly defended on the ground that barbarians
(non-Greeks) were natural ly inferior. This was the v i e w of Pla to ,
1 60
uttered, and surel y a grea t step fo rw ar d in the hi st or y of hu ma n rela
tions has bee n take n. O f cou rs e me n' s exasp erat ing ability to k ee p
their tho ug hts in separate comp art men ts persisted. Le vi ns on poin ts
o u t that the Jus t in ian code, af ter laying down as a principle that
' s l a v e r y is contrary to natura l la w' , proceeds to exp oun d the r ights o fthe sla ve -o wn er in minu te de tai l ; and in the nineteenth cen tur y an
A m e r i c a n slave-owner could happily acquiesce in the words of the
Declara t ion of Independence , ' t h a t all me n are created eq ua l ' . T h e
struggle was dest ined to be long, but i t had begun, and a powerful
we ap on for the oppo nen ts o f s lav ery had bee n for ged , wh en the
assertion that it had no foundation in na tu re was first openly made.
Alc idamas wrote his Messenian speech about 360. Late in the same
century the affirmation recurs in a play of Philemon (fr. 95 K o c k ) :
' E v e n i f a ma n be a sl av e, he has the sa me flesh; n o on e w as e v e r a
slave b y na tu re , though chance ens laves the body. ' The currency of
the idea in the sec on d half o f the fou rth ce nt ur y is also attested b y
Ari s to t l e , who writes in the Politics ( i 2 5 3 b 2 o ) : ' S o m e h o w e v e r h o l d
that sla ve- own ers hip is unnatur al . I t is on ly b y nomos that one is slave
and another free, for in n a t u r e the re is no difference. Neit her , the n, is
it just , for it is ba sed o n fo rc e. ' B y this time, th en ( pr ob ab ly after 335),
these liberal sentiments were w e l l known, but i t is a mat te r o f l i v e l y
controversy whether they were already current in the t ime with which
w e are now c h i e f l y con cern ed, in the At he ns o f Eurip ides and Soc rates,
and are to be attrib uted to an earlier gen era tio n o f Sop hist s than
A l c i d a m a s . H o w t rue is the c la im o f Ne st le in 1901 that ' i t w i l l re
dound for all t ime to the glory of Greek sophistic that , starting from
the concept ion of natura l law, it opposed the existence of slavery on
theoret ical grounds, and the Socrat ic school , Plato and Aristot le ,
represent on this poi nt a deci ded ly retrog rade st ep '?
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 171/357
Effect of Environment on Character
L6L
who would only admit the ens lavement of barbar ians (Rep. 4 6 9 b - c ) . 1
I le wa s prepared to be mo re specif ic : on ly Gre ek s we re characterized
b y g o o d intel lect and lo ve o f learning , no r the rne r s l ike Thr ac ian s and
Scythians were bold and irascible by na ture , Phoenic ians and Egypt ian s
avar ic ious (435 e - 4 3 6 A ) . A l l this had a basis in co nt em po ra ry science,for the f if th-century Hip poc rat ic t reatise o n Airs, Waters and Places
g i v e s a detailed a cc ou nt o f the effects o f clima te on characte r and
inte l lec t as we l l as phy si que . C ond i t i ons in As ia Min or prod uc e peop le
o f go od phy siq ue but p leas ure- l ovin g and lac king in cou rag e and
indus try, dwe lle rs in the ho t mars hes o f the Phasis re gi on are fat,
s lu ggi sh and unfi t for wo rk , and so on . Gr ee ks , l i vi ng in an in te r
mediate geographi ca l pos i t io n , possess bo th in te l l igence and cou rag e ,which makes them a natural master- race . 2 When, in spi te of this
scientific veneer, it began to be claimed that racial dist inctions we re
unnatural , ex i s t ing on ly by nomos, the last theoretical p r o p of s l ave ry
was removed, and th is cla im, as w e ha ve seen, w a s alre ady ma de b y
Ant ipho n. Some mo re genera l s ta tements ma y a lso be not iced wh ic h
tend in the same di re ct io n. In a fra gm ent o f Eu ri pi de s (902) w e f in d:
' T h e go o d [in som e author i ties " w i s e " ] man, ev en i f he l ive in a far-o f f land, ev en if m y eye s nev er l ight on him , I ju dg e m y fr ie nd' ,
and there seems to ha ve bee n a pr ov er bi al ex pre ssi on to the effect that
a g o o d m a n ' s fa ther land wa s the wh ol e wor ld . 3
It is i m p o r t a n t to d is t inguish between pan-Hel lenism and a wider
cosmopol i tanism which embraced the barbar ians . 4 T h e re la t ions b e-
' Plato defended s l a v e r y to the end of his l ife, in Laws as w e l l as Rep. Th e pass age in the
I'oliiicus ( z f a c - e ) where he g i v e s Greeks and barbarians as an example of a faulty classification,because one non- Gre ek r ace differs from an othe r as mu ch as eithe r from the Gr ee k, has beend i e d as evidence of a temporary change of mind (Schlaifer, op. ch. 98). Whether the illustrationin meant to have more than formal l o g i c a l significan ce is per hap s doubtf ul. In spite of Sk em p111/loc. it is difficult to fit 'b it in g sar cas m' here into Pla to' s general view , whi ch lasted until the/.met, and Plato 's point in vol ves no nece ssary denial that all the different b arba rian race s areIn H O M E respects inferior to the Greek. It is not ewo rth y how eve r that in the Phaedo (78 a ) herecommends searching not only the whole of Greece but also the barbarian nations to find acure L O R the fear of death.
1 I lippocr. A.W.P. chs. I 2 f f . (11, 52 L. ) The last point, abo ut the Gre eks , is adde d b y Aris totle( / W. 13 27 b 29), but obv iou sly in dependence on earlier sources.
1 luir . fr. 1047, Dcm ocr . fr. 247 ( a g a i n in the form of an iamb ic trimeter, on whic h D K 1 0
I I , Nachtr. p. 424, is inadequate), Ly s i a s Or. 3 1 . 6 . I t is adapted in Aristoph. Plut. 1151 andTime . 2. 4] . 1.
4 Ki r .1 brief acco unt of the gro wt h of the Gree k sense of un it y and s upe ri ori ty to otherl a c e * , \cr Schlaifer, op. cit. 93 IT. On the pan -He lle nic outl ook of the Sop his ts, pp. 43 f. abo ve.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 172/357
Equality
ΐ62
tween the Greek ci ty-states were paradoxical . Independent and jealous,
they made constant war on one another, yet the sense of Hellenic
unity was strong, and fostered by the great pan-Hellenic festivals at
O l y m p i a , De lp hi and the Isthm us, for wh ic h quarrels we re temp orari ly
set aside and a sacr ed truc e pro cl ai me d. A t these time s the ties o f ac o m mo n langu age (e ve n if spl it into dialects) , rel ig ion and cultur e
(typified by the Homeric poems) overruled the differences between the
states. In the fifth and fourth centuries the fragmentation of the
Greek- speak ing world came more and more to be regarded as f o l l y,
and writer s w h o use the lan gua ge o f cosm opol i ta nism ma y mean on ly
to co mm en d pan-Hel len ism, wh i c h in i tself accentuated rather than
softened the dist inct ion be tw ee n Gre ek and barbarian. T h e ideal wa s
the uni on o f Gr ee ks against the no n- Gr ee k wo rl d wh ic h had b een
achieved wi th such succe ss in the Persia n wa rs . Go rg ia s wr ot e (fr. 5 b )
that victor ies ov er barbarians cal led for hy mn s of tha nks giv ing , but
those ov er fel lo w- Gr ee ks for dirges. Hippias in the Protagoras (337c)
c a l l s the wh ol e co mp an y, from different s tates, ' m y kin smen and
f a m i l y and fe l low-c i t i zens—by nature , not by nomos, for by na tu re
l i k e is kin to like, but nomos, tyrant o f mank ind , violates na tu re in
m a n y w a y s ' . It w o u l d therefore be scandalo us i f the y, the wis est o f
the Greeks , fel l out am on g them selve s. Here opinion s ha ve differed on
the quest ion whe the r Hippia s is prea chin g the uni ty o f man kin d or
s imply of Greeks, or indeed of philosophers, for i t could w e l l be they
w h o m h e m e an s t o c al l ' n a t ur a l l y a l i k e ' ( ό μ ο ι ο ι ) . 1 D o e s Hippias he re
' r e c o g n i z e ' , as Untersteiner thinks, 'as friends and kinsmen the men
o f all cities and all na ti on s' ? Hi s actu al w o r d s are the same as tho se o f
Plato's Socrates at Rep. 470c when he says that the Gr ee k race is ' o n ef a m i l y and one kin ' , but immediately adds that Gr ee ks and barbarians
are not only alien but natura l enemies . 2 The fact that Hippias, l ike
A n t i p h o n , dis t inguished nomos f rom physis and rejected the former
doe s not , o f itself, pr ov e that he would have joined him in assigning
dist inc tion s o f race and cl ass to it, no r do es his acq uie sce nce in the
existence o f certain universal unwr it t en la ws in Xe no p ho n.
1 For various opinions se e Untersteiner, Sophs. 283 f., Sof. i l l , 1041" . ; Bignone, StuJi, 2 9 ;Ba ldry, Unity, 43; Strauss , J. of Metaph. 1959, 433.
1 a u y v E v e' s τ ε κ α ΐ ο ίκ ε ί ο υ ξ Hi pp ia s i n Prot. of the assembled (G reek) c o m p a n y ; τ ό
Έ λ λ η ν ικ ά νyivos ο ώ τ ό α ϋ τ ω ο ί κ ε ϊο ν κ α ΐσ ν γ γ ε ν έ ίRep.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 173/357
Greeks and Barbarians
1 63
T h e re la t ions be tw ee n Gree ks and barbar ians w er e co mp le x, and
cannot be adequate ly discussed here . 1 Plato might in one place dismiss
the Egy pt ia ns as ava ric iou s, bu t in the Timaeus he makes them the
reposi tor ies of ancient wi s do m in contras t to the 'ch i l d l ik e ' Gr ee ks .
T h e debt of Gr ee k sc ience and mathemat ics to no n- Gr ee k peop leswas f reely ac kn ow le dg ed b y Her odo tus and others . Hippia s himself
said that in wr it in g a w o r k o f his ow n he had made use o f the poet s
'a nd the pro se-w rite rs bo th G re ek and bar bar ian ' (fr. 6). Her e w e are
s imply concerned with the question whether the idea later known as
the uni ty of man kin d o r the br oth er hoo d o f man wa s a l ready mo ot ed
in the fifth cen tur y. It wa s, b y An ti p ho n, and pro ba bl y b y Hip pia s and
o thers too . T h o u g h our kn ow le dg e is l amentab ly scan ty, i t wo u ld bestrange if b e l i e f in universa l , 'na tur a l ' laws o f hum an be hav iou r wer e
not accompanied by a convict ion that the hu ma n race is f unda menta lly
aki n. T h e idea o f the bas ic equ ali ty o f ma nk in d w a s firmly ro ot ed in
ant hr opo log ica l the or y. Since all me n orig ina lly ca me fro m the earth,
a by -p ro du ct o f the fermen tation o f mu d or sl ime, nature ga ve no one
the right to va un t him se lf as sp ru ng fr om better st oc k than a n y o n e
e l s e .2
Th at sort o f dist inc tion ca me on the scene later as a pr od uc t o fnomos only. This anthropological bas is for the nomos-physis anti thesis
means that its justificat ion o f equ al it y is uni ver sal , an d it is r eas ona ble
to suppose that a ma n wi th any pretensions to ph i lo so ph y w h o fou nd
it relevant to on e dist inction w o u l d ap pl y i t to al l— hi gh and l o w
bor n, master and s lave, Ath en ia n and Spar tan, Gr ee k and no n- Gr ee k.
1 Vol ume v m of the Entretiens Hardt (Grecs et Barbares) is devot ed to a discuss ion of t hem.1 W e have just seen this ap plied to disti nction s of birth in Euripi des (fr. 52, pp. 1 5 4 f . above).
S e e also p. 58 (Archelaus) and vol. 1 1 , pp. 207, 315 with n. 4, 343, 472.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 174/357
V I I
THE R E L AT I V I T YOF VA L U E S AND ITS E F F E C T S ON
E T H I C A L T H E O R Y1
I f physical philosophy begins in wonder, ethics may be said to have begun
in scepticism. G r a n t , Ethics, I , 1 5 5 .
T h e chapte r on the Soph ists (p. 49) menti on ed Sir Al ex an de r G ra nt 's
d iv i s ion of moral i ty in to three stages, cor res pon din g in a nat ion tochi ldh oo d, adolesc ence and matur i ty in the indi vidu al . In one respect
his divi sion w o u l d no t pass unc hall enge d tod ay. He cal ls the sec on d,
sceptical or sophistic era ' transitional ' , and implies that only the t h i r d ,
that is, a re tu rn to earlier beliefs mo re de ep ly hel d beca use attained b y
indepen dent tho ug ht, represents maturi ty . In Gr ee k th ou gh t the
transition wa s to the idealis m o f Pl ato , a phi los op hic al reaffirmation
and defence o f thos e abso lut e val ues w h ic h are accep ted b y the
' s i m p l i c i t y and t r u s t ' o f ch il dh oo d as th ey are in the pre-critical stag e
o f society. The second or sceptical s tage might equally w e l l be called
posi tivi st, and it is b y no means g ene ral ly acce pted that b e l i e f in
absolute values is more m a t u r e t h a n posi t ivi sm. N o t ev er y adult re
cove r s the con vic t io ns o f his ch ild ho od . Th e posi t ivist rejects the v i e w
that po sit ive la w mus t set out fr om the ideal o f a natural, i .e. un ive rs all y
v a l i d , s tandard o f r i g h t : there is only a relat ive r ight or goodness,
w h i c h is de riv ed fr om the pos it iv e la w pr ev ail in g at a particular tim e.
T h e pos i t iv i s t knows that the search for go od ne ss is a chi maer a-h unt .
Simi lar ly bea uty , as i t wa s for H um e, is ' n o quali ty in thing s thems elves ,
it exists me re ly in the mi nd s wh i c h con tem pla te the m, and each m in d
perce ives a different beauty ' . 2 In statements lik e these the mo d er n
posit ivist would not wish to be told that his stan dpo int w as either
pr e-P lat oni c or adolesc ent, bu t he is in fact rep eati ng the So ph ist s '
assertion s in the co nt ro ve rs y of the fifth and fo urth centuries B . C .1 Cf. pp. 59 f.
* See Cassirer, Phil, of Enlightenment, 307.
1 64
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 175/357
Positivism and Adolescence
1 65
Va l u e for him, as for Archelaus, exists by nomos only, not by physis.
F o r A y e r there is not even a controversy :
Ta l k i n g about values is not a matter of describing what may or may not bethere, the problem being whether or not it really is there. There is no suchproblem. The moral problem is: What am I to do? What attitude am I totake? An d moral jud gmen ts are directives in this sense. W e can n ow seethat the whole dispute about the objectivity of values, as it is ordinarilyconducted, is pointless and idle. 1
Poi ntle ss and idle t h o u g h it ma y be , the disp ute has reapp eared
ma ny tim es, and in sp ea ki n g o f the po si ti vi sm o f fifth-century Gr ee ce
one can hardly claim tha t i t was rendered obsolete by Plato. In Euri
pides a character asks rhetoricall y, ' W h a t acti on is shameful if i t
seem not so to the actor? 5 , wh ic h dr ew from Arist oph anes the par od y,
' W h a t action is shamef ul i f it seem not so to the au di en ce ?' , and b o t h
Plato and Antisthenes were credited with the r e t o r t : 'Shameful is
shameful , seeming or no seeming' . 2 Eteocles in the Phoenissae,
asserting his lust for power in truly sophistic terms, says (499if . ) :
' I f the same thing were to all men by nature fair and w i s e , there
w o u l d be no disputes or quarrels among us. But as it is there is no
consistency or impartiality where mortals are concerned: it is all names,
without reality' , and when Hippias claims to know what justice is,
Socrates congratulates him ironical ly on a discovery which w i l l
cause juries to cease differing over their verdicts and put an end to
litigation, rebellion and war (Xen. Mem. 4 . 4 . 8 ) . A g a i n , in Plato he
remarks that w h e n w e ut te r words l ike ' i ron ' or ' s i lver ' we a l l know
what we mean, but when we say ' just ' or 'good' we disagree with
one another and even in our own minds.3 These quotations g i v e an
idea of the sceptical atmosphere of the time, to which Socrates himself
w a s so s t rongly opposed, holding that agreement on the meaning of
moral terms was an essential preliminary to morality in practice.
T h e most distinguished advocate of the relativity o f v a l u e s ( t h o u g h ,
as in ev it ab ly hap pen s, his th ou gh t wa s often dis tort ed as it filtered1 Ayer, Philosophical Essays, 242.1 I'.ur. fr. 19 , Ar . Frogs 1475. The retort is attribu ted to Antis thenes by Plut arch , De aud.
/nut. 3} c, and to Pl ato in Stoba eus , Flor. 5.82 (both quoted by Nauck on the fr.).' I'haedr. 2 6 1 . 1 . Cf. Euthyphro 7c~d,Alc. 1 m e - i i 2 a . Nestle (VM^uL, 271) s a y s that the
l ines Iron 1 1 l ie Phoenissae ' unmis takab ly reproduce th e doctrine of Prot ago ras ' , but are we notrather reminded of Socrates?
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 176/357
The Relativity of Values
1 6 6
t h rough other, less gifted minds) wa s Pr ota gor as, and his philosophi cal
challenge to traditionally accepted norms was in its turn based on
relat ive and subject ive theories of on to lo gy and epis tem olo gy. A s
applied to val ues, relat ivity ma y mean one of t wo things , (a) Th er e is
nothing to which the epithets good, bad or the like can be applied
absolutely and without qualification, because the effect of everything
is different according to the object on which it is exercised, the circum
stances of its appl ica tio n and so on . Wh a t is g o o d for A ma y be ba d
for B , wh at is g o o d for A in certain cir cums tanc es m a y be bad for
hi m in other s, and so on . Th e obj ec ti vi ty o f the go o d effect is no t
denied, but it varies in individual cases, (b) When a speaker says tha t
g o o d and bad are only relative, he may mean that ' t h e r e is nothing
either g o o d or bad, bu t thin kin g ma kes it s o ' . A n y inve sti gatio n o f thenomos-physis antithesis tu rns up ple nty o f exampl es o f th is : incest
abominable in Greek e y e s , normal in Egyptian and so on. With
aesthetic values the case is even more obvious.
Hera clit us had earlier ad duc ed the first ty pe o f rel ati vit y as on e
justification o f his par adox o f the identity o f op po si te s: 'S ea wa te r ' ,
he said, 'is at the same time pures t and most polluted, being drinkable
and salutary for fishes, undrinkable and deadly to men.' 1 Pro tagoras
deve lops the theme in answer to a suggestion of Socrates that ' g o o d '
may be equated with 'beneficial to men' : 2
E v e n if things are not beneficial to men, I still call them g o o d . . . I k no w
plenty of things—foods, drinks, drugs and many others—which are harm
fu l to men, and others which are beneficial; and others again which, so far
as men are concerned, are neither, but are harmful or beneficial to horses,
and others only to cattle or dogs. Some have no effect on animals, but only
1 Fr. 61; see vol. I , 445.1 Plato, Prot. 333 e—334 c. Th e uti li tar ian equ ati on of α γ α θ ό νwi th ώ φ έ λ ιμ ο νwas a favourite
one with Socrates. (See Socrates, ch. m , § 8.) Nor can it be doubted that the speech of Protagorasrepresents his actual view. Xenophon (Mem. 3 . 8 . 7 ) . s h o w s Socrates saying something similar(what is go od for a hu ng ry m an is bad for on e in a fever, e t c . ) , and on this account has beenaccused of fathering on him the ideas of Antisthenes ( C a i z z i , Stud. Urbin. 1964, 65 ; not, oddlyenough, of Protagoras). What Socrates is arguing there, however, is that the goodness of anything l i e s in its fitness to perform its proper function—an unimpeachably Socratic tenet (el.Rep. 352ε —353d). His tho ught wa s intens ely prac tica l: what is goo d must be useful, and thesame thing can be useful or harmful according to circumstances (Meno 87e-88c and Xeu.
Mem. 4. 6 . 8 ) . Pr ec is el y ho w his th oug ht differed from that of a Sophi st l ike Pro tago ras is ,1l a r g e question, but it is not correct to say as Cai/ . / . ί does that the passage in Xcnuplum is ' U<\ i r -
mente antiplatonico' (by which he means against the Platonic Socrates).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 177/357
Protagoras: Morals and Medicine
on trees, and some again are good for the roots of trees but injurious to the
y o u n g growths. Manure, for instance, is good for all plants when applied
to their roots, but utterly destructive i f put on the shoots or young branches.
O r take olive oil. It is very bad for plants, and most inimical to the hair
o f all animals except man, whereas men find it of service both to the hair
and to the rest of the body. So diverse and multiform is goodness that evenwith us the same thing is good when applied externally but deadly when
taken internally. A l l doc tor s forbid the sick to use oil in prepar ing their
f o o d , except in the smallest quantities.
T h i s able little spe ech has c o m e in for a sur pri sin g a mo un t o f
cri t icism on the gr ou nd o f irr ele vanc e. 1 Since Socrates has virtually
asked Protagoras what he means by the concept 'good ' , i t i s hardly
irrelevant for hi m to re pl y wi th his o w n the or y o f i ts div ersi ty. Th a t a
Sophist should at the same time s ho w off his miscell aneous kn o w l e d g e
is only in character. Hackfor th 2 objected that, the point being ethical ,
the i r re levance l ies in tak ing the meaning s o f ' g o o d ' be yo nd the e thical
sphere. But not only was Socrates 's question purely general , concerning
the equat ion of ' g o o d ' wi th 'benef ic ia l to m e n ' ; for the Sophis ts the
co nne xio n be tw ee n ethics , poli t ics and rhetoric on the one han d and
hyg ien e or medic ine o n the other wa s impor tant, as t w o bra nche s o f
the art o f im pr ov in g hu ma n nature, moral and physi cal . In the Theae-
tetus (1670-c ) Pro tago ras says , ' W h e n men exercise their ski l l on
bodie s I cal l them physi c ians , wh en on plants , husb andm en. Th es e t oo ,
i f a plant is sick, g i v e i t sound, healthy and t rue sensations instead o f
ba d ; and similarly g o o d and skilful orators ma ke g o o d instead o f e v i l
course s appear just to cit ies. ' Ve rs en yi has poi nte d o ut the c los e
parallels that exist be tw ee n Pro tag ora s and the Hip poc rat ic treatise
On Ancient Medicine :3
Doth stress the facts that their arts are human inventions rather than original
endowments, that their arts are necessary because of the difference between
one man and another and between men and animals, and that there is a
resulting relativity of what is good for each. Both hold that 'our present
1
Adam and Grube both call it irrelevant. To H. Gomperz (S. u. R. 162) it wa s a 'dis turb ingInterruption' , and he took its intrusiveness to be evidence that it was an extract from one of
I'ronigoras's own books. T h a t it ma y well be, but Pla to i s not the sort of writer to p u s h some
th ing in where it is not w ante d si mpl y in orde r to in t roduce a verbatim quota t ion.
' I n a n u n p u b l i s h e d l e c t u r e .
' yM ) (quoted in part on p. 83 ab ov e) : Verso nyi, Soc. Hum. 33-5, 43.
I 6 7
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 178/357
The Relativity of Values
l68
w a y o f l i f e ' (laws, customs, regimen) is not by nature but 'has been dis
covered and elaborated during a long period of time'.
T h e aim of both [sc. the political and the medical arts] is to find what is
useful, approp ria te, fitting, or due to the nature of what each has in his care
so as to promote healthy, harmonious and undisturbed l i fe. This similarity
o f aim, method, and (almost) subject not only leads to constant association
o f the tw o , bu t at times mak es it exc eedin gly difficult to dra w a sharp
dividing line between them.
' S p e e c h ' , sa id Gorg ia s (Hel. 14), 'bears the same relation to the mind
as dru gs to the b o d y . A s dr ugs dr aw off different hum ou rs from the
b o d y, and some put an end to disease and others to l i f e , so wo rd s can
induce joy or grief, fear or confidence, or by e v i l persua sion dr ug and
b e w i t c h the mind. ' This theory was actual ly put into pract ice by
An ti ph on in his 'ps ych iat r ic cl i nic ' as reporte d in the Lives of the
Ten Orators: hi r in g a spec ia l ro om in Cor in th , he 'de ve lo pe d an "a r t
o f co ns ol a t io n" paral le l to the therapy o f the b o d y b y ph ys ic ia ns ' . 1
Pro tag ora s sees a close paral lel not o nl y, l ike Go rg ia s , be tw ee n
medic ine and ora to ry, im pr ov in g respec t ive ly the phys ica l and mora l
cond it io ns of men , bu t also be tw ee n bo th and husba ndr y, the care o f
men and that o f plants . Th is reappears in A nt ip ho n (fr. 60):
Primary among human concerns is education, for in any enterprise when
the beginning is right, the outcome is l i k e l y to be right to o. A s is the seed
that is ploughed into the ground, so must one expect the harvest to be, and
similarly when good education is ploughed into young persons, its effectl ives and burgeons throughout their l i v e s , and neither rain nor drought
can destroy it.
T h i s an al og y is appl ied specifica lly to the tea ch ing o f med ici ne in the
Hippoc ra t i c Law ?
T h e learning of medicine may be likened to the gr ow th o f plants. O u r
natural ability is the s o i l . T h e v i e w s of our teachers are as it were the seeds.
1 [P lu t . ] Vitae 833 c, An ti pho n A 6. On this and the ide nti ty of Ant iph on see further be lo w,
pp. 2oof. Psy chol ogi cal insig ht is also sugg est ed by his dictu m (fr. 57) that i l l ne s s is a hol iday
for the work-shy, for then they do not have to go out to work. I have assumed here tha t th estory in the Vitae is true, but see p. 290, wi th note s.
2 Ch. 3, trans. Jones. Jones (Loeb ed. 2 5 7 f . ) cites D.L. 7.40 as evidence that th e Law is lateenough to have been written under Stoic influence. But, apart from the fact that , as he s a y s ,
' th e resemblance ma y not appear str ik ing ', he seems to have over looke d the extract I romAntiphon.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 179/357
The M edical and Agricultural Analogies
Learning from chi ldhood is ana logous to the seeds' falling betimes upon the
prepared ground. The place of instruction is as it were the nutriment thatcomes from the surroun ding air to the things sown . Dili gence is the
working of the soi l . Time strengthens all these things, so that their nurtureis perfected.
Th es e passa ges sh ou ld increase ou r ins igh t into the mind o f a
Sophis t and assist an unde rsta ndin g o f Pro tag ora s 's use o f medical
and agricultural examples in answering Socrates 's question. I t was the
medica l writ ers a b o v e all w h o insisted (as success in their craft de
manded) on the re la t ivi ty o f ' g o o d ' and ' b a d ' to the individual .
Co mp ar is on be tw ee n wh a t is g o o d for man in health and ma n in
sickness, and between man and animals, is made in Ancient Medicine
(ch. 8), and in ch. 20 it is argued that , far from a knowledge of the
who le nature o f ma n be in g a prereq uisite o f the medic al art (as cert ain
philoso phers maint aine d), a k no wl e dg e o f medic ine is nece ssary to
the kn ow le dg e o f man and indeed o f nature in gene ral . W h a t the
physician needs to ans wer is no t a general questi on l ik e ' wh a t man i s ' ,
but wh at man is in rel ati on to different f oo ds , dr in ks an d w a y s o f l i fe ,
and what w i l l be the effec t o f each on each ind ivi dua l . 1
W e have already seen how widespread was the tendency to sub
stitute the co nce pts o f interest and adv an ta ge , the useful or the be ne
ficial (σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν , χ ρ ή σ ι μ ο ν , ώ φ έ λ ι μ ο ν ) , w i t h w h i c h g o e s n atural ly
the appropr i at e o r f it ti ng ( έ π ι τ ή δ ε ιο ν ) , f or t he un ive r sal s tandard o f
' jus t ic e ' o r ' r ig h t ' . A s ' the interes t o f the s t ron ger ' (Th uc yd id es ,
Thra sym ach us) i t beca me a doctr ine o f sel f -aggrandizement and ne g
lect o f the righ ts o f oth ers , but in itsel f it wa s si mp ly utilitarian and
practical . B ou nd up wi th it wa s the noti on o f necess ity {ananke), and
to the exa mpl es alre ady cited (pp . 100 f. ab ov e) ma y be ad de d ano the r
extract from Ancient Medicine, ch. 3, which emphasizes the connexion
1 It is sometimes supposed that VM wa s written under the influence of Protago ras (e.g .
Verncnyi, Socr. Hum. n , but denied by Lo ng ri gg in HSCP, 1 9 6 3 ) . Its date is unce rtai n. If
I'eatugicrc were right in putting it anywhere between 450 and 420, Protagoras might have been
itc(|uuliited with it, but it was probably later (Lloyd in Phronesis, 1 9 6 3 ) .Even so, its conclusion s•pi lug more from the exi genci es of medical practice than from the influence of any non -me dic al
thinker, and that Pro tag ora s himself wa s influenced b y the more empirical of con temp ora ry
physicians seems to me beyond doubt . Tha t accord ing to Sextu s he 'i nt ro du ce d' the 'man—
mrtmirc' doctrine (Verscnyi, op. cit. 1 1 , n. 9) is no evidence again st t his. P erh aps a m ore
nccuiaif way of putting it would be that Protagoras's own empirical turn of mind led him to
lake an intercut in medicine and s i m i l a r l y practical subjects.
1 69
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 180/357
The Relativity of Values
I70
b e t w e e n prac t ica l ac t iv i ty and a re la t ive conc ept io n of va lu es : ' T h e
fact is that sheer necessity caused men to seek and discover medicine,
because sick men did not, and do not, profit by the same regimen as
do men in health. ' T h i s again is bo un d up wit h the wh ol e ev ol ut io na ry
v i e w o f hum an pr ogres s (p. 83 ab ov e) .In all this it is not easy to find references to specifically aesthetic
v a l u e s , th ou gh in any di scussion of the relat ivi ty o f valu es these mi gh t
be the first to occur to us. Needless to say, the Greeks were not in
sensi tive to be au ty , bu t as the am bi gu it y o f their wo r d for it , kalon,
sugges ts , did no t speak mu ch o f it in isol atio n. On e reason for this
was the close asso cia tion in their min ds of be au ty wit h appro pria tenes s
and fitness for function. 1 C . T . Seltman put the poi nt w e l l (Approach
to Greek Art, 29):
Beautiful is a misrendering of kalos. W e can perhaps get nearest to the
meaning by using Fine and Fineness, for these may be employed in most
o f the senses of the Greek words. To say that for the Greeks Beauty and
Goodness were one and the same is an error. But put it, that to the Greeks
Fineness automatic ally included excellence, because wh at is fine must be
fitted to its purpose and therefore good , and w e are on the right track.
Fineness could become the ultimate Value by which all other Values couldbe measured.
A delig htful illustra tion o f this assoc iati on in the G re ek min d is the
' b e a u t y c o n t e s t ' i n X e n o p h o n ' s Symposium (ch. 5). Socrates under
takes to prove to the company that he is more beautiful than the
y o u n g and handsom e Cr i tob ulu s . Cr i to bulu s g i ve s h is case a wa y at
the outset by saying that anything is beautiful (kalon) if it is w e l l c o n
structed for the pu rpo se for w hi ch w e ha ve ac qu ire d it , or is adap ted b ynature for our wa nts . Th e n , replies Socrates, i f w e hav e ey es for
seeing, mine are more beautiful than yo urs , s ince be i ng prominen t and
b u l g i n g th ey ca n see far to t he side and no t sim pl y stra ight in fron t
o f t he m; and so on . (T h e pas sage is ful ly translated in Socrates, pp. 67 f.)
D i d Pro tag ora s also be l ie ve in the relat ivi ty of val ues in the seco nd
sense, i.e.that
all va lu e- ju dg me nt s are pu re ly sub jec tiv e? A t first sigh t
1 According to Aristot le, the difference between α γ α θ ό ν and κ α λ ό νis that κ α λ ό νis the mor e
inclusive t e rm, α γ α θ ό ν refers to ac tions only, bu t κ α λ ό νis used uAo whe re no actio n or move ment
i s involved. (See Metaph. 1 0 7 8 3 3 1 . )
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 181/357
Beauty and Function: 'Man the Measure 1
at least this would seem an inevitable conclusion from his famous
say ing that man is the me as ur e : 1
' M a n is the measure o f al l thi ngs , of the thing s that are that t h e y
are, and o f the th in gs that are not that they are not. ' In the Theaetetus
(152 a) , Socrates asks The ae tet us if he has read th is . ' Of t e n ' , is the rep ly.' T h e n y o u k n o w that he puts i t something l ike this , that as eve ry
single thing appears to me, so it is to me, an d as it app ear s to y o u , so
it is to y o u — y o u and I be ing men . ' S ince th is addi t ion i s mad e in
pract ical ly the same words in the Cratylus (386a), it too must be a par t
o f Prota gora s ' s o w n argu ment , and th is i s bor ne out b y Ar i s to t le , w h o
adds the information that the ' th ings ' in ques t ion inc lude va lues
(Metaph. 1062b 1 3 ) :
Protagoras said that man is the measure of all things, meaning simply
and solely that what appears to each man assuredly also is. If this is so, it
follows that the same thing both is and is not, and is both bad and good,
and wh atev er else is asserted in co ntr ary statemen ts, since often a parti cula r
thing appears good (or beautiful, kalon) to some and the opposite to others;
and the criterion (μ έ τ ρ ο ν ) is what appears to each individual . 2
A l l the direct sources agree on the general meaning of Protagoras 'ssay ing , n a m e l y that what appears to each individual is the only real i ty
and the refore the real w o rl d differs for e a c h ; and this is all the m o r e
l ikely because he would f ind similar ideas in contemporary na tura l
phi losophe rs . Ana xa go ra s to ld h is pupi ls that ' t h ings wou ld be fo r
them such as th ey sup po se d them to b e ' , and Em pe do cl es and Pa r-
menides emphas ized the connexion between a man 's phys ica l condi t ion
and his thoughts.3So far so good, but now there come s a r emarkab le deve lopm ent .
A s Socrates says (Theaet. 161 c f f . ) , on the thesis as so far pr op ou nd ed
no man can be wiser than another, and there could be no sense in
Prot ago ras or any on e else set t in g himse lf up as a teacher. Socra tes
therefore offers a defence which he says Protagoras would have given
1 Fr. 1 . A detailed interpretation is reserved for the discussion of its epistemological i m p l i c ation*, pp. 1 83ff. below.
' If i t is admitted that the 'D ou bl e Ar gu me nt s ' (pp. 3i6ff . below) reflect Protagoras 's teach
ing, they prov ide further e vide nce that his r e l a t i v i t y included such concepts as good and bad,l ight and wrong , laudable and blamewort hy.
1 Aristotl e has collected the p assag es in Metaph. 1 0 0 9 b 15 ff. Se e on t he m vo l. 1 1 , 31 9, 229, 67.I'ltr lino of ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ;is discussed more ful ly on pp. 188 If. below.
I 7 I
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 182/357
The Relativity of Values
1 72
i f he were a l i v e .1 I t consis ts in maintaining that , th ou gh al l bel iefs are
equal ly t rue, not al l are equ al l y g o o d (agatha). 2 T h e w i s e (sophos)
ma n is he w h o can ch an ge w ha t appears and is bad (kakon) to any
on e of us and ma ke i t be and appear g oo d , (a) A sick man 's fo od is
bit ter (for h i m ) : he cann ot be cal led mista ken wh e n he says i t is , no r
more i gno ran t t han the heal thy. But the doctor, the sophos in the heal
i n g art , can so change his condit ion tha t i t both appears and is sweet
and pleasant, (b) In educa t ion , the Sophis t does wi th words what the
doc tor does wi th dru gs (com pare Gor gi as , p . 168 ab ov e) , na me ly
ch ang e the pup il to a bet ter s tate. He does no t mak e hi m ex ch an ge
false beliefs for t rue , f or false bel iefs are im po ss ib le ; but , w h e n a ma n
has a depraved (poneron) state o f mind and co r r e spon d ing t houg h t s ,
he makes his mind sound and so g i v e s h im sound (chresta) t h o u g h t s —n o t t rue r but bet ter, (c) Such things as a whole ci ty thinks just and
h o n o u r a b l e (kala) are so for it as long as it thinks they are; but in
each case where they are injurious (ponera), the wi se ma n subst i tutes
others wh ic h are and appear so un d (chresta). In this way i t is a l lowed
that some men are wiser than others , a l though no man th inks f a l s e l y.
Her e is a pa ra do x: tw o me n' s bel iefs can be equ al l y t rue, but no t
equal ly va luab le , even though th ey are bel iefs ab ou t the go od ne ss or
badn ess o f so me th in g. In the case o f phy sic al sensat ion s, a t least wi th
Pla to ' s example , there is no diff icul ty. T h e s ick ma n disl ike s wh at he
tastes, and w i l l be gla d w h e n the do ct or , as w e sho uld say, restores his
norm al apprec ia t ion o f g o o d fo od or, as Pro tag ora s wo ul d ha ve i t,
1 Evid ently what fol lows was not to be found in Protagoras 's wri t ings , but i t is unl ike ly thatit departs from the sense of what he taught. As Cornford s a y s , he must have reconciled his
profession as a Sophist with his claim that all beliefs are equ all y true, and there is no other w a yin which he could have d o n e i t . The poin t is argued fu l ly by H. Gomperz, S. u. R. 263 ff., an d
for other references see Untersteiner, Sophs, jof. (n. 1) . S. Mos er and G. L. Kusta s, in Phoenix,1 9 6 6 , claim that ' r ead ing the Protagoras in the light of the Theaetetus' has been a prim e cause
of misinte rpretation of the earlier dial ogu e. Th is claim depends on accep ting Th . Gom perz 'sassumption (Gk. Th. 1, 4 5 7 f . ) that the one presents a 'genuine', the other a ' s h a m ' P r o t a g o r a s —
a highly arbi trary procedure.2 Plato uses a variety of words in this passage, all of which are sometimes simply translated
'b ad ' or 'g oo d' . I have inserted them in Rom an let ters and append a rou gh approximation to
the different senses wh ic h they con vey ed to a Greek. Kakon: the most gener al wor d for bad;
agathon: the most general word for good, with the overtone of conducive to efficient performance
of function which was comm onl y present in Greek terms of approbation ; poneron: causing toil,
distress, pain or grief (from noun ponos, labour, t rouble, suffer ing); chreston: useful, serviceable,
effective, wholesome (coupled with hygieinon, healthy, at 1 6 7 c 1) ; kalon: fine, beautiful, of goodq u a l i t y, laudable, honourable.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 183/357
Protagoras on Truth and Value
1 73
makes his unpleasant food both seem and be pleasant to him. But
w i t h mor al va lu es the case is different. I f wh at a ci ty thi nks ju st and
fine is just and fine for it so long as it thinks so, it w i l l not want i ts
v i e w s or i ts laws ch ang ed nor, one w ou l d ha ve th oug ht , o ug ht th ey
to be ch an ge d. T h e y sho uld be l ike the oli ve oil o f the Protagoras
speech, good for tha t cit y th ou gh not perhaps for othe rs. It seems
h o w e v e r that the city may not be wise, nor i ts jud gme nts so und and
profitable, bu t useless and l ike ly to cause har m. H o w then can they b e,
as w e l l as seem, both just and fine (kala) for the city?
Protagoras is seeking his own solut ion to tha t burn ing ques t ion
o f the day, the relation between nomimon and dikaion, pos i t ive law
and morali ty. I t was said:
( 1 ) T h a t the t w o we re identical by definit ion, and the state ment o f
their identi ty si mp ly ana lyt ic. Th i s mi gh t be (<z) the ol d re li gi ou s idea,
g o i n g back to tr ibal days, that la ws cam e from the go ds , and so cou ld
not err and mus t be o b e y e d (' all hu ma n l aw s are no ur is he d b y the on e
div ine l a w ' ) ; o r (b) a cr i t ic ism cons eque nt o n the equat ion o f the t w o :
g i v e n the definition, tha t ' ju s t ic e ' includes on ly wh at is enjoined or
sanctioned by the l a w s , then, as Antiphon pointed out, a man has a
right to ob ser ve i t o n l y in so far as i t coin cide s w it h his o w n interests,
and a duty to ignore it when it conflicts with a fact of nature like the
equal i ty o f Gr ee k and barbar ian, no ble and comm on er , r ich and po or .
( 2 ) A s a result o f (b), the iden tity o f just and le gal wa s deni ed.
' J u s t ' and ' r ig ht ' represented mora l valu es , wh ic h cou ld not be e quated
wi th the dictates o f pos it i ve la w, for the la w mi gh t be unjust andconverse ly wh at wa s just exten ded be y o n d the field o f lega l ena ctme nt.
(3) T he re wa s the doctri ne o f the social co mp ac t as held by Socr ates ,
acc ord ing to wh ic h, th ou gh the legal mach ine ry mi gh t lead to an
unjust judgment in an individual case, it was still right for the citizen
to accept it beca use his memb ers hip o f the state impl ied a pr omi se to
o b e y the laws in r e tu rn for the ma ny l egal benefits of cit ize nshi p.
T h e topicali ty of the controversy, and the st i l l f luid state of op in ion ,led to a certain amount o f confu sion, wh ic h is ref lected in Pr ot ag or as .
I le held that , tho ugh la ws wer e no t ' b y n a t u r e ' , their inst i tut ion and
obs erva nce wer e necessary for the preservat i on o f soci ety. T h e wh o l e
funct ion o f ou r s ense o f justic e (dika) is ' t o mak e polit ical ord er
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 184/357
The Relativity of Values
1 74
p o s s i b l e ' (p . 66 a bo ve ) . Na tur a l l y therefore he inc l ines to those w h o
equate dikaion w i t h nomimon. Y e t in the mi dd le o f the fifth c en tu ry
i t wa s imp oss ibl e for a th in ki ng ma n to ig no re the e xistence o f ba d
l a w s , and he has a t tempted a so lu t ion which w i l l t ake account of
the m. I f the resul t is an inco nsist ent or circula r ar gu me nt ,1
i ts interestlies in the s tate o f the que st i on at the t ime, w h i c h led Pr ot ag or as
to take suc h a to r t uo us co ur se . I t is , af ter al l , a que st i on w hi ch has
no t even now been r e so lved .
Since Protagoras was famous for h i s c la im to 'make the weaker
a rg u m e n t t h e s t r o n g e r ' , H . G o m p e r z (S. u. R. 269) suggested tha t
he may have used these epi thets here, ra ther t h an ' w o r s e ' a n d ' b e t t e r '
w h i c h Plato uses in his defence and which make the circular i ty par
t icu lar ly g la r in g . T h e y w o u ld not essent ia l ly a l ter the case , bu t g i v e
the appearance o f a mo re obje c t iv e s tandard . G om pe rz ' s explan a t ion
o f the paradox is that each man is r ight because each sees one facet of
the t ruth, that w h ic h his disp osi t ion al lo ws hi m to see, bu t (as wi t h
b o d i l y heal t h) there are nor ma l and ab no rma l disposi t ions , and the
mo s t no rm a l man , wh o m Pro t ago ras ca l ls t he w i s e , has the mo st
normal , s t rongest and best bel ief . His theory corresponds to his
rhetor ical pract ice, is in fact an ep ist em olo gic al just i f icat ion o f th eimpor tanc e of rhe tor ic . T h e rhe tor m ust be ab le to defend o pp os in g
po in t s o f v i e w w it h equ al succ ess bu t finally to bri ng one to vi c to ry
as t he ' s t ronge r ' . Jus t so the ep i s t emolog i s t p ro ve s tha t all v i e w s are
equa l ly t rue because each grasps one facet of the t ru th , then dec ides
for one as the 'b e t te r ' . Fo r Pro t ago ras , the rhe to r i s ident ica l w i t h
the wi se ma n be ca use he has be en trained to see bo th s ides, wh er ea s the
l a y m a n sees on ly on e—t ru th bu t par t ia l t ru th ( p . 275) . 2
What th i s amounts to i s tha t Pro tago ras ' s c r i t e r ion i s quan t i t a t i ve :
a l l jud gm ent s are equal l y t rue , bu t no t equ al ly va lu able beca use , ac co rd
i n g as th ey gras p mo re or less o f real i ty, so th ey are mor e or less
nor mal or abno rmal and thus s t ro nger or we ak er . T h e explana t ion
1 ' T h a t there is a logical circle here cannot be denied . . . I f value judgmen ts are only val id
for the individ ual, ho w can a jud gme nt that tw o beliefs are of unequa l valu e be valid for mo rethan the individual who makes i t? ' (Gomperz, S. u. R. 269.) As von Fritz remarks (RE, x x m ,
9 1 7 ) , if Prot agor as's m oral doctrine contains an inconsistency and contradiction of his funda
mental premise, he shares this inconsistency with most modern relat ivis ts , who l i k e him tryto combine their relativi sm wit h positive doctrines and precepts for hum an action.
* For a criticism of G o m p e r z ' s inter preta tion of Pr ota gor as see ZN, 135 7, n. 1.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 185/357
What Protagoras Meant
1 75
has its attractions, but is weakened by its reliance on the concepts of
' n o r ma l ' a n d ' a bno rma l ' , f or as Corn fo r d s a id (PTK, 73) ' so und er '
f o r Protagoras 'does no t mean "normal" , fo r that w o u l d set up the
majori ty as a norm or measure for the minority'. It can only mean
more useful or expedient, a b e l i e f that will pr od uc e bette r effects in th efuture; that is, for the individual, effects that w i l l both be and seem
better to the Sophist 's pupil after his training. He w i l l then prefer his
new b e l i e f s . F o r a state, its la ws and c us to ms are ri gh t and laud able
s o l on g as the y are enforc ed or socia lly ap pr ov ed , but a statesman
ma y persuade it that others wo u l d be o f greater adv an ta ge to i t .
( T h e poi nt is mad e expl ici t ly at 172 a.) Capi tal pun ish men t, w e m a y
s a y, is right and proper so long as it has the backing of public opinionand is l e g a l l y enforced. If these conditions are altered, it is l i k e l y to be
because in the first place a few advanced thinkers (sophistai as a Greek
might c a l l them) succeed in initiating the diffusion of different ideas;
and this they can on ly do (acc ord ing to the theo ry) b y co nv in ci ng
the citizens that the alteration w i l l be o f practical advan tage (chreston)—
that, for instance, crimes of v i o l e n c e w i l l diminish rather than increase.
B e h i n d this tor tuous argument is Protagoras 's convict ion that dike
e x i s t s for the preservation of social order, and that therefore the main
tenance of existing l a w s , even though they are not the best, is just
and laudable because the alternatives of disobedience or subversion
w o u l d destroy the ' b o n d o f f r iendship and un io n ' o n wh ic h our ve ry
l ife depends (Prot. 322 C 4 ) . O n l y i f ne w laws are enacted b y c o mm o n
con sen t and consti tut ion al pro cess es can the ch an ge be for the be tt er. 1
' Cf. p. 146 abo ve. By thi nk ing o ut this matter o n indepen dent lin es, I hope I have resolved
t l ie dil licu lty felt and expressed b y A. T. Co le in Yale C.S. 1966, wh ic h led hi m to the con clu -
nlon ihat Plato 's 'A po lo gy of Pro tag ora s ' wa s in fact 'no t one Ap ol og y but t wo ' , contai ning
nwpectivcly "a "su bj ect iv is t" conception compatib le with the man -me asu re pri nciple as stated
in i6(5d and a "u ti l i ta ri an " one not so compa tibl e ' (pp. 11 2 and H 4f .) . In particular I do not
outre that Plato has misin terpre ted or misu nders tood the doctrin e of ιβ -ja-b (p . 116 ) . The
contention that i6 9d is inconsis tent w it h it is unt rue. A ll that Plato s a y s there is that, according
In Protagoras, 'some men are superior in the matter of what is better or worse, and these, he
• a i d , were w is e ' (Cornfo rd's translation ). He does not say that these better judg es are the healthy
Μ op|>oscd to the sick. They are of course the doctors (or in their respective spheres the
l i i i » b i i u d n i c n , orators or Sophists) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 186/357
V I I I
R H E T O R I C AN D P H I L O S O P H Y
(Seeming and being, believing and knowing, persuading and proving)
( i ) G E N E R A L
Rh et or ic has alr ead y be en me nt io ne d in these pa ge s (20, 50 f . ) , b u t
demand s a closer lo ok . Ob v i o us l y w e are not here concer ned wi th
appraisal of the w o r k s o f L y s i a s , And oc ide s or other At t ic ora tors ,
nor wi th quest ions o f manner and st yl e; 1 but the the ory behi nd
G r e e k rhetoric had philo sophic al implicat ions, wi th wh ic h not on ly
the Sophis ts bu t Pl ato hims el f felt that they had to come to grips.
Plato could even describe his own dialectical philosophy as the
substit ution o f g o o d rhetor ic for bad, and it has be en conte nded tha t
rhetoric alone wa s the dis tin gui shi ng mar k o f a Sop his t. 2 That this
is an exaggerat ion w i l l ha ve alr eady appear ed, but all the lea din g
Sophists were deeply concerned with it , in its forensic, political and
epideicti c bran ches , bot h as act ive practitioners and as teachers, s ys te
m a t i z e s and wri ters of rhetorical hand book s.3 Pla to, w h o kn ew his
Sophists, distinguishes sophistic and rhetoric by an elaborate analogy,
designed to show how ' though they differ in nature , yet they are so
c lose ly related that Sophi sts and orat ors, wo r k i n g in the same spher e
and on the same subject-mat ter, are confu sed, and k n o w not wha t to
ma ke of them selv es, no r other s o f th em '. It must b e read in the li ght
o f his o w n doctr ine o f the superi ori ty o f kn ow le dg e, real i ty and teach
in g to belief, appear ance and persua sion . A s gy mn as ti c kee ps the b o d y
fit, so legislation keeps a state so und and heal thy. I f the b o d y falls
1 Which may be studied in such works as B l a s s ' s Attische Beredsamkeit, Norden ' s Antike
Kunstprosa and Dobson's Greek Orators. One s houl d also menti on KjoU'sarade in i? j f? ,Suppl . V I I ,
1 0 3 9 — 11 3 8 ,and G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece.1 B y H. Go mper z in his Sophistik u. Rhetorik. Th e thesis is deni ed in the Prodikos of H. M a y e r ,
who refers to the rebuttals of Wendland in Gott. Gel. Α η ζ . ( 1 9 1 3 ) , no. 1, and Drer up, Lit.Zentralbl. ( 1 9 1 3 ) ,Sp. 681 f.
3 τ ά β ι β λ ί ατ ά π ε ρ ίτ η ; τ ω νλ ό γ ω ντ έ χ ν η ;γ ε γ ρ α μ μ έ ν α (PI.Phaedr. 266 d) or simply τ έ χ ν α ι( p . 44 , n. 4, above ).
I 7 6
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 187/357
Rhetoric and Sophistic
i77
sick, medicine w i l l cure it , and the corresponding art in the state is
the exec utio n o f just ice. Al l these arts hav e their counterfei ts . T o
gymnas t i c co r responds mak e-up , g i v i n g the appearance of health,
and to legislat ion sophist ic , cla imi ng to impart w ha t keeps a state
sound, but wi t hou t rea l kn ow le dg e. T h e counterfei t o f the doctor i sthe chef, who claims to know the best diet for the body but in fact aims
o n l y at ple asi ng the palate, and similar ly rhetor ic co rr es po nd s to the
due execution of justice in that it aims at caj oli ng an aud ien ce and
pr od uc in g the sem bl anc e, not the reali ty, o f justic e. It can be said,
then, that sophist ic and rhetoric are 'pret ty nearly the same thing' ,
but, for wh at the difference is w or t h , sophist ic is supe rio r in so far
as the art which it imitates is superior, that is, in so far as pr ev en ti onis better than c u r e . 1
T h e rhetoric al art wa s also k n o w n as ' the art o f logoi ', and the w i d e
meani ng o f this w o r d (from tal kin g or sp ee ch- ma ki ng to arg ume nt,
reason, tho ugh t) mad e possible v e r y different conce pti ons of the art of
w h i c h it was the subject. Plato's aim was to get it out of the h a n d s of
superficial persu aders and special plead ers, and sh o w that , p r o p e r l y
applied and based on knowledge of thet ru th ,
i t was coextens ive wi th
philosophy. This is the lesson of the Phaedrus (see especial ly 278 b-d),
and in the Phaedo (90b ff.) Socrates at t r ibutes the e v i l o f ' m i s o l o g y ' —
an aversion from logoi o f ev er y k i nd —t o lack o f proper t ra in ing in
' the art of logoi '. Wi t ho ut i t a man belie ves wh at ev er he is tol d, then
later discovers it is false, and in his disillusionment falls to abusing,
not his o w n lack o f expe rie nce, bu t logoi the mse lve s, and so miss es the
path t o knowledge and t ru th . The worst offenders are the men who
d ea l i n c o nt r ad i ct i on s ( ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ι κ ο ί ) a nd t hi n k it t he h e i g h t o f
cleverness to have discerned that there is no soun dne ss or c ert ain ty
in any thi ng or an y arg umen t, bu t ev er yt hi ng go es up and d o w n l ike
the current in the Euripus and never stays the same for a moment.
Plato ma y hav e had Pr ota gor as and his Antilogiai (p. 182 with η . 1 b e l o w )
partic ularly in mi nd, bu t his censu re exte nds to all rheto rici ans and
Sophis ts , the 'un cul tu red wh os e desire is not for wi sd om bu t for
sco r ing off an op po ne nt ' (91 a), the v e r y peo pl e, in fact, w h o con si der ed
1 (κ ίΓ μ . I F F I f c ,5 1 0 a . The comparison between mind and body, rhetoric and medicine ordri i |{«, »* wc have seen (pp. 1 6 7 ft.) , wa s not n ew . Plato refines on it.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 188/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
I78
the mse lve s masters o f ' the art o f logoi' and th e be st teacher s o f it t o
o the r s . 1 In Pla to ' s e y e s , as in actu al fact, So cr at es w a s the real mas ter
o f this art. He put it to a different use from the S op his ts, bu t, al th ou gh
he was no rhetorician, if Critias in making it i l l e g a l to tea ch the art o f
logoi had Socrates part icularly in mind,3
this wa s no t al tog ethe runreasonable . He wa s con vin ced that i f one un der sto od a thi ng one
c o u l d ' g i v e a logos o f it ' , and his de ma nd for definitions wa s a de man d
that peop le shou ld p rove that they unders tood the essence of courage ,
justice or wh at ev er else w as un de r di scus sion b y finding a ve rb al
formula w hi ch wo ul d cov er a ll cases o f i t . ' He held that t h os e w h o k n o w
wh at any gi ve n thi ng is must also be able to expo un d it to ot he rs '
( X e n . Mem. 4 . 6 . i ) . T h e f o l l o w i n g w o r d s w h i c h X e n o p h o n p u t s i n t o
his mouth are characteristic (Mem. 3 .3 .11 ; he i s a rgu ing that a g o o d
cava l ry comm ande r mus t be a g oo d sp eake r ) :
Has it not occurred to you that all the best things that we learned according
to custom, by which we know how to l i ve , we learned through speech, thatany other good lesson that may be learned is learned through speech, and
that the best teachers make the greate st use o f speech and those wi th the
deepest kno wl edg e o f the most important matters are also the best speakers? 3
T h e ' i n ve nt io n ' o f rhetor ic is at t r ibuted to t w o Sici l ians o f the first
h a l f o f the fifth cen tur y, C o r a x and Tis ias . Inv ent ion in this con ne xi on
had a specif ic meaning, 4 na mel y the intr odu ctio n o f the appeal to
pro bab il i t y instead o f fact , the dr aw in g up o f rules for i ts applic at ion,
and thei r emb odi men t in wr i t te n han db oo ks . I f a man accused o f assault
can produce fac ts showing incont rover t ib ly that he did not commit it ,
he has no need o f the art, but, i f he cann ot , he must in vo ke the arg ume nt
from p rob abi l i ty . If he is smaller and w ea ke r t h a n his victim he w i l l
say, ' L o o k at m e ; is it l i k e l y that so me on e l ike me should g o for a bi g
str on g man l ike h i m ? ' If on the other h and he is a Sam son , he w i l l
* Taylor has pointed out (VS, 92, 98) tha t Plato makes two things clear about antitogiki and
e r i s t i c : the y were rife in Socrat es' s tim e and not d ue to a perv ersi on of his elen chus , and thei r
ancestry is Eleatic.1 Xen . Mem. 1 . 2 . 3 1 . Gigon (Komm. erst. Buch 58) dou bts th e hist oric ity of the incid ent.3
Cf. Stenzel in RE, 2. Rei he , v. Hal bb . 821 f. Sten zel goe s so far as to s ay that language isthe starting-point of Socrates's teaching.
4 To be a good speaker as w e l l as a man of action had, as Lesky points out (HGL, 350),
been the ambit ion of a Gree k since Hom eri c times (//. 9.4 43) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 189/357
The Argument from Probability
ar gu e, " W o u l d I be suc h a fo ol as to attack hi m w h e n I am the first
person on w h o m suspic ion wo ul d f a l l ? ' Th es e arg ume nts are pre
served as a sample from Co ra x and Ti si as . 1 A go o d mod ern one wa s
reported in the Sunday Times for 21 M a y 1967. A n acc usa ti on o f ex
cee din g the 70 m.p .h. speed l imit on a mo t or wa y was br ou gh t b y
pol ice w h o cla imed to ha ve fo ll ow ed the defendant for nea rly a mile
with their speedometer registering 80-85. T h e defence wa s not cou nte r-
evi dence from the accused 's o w n speedometer. I t wa s that the pol ice-
car had a flashing bl ue li gh t, he nc e that it was easy for him to see that
it wa s fo ll ow in g hi m, and ' W o u l d I be such a fo ol as to dr iv e at o v er
80 wi t h a po li ce -c ar o n m y tr ai l? ' Rh et or ic teaches from th e first that
what matters is no t wh at is the case, bu t wh at appears , wh at me n can
be persuaded o f (Phaedrus 267 a) . It is 'the art of logos', which is not
o n l y speech and arg um en t b ut also appearanc e or be li ef as op po se d to
fact (ergon), and its go al is pers uasi on. O n the cred it side it ma y be
said that persu asio n is bett er than fo rce , 2 and rhetoric is par excellence
the democratic art which cannot, either in its political or its forensic
form, flourish u n d e r tyranny. I ts bi r th in Syra cuse, Ari st ot l e noted
(ap. C i c , see n. 1), coi nci ded wi th t he exp uls ion of the tyra nts and the
establishment of dem ocr ac y.
T h e Sophi sts, then, we re not the pione ers o f rhet oric , but the y
were certainly ready to step in and supply the demand for it which
accompa nied the dev elo pme nt o f personal freed om all ov er Gre ece .3
A distinc tion m ay be dr aw n be tw ee n the Sicilian sc ho ol , carried on
after C o r a x and Ti si as b y Em pe do cl es (v ol . 11, 135), Go rg i as and
Polus and a imin g mainl y a t fine speaking (ε ύ έ τ τ ε ια ) , and that of o ther
Sophis ts w h o congr egat ed at At hen s , Protagoras o f Ab de ra , Prod icu s
o f Cos and Hippias of Elis . These lat ter, beside s be i ng interest ed in
1 Aristotle (Rhet. 1 4 0 2a 17 ) connects it wi th C orax. Plato (Phaedr. 273 a-b) attributes it in amimewhat garb led and caricatu red form to Ti s i a s , who was sa id to be his pupil. See also Arist.up. Cic. Brut. 12.46 (presumably from the Σ υ ν α γ ω γ ήτ ε χ ν ώ ν )for Corax and Ti s i a s as th e firstto have written handbooks on rhetoric after the expulsion of the tyrants from S i c i l y, and ingeneral A u l i t z k y in RE, x i , 1 3 7 9 - 8 1 .
' Λ point noted by Democri tus , fr. 181 (vol . 1 1 ,496), and clai med b y Go rgi as in favour o f his«rt (Pluto, Phileb. 58 a ) .
1 It in not to be thou ght that , beca use Go rg ia s on the emba ss y of 427 is sa id to have amazedd ie Athenians by his art, they we re unacquainted with artistic and professional orator y. Th eywere a l r e a d y in love with it ( φ ι λ ό λ ο γ ο ι ) ,and what took them by surprise was Gorgias's exotican d .i r t i lui . i l s t y l e , which then appealed by its novelty, though later it was seen as cloying andu l l cc t ed (Uiod. 12 .13).
1 79
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 190/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
I 7 8
thems elves mas ters o f ' the a r t o f logoi' and the bes t teach ers o f it t o
o t h e r s . 1 In P la to ' s e y e s , as in actual fact, Socrates was the real master
o f this art. He put it to a different use fr om th e Sop hi st s, bu t, al th ou gh
he w as no rh etoric ian, i f Cri t ias in ma ki ng i t i l legal to teach the ar t o f
logoi had S ocra tes par t icu lar ly in mi nd ,2
th i s wa s not a l to gethe runreasonab le . He wa s con v in ced tha t i f one und ers too d a th in g on e
c o u l d ' g i v e a logos o f i t ' , and his dem an d for defini t ions wa s a de man d
tha t peop le shou ld p rove tha t the y unde rs t ood the essence o f co ura ge ,
justice or w ha t ev er else w a s un de r dis cus si on b y finding a ve rb al
fo rmula wh ic h w ou ld co ve r a ll ca ses o f i t . ' He he ld tha t t h o s e w h o k n o w
wh at any g iv en th i ng i s must a l so be able to exp ou nd i t to o t he rs '
( X e n . Mem. 4 . 6 . 1 ) . T h e f o l l o w i n g w o r d s w h i c h X e n o p h o n p u t s i n t o
his mouth are characteris t ic (Mem. 3 . 3 . 1 1 ; he i s a rguing tha t a g o o d
c a v a l r y co mm an de r mus t be a g o o d speaker ) :
Has it not occurred to you that all the best things that we learned according
to custom, by which we know how to l i v e , we learned through speech, that
any other good lesson that ma y be learned is learned th ro ug h spe ech, and
that the best teachers make the greatest use of speech and those with the
deepest kn ow le dg e o f the most important matters are also the best sp eak ers ? 3
T h e ' i n v e n t i o n ' o f rhe tor ic i s a t t r ibuted to t w o Sic i l ians o f the first
ha l f o f the fifth ce ntur y, C or a x and Ti s ia s . Inv ent ion in th is con ne xi on
had a spec i f ic meaning , 4 na me ly the int rod uct ion o f the appeal to
pro ba bil i t y instead o f fact , the dr aw in g up o f rules for i ts appl ica t ion ,
and thei r emb od i men t i n wr i t t e n han dbo oks . I f a man accused o f assault
can p roduce f ac t s showing incon t rove r t ib ly tha t he did not commit i t ,
he has no need o f the art, but, i f he canno t , he mus t inv ok e the arg ume nt
from pr oba bil i ty . If he is smaller and w ea ke r t h a n his vict im he w i l l
s a y , ' Look a t me; i s i t l ike ly tha t so me on e l ike me sho uld g o for a b i g
st ron g man l ike h i m ? ' If o n the oth er han d he is a Sa ms on , he w i l l
1 T a y l o r has pointed out (VS, 92, 98) that Plato makes two th ings c l e a r about antilogiki ande r i s t i c : t hey were rife i n Socrates 's time and not due to a perversion of his elenchus, and theirancestry i s Eleatic.
3 Xen . Mem. 1 . 2 . 3 1 . Gigon (Komm. ^. erst. Buch 58) doubts the historici ty of the incident.3
Cf. Stenzel in RE, 2. R e i h e , v. Ha lb b. 821 f. Stenzel g o e s so far as to say that l a n g u a g e i sthe start i ng-poi nt of Socrates 's teaching.
4 T o b e a goo d speake r as w e l l as a man of action had, as L e s k y points out (HGL, 350),been die ambition of a Greek since Homeric t imes (/ / . 9.443).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 191/357
The Argument from Probability
argue, "Would I be such a f o o l as to attac k hi m w h e n I am the first
person on w h o m suspic ion wo ul d f a l l ? ' Th es e arg umen ts are p re
served as a sample from Corax and Tisias. 1 A good modern one was
reported in the Sunday Times for 21 M ay 1967. A n accu sat ion o f ex
ceeding the 70 m.p.h . speed l imit on a mo to r wa y wa s br ou gh t b y
p o l i c e w h o claim ed to hav e fo ll ow ed the defendant for nearly a mile
with their speedometer registering 80-85. T h e defence wa s not coun ter-
evid ence from the accu sed' s o w n spee dome ter . It wa s that the police-
ca r had a flashing bl ue li gh t, he nc e that it was easy for him to see that
it was fol lo wi ng hi m, and ' W o u l d I be such a f o o l as to drive at over
80 wi th a po li ce- car o n m y tra il ?' R he to ri c teaches fr om the first that
what matters is no t wh at is the case, bu t wh at appear s, wh at me n can
be persuaded of (Phaedrus 267a). It is 'the art of logos', which is not
o n l y speech and arg um en t b ut also appearance o r bel ief as op po se d to
fact (ergon), an d its g o al is per sua sio n. O n the cred it side it m a y b e
said that persuasion is bet ter than fo rce , 2 and rhetoric is par excellence
the dem ocr ati c art w h i c h can not , either in its pol iti cal or its foren sic
form, flourish under tyranny. I ts b i r t h in Syracu se, Ari sto tle not ed
(ap. C i c , see n. 1) , coin cide d wi th the expulsi on o f the tyrants and the
establishment of democracy.
The Sophis ts , then, we re no t the pione ers of rheto ric, but the y
were certainly ready to step in and supply the demand for it which
acco mpan ied the de ve lo pm en t o f perso nal freedom all o ve r Greece.3
A distinction m ay be dr aw n bet we en the Sicilian sc ho ol , carried on
after C o r ax and T is ias by E mp ed oc le s (v ol . 11, 135), Go r gi as and
Polus and a iming mainl y a t fine speakin g (ε ύ έ π ε ια ) , and that of other
Sophis ts w h o cong reg ated at Ath ens , Protag oras o f Ab de ra , P rod icus
o f C o s and Hippias o f E l i s . T h e s e latter, besides be i ng interested in
1 Aristotle (Rhet. 1402a 17) connect s it wi th Co rax . Plat o (PhaeJr. 273a-b) attributes it in a
antnewhat garbled and caricatured form to Ti s i a s , who was said to be his pupil. See also Arist.a/i. Cic. Brut. 1 2. 46 ( pr es uma bl y from the Σ υ ν α γ ω γ ή τ ε χ ν ώ ν )for Co ra x and Tis ia s as th e first
tu liuve written ha ndbo oks on rhet oric after the expulsi on of the tyr ant s from S i c i l y, and ingeneral Aulitzky in RE, x i , 1 3 7 9 - 8 1 .
' Λ point noted by Demoe nt us, fr. 181 (v ol. I I , 496), and claimed by Gorgias in favour of his
art (Pluto, Phileb. 58a) .) It is not to be thought that, because Gorgias on the embassy of 427 is said to have amazed
the Athenians by his art, they we re unacquainted w ith artistic and professional or ato ry. Th eywere already in love with it ( φ ι λ ό λ ο γ ο ι ) ,and what took them by surprise wa s Gorgi as's exotic
and artificial s ty l e , which then appealed by its novelty, though later it was seen as cloying andallotted (Diud. 12 .13).
1 79
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 192/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
l 8 o
education in its widest sense, emphasized the correct use of language
ό ρ θ ο έ τ τ ε ια , ό ρ θ ό τ η ς ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ) and so w er e led on f rom their c on
cern wit h publ ic spe aki ng to ini tiate the studies o f ph il ol og y and
grammar, e t ym ol og y and the d is t inct ion of sy no ny ms . (See § 6 be lo w. )
T h e essential theoret ical basis o f rhetoric wa s that which d is t in
guished i t from the beginning, and which so shocked the absolut is t
P la to , namely that (as he put it of Tisias and Gorgias, Phaedr. 267 a),
' t he y he ld the p robab le (or l i ke ly - seeming , p l aus ib le, ε ικ ό τ α ) in
more honour than the t rue ' . 1 The justification of this was that , t o a
Sophist and rhetorician, t ru th and kno wl ed ge wer e i llus ion .
Since all human inquiry moves within the realm of opinion, where deception
is easy, all persuasion (philosophic, 'scientific', legal or other) is a result of
the force of eloquence rather than of rational i n s i g h t . . . If men knew,
there would be a great difference between deception and truth. As it is, we
can only distinguish between successful and unconvincing, persuasive and
fruitless arguments.*
Tu rn in g Pa rmen ides ups ide -down , Gorg i as c l a imed that n o t h i n g
exists (or is real), that if it did w e co ul d not k n o w it, and i f w e co ul d
k n o w i t w e coul d not communic a te our kno wl ed ge to another. T h e
philosophical basis is the same as that of P ro tagoras ' s 'W h a t seems
to each man is as far as he is concerned'. 3 ' I f , says Gor gia s ( fr. 1 1 a,
35 D K ) , ' i t were poss ib le thr oug h wo rd s (logoi) to make the t r u t h
about real i ty (ergd) pure and clear to the hearers, ju dg me nt w o u l d
be eas y as sim pl y fo ll ow in g from wh at w a s sa id ; bu t since it is no t
so . . . '
T h e logos has supr eme p o we r, and it is neutral. It can d o grea t g o o d ,
banis hing fear and gri ef and fostering jo y and comp assi on ( G o r g .
Hel. 8, D K 11, 290). E v e n wh e n dec ept ive , the deceit ma y be a just one
and the deceived go away wiser than befo re, as happe ns wi th the
1 Plato must have enjoyed the irony of imagining Protagoras as protesting against precisely
the methods of arg umen t whic h he himsel f found objec tionable in the Sophist and his k i nd :
'You adduce no compelling proof at all, but re ly on the prob abl e' (Theaet. i6ze).2 Versenyi, Socr. Hum. 4 7 f.3 Sicking (Mnem. 1 9 6 4 , 2 45 ) appear s to think oth er wis e; but it can hardl y be denied that if
nothing has real existence, nor can be recognized or communicated, the only alternative is thateach man' s priva te sensations and beliefs are alone val id, and valid for him alone. That Gorg ias 's
polemic is not aimed solely at the Eleatics (' nicht nur', Sicki ng p. 2 3 2 , tho ugh on p. 245 he dro ps
the qualification) cannot alter this.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 193/357
The Power of the Logos
fictions o f t ragedy, which to Gorgias was only rhe to r i c i n ve r se . 1
Bu t in itself it is si mp ly ' t he art of per su asi on' , ar med wi th wh i c h a
man can co nvi nc e o f wh at ev er he l ikes ' a jur y in cour t , senators in
the Co un ci l , the peopl e in the Ass em bl y, or any o t h e r ga the r ing o f
c i t izens ' (P la to , Gorg. 45 2 ε ) . Th is ar t o f spea king Go rg ia s claimed to
teach, and not hin g mor e. T h o u g h i t conce rned r i ght and w r o n g , he
disclaimed the teachi ng o f arete (Meno 95 c) and main tai ned tha t the
rhetorician is no t to be bla me d if his pupi ls em pl oy their skill for
wicked ends, any more than a box ing ins t ruc to r i f his pupil g oe s a wa y
and kn oc ks his father do w n . Rh eto ri c, i t appears , is co nc er ne d enti rel y
witli means, not ends, 2 and his teaching had different effects on pupils
according to the i r cha rac t e r. Xenophon (An. 2.6.16ff.) con t ras t s
Proxen us the Boe oti an, w h o paid Gor gi as 's fees because he lo ng ed for
greatness, fame and money, 'but had no desire to win t h e m un jus t ly ' ,
with the unscru pulousne ss o f Me no the Thessal ian (who se co nne xi on
with Gor gia s is k n o w n from Pla to) . I f Socrates 's pupils did not al l do
him credit, it w a s no t for the same re aso n.
(2) P R O T A G O R A S
Protag oras 's su bject ivi sm has alre ady been intro duced in con ne xi on
wi th the rel ativ ity o f va lu es , and its cl ose rela tion to his act ivi tie s as a
teacher of rhe to r i c i s obvious .3 He t a u g h t his pupi ls to praise and
1 f'rr. 23 and 1 1 . 9 ( λ ό γ ο νΙ χ ω ν μ έ τ ρ ο ν ) .Dece it then is possi ble. In spit e of hi s denia l o f
abtolut c truth, Gorgi as woul d not main tain that it is all the same whet her a murder takes placeon the st age or in r e a l i t y. But wha t is deat h? What ev er we are persuaded it is. Th ere i s a ni ce bit
of rhetorical effrontery i n Gor gi as 's Palamedes, whe re, after play in g the argume nt from pro b
a b i l i t y throughout h is speech, Pa lamedes towards the end (§34) exhor ts h is hearers μ ή τ ο ΐ ;
Aoyotf μ ά λ λ ο νf\ TOIS i p y o i s π ρ ο σ έ χ ε ιν τ ο νν ο υ ν .
* Gorg. 4 5 6 C - 4 5 7 C When Socrates presses his argument, Gorgias does indeed admit, in anoffhand wa y, that if his pupil does n't k no w about rig ht and wr on g he supposes he can teach him
(1110 lubj ects for wh ich Socrat es and Plat o found a lifetime of philo soph y inade quate I ) , bu t ,
when Socrates goes on to dra w the conclusion that in fact rhetori c cannot be used for wr on g
end*, it is time for the old an d respect ed man to be released and h is bras h pup il to tak e ov er.
' T i l e who le discussion with Go rgi as throws an inval uabl e ligh t on current concepti ons of rh e
toric, and bears no marks of caricature. See also Phileb. 58 a for his convic tion of t he sup eri ori ty
of pcrnuuslon to every other art , and on his disclaiming to teach α ρ ε τ ή pp. 2 7 1 f. below.1
Nestle (ZN , 1358 n.) s a y s it is not hin g but a petitioprincipii to regard rhetoric as the sourc eof I 'rotugonis's phi losop hy. It is of course unp ardo nabl y crude. Th e scepticism and subject ivis m
nl which lie was such a notable representative were rooted in the previo us histo ry of ph ilo sop hy,
II onl y Ha u reaction t rom its univ ersa l ass umpt ion of an unperc eive d r ea l i t y under ly ing pheno-
l8l
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 194/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
I82
censure the same case, wa s no to ri ous for his clai m ' to mak e the wea ke r
argu ment the st ro nge r ' (see e.g . A r . Rhet. 1402323 ff . ) , and wrote two
b o o k s of 'C on t r a r y Arg um en ts ' wh i ch mus t have been a rhe to ri ca l
textbook. 'There are ' , he sa id , ' two opposi te arguments on every
sub jec t ' , 1 and in the Euthydemus (286b-c) Socrat es attribut es to
'Protagoras and even earlier thinkers' the thesis that it is impossibleto contradict , which, he s a y s , amounts to saying that it is impossible
to speak f a l s e l y.2 A r i s t o t l e (Metaph. 1007 b 18) s pe ak s o f the the sis
' that contradictory statements about the same thing are simultaneously
tr ue ' and ' it is poss ibl e either to assert or de ny some th in g o f ev er y
subjec t ' as one that must be accepted by those who accept Protagoras 's
d ic tum. L o w e r down, a t 100936, he says (after mentioning denial of
the law of cont rad ic t ion ) : ' W h a t Pr otagor as says or ig inates in thesame opinion, and they must stand or fal l to ge th er ; for if all that
appears and is be li ev ed is true, e ve ry th in g mus t at the same ti me b e
true and fa lse , for ma ny peopl e ho ld opinions oppo sit e to each oth er . ' 3
mena or even ( in the case of the Eleatics) deny in g them their right to exist (cf. p. 15 abov e) .
It is best to avoid dog mat izi ng ab out cause and effect, and sa y on ly that , just as the democ rati c
freedom of Ath ens favour ed the rapi d rise of rhetoric in pract ice, so the philosophica l situati on
pro vid ed a bac kgr oun d suited to its theoret ical justificatio n; and this the best of the So phis ts,
who we re ver y much more than de mago gues or soapbox orators, were anxious to p rovi de.1 Eudoxus ap. Steph. By z. (DK, A 2 1 ; cf. Aris toph. Clouds nzS.), D.L. 9.55 ( Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ι ώ ν
α ' β ' ) ,D.L. 9 . 3 1 , of whic h an equ all y possible translation would be : O f every thing two contrary
accounts can be given.'1 Th e 'e arlie r thi nke rs ' need not be taken too serio usly. Plato wo uld chiefly be thi nki ng of
Herac litu s and hi s do ctr ine of the ide nti ty of opposi tes (vo l. 442 ff.), whi ch no doubt influenced
Protag oras' s vi ews but contained them o nly in embr yo. Plato liked to brin g in not o nly earlier
philos ophers but even poets as soi-disant paren ts of philosop hical doctrine s, as, for exa mpl e, at
Theaet. 1 5 2 ε a nd Crat. 402b he car ri es the Her ac li te an flux-doctrine ba ck to Homer. Nor, in
v i e w of many Platonic examples to the contrary, can we suppose ol ά μ φ ίΠ . intended to exclude
Pro tag ora s himself. Th e thesis of the impo ssi bil ity of contr adict ion is usu all y ascri bed to
Antisthenes on the evidence of Aristotle {Metaph. 102 4b 32, Top. 104b 20). D.L. (9 .5 3, cf. 3.3 5)
ca l l s it the thesis of Antisthenes, but adds, citing Plato, that it wa s first arg ued by Pro tag ora s.Aristotle's words certainly do not exclude this, and Plato's language suggests that it may have
been w e l l kn own in sophistic circles of the fifth ce ntury . A pa py ru s from an author of the fourthcentury A .D . ascribes it to Prodicus. This may be simply a mistake, but Prodicus was acquainted
with both Protagoras and Antisthenes (Xen. Symp. 4.62). See Binder and Liesenborghs in
Mus. Helv. 1966.3 Untersteiner {Sof. 1, 49 f.) and H. Gomperz {S. u. R. 225 f.) ha ve argu ed from these pas sages
that the impo ssi bil ity of contr adict ion was not a tenet of Pro tag ora s himself, since Aristo tle
represents it as an inference from wh at he said. Th e most that can be claimed is that they do not
prove that it was, and other evidence mak es it practically certain. There is howeve r this qual i
fication to be ma de , that what cannot be contradicted mu st 'a pp ea r to, or be believed by ', at
least one man. Pro tag ora s wo ul d not agre e wit h Arist otle that every th ing that can be utter ed must
be true and false ( i o o y b 2 o ) , io r after all nob ody believe s that men are triremes or w a l l s .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 195/357
Protagoras: 'Man the Measure'
T h e theo reti cal fou nd at io n for all these state ment s lies in the thesis
with which he opened his work on Truth, 1 and which has already been
quot ed for i ts bear ing on concepts of valu e (fr. ι D K ) :
Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are that they are, and of
ι he things that are not that they are not.1
T h e cont inuat ion shows that he had chiefly the individual in mind ,
though unless Plato goes beyond him in this he would have extended
ii to the corp orat e op in io n o f a state as embodied in its laws. (See
p . 172 ab ov e. ) Besid es Pl ato and Aris to tl e, the statement is qu ot ed b y
S e x t u s , w h o also understands i t o f the indiv idual , expl ain in g: ' t ru th is
N o m e t h i n g re la t ive because everything that has appeared to, or been
believed b y , someone (τ ι ν ί ) is at once real in relation to him'.?
T h e w o r d ' m e a s u r e ' (metron) wa s pro babl y chosen b y Pro tagor as
l o r the epigramm atic f la vour whi ch i t gi ve s to his ve r y quot able
Haying, and there is no reason to doubt that Plato , fo l lowed by Sextus ,
was r ight in explaining it as kriterion, standard o f judgme nt.^ I ts
meani ng is also br ou g ht ou t b y a criticism o f Ar is to tl e' s. A t the end
o f a discussion of metron in the Metaphysics (1053331) he says (to
paraphrase and expound a difficult passage) that , in addition to its
mor e usual mean ing s, the w o r d is applie d to k n o w l e d g e and sensation
because they are a means o f learning about things, as a s tandard measure
enables us to learn their size, quan tity , w ei gh t, val ue, etc. T h i s ho w e v e r
in a misuse o f the ter m w h i c h ma ke s it mea n the op po sit e of wh at it
should. Far from our kn ow le dg e and sensations be in g the measure o f
reality, it is reality which must measure the amount and worth of our
cog ni t io n^ Kn o wl ed ge cannot determine the nature o f th in gs ; it s job
in to adapt itself to thei r nature as alr eady deter mined , in or der to
' The pos it ion of th is sentence in h is work i s vouched for by Pla to (α ρ χ ό μ ε ν ο ; τ η ; Ά λ η θ ε ί α ; ,t'ktatt. 161 c) and Sextus (έ ν α ρ χ ά μ ε ν ο ; τ ώ ν κ α τ α β α λ λ ό ν τ ω ν ,Math. -J.66). κ α τ α β ά λ λ ο ν τ ε ;i ippcii ts to have been an alternative title for the Α λ ή θ ε ια(Bernays , Ges. Abh. I , 1 1 8 ) . A metaphor
l i m n w r e s t l i n g , it means arguments which overthrow others. Cf. Eur. Bacch. 202 (of ancestral
I I m i l l i o n s ) ο ύ δ ε ί;α υ τ άκ α τ α β α λ ε ϊ λ ό γ ο ;.1 On the translation of this fragme nt, see the App en dix , pp. 188—92.1
Si-xt.Math. 7 .60; cf. P.H. 1 .216 (DK, A 14).
4 ΙΊ.1Ι0, Thcact. 178b (and cf. κ ρ ι τ ή ; ,160c) ; Sextus, P.H. 1.216.
' TI IP an alo gy that he uses to illust rate this is not p art icu lar ly hap py but rathe r as B on iu111IU It V xrin plui n piiriiin Icliuilcr ad ll ib it um ': it is, he s a y s , as if u e tho ught we wer e measur ing
l u n w l v r H when s i t n i c i M i celse measures us and we learn our own height from the number of times
lliut lie applies (lie tout-rule.
l8 i s r
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 196/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
1 84
reach the t ru th . So , he adds , wh en Prot ago ras s ays that man is the
measure o f al l thi ngs , mean in g the ma n wh o k n o w s or per cei ves , he is
ta lk in g nonsense , t ho ug h i t sound s c lever.
Aristot le is speaking from the point of v i e w o f his o w n and the
P la ton ic ph i losophy, accord ing to which the re exists a real i ty beyond
and inde pende nt o f ou r k n o w le d g e or beliefs , and contras t ing w it h it
the doct r ine o f Pro tag oras that nothing exists save what each of us
percei ves and kn o w s . (Since our percep tions o n this the ory are
infallible, the y ma y be g i ve n the name o f kn ow le dg e, Theaet. 152c.)
I t is our own feelings and convict ions that measu re or determin e the
limits and na ture of reality, which only exists in relation to them and is
different for ev er y one o f us. Ari sto t le 's op pos it ion s ho ws that for
him Pro tag ora s 's w as a doc tr in e o f pure subje ctiv ism or relat ivism.
W a s this a corr ect assess ment o f i t? T w o v i e w s ha ve been taken .
T o put it in the terms of Plato's example (Theaet. 152b), if the
w i n d is cold to me who feel it cold, and is warm to you who fee l i t
warm, does this mean that the wi n d in i tself is bo th w a rm and col d, or
that the wi nd in i tself is nei ther w a r m nor co ld ? In general terms, are
w e to say (a) that al l proper t ies perce ived b y an yb o dy coexis t in
a physi cal objec t , but so me are per cei ved b y on e man , others b y
another, or (β ) that the perc epti ble propert ies ha ve no ind epen den t
exis tence in the ob jec t, but c o m e to be as th ey are pe rc ei ve d, an d f or
the percipient?
C o r n f o r d (PTK, 34ff.) favoured the first v i e w : Pro tagoras was
suppor t in g ' t he na ive r eal i sm o f co mm on se nse ' , 1 as w e l l as the Ion ian
tradit ion, that the senses were to be t rus ted and th ings were mixtures
o f the oppo site s appr ehen ded b y sense, against the Eleatics , w h o denied
the ev id en ce o f the senses and t he real ity o f the opp os it es . He wa s also
in ac cor d wi th Hera cli t us 's be l ie f in the coex iste nce o f oppo site s and
to ok his s ide agains t Dem oc r i tu s . ( 'Be cau se ho ne y seems bi t te r to
so me and sw eet to others , De mo cr i t us said i t is nei ther s wee t nor sou r,
1 Von Fri tz s a y s s imi la r ly {RE, X L V. Halbb . o i6 f . ) t ha tP ro t ago ra s ' s s t a t emen tdoesno t exp re s s
ful l sensual ism, relat ivis m or phenome nalis m, bu t aims at oppo sing a ' Phil osop hic des ges unde n
Menschenverstandes' to the philosophies of the Eleatics, Heraclitus, etc., which are so far re
moved from communis opinio. He claims tha t this is borne out by the Theaetetus: Plato goes on
to po in t out that , if Pro tag ora s's statement is carried to its logi cal conclusion, it does lead to
absolute relativism and subjectivism, but makes it clear that this conclusi on wa s not draw n by
Protagoras ( i 6 o d f l . ) . Cf. also Cherniss, ACP, 369.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 197/357
Protagorean Relativism
185 7 - 3
Heraclitus that i t is both ' , S e x t . P.H. 2.63.) This , Cornford c la imed,
is suppor ted b y Sextus, w h o wro te (P.H. 1.218) that ' t h e logoi
( "g r o u n d s ", Co rn fo rd ) o f all appearances subsist in the matter, so
that matter, in itself, can be all things that appear to all m e n ' . He co n
cludes that for Pr ot ag or as cont rar y sense-objects, lik e the ho t and the
c o l d , exist ind epen den tly o f any percipient , and to c a l l his doctrine
' sub jec t iv i s t ' , or even ' re la t iv is t ' , i s mis leading. 1 But his ar gume nts
are not strong. The thesis that no man has the right to contradict
another because each man's sensations and beliefs are t rue for him has
little to do wi th ' th e naiv e realism o f c o m m o n sen se' , and little mo re
with Heracli tus, who urged men to f o l l o w the logos which was
common to all and despised them for l i v i n g as i f each had his o w n
priv ate wi sd o m (fr. 2; see v o l . 1, 425). T h e la ng ua ge o f Sex tu s is so
entirely that of a later age as to cast suspicion on its substance, and his
c o n c l u s i o n — ' T h u s acco rd ing to Prota gor as man pr ov es to be the
cri terion of wha t exis ts '— do es not f o l l o w f rom his premises . Al though
he denies it, ' t h i n g s ' on his inter pret ation (that is, pro per tie s) ex ist
(as Cornford says) whether they are perceived or not: a jar of honey
lias its sweetness no ne the less bec aus e n o b o d y is tast ing it. T h e th eo ry
of a substance or matter containing properties which may or may not
be perceived is specifically denied for Pr ot ago ra s by Ar ist ot le . Wh e n
discussing the Megarian theory that there is no such thing as a poten
tiality that is not actualized, i.e. that nothing is cold, hot, sweet or in
general perceptibl e wh en n o on e is pe rc ei vi ng it, he identifies this
theory with Pro tagoras ' s . 3 Ac co r di ng to Corn for d the second v i e w ,
that perceptible propert ies have no independent existence, corresponds
to the 'secret doctrine' (Theaet. i52cff . ) which everyone agrees i s
not Pr ot ago re an; but , in quo tin g Sextus, P.H. 1.218, as sup po rt for
the first, he omit s the pr ev io us sentence, in wh i ch Sext us attributes to
Protagoras the doctrine that 'm at ter is in f l u x ' ( τ η ν ύ λ η ν ρ ε υ σ τ ή ν
ι ΐν α ι). Th is , surely , be lo ng s to the 'secr et doc tri ne ' , and Sextus
proves an unt rus two rth y witness o f genu ine Pro tag ore an ideas w h en
' I'niliiKiiras would thus be in agre ement wit h the cont empo rar y p hilos opher Di oge nes of
Apollnnlu. l o r this, and for a simil ar theory in our own ti me, see vol . I I , 381, n. 3.
' Λ / » Μ / Ά .Ο , i l l. 3, especially 1 0 4 7 a 4 - 7 . It has to be remembered that δ υ ν α μ ί ξ , b esi de s i ts
Ailal iHi ' l l i i t iMiisc of potenti ality, was quite commo nly used to mean a pr ope rt y l i k e hot, sweet
01 i t ' l l . Sc r vol. 1, u. 1.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 198/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
I86
he tries to g o further than the ' ma n -m ea s ur e' statement itself and its
o b v i o u s imp l i ca t i ons . 1
W e may conc lude that Protagoras adopted an extreme subject ivism 2
according to which there was no reality behind and independent of
appearances , no difference be tw ee n appe ari ng and bei ng , and we are
each the ju dg e o f our o w n impressio ns. Wh a t seems to me is for me,
and n o man is in a po si ti on to call ano th er mis tak en. I f wh at I feel as
wa r m yo u feel as co ld , w e can not a rg ue abou t i t : i t is wa r m for me
and c ol d for y o u . N o natura l p hi lo so ph er we n t as far as this, for it is a
denial of the very meaning of physis. Democr i tus too sa id tha t al l
sensations are subjective, that ho t and co ld , swe et and bitter, ha ve no
existence in nature, bu t this wa s because th ey we r e to be expla ined as
due to the intera ction be tw ee n the atom ic structu re o f ou r b od ie s
and that o f the perce ived object . Th er e was a permanent physis or
rea li ty, namely a toms and vo id (vo l . π , pp . 438,440). For P ro t ago ra s
there is none, and for this Democritus attacked him, objecting tha t o n
his v i e w ' no th ing was any more such than such'.3 He was in the
van gua rd o f the humanist i c react ion against the natural phi l osoph ers ,
who se cont radi ctor y speculat ions wer e br in gi ng them into disrepute
among pract ical men—each one, as Gorgias said (p. 51 above) ,
claiming to possess the secret of the unive rse , bu t in fact on ly pit t in g
one opinion against another, each more incredible than the last. Like
a l l the Sophis ts, he wa s acqua inte d wi th their theo ries , bu t turned a w ay
from them to teach the one thing that mattered, how to take care of
on e' s o w n affairs and t he bus ine ss o f the state (P la to , Prot. 318 c -
319 a ) . 4 There is not much profit , therefore, in debating which of the
1 Th e vie w attributed b y Cornford to Protago ras seems rather to resemble that wh ich
Socrates in the Cratylus (386 d) dist inguis hes from his and assign s to Eu thyd emus , name ly
π α σ ιπ ά ν τ αο μ ο ί ω ςε ί ν α ιά μ α κ α ΐ α ε ί .1 If a label is wan ted , this is a better one than s ensua lism or phen omen alis m, for the th eor y
applied to what was thought or believed as w e l l as what was perceived, to notions of right and
wrong as w e l l as sensati ons of hot and cold. Th e conclus ion here reache d as to Pr ota gor as' s
subjectivism agrees w ith that of Ad. Lev i' s article in Philosophy, 1940, tho ugh it w i l l be evident
that I do not accept his further clai m that it applie d onl y to kn ow le dg e of natur e and that Pr ota gor as
did not ext end it int o the ethical field. Th e difference betw een us rests on a different in ter pr e
tation of his speech in the Protagoras.3 μ ή μ ά λ λ ο νε ί ν α ιτ ο ϊ ο ν ή τ ο ϊ ο ν τ ώ ν π ρ α γ μ ά τ ω νε κ α σ τ ο ν ,Democr. fr. 156 (Plu t. Adv. Col.
1 1 0 9 a ) . He also, it would seem, anticipated Plat o (Theaet. 1 71 a ) in argu ing that the doctrine is
self-refuting (DK, A 1 1 4 , Sext. Math. 7 . 3 8 9 ) .4 Cf. Vlastos, Ph. Rev. 1945, 591.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 199/357
Ethical Conclusions of Protagoras
phi loso phers he bo r r ow ed f rom o r reac ted aga ins t , e spec ia l ly as w e
k n o w so li tt le o f the con te n t o f h i s wr i t in gs : th ey we re al l cha s in g
ch imeras , th ou gh h i s d i rec t po la r oppos i t e wa s o f cou rse Par men ides ,
w h o t a u g h t tha t all sen satio ns and o pi ni on s w e r e to be rejecte d as false.
W e have seen tha t his rel at i vis m ex ten de d to the field o f eth ics .O u r info rma t ion re la tes on ly to s ta tes , bu t o b v io u sl y , i f a ma n s in cer ely
believes that i t is good to steal , then for him, so long as he believes i t ,
it is g o o d . Bu t , jus t as i t i s w o r th wh i l e for a do ct or to ch an ge a s ick
man ' s wor ld b y h i s d r ug s (Theaet. 167a) so that what appears and is
to him sou r appe ars an d is sw ee t, so i t is w o r t h w h il e for the ma jor i ty ,
or thei r app oin ted rep resen ta t ives , to w h o m steal ing b ot h seems and
is bad , to work upon h im by persuas ion un t i l h i s v iew—tha t i s , thet ruth f o r h i m — i s c h a n g e d . T h e l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n o f P r o t a g o r e a n
subject iv ism is mo ra l and po li t ica l an ar ch y, bu t this w a s far fr om his
tho ugh ts , and morals and the socia l ord er we re sav ed b y th is cu r io us
doc t r ine , typ ica l o f i t s pe r i od , wh e re by the s t andard o f t r u t h or false
ho od is ab an don ed , bu t replaced b y the pra gma t ic s tandard o f bet ter
or wor se . ' S o m e appearances a re be t t e r t han others , though none i s
truer* (Theaet. 1 6 7 b ) . H e r e , u n d o u b t e d l y, t he e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l -
o n t o l o g i c a l 1 d o c t r i n e o f c o m p l e t e s u b j e c t i v i t y b r e a k s d o w n : t h e
appearance o f the mom en t i s subo rd ina ted to a h i gh er s t anda rd , the
etui or pur pose o f hu ma n nature and soc ie t y. A t the same t ime the
o ther k ind o f re la t iv i ty co me s i n : 2 me n and socie t ies d i ffer w id e ly , and
»o the re fore do the i r needs . T he re is no a l l - emb rac i ng ' g o o d fo r m a n ' .
T o diagnose the par t icular s i tuat ion and prescr ibe the bes t course of
action for a man or a s ta te under g iv en cond i t ions , a s a do c t o r do es fo r
his patient , is , as Pr ot ag or as s aw it , the task o f the So ph ist .3 T o ens ure
' A cltimny expression, wh ic h ma y nevert heless brin g home the point that, howe ve r it ma y betoday, In Greek thought epis temology and ont olo gy , kn ow in g and being, are not to be separated .
' That wh ich is desc ribe d und er (a) on p. 166 above.
' Th e relation of Socrates and Plato to the Sophists is subtle. It is g e n e r a l l y s a id that , where as• tin SuphUlN were empiricists who denied the possibil i ty of a general def ini t ion o f ' g o o d ' on theΜ Ι1111111Ι ·that it differed r e l a t i v e l y to individual men or societies and their circumstances, Socrates(and Plain lifter hi m) insisted that there wa s one uni versal goo d, kn ow le dg e of whic h wo ul ddive the key to right action for everybody everywhere . Thus Ar i s tode ( l i k e Plato in the Mend)
i l i ' | i k l « l i l in as insistin g on a gene ral definition of arete" in contrast to Gorg ias wh o preferred tov i i i i i n r i a i e nepanile virtues (Pol. i 2 6 o a 2 7 ) . Yet in the Phaedrus i t is the ' t ru e rhe tor ic ian ' , that is,l l iu tliiilt't t l u i l l y n.iined philosopher, who is compared to a qua l i f i ed doctor who not only knowsl i ow In administer various treatments but und ersta nds also which is appropriate to a particularpul l i ' i i l , ani l when and for how long—a man, it would seem, in the empirical tradition of the best
1 S 7
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 200/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
188
that that course is f o l l o w e d is the conce rn o f the rhetorician. Pro tag ora s
was b o t h , a n d taught both ar ts . H i s o w n in tegr i ty, perhaps , p rev ented
him from seeing that his ar t o f defending both s ides, a n d m a k i n g th e
weaker argument appear t h e s t ronger, w a s a t w o - e d g e d s w o r d in the
hands o f less scrupulous m e n . T h e average rhetorician w a s satisfied
w i t h t h e means a n d careless of the end . He t u rned t h e heads o f t h ey o u n g b y te l l ing them that i f they only mastered the art o f persuasion
they could have the w o r l d a t their feet : what they d i d w i t h i t w a s
their affair.
A P P E N D I X
Protagoras fr. i , DK: some points of translation
Controversy has flourished fo r many years over the translation o f threewords in this sentence: ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς , cos, χ ρ ή μ α τ α .
ι . ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς .Is Protagoras using it in (a) an individual or (β ) a universal
sense, or is he (c) unaware of the distinction? F o r older authorities seeZ N , 1357, n. 1. In the past at least the majority o f scholars have supported
(a), e.g. Zeller himself, H . Gomperz (S. u. R. 222 f., 234ff., in spite o f saying
on p. 217 that no one would have been more astonished at the question
than Protagoras), Nestle (with some qualifications; see his edition o f theProt., p. 14), Grant (Eth. 1, 135 f. ), R. G. Bury (Sextus, Loeb ed. 1, x i v ) ,
Burnet (Th. to P. 11 5), Campb ell (ed. o f Theaet. x x i x ) , Heinimann (N. u. Ph.11 7 ) , Calogero a nd A d . L e v i (for w h o m see Untersteiner, Sophs. 86 with
nn.).
Grote is always quoted as the originator o f (/>), bu t in his Plato, 11,322 ff.(to which Zeller refers) I do no t find this interpretation. T h e pages must beread entire, but one may quote 328-9: 'However multifarious th e mental
activities may be, each man has his own peculiar allotment and manifestation
thereof, to which his cognitions must b e relative . . . Each man's mind, with
its peculiar endowments . . . is still the limit or measure or limit of hiscognitions.' ( M y italics.) T . Gomperz on the other hand held the uni-versalist v i e w unambiguously (G.T. 1, 45 1 ): ' M a n . . . w a s obviously not
Greek medical teaching. In contrast, the ordinary rhetorician, w h o ' through ignorance ofd i a l e c t i c is unable to define the nature of rhetoric', resembles a quack who has learned from a book
h o w to g i v e an emetic or a purge, bu t has no idea whe n its use w i l l be appropriate {Phaedr. 2<58 a - c ,
269b) . I t m ay b e that the Socratic search fo r definitions, and its offspring the Platonic dialectic of'collection and divis ion' , rather include and transcend than undo the w o r k of Sophists and rhetor
i c i a n s . Their teaching i s , after all, descri bed in the Phaedrus as being , though not th e art of rhetoric
proper, a necessary propaedeutic to it ( τ α τ φ ό τ ή ;τ έ χ ν η ςα ν α γ κ α ί α ,269 c ) . Such questionscal l for careful consideration; see e s p e c i a l l y Socrates, ch. I l l , § 8 .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 201/357
Translation of Protagoras Fr. ι
1 89
the individual, but m a n k i n d a s a w h o l e . ' If Z e l l e r ( Z N , 1357) is c o r r e c t indescribing this v i e w as m e a n i n g t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o P r o t a g o r a s ' T h i n g s
present themselves to us as under the l imi ta t ions and according to the d is
position of h u m a n n a t u r e t h ey mus t p resen t th ems e l ve s ' , t hen i t f it s no ne
of the evidence.
Hold e r s o f in t e rp re t a t ion ( c ) , wh i c h has ga in ed fa vo ur r ece n t l y, i nc ludeJoel (Gesch. 703-5), U n t e r s t e i n e r (Sophs. 42, 86f.), C l a s s e n (Proc. Afr.
("/. Ass. 1959, 35) and C o r n f o r d (u np ub l i sh ed ) . S o m e w h o ho ld th is v i e w
combine it w i t h (a): P r o t a g o r a s w a s t h i n k i n g o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , b u t t h e
dlutinction wa s p r ob ab ly no t p resen t to h i s min d . T h i s seems l i k e l y e n o u g h ,
provided it i s tak en to ex cl ud e (b). H. G o m p e r z , i n h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t
Protagoras would have made no d i s t inc t ion , c l a ims tha t ther e i s n o co nt ra
diction b e t w e e n t h e t w o , b e c a u s e , if what appea r s to an ind iv idua l ex i s t s
lor him, then wh a t app ear s to al l me n exi sts for al l me n. T r u e e n o u g h , i f P r o t a
goras b e l i e v e d tha t t he re was any th ing a t a l l t h a t appeared the same to al l
men. Hut w a s it n o t the es se nc e o f hi s te ac hi ng tha t t h i s w a s no t so ?
After all this it i s r e f r e sh ing to t u r n t o the c o m m o n sense o f a h i s to r i an
of Greek l i te ra ture , L e s k y , w h o says in h i s Hist. Gr. Lit. p . 345: ' C e r t a i n l y
lite sentence refers to t h e i n d i v i d u a l . A n y o n e w h o d o u b t s i t m u s t h o l d t h a t
Pluto is l y i n g o r m i s t a k e n . . . I f w e a re de te r mined to d i sb e l i e ve P l a t o , w e
littve still to r e c k o n w i t h o t h e r a u t h o r s [ A r i s t o t l e , S e x t u s ] w h o s e u s e of t h e
word ίκ α σ τ ο ξs h o w s t h a t they a lso took the sentence as refer r ing to t h e
Individual.'
a. cos Ε σ τ ίν . D o e s it s i m p l y m e a n ' t h a t t h e y a r e ' , cos b e i n g t h e e q u i v a l e n t
of ό τ ι , or doe s it con ta i n the idea of ' h o w th ey ar e ' , the manner of their
•xlstcnce? G o m p e r z f a t he r a n d s o n both sp ok e fo r the fo r mer, c i t i ng the
mtnlogy of fr. 4 on the ex i s t ence o f the go ds . (See Th . G . , G.T. 1, 452;1 1 , f ί ., ,9. u. R. 204.) He in r i ch ' s ar gu me nt s see m dec is i ve , t h o u g h he add s t h a t
the question is of l i t t le im po r t an ce fo r the subs tan ce of t he s t a t emen t .
Von I'ritz (RE, X L V. H a l b b . 914) takes the same v i e w , n o t i n g t h a t class ica l
ncholurs tend to t h e m e a n i n g ' t h a t ' , p h i l o s o p h e r s to ' h o w ' . Z el l er ( Z N ,
n. 1) th ou gh t it mo r e cor rec t to inc lud e bo t h me an in gs . So did Joe l
(Gtsch. 708), w h o denied the val id i t y o f f r. 4 as an ar gu me nt the o th er w a y .
Untersteiner a g r e e s (Sopks. 84), t h ou gh h i s in t e rp re t a t ion i s con nec te d wi th
Ilia curious c o n c e p t i o n o f μ έ τ ρ ο νa s ' m a s t e r y ' , w h i c h h a s n o t f o u n d g e n e r a l
acceptance. (It i n v o l v e s t r a n s l at i n g S o p h . El. 236, τ ί μ έ τ ρ ο ν κ α κ ό τ η τ ο ςΙ φ υ , us ' w h a t w a y w i l l there be [sic] t o get the better of w i c k e d n e s s ? ' T h e
Italics a rc h i s . ) Ca loge ro ( see Unte r s t e ine r, Sophs. 90, n . 34) t h i n k s it u n -
lilntnriciil to pose the ques t ion becaus e the d i s t inc t i on be tw ee n ex i s t enc e
Mild essence c o u l d not h a v e be e n c o n s c i o u s l y p r e s en t to P r o t a g o r a s ' s m i n d .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 202/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
I 0 O
T h i s i s r a t h e r l i k e s a y i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n a l l t h e
different senses o f λ ό γ ο ς c o u l d n o t ha ve been co nsc io us l y p r e sen t t o t h e
m i n d o f a w r i t e r o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y, t h e r e fo r e w h e n H e r o d o t u s s a y s Ι λ ε ξ ε
A o y o v ( i . 1 4 1 . 1 ) t h e r e i s n o sense i n a s k i n g w h e t h e r h e m e a n t a s t o r y o r
a n y o f t h e o the r t h ings t h e w o r d c o u l d m e a n : a rg u m e n t , p r e t e xt , p r o p o r t i o n ,
def in i t ion o r w h a t e v e r. W h a t d e c i d e s i s t h e c o n t e x t .T h a t ώ ς c a n m e a n ' h o w ' i s u n d e n i a b l e , b u t i t i s a l so u sed i n t e r cha ngea b ly
w i t h ό τ ι . T h a t i t is so used he re i s m a d e o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p r o b a b l e b y i t s
se t t i ng ( e spec i a l l y i n t h e nega t ive c l ause ώ ς ο ύ κε σ τ ι ) a n d b y c o m p a r i s o n
w i t h fr. 4, to w h i c h s h o u l d b e a d d e d t h e soph i s t i c H ippo c ra t i c t r eat i s e
De arte, c h . 2 ( v i , 4 L . ) , τ ώ ν γ ε μ ήέ ό ν τ ω ν τ ί ν αά ν τ ι ςο ύ σ ί α ν θ ε η σ ά μ ε ν ο ς
ά τ τ α γ γ ε ί λ ε ι ε νώ ς ε σ τ ί ν , w h er e ' t h a t ' i s c e r t a i n l y t h e m o s t na tu ra l t r ans
la t ion o f ώ ς .
D i s c u s s i o n h a s c o n c e n t r a t e d o n t h e w o r d ώ ς i n th i s phrase , b u t t h e
w o r d ε σ τ ι i s e q u a l l y w o r t h c o m m e n t . L i k e o the r s cho l a r s I h a v e h i t h e r t o
w r i t t e n o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e p r i m a r y, i f n o t t h e on ly, s ense o f ε ίν α ι
when used w i thou t p r ed i ca t e s i s ' t o e x i s t ' , b u t C . H . K a h n is v e r y p e r s u a s i v e
in h i s c l a i m t h a t i t s fundamen ta l va lue i s ' n o t " t o e x i s t " b u t " t o b e s o " ,
" t o b e t h e c a s e " , o r " t o b e t r u e ' " . T h i s , as h e p o i n t s o u t , f i t s P la to ' s e x
p lana t i on o f t h e s e n t e n c e : 'as each th ing seems t o m e , such i s i t fo r m e ' , e t c .
' Pla to ' s exeges i s be co me s en t i r e ly n a t u r a l a n d i n t e l l i g i b l e i f w e u n d e r s t a n d
the absolu te u s e o f einai as . . . a n aff irmation o f fact i n g e n e r a l , as " w h a t
is s o " o r " w h a t i s t h e c a s e " . T h e exis ten t ia l u s e , e . g . f o r a n aff i rmat ion such
as " t h e r e a r e a t o m s a n d v o i d " , w o u l d t he n b e i n c l u d e d a s a spec ia l case o f
the genera l fac tua l asser t ion in tended b y P r o t a g o r a s ' s s t a t e m e n t has esti.
I f m a n i s th e m e a s u r e o f a l l t h i n g s , " t ha t t h e y a r e s o o r n o t s o " , t hen h e i s
the measure o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o r n o n - e x i s t e n c e o f a toms ju s t as he i s the
measu re o f t h e b e i n g - c o l d o r n o t - b e i n g - c o l d o f t h e w i n d . ' S e e h i s ar t ic le in
Foundations of Language, 1966, e s p e c i a l l y p . 250. 1 ( I t w i l l have appea red ,
h o w e v e r , t ha t I d o n o t en t i r e ly ag ree w i th h i m w h e n o n p . 262 h e ca l l s
P r o t a g o r a s ' a p h i l o s o p h e r o f c o m m o n s e n s e ' . )
3. χ ρ ή μ α . T h i s i s a w o r d o f v e r y w i d e a p p l i c a t i o n , m e a n i n g a n y t h i n g
f r o m a n orac l e t o m o n e y ( s o i n s i n g . H d t . 3 . 3 8 . 3 , t h o u g h c o m m o n l y i n p i . ) .
R e c e n t l y t h e r e h a s b e e n a t e n d e n c y t o ove r s t r e s s i t s e t y m o l o g i c a l c o n n e x i o n
w i t h χ ρ ή σ θ α ι a n d n a r r o w i t d o w n t o ' s o m e t h i n g o n e u s e s ' , a n d s o s o m e
t h i n g i n c lose re la t ionship t o m a n ( N e s t l e , VM^uL, 271) , o r a c c o r d i n g t o
U n t e r s t e i n e r (Sophs. 79) ' t he t o t a l i t y o f t h i n g s u n d e r s t o o d as a c t i o n o r
e x p e r i e n c e ' . H e pro fe s se s t o g i v e a r e v i e w o f i t s poss ib l e mean ings , b u t it is
1 The use o f ε ί ν α ιa n d -π ρ ά γ μ α in Aristotle's discussion of ψ ε ύ δ ο ς(Mtiaph. 1 0 2 4 b 1 7/V.)may lend some support to his view.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 203/357
Translation of Protagoras Fr. ι
η very par t ia l one . ( O n U n t e r s t e i n e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s a y i n g i n g e n e r a l
] \ . F . H o l l a n d i n CQ, 1956, is s e v e r e b u t jus t . ) T h e f o l l o w i n g ( a l l eas i ly
uvai lable i n L S J ) find n o m e n t i o n .
(</) I n plura l anything useful o r g o o d f o r m a n . S e e X e n . Oec. 1.7-8,I l ie passage w h i c h affor ds t h e s t ronges t suppor t t o N e s t l e ' s t h es i s, t h o u g h
not cited b y h i m i n t h i s c o n n e x i o n . I n a n y case i t is o n l y o n e o f m a n ym e a n i n g s , a n d seems t o b e conf ined t o t h e p lu ra l .
( / ' ) Cases where i t m i g h t b e o mi t te d : δ ε ιν ό ν τ ι χ ρ ή μ α έ π ο ι ε ΰ ν τ ο ,
' l l i e y t h o u g h t i t d r e a d f u l ' ( H d t . 8.16.2); τ π κ ρ ό ν τ ι μ ο ι δ ο κ ε ΐ χ ρ ή μ α
(Ι υ α ι , ' i t seems t o m e d i s a g r e e a b l e ' ( P l a t o , Gorg. 485 b ) ; τ ί χ ρ ή μ α λ ε υ σ σ ω ;
' w h a t d o I s e e ? ' ( A e s c h . Cho. 10 and e l s e w h e r e ) ; a t E u r . Ale. 512
t ( χ ρ ή μ α me an s ' w h y ? ' , ' f o r w h a t c a u s e ? ' .
(c) In p e r i p h r a s i s : Ooc μ έ γ α χ ρ ή μ α ,' a g r e a t b o a r ' ( H d t . 1 . 3 6 . 1 ) ;λ ι π α ρ ό ντ ό χ ρ ή μ α τ ή ς π ό λ ε ω ξ ' w h a t a f ine c i ty ! ' (Ar i s toph . Birds 826);unci s o f r e q u e n t l y : τ ό χ ρ ή μ ατ ω νν υ κ τ ώ ν δ σ ο ν ,' h o w l o n g t h e n i g h t s a r e ! '
(iilfniy Clouds 2).
(</) A s t h e E n g l i s h ' b u s i n e s s ' in i t s w i d e c o l l o q u i a l sense , ά τ τ α ν τ ό χ ρ ή μ '
ή μ α ρ τ ε ,' s h e m i s m a n a g e d t h e w h o l e b u s i n e s s ' ( S o p h . Tr. 11 3 6 ) ; κ α κ ό ν
τ ώ χ ρ ή μ α ,' i t ' s a b a d b u s i n e s s ' (idem, Ph. 1265; Unte r s t e ine r does g i v e
both these references, b u t exp la ins them as an 'event... w h i c h o n e u n d e r
g o e s ( χ ρ ή τ α ι ) ' ) .
( e) C a s e s w h e r e ' d i i n g ' i s the o n l y po s s i b l e t r ans l a t i on : κ ο Ο φ ο ν χ ρ ή μ α
τ ι ο ι η τ ή ξ έ σ τ ι ν κ α ΐ π τ η ν ό ν κ α ι ι ε ρ ό ν , ' a p o e t i s a l i g h t , w i n g e d a n d h o l y
t i l i n g ' ( P l a t o , Ion 534b). I n e x p l a i n i n g P r o t a g o r a s ' s s e n t e n c e P l a t o (Crat.
\H ) a 386 e) equates i t w i t h π ρ ά γ μ α ,a w o r d w h i c h a l s o h a d b e c o m e e s t r a n g e d
from i ts paren t v e r b a n d w a s used t o mean s imply ' a n e x i s t i n g t h i n g ' .
(f) N u m b e r , a m o u n t : χ ρ ή μ α π ο λ λ ό ν ν ε ω ν ,' a l a rg e n u m b e r o f s h i p s '
( H d t . 6.43.4), χ ρ ή μ α τ τ ο λ λ ό ντ ι χ ρ υ σ ο Ο ,' a l o t o f g o l d ' (idem, 3.130.5).N o d o u b t it is p o s s i b l e t o r ep resen t χ ρ ή μ α in a l l these cases a s h a v i n g
tome re la t ion t o m a n k i n d ( w h a t t h i n g o f w h o s e e x i s t e n c e w e a r e a w a r e
I i h s n o t ? ) , bu t i t w o u l d b e fanciful t o s u p p o s e that th is re la t ion is in the
wri ter ' s mind, a n d w e m a y c o n c l u d e t h a t n o word more spec i f i c t h a n ' t h i n g '
w i l l se rve as its t rans la t ion i n t he d i c t u m o f P r o t a g o r a s . T h a t ' t h i n g s '
Include heat a n d co ld , j u s t i ce a n d injustice is undeniable, b u t Prot. 330c and d
a l l o w that t hese were s t i l l commonly r ega rded b y t h e G r e e k s a s e x i s t i n g
t hi ngs ( π ρ ά γ μ α τ α ) , χ ρ ή μ α τ αw i l l have been f o r Pro tagoras wha t they were
f o r h i s c o n t e m p o r a r y A n a x a g o r a s : tha t i s , t h e y w i l l h a v e i n c l u d e d t h e
' o ppo s i t c s ' a tu l conc re te th ings a l ike (v o l . I I , 285). W e need n o t d i smiss t h el i i l l e r f rom t he a r g u m e n t on the g r o u n d s tha t m a n c a n n o t b e a m e a s u r e o f
(lie ex i s t ence o f trees a n d s tones ( a s Nes t l e does , VM\uL, 271) : a c c o r d i n g
to ii p h i l o s o p h y o l ' f . v . v t ' est percipi h e can . Hut the re is l i t t le point in p u r s u i n g
1 0 1
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 204/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
this line, since all the examples g i v e n b y Plato and Arist otl e are of proper ties
or attributes. These are what would concern Protagoras as a teacher of
pol i t ics , ethics and rhetoric.
(3) G O R G I A S
G o r g i a s was primarily a teacher of rhetoric, associated with hiscou nt rym an Tis ias in the use of the argu ment from pr oba bil i t y. 1 H e
wr ot e manuals of the art ( p. 44, n. 4, ab ov e ), w hi c h ma y ha ve cons ist ed
l a r g e l y of mo de l decl amat ions to be learned by heart, since Ari st ot le
(Soph. el. 183 b 36) says that this wa s his me th od of inst ruct ion. O f
these the Helen and Palamedes (frr. 11 an d 1 1 a) w i l l be su rv iv ing
e x a m p l e s ,2 ancTthe Helen KaTrjeen w e l l descr ibed asJan.essaj__on the
nature and power of logos' ( Ve r s e n y i , Socr. Hum. 44), proving that
' the word is a mighty despot ' , and that (as Plato says Gorgias re
peatedly declared, Phileb. 5 8 a - b ) : ' T h e art of pers uasi on far surpasses
all others and is far and away the best, for it makes all things its slaves
b y w i l l i n g submis sion, not by vi ol en ce ' . So irresist ible is i ts po w er
that if He le n w a s per sua ded in to adu lt er y she w a s as guil tle ss as if she
had bee n abduct ed by for ce. T h e epi stem olog ical implicat i ons of this
have alr eady be en ment io ne d ( pp . 50 f.), and we must n o w face the
problems of that remarkable tour de force, the treatise On the Non-
Existent, or On Nature. •
T h e Eleatics, by their primit ive l imitat ion of the term ' b e i n g '
1 Plato, Phaedr. 267a. Lesky (HGL, 351) s a y s Tisia s 'ce rta inl y accompanied him to
Athen s in 42 7' on his mission for Leont ini. Perh aps he did, but the sole evid ence is an unsupportedstatement in Pausanias's handbook for travellers in Greece in the second century A . D . (6 .17.8).S ee Stegemann in RE, 2. Reih e, i x . Halbb. 140. Gorgia s and Tisias must ha vebe enal mos t exact
contemporaries, born in the decade 490-480.2 On the character and genuineness of these two speeches see Dobson , Orators, 1 7 ;
H. Gomperz, S. u. Rh. 3ff . ; Joel , Gesch. 657ff . ; Schmid, Gesch. 72, n. 2; Untersteiner, Sophs. 95
an d other references in his n. 54 on p. 99. The general opinion is now favourable to their
genuineness. As to date, see Calogero in JHS, 1957, 1, p. 16 with n. 23. The Pal. was dated
by E. Maa ss before 4 11 (Hermes, 1887, 579). The Hel. wa s put b y Preuss in 414, betwee n the
Troades an d Helen of Euripides (De Eur. Hel. Leipzig, 1 9 1 1 )and by Pohlenz before the Troades
(Nachr. Gott. Ges. 1920, 166). I should not b e surprise d i f Helen's speech in the Troades ( 9 1 4 - 6 5 )
owed something to what Gorgias makes her say on the same subject. In Euripides she takes the
offensive at once by say in g her troub les wer e Hecuba' s fault for beari ng Paris (! ), and goes on to
blame Aphrodite . The chorus appeal to Hecuba to destroy the ττ ε ιθ ώ of this 'evi l woman wh o
knows how to speak'.
Gorgias himself c a l l s the Helena a τ τ α ί γ ν ι ο ν ,on which the best comment is probably Ver -s e n y i ' s (Socr. Hum. 43 f . ) : it is certa inly not serio us in its ostensible purpose (Gorgias docs not
mind whether Helen's memory is vindicated or not), which however he is using as a vehicle lor
his general views on the nature of λ ό γ ο ς and τ τ ε ιθ ώ .
1 92
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 205/357
Gorgias on the Non-Existent
>93
to what is one , un ch an gi ng and t imeless, had d riv en practical pe op le
l i k e Prot agor as to the opp osit e extreme o f subj ecti vism, a denial of al l
being in the Eleatic sense. Plato, convinced that any explanat ion of
phenomena must st i l l al low for an eternal and changeless being over
and abo ve th em, con tras ted Sop his ts as ' tho se wh o take refuge in the
darkness o f no t- be in g ' wi th phi l osoph ers w h o are 'd ev ot ed to the
nature o f b e i n g ' (Soph. 254a). He meant, as Ari sto tle poi nted ou t
(Metaph. 1026b 14), that the Sophists recognized only accidental as
opposed to essential being, that is, the con di ti on al and relat ive as
opposed to the self-existent or absolutely existent. The way to these
uiteful distinctions had been closed for a time by the blunt antithesis of
Partnenides, and they were only established by Plato and Aristotle.
O b v i o u s l y Pro tag ora s 's ' wh a t appears to me and is for m e ' had no
existence in the Eleatic or Platonic sense ( in which 'what is ' was com
pletely inaccessible to the senses), and G or gi as br ou gh t this op po si t i on
fu l ly into the op en, and to ok the Eleatic bull b y the ho rns , b y bo ld ly
proc la iming that ' n o t h i n g e x i s t s ' .
' f l i c treatise itself has no t sur vi ve d, bu t w e poss ess t w o paraph rases
o f its arguments, one in the little work On Melissus, Xenophanes and
(iorgias attr ibuted to Ari sto tle , and one in Sext us. T h e y are no t alw ay s
In agre emen t, and the relev ant secti on o f MXG contains lacunae and
corrupt ions , but between them they g i v e a g o o d idea o f the ty pe o f
a rgument which Gor g ia s emp lo ye d . 1 He set out to prove three t h i n g s :
(d) that nothing exists , (b) that ev en i f i t doe s i t is in com pre hen sib le
l o man, (c) that , ev en i f i t is comp reh ens ibl e t o any on e, i t is no t c o m
muni cabl e to an yo ne else. A great deal o f in k has be en spilt o v e r the
quest ion w he th er this wa s int ende d as a jo ke or par od y, o r as a ser iou s
con t r ibu t ion to ph i lo sop hy, 2 but it is a mistake to think that parody i s
' MXG 979 a 1 1 - 9 8 0 D 2 1 , Sextus , Math. 7.65 ff. Both texts are avail able wit h Italian translati on
III IJiilrratcincr, Sof. H, 36fT., Sex tu s in DK, Go rgi as fr. 3. See Ll oy d, Pol. & An. 1 1 5 , for a succinct
jllilKinmit on their relationship, and references to some of the many earlier discussions; also
U n m u l r l n c r, Sophs. t)6{. and Sicking, Mnem. 1964, 227fT. For MXG in g ene ral , v ol . 1, 367
• l i d J70. W. Brockcr in Hermes, 1958 endeavoured to show that Sextus has no i ndependen t
Value an a aource when compared w i t h MXG.
* I'nr orientation in the discussion see Unters te iner, Sophs. 1 6 3 — ; , Kerferd, Phronesis, 1955 ,
J , 11. 1, Silking, Mntm. 1964, 225-7. Sicking says r ightly that ' e s doch keineswegs von v o r n -
luuelii I ' rNMir l i t , da s s man mit der Alternative Sche rz -Erns t dem Charakter des We rk es gerecht
winded k ' t n n c ' ; an d Calogr ro in JHS, 1957, i, 16 , n. 22, referring to the chapter on Gorgias in
lila Λ 7. .11// li /ttit., c l a i m s t l i . i l ' i t is neither a joke nor an exercise, but a highly ironical reductio ad
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 206/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
I94
incomp at ib le wi th ser ious in tent ion . G or gi as ' s pur pos e wa s neg at iv e ,
bu t none the less serio us. T o sh o w up the abs urd ity o f Eleat ic , and
par t icula r ly o f Par meni dean , log ic ( the absur di ty o f a r gu in g f r om ' i t
i s ' and ' i t is n o t ' as such ) wa s o f the utm ost im por tan ce bot h to
co m mo n sense and to the theor y of rhe tor ic . Go rg ia s w o u ld hard ly
w i s h to den y the existence o f ev er yt hi ng in the sense in wh ic h the
ord ina ry man und ersta nds exi ste nce ; his aim w as to sh o w that , by the
sor t of a rguments tha t Parmenides used, i t was as easy to prove
' i t i s n ot ' as ' i t i s ' . T h e inve rs ion of Parmenid es ' s a rg umen ts i s
un do ub ted ly amus ing , remi ndi ng one o f Go rg ias ' s advic e to h is
pupils ' to destroy an opponent 's seriousness by laughter, and his
laughter by seriousness ' (fr. 12).
T h e t i tle of the w o r k is i tself suff icient indicat io n o f pa ro dy . Si m-
p l i c i u s , w h o sh ow s first-hand k n o w le d g e o f the bo o k s o f bo th Par
menid es and Melis sus, says tha t bo th g av e them the t i tle ' O n Na tu re ' ,
and Meli s sus O n Na tu re o r Th a t Wh ic h I s ' (CaeL 556, 557; see
v o l . 11, 102). C on si d er in g the subj ect o f Pa rm en id es' s w o r k , it is safe
to say that that wa s i t s fu ll t it le to o . T h e na me ' O n Na tu re ' wa s g i ve n t o
the w o r k s o f mo st o f the Presocrat ic natural philo sop her s ei ther b y
them selv es or b y their con tem po rar ies (v ol . 1, 73), and by say in g tha t' not hin g i s ' Go rg ia s wa s de ny in g the assumpt i on un der ly i ng a ll the ir
sys t ems , tha t behin d the sh i f t ing panor ama of ' b e c o m i n g ' or a ppear
ances there existed a substance or substances, a physis o f th ings , f rom
the apeiron o f An ax im an de r to the a ir of Ana xim ene s , the four ' ro ot s '
o f Emp edo cle s and the a toms o f Dem oc r i tu s . A l l such permanent
'na tu res ' wo ul d be abol ished on Go rg ias ' s thes is , but the form of h is
a rgument s shows tha t their i r on y wa s aimed especial ly at Par meni desand his fol low ers , to demons trate tha t on their o w n re aso nin g it is as
easy to prove the cont rary of χ as χ i tself . 1
absurdum of the Eleatic philo soph y ( especia lly of Zen o) '. Except that I see more of Parm enide sin it than hi s paren thesi s sug ges ts , I am sure that this explana tion of it as ironi cal is co rrect.
1 Th is applies at least to the first par t of the treatise pr ovi ng th e thesis that 'n ot hi ng i s ' ,w h i c h to judg e from the summa rie s wa s the longe st and most impor tant . Kerferd (be. cit. 15)finds it hard to belie ve that G orgi as could hav e arg ued in a certain w a y because havin g appealed
to a 'de cis ive agreed pri nci ple ' he then turns ro und and denies it : one argu ment depends on theimpossibi l i ty of sa yi ng that wh at is does not exist , yet the ve ry next one begi ns 'Ne ith er doeswha t is exist, f o r . . . ' and proceeds to arg ue it. But the 'dec isiv e agreed princ iple ' comes from
Parmenides, and considered as parody the idea of arguing from it as a premise and then dis-
proving Κ is a good one.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 207/357
Gorgias on the Non-Existent
1 9 5
Th er e is one wi tness w h o , i f on ly on accoun t o f h i s con temporane i ty,
cannot w e l l be ig no re d, th ou g h the signifi cance o f his tirades for the
character of On the Non-Existent has been var io us ly ju dg ed . Isocra tes ,
thou gh a muc h yo un ge r man than Go rg ia s , wa s h is pupi l wh e n in h is
c.irly twenties (Miinscher in RE, i x , 2152). A t the be gi nn in g o f his
Helen he at tacks pa ra do x- mo ng er s and erist ics o f al l kin ds. T h e y are
not ev en origina l , for Prot ago ras and other 's op hi st s ' o f his t ime
could do the same thing better.
Wh o could outdo Go rgi as , w h o had the audacity to say that nothing is, or
/cm) who tried to show that the same things were possible and impossible,
or Melissus w h o amid the infinite profusi on o f things tried to find proof s
ihut all is one? Wh at the y did demons trate wa s that it is ea sy to trump up a
false argument about whatever you like to put forward.
A g a i n in Antid. 268-9 he issues a similar warning against the 'old
N o p h i s t s ' , o f w h o m one said there wa s an infinite nu mb er o f be in gs ,
Kmpedocles four (with Strife and L o v e among them), Ion three only,
A l c m a e o n t w o , Par men ide s and Melissus one , and G or gi as no ne at al l .
l i e compares their efforts to conjuring tr icks which serve no useful
purp ose b ut are ga pe d at b y f o o l s . I t has been argued that , since in
these at tacks Isocrates has no qualm s in gr ou pi ng G or gi as w i t h the
lilcatics and phi los ophers l ike Em pe do cle s , h is 'n ot hi ng exi s ts ' must
have been meant as a ser ious phi losophical thes is . Probably however
more weight should be laid on the fact that Isocrates treats even the
philosophers as tr icksters ready to maintain the most absurd hypo
t h e c s . 1 In his own v i e w , exp oun ded on a num ber o f occas ions ,
ph i losophy shou ld t u rn its back on all such idle speculations, and
G o rg i a s con dem ned himse l f b y s to op ing to use the ir o w n argu ment s .
Scxtus classes Go rg ia s wi th those wh o aboli shed a cons tant s tandard
of judgment (/criterion), but adds that he use d a different met ho d o f
at tack from Pr ot ag or as ; and after su mma riz in g his arg ume nts he
c o n c l u d e s : ' T h e s e are the difficulties raised by G o rg i as , and t he y do
• Svt> DIHIIII, (iorff. 8, who r e p r o d u c e s the views of H. Gomperz , S. u. Rh. jol. I confess to a
•Ι Ιμ Ι ιΙ Ι ιΉ Ι ιιμ of uneasiness, because , if I socra tes knew Gorgias ' s t reat ise as an ironical e x p o s u r e
n f Klrallr i n i s o n i n g , li e w o u l d surely have claimed him as an ally ra ther than a t tacked him a l o n g
wllh ilir i r » l . He was, h o w e v e r, a b o v e al l t h i n g s an advoca te , ready to press anyth ing in to th e
MMν It 11 11I Ills ii ni ne di jl e case. 1 lis criticism of G o rg i a s w o u l d be that b y bo the r i ng at all abou t
llii) iilillnmiphi'm .11 id refilling ihein with their own w e a p o n s he put liimscli in die s a m e class.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 208/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
Ϊ 96
a w a y with the criterion, for there can be no criter ion for wh at neither
exists no r can be k n o w n nor is o f a nature to be desc ribe d to ano the r
pers on. ' In their con clu sio ns Go rg ia s and P rot ago ras we re at one , and,
i f there i s anyth ing that may be spoken of as a general sophistic v i e w ,
it is this, that there i s no ' c r i te r ion ' . Y o u and I cannot , b y c omp ar i ng
and discussing our experien ces, corre ct them and reach the kn ow l e dg e
o f a reality more ultimate than either, for there is no such stable reality
to be kn o w n . Similarly in moral s , no appeal to general s tandards or
pri nci ples is pos sib le , and th e on l y rule can be to act as at an y m o me n t
seems mo st expedien t . Th is pos i t i vis m is impor tant bo th for i ts o w n
sake and for the reactio n w h i c h it pr od uc ed in thin kers o f the cal ibre
o f Socrates and P la to.
W e m a y n o w lo ok at som e of the argu ment s o f On the Non-Existent.
T h e f o l l o w i n g is not a complete account, but sufficient to convey their
charac ter. 1 It should be said as a preliminary that Parmenides 's thesis
depended on one and the same Gr ee k verb (ε ίν α ι ) mean ing bot h ' t o
b e ' (w hi ch ma y refer to the relat ion o f subjec t to predic ate, ind iv id ua l
to speci es, iden tity , etc.) and ' t o ex is t ' . Wh e r e either is used in the
Engl i sh version, they stand for the same word in Greek.
{a) Nothing exists. If_anyt hing^ exists , it is eit her the exi st en t, or the
non-existent^or bot h. T h e non-exi stent does not exist ( ' wh at is no t is
no t ' ) . Th i s migh t be thou gh t obv iou s , bu t Gor g ia s so lemnly a rgues
it in ult ra- Par men ide an te rm s: in so far as it is co nc ei ve d as no t- be in g
it is not, i.e. does not exist; but in so far as it is non-existent , i t is,
i.e. exi sts. Bu t to be an d not t o be at the same ti me is ab sur d, the ref ore
the non -exi sten t is no t. T h e pu rpo se mu st be to br in g in the po in t that
b y s a y i n g that someth ing ' i s x', whatever the predica te , you are a l lowi ng being to i t ; and since according to Parmenides ' is ' has only one
meani ng, name ly ' e x i s t s ' , y o u can pr ov e on his o w n premises the
oppo site o f wh at he s a y s . A t the same t ime Gor gi as turns against him
his cri t icism o f the stupid c r o w d w h o claim that to be and not to be are
the same as w e l l as different (fr. 6 . 6 ) .
N ei th er do es the exist ent exist. I f it do es , it mu st b e eithe r eternal or
1
The re is a full sum ma ry in Un ters teine r, Sophs. 1 4 5 - 5 8 . See also Freeman, Comp. 3 5 9 - 6 1 ,and Brocker, Gesch. d. Phil, vor Sokr. 11 5 — 1 8 .One of the best e s s a y s on the subject in Engl ish ,never noticed nowad ays , is that of Grant, Ethics, i , 1 3 7 - 4 2 .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 209/357
Gorgias on the Non-Existent
I 9 7
generated o r b o t h . T h e argument that i t cannot b e eternal depends o n
i d e n t i f y i n g temporal with spatial infinity a n d then contending that
' w h a t i s ' cannot b e infinite. Since Melissus h a d said that i t w a s , a n d
moreover reached this conclusion b y t h e same confusion o f temporal
w i t h spatial (vol. n , lojff.), i t seems l i k e l y that at this point he is th ebutt o f Gorgias ' s sophis t ica ted w i t . T h e argument that i t is not
generated f o l l o w s t h e lines o f Parmenides fr. 8.7if . , b y d e n y i n g i n turn
that it could b e generated from what is o r w h a t i s no t . A g a i n , i t must
be either on e o r m a n y. I f one, i t must have quantity, discrete o r c o n
tinuous, size a n d b o d y, b u t then i t w i l l b e divis ible an d so no t on e .
Y e t for any th ing t o exis t wi thout magni tude is absurd. F o r this t o o
an Eleatic pr oo f wa s available , since i t ha d been argued b y Ze n o (frr. 1
and 2 ; vol . 11, 391, n . 2 ) , a n d accord ing t o a fragmentary part o f MXG
(979 b 36) Go rg ia s seems t o have referred t o this. N o r c a n i t b e m a n y,
fo r a plurali ty is c o m p o s e d o f ones , so i f the one does n o t exist,
neither can the many.
Neither d o both exis t . 1 This would seem fa i r ly obvious b y n o w ,
but Gorgias is e n j o y i n g h i s game wi th Parmenides . Al though he has
already shown that ( a ) w h a t i s not and (p) w h a t i s do not exist, h e
n o w ' p roves ' tha t bo th d o n o t exist together. I f both exist , they
are identical so far as existence is c o n c e r n e d ; a n d since what i s n o t
d o c s n o t exist, a n d w h a t is is identical with i t , w h a t is w i l l n o t exist
either.*
In proving h i s second a n d th ird hypothes es , Gor gi as goe s be yo nd
the Eleatics, and h is arguments are perhaps more interesting.
(6) If anything exists it cannot be known or thought of by man. W e
certainly think o f things that d o n o t exist , e .g . chariots c ross ing the sea1 It wa n of course Leucippus and Democritus w h o , trapped in the net of Parmenidean l a n -
gungc, »uid that both being a n d non-being existed, meaning b y these terms solid body a n d void
( v o l . II , 391). Gorgia s m a y have h a d them in mind, but the nature of his 'proofs ' shows that theK I M I I C Hmo hie main target all the time. Cf. Mondolfo, Problem, 180, quoted b y Untersteiner,
Λ ιι/Λ ι. ι A H ,11. 32.' l lulcmtcincr, Sophs. 146, interprets th us : ' T h e attribution of existence to both Being a n d
Nnt-liplng lends to their identification " s o far as existence i s concerned": therefore Being merges
l u l u that cxlntcncc of Not-being which i s Non-ex iste nce; Being therefore, like No t-being,Will mil cxliit.' This is probably the best that can be done. It is all , of course, en gag ing nonsense.
Tlim wlmt la not docs not exist i s said in Sextus 's summary to be ό μ ό λ ο ν ο ν ( admitted, o r com
mon μ κ mi ni ) mi d would seem to follow from the expression itself, though this has no t prevented
( u ' l y l M Iti>m ' p r o v i n g ' it curlier.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 210/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
198
and flying m e n , 1 a n d a c c o r d i n g to Sextus Gorgias s tated and defended
the converse, that , i f th ings thought are no t existent, then the existent
is n o t t hough t . H e m a y have been parodying someone w h o w a s
gu i l t y o f this, b u t more p robab ly h i s argument was that , i f our t h o u g h t
o f someth ing i s no t sufficient t o p r o v e i ts exist ence, then, ev en i f w e
think o f something real , w e h a v e n o means o f dis t inguish ing i t f rom
the unreal . 2 G o r g i a s has indeed ' abol i shed the c r i t e r ion ' . MXG (980a
9 ff.), i f i ts corruptions are sui tably emended, g i v e s a better sequence o f
t hough t . I f e v e r y t h i n g that can be t hough t o f exists (as Parmenides
had repeatedly said, f r r. 2 . 7 ; 3 ; 6 . 1 ) , then noth ing is un t rue , e v e n
the statement that chariots cross the sea. [This w e m a y assume to be
absurd.] W e cannot fal l b a c k on the senses, fo r t hey are unrel iable
unless checked b y t hough t , wh ich has already failed u s .(c) Even if it can be apprehended, it cannot be communicated to another.
T h i s thesis rests c h i e f l y o n a point insisted o n b y Gorgias ' s mas ter
Empedoc le s , that each sense has i t s o w n objects an d cannot dist inguish
those o f ano the r (Theophr. De sensuj; v o l . 11, 231) . I f there are t h ings
exist ing outside ourselves, they w i l l b e objects o f sight , hearing, taste
and s o forth. O u r means o f communica t ion i s speech , which i s none
o f these external objects, and is understood different ly. Just as a
co lou r cannot b e heard, o r a melody seen , s o ' s ince what is subsists
external ly, i t canno t become o u r speech, and without becoming speech
it cannot b e communica t ed t o another ' (Sext . Math. 7 . 8 4 ; that c o g
nition ca n o n l y b e du e to th e interact ion o f similars is ano the r Empedo-
clean doct r ine , vol . 11, 229) . ' Sight does n o t dist inguish sounds, n o r
hea r ing co lou r ; a n d w h a t a man speaks is speech, neither a co lou r n o r
an objec t ' (MXG 980b 1 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o MXG 98ob9ff. G o r g i a s
added that the hearer cannot have in his mind t h e same thing as the
1 That Gorgias had the ά π α τ ηof t ragedy in mind i s probable. Cf. fr. 23. (Gercke, followedby Untersteiner, restored ά π α τ α ν ί ο Γά π α ν τ αat MXG 98039.) Untersteiner (Sophs. 1 7 1 , n . 7 1 )mentions the Oceanides of Aeschylus crossing the sea in winged chariots π τ ε ρ ύ γ ω νθ ο α ίςά μ ί λ λ α ι ς(P.V. 1 2 9 ; MXG 980 a 12 ha s ά μ ι λ λ α σ θ α ιά ρ μ α τ α )a n d Bellerophon in Euripides.( W h y no t Daedalu s? Sophocles wrote a p l a y of that name, a n d after all it was Pegasus w h o flew,not Bellerophon except per accidens.)
1 S o A d . L e v i ; se e Untersteiner, Sophs. T h e probabil i ty i s strengthened b y P.H. 2.64,where in close proximity to a mention of Gorgias, a n d possibly s t i l l dependent on him, Sextus
s a y s : ε ! δ έ τ ι σ ί ν[sc. α ί σ θ ή σ ε σ ικ α ΐδ ι α ν ο ΐ α ι ; κ ρ ι ν ο ΰ σ ιτ ά π ρ ά γ μ α τ α ] ,π ώ ςκ ρ ι ν ο ΰ σ ι νά τ ιτ α ϊ σ δ εμ ίν
τ α ΐςα ί σ θ ή σ ε σ ικ α ΐ ( τ η δ ε )τ η δ ι α ν ο ία π ρ ο σ έ χ ε ι ν δ ε ι, τ α ΐσ δ εδ ' ο Ο ,μ ή έ χ ο ν τ ε ς κ ρ ιτ ή ρ ιο ν ό μ ο λ ο γ ο ϋ μ ε ν ο νδ ι ' ο ΰ τ ά ςδ ια φ ο ρ ά ς α Ι σ θ ή σ ε ιςτ ε κ α ΐδ ι α ν ο ία ςέ π ι κ ρ ι ν ο ΰ σ ι ν;
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 211/357
Gorgias on the Non-Existent
1 9 9
e p e a k e r, f o r t h e s a m e t h i n g c a n n o t , w i t h o u t l o s i n g i t s i d e n t i t y, b e
p re sen t i n m or e pe op le t h a n o n e . E v e n i f i t c o u l d , i t n e e d n o t appear
the same to th em bo th , s ince th ey ar e d i fferen t f rom o n e an ot he r an d in
d if fe re n t p l a c e s . E v e n t h e s a m e m a n d o e s n o t a p p r e h e n d t h i n g s s i m i l a r l y
at di fferen t t im es , o r a s pres ente d b y d i ffe ren t s e n s e s .Fina l l y o n e m a y q u o t e a p r e g n a n t s a y i n g o f G o r g i a s , a p p r o p r i a t e l y
cal led b y U n t e r st e in e r ' G o r g i a s o n t h e t r a g e d y o f k n o w l e d g e ' . I t h a s
c o m e d o w n t o u s w i t h o u t c o n t e x t o r a n y i n d i c a t i o n o f i ts p l a c e i n
h i s w o r k s :
F.xistence i s u n k n o w n u n l e s s i t acqu i re appearance , a n d a p p e a r a n c e i s f eeb le
u n l e s s it acqu i re ex i s t ence . 1
N O T i i . F r o m t h e a rg u m e n t s u s e d b y G o r g i a s i t s h o u l d b e c lea r t h a t t h e
main we igh t o f h i s i r o n y fell u p o n t h e E l e a t i c s , a n d i n par t i cu la r o n P a r m e
nides , though t h e thes is i t se l f i s eq ua l l y co ge nt agains t a l l t h o s e P r e s o c r a t i c s
w h o h u d pos i t ed t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a non-sens ib le r ea l i ty ( o r r ea l i t i e s ) beh ind
t h e c h a n g i n g p a n o r a m a o f t h e s e n s i b l e w o r l d . ( S e e G . R e n s i , Fig. di fibs.
99, η . i , q u o t e d b y U n t e r s t e i n e r, Sof. n , 36.) T h i s w a s i n essent ia ls t h e v i e w
• i f <!rote ( / / i f f . i888ed. v o l . v n , 51 f .) . Gor g i as , sa id Gro te , is u s i n g t h e w o r d
Ί ο h e ' in t h e Elea t i c sense , accord ing t o w h i c h i t d i d n o t a p p l y t o p h e n omena b u t o n l y t o u l t r a - p h e n o m e n a l ( n o u m e n a l ) e x i s t e n c e . ' H e d e n i e d
t h a t a n y s u c h u l t r a - p h a e n o m e n a l S o m e t h i n g , or N o u m e n o n , e x i s t e d , o r
c o u l d be k n o w n , o r c o u l d b e d e s c r i b e d . O f th is t r i p a r t i t e thes is , t h e first
nega t ion w a s ne i the r more un tenab le n o r less untenable than tha t o f t h o s e
ph i losophers w h o b e f o r e h i m h a d a rg u e d f o r t h e a f f i r m a t i v e : on the last
two points h i s conc lus ion s we re ne i the r pa radox ica l , n o r scep t i ca l , b u t
per fec t ly jus t , a n d have been ratif ied b y t h e g r a d u a l a b a n d o n m e n t , e i t h e r
a v o w e d o r impl ied , o f su ch u l t r a -phaen omena l r e sea rches am o n g t h e m a j o r
pari o f p h i l o s o p h e r s . '
( ί η H e ' s v i e w h a s been cr i t ic ized b y several la ter scholars , e .g . b y A . C h i a p -
p e l l l , 01 1 t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n n o u m e n a l a n d p h e n o m e n a l
it fo re ign to al l G r e e k t h o u g h t b e f o r e P l a t o . I t m a y h a v e b e e n P l a t o w h o
flf*l fo rmula ted it e x p l i c i t l y i n t h o s e o r s imilar terms, b u t t h e c o n t r a s t b e
t w e e n appearance a n d (non-sens ib le ) r ea l i ty is a l e i t m o t i v o f P r e s o c r a t i c
ΐ ΐί ο ι ιμ ί ιι , a n d t h e whole bas i s o f t h e presen t accoun t o f t h e S o p h i s t s a n d
t he i r con tempora r i e s i s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f thei r re la t ions w a s a t t h e
' I 1. j n (I'rniii I'mcliis on Hcsiod's Erga 758) Ι λ ε γ ε δ έ τ ό μ έ νε ίν α ι « φ α ν έ ;μ ή τ υ χ ό ντ ο ΟSeliflf, ιΛ Η ί ίπ κ ιΐν ά σ Ο ιν έ ς μ ή τ υ χ ό ν τ ο ΰ ε ί ν α ι . T h e implication n o doubt w a s thatf t l . h ' i i . Γ i t i ink i i i iwi i l i l r, and appearance non-existent, and the Greek would bear th e translation' t a t i i M i i n ' Is* i i n k i i o w. i b l e y u r it does no t acquire appearance', e tc .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 212/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
200
centre of fifth-century ph ilosoph ical con tro ver sy. (Cf. p. 4.) Fo r Heraclitus
e y e s and ears were unt rus tworth y unless the mind could interpret their
message and discover the underlying truth. Parmenides made the distinction
clearly, saying that only the objects of nous existed and the phenomenal
world was illusion. Democritean atomism also taught the doctrine of a
reality behind appearances, a noumenal (the object of'legitimate' as opposed
to 'b as ta rd ' c ogn iti on) behind the phenomenal. (F or the relation of this to
Pla to' s phi losop hy see vo l . 11, 462.) Th is was the leg acy whic h the Sophi sts
inherited and made the most of for their own purposes. Zeller also criticized
Grote (ZN, 1367, n. 2), saying that even the Eleatics themselves did not dis
tinguish appearance from what lay behind appearance, but only the truev i e w o f things from the false. In fact, ho we ve r, Parmeni des distingui shed
τ ό ov —w ha t exists or is real (or if w e f o l l o w Kahn, p. 190 above, what
is the case)—from τ ά δ ο κ ο ΰ ν τ α , what appears but does not exist , which iswhat Grote said he did.
(4) O T H E R V I E W S : S C E P T I C I S M E X T R E M E A N D M O D E R A T E
A cer ta in Xeniades of Cor in th , whom we know only f rom a br ief
reference in Sextus, 1 also ad op te d an extr eme sceptic ism at ab ou t this
t ime. Ac co rd i ng to Sextus 'h e said that everything was false, that
e v e r y impression and opinion is false, and that eve ry th ing which comes
to be comes to be from what is not and everything which is destroyed
is dest roy ed into wh at is no t ' . Wh a t argu ments , i f any , he used t o
supp ort this thesis w e do no t k n o w , and his assertion is wo r t h qu ot in g
si mp ly as ano the r ex am pl e o f the disr eput e into w h i c h the rival the ori es
o f the natural philo sopher s and especial ly the lo gi c o f Parme nide s
had br ou gh t the wh ol e subject of the nature o f reality and the pos si
bili ty o f ch an ge . It wa s Par men ide s w h o exp res sly attack ed the idea
that an yt hi ng cou ld co me into bein g from wh at is not (fr. 8. 6ff . ) ,
but the wh ol e o f Presocrat ic phi lo so ph y and indeed all Gr ee k thi nki ng
up to now had been based on the unquestioned assumption that ex
nihilo nihil fit. 7,
1 Math. 7 .5 3. Mentions of him in §388 and P.H. 2 .76 add noth ing. T he only indica tion ofhi s date is that accor ding to Sext us he was old eno ugh to have been mention ed b y Democ rit us.
On Xeniades in the context of his time see now Lloyd, Pol. & Anal. 11 3, and in general vonFritz in RE, 2. Reihe, x v m . Halbb. ( 1 9 6 7 ) , i438f., who has mis gi vi ngs about the trust worthin ess
of Sextus's report .
* For the Parmenidean thesis ο ύ δ ' ε ί ν α ιπ ο λ λ άά λ λ άμ ό ν ο ν α υ τ ό τ ό ό ν a s the l og ic al co nc lu si on
of archaic thought based on die principle ίκ μ η O V T O Sο υ δ έ ν ά νγ ε ν έ σ θ α ιsee Ar. Phys. 19 1a 23 33.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 213/357
Xeniades and Cratylus
Cra ty lus , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Socrates (Plato, Crat. 429 c!,
4 4 0d), carried t o extremes t h e Heraclitean doctrine o f the flux o r i m -
pcrmanence o f e v e r y t h i n g in the sensible world. Aristot le, discussing
In his Metaphysics t h e sceptical doctrines that every statement i s b o t h
true a n d false, o r al ternat ive ly that n o t rue statement c a n b e made,
attributes them t o a be l i e f that there i s n o existence outside t h e sensible
world, in w h i c h ( i ) contraries emerge from t h e same thing, a n d (i i )
every thing is constant ly mo vi ng and chan gi ng. 1 T h e la tter o bservat ion ,
he goes o n ( i o i o a i o ) , b l o s s o m e d i n t o t h e most extreme o f these
doctrines, that o f the ' Heracl i t izers ' a n d Cr at yl us , w h o finally deci ded
that he o u g h t t o say n o t h i n g at a l l , b ut o n l y m o v e d h i s finger, a n d
criticized Heraclitus fo r s a y i n g that o n e cannot step tw ic e int o t h esame r iver on the g r o u n d that o n e cou ld n o t d o s o even once . H e
evident ly thought ( a s one would expect from what i s pu t i n to h i s
mouth in Plato ' s Cratylus) that t o ut ter a n y statement is to c o m m i t
oneself to the affirmation that someth ing is. 2
In the fifth-century co n t r ov e r s y ab ou t nomos and physis, i t h a s n o w
become clear that two posit ions must be dist inguished among those who
were sufficiently serious philosophers t o t rouble about t h e o n t o l o g i c a land cpi ste molo gic al impl icat ions o f their v i e w s . ( T h i s d i d n o t inc lude
all the controversial is ts , fo r the arg umen t i tself arose in the con tex t
of practical human action a n d was used primari ly t o advoca te a certain
attitude to l a w a n d mora l i ty. ) I t w a s poss ib le t o th ink that l a w a n d
Ciutom, and with them t h e total i ty o f sense-impressions, were to be
contrasted as mutable a n d relat ive with a nature w h i c h w a s stable,
permanent a n d knowable , oppos ing l ike Democr i tus wha t w a s ' b ynomos' to what w a s ' i n rea l i ty ' . I t m a y b e that ' w e r ea l ly know
nothing, for t ru th is in the d e p t h s ' ( D e m o c r. fr . 117) , b u t there t h e
t r u t h is, if we can dive deep enough t o find i t . A l t e r n a t i v e l y i t was held
1 I'tir (Iicm characteristics o f the sensible world cf. espec i a l l y Me l i s sus ,fr . 8 . 3 : ' I t appears totW tllttt hot becomes cold an d cold hot , hard becomes soft a n d soft hard, t h e l i v i n g d i e s , and i sBurn out o f the non-living; that all these things change, an d what was a n d what i s n o w are i nHn wny «III"·: iron which i s hard i s worn a w a y b y contact with th e finger, as ar e go ld an d sto ne
glltl livery other tough-seeming substance, while out of water come earth a n d stone. It follows
tllMl w« do not nee or recognize what i s rea l ( τ ά δ ν τ α ) . ' See vol . 1 1 , 1 0 5 , a n dMorrison in Phronesis,
Ι »Λ », | « .
' (Vi i i . ^ jyd . (P re sumab ly he did not carry consistency so far as to deny himself speech ini ikI i I i iu 11 ic ci ilic ism o f Heracl itus. ) This argu ment is attributed exp l i c i t l y to Ant i s thenes ;
< W ( i . i i u U c l o w.
201
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 214/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
202
that there wa s no obj ect ive and perma nent reality beh ind appearan ces
and therefore, since these were purely subjective, no possibility of
scienti fic kn ow le dg e. N o natura l phil osoph er bel i eved this , but sophists
seized on the inconsistencies between their accounts as evidence that
they were not to be t rus ted . ( C f . G o rg i a s , Hel. 13, p . 51 ab ov e .) It w a s
these sceptics w h o m Aris tot le cr i t icized for ma ki ng ev er y statement
t rue and false, or t rue statements impossib le, and they inc luded
Pro tag ora s and G or gi as . I t has bee n claimed that Ant iphon was a l so
o f the i r number. 1 The evidence is scanty and dubious, but so far as it
exists it points to a different conclusion. It is confined to fr. 1, a
passa ge in Ga le n wh i c h exists on ly in a co rru pt for m and has be en
v a r i o u s l y res tored . 2 T h e most thor ou gh examinat ion , wi t h the m ost
c o n v i n c i n g result, is that of Morrison.3 Galen first says (Critias
fr. 40, p. 302 b e l o w ) that Crit ia s in the second b o o k o f his homi lies
frequently opposes the mind to the senses, then adds that A n t i p h o n
does the same in the first book o f his Truth. The re fo l lows the quota t i on ,
w h i c h therefore, whatever its precise import, must express a contrast
be tw ee n th ou ght and sense. In Morris on' s t ranslat ion i t ru ns : ' W h e n
a man says a single thing there is no cor res pon din g single mean in g
(ν ο υ ς ) , no r is the subject o f his spee ch an y sing le th ing either o f th ose
thi ngs wh i c h the mos t po we rf ul beh old er sees wi th his sight or o f
those things which the most powerful knower knows with his mind. ' -*
N o readi ng or interpretat ion can put the mea nin g com ple tel y be yo nd
1 So Schmid, Gesch. 1 . 3 . 1 , 16 0: 'Ant iph on j oins in the epist emolog ical scepticism of Pro tagoras and Gorgi as, in that he also contests the po ssib ilit y of real kn owl edg e and confines himselfwithin the l imi ts of δ ό ξ α . With in th is f ramework he d is t inguishes two l e v e l s of cognit ion: ahigher one through the mind ( γ ν ώ μ η )and a lowe r one thro ugh the senses, wh ic h in his vi ew as in
that of the Eleatics and the atomist s cannot communi cate any valua ble cogni tion .' Yet everyother con tempo rary t hinker who dist ingui shed between mental and sensual perception associatedthe one wi th real kn ow le dg e and the other wit h δ ό ξ α , and so far as I can see Sch mid produces noevidence at all for the surpri sing idea that Antip hon, th oug h he accepted both modes of cogn ition, saw the functions of both a l i k e as confined wi th in the limi ts of δ ό ξ α .
1 In Hipp. De meet. off. x v i i i B., 656 K. Besides the attempts gi ven by DK in their appara tus,that of H. Gomperz (S. u. R. 67) and the interpretation of Untersteiner, who accepts Bignone'stext (Sophs. 235 and 258), may be noted. Cf. also Stenzel in RE, suppl . I V , 37 .
3 Phronesis, 1963, 36ff. His text of the fr. i tself is as fol lows : ε ν τ ω [or better τ ο ι] λ έ γ ο ν τ ιο υ δ έγ ε ν ο υ ς ε ϊς ,2ν τ ε ο υ δ έ να ύ τ φο ύ τ εώ ν δ ψ ε ιό ρ ς ί(ύ ό ρ ω ) νμ α κ ρ ό τ α τ αο ύ τ εώ ν γ ν ώ μ ηγ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ε ιύμ α κ ρ ό τ α τ αγ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ω ν .
4 L i t e r a l l y ' the man who sees far thes t' (or most deeply, μ α κ ρ ό τ α τ α ) wi th h is s ight and ' t inman who has the deepest insight (or power of recognition, γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ω ν )with his mind ( γ ν ώ μ η ) . 'I have altered Morri son's 's ee r' to 'be ho ld er' to avo id the former's mis leadi ng associations withprophecy.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 215/357
Antiphon
doub t , but An t i ph on seems to be cr i t ic iz ing the am big ui ty of lan gua ge
und the shi f t ing mean ing o f wo rd s , wh ic h renders them incapable of
expressing real i ty, with the implicat ion that such a cons tant real i ty
does exist . E v e n ph en om en a, i f the senses are ke en eno ug h, can b e
'a s ight of the un se en ' , as An ax ag or as and D em oc r i tu s he ld (v ol . n ,
459), though both were emphat ic in contras t ing the powers of sense
and intellect and insis tin g on an uns ee n reality be hi nd the per ce pti ble
flux o f be co mi ng . (I t w as o f cours e an aspect of phys ica l b o d y no less
than the phenomena, not a noumenon in the Pla tonic or Ar is to te l ian
sense . ) They would agree wi th Heracl i tus that the senses delude unless
subjec t to an unde rs ta ndin g mind . An t i ph on seems to hav e fo l l ow ed
them rather than the Eleatics w h o denie d that the senses could assist
in any wa y wha t so eve r towa rds the apprehens ion o f ' w h a t i s ' .
I t is in keeping with this that A n t i p h o n , u n l i ke G o r g i a s w h o t h r e w
do ub t o n all the theo ries o f the physici al ike , mad e his o w n s t ud y o f
the natural world , which took up a la rge p a r t o f the sec ond bo o k of h is
Truth. T h e f ragments sh ow him speak ing in t radi t ional Presoc ra t ic
style of co sm og on y ( the ' o rd e r in g ' o f the wo r l d ) and o f the cosmic
whir l , of the na ture o f the sun and m o on , ecl ipses, hai l , ear thq uake s
and the sea, and o f bi ol og ic al mat ter s . 1 The con t ras t be tween na tura l
and artificial he illustr ated, in a pa ss ag e criti cize d b y Ar is to tl e, b y
say ing that i f one we re to bu ry a w o o d e n bed and the ro t t in g w o o d
sent out a shoo t , wha t came up wo u l d be s imply w o o d , not anothe r
b e d . 1 N o r doe s fr. 1, as here in terp rete d, confl ict w i t h the ethi cal v i e w s
expounded in the papyrus fragments of Truth, where the real i ty and
Inevitabil i ty of na ture are opposed to the artificiality of nomos as t r u th
to appearance, and nomos is s t ig mati zed as a shackl e im po se d on nature.3
' l-'rr. 13 -3 6 (fr. 15 , on the or igi n of l ife from put refy ing matter, is referred to bo ok 1 ). No t
llliil lit* recorded observations on these topics show any or ig ina l i ty. So far as the sca nty fragm entsg o , they seem to be a ho tchpo tch of Presocratic i d e a s , going back to Heracli tus and Empedocles,mill common to Anaxago ras and Diogene s of Apollonia . On the influence of Ana xag ora srl', Mmnlgliano in Riv. di Filol. 1930, i34f., and for a summary Freeman, Comp. 395f.
' Ar . I'hys. 1 9 3 3 9 , cited also more briefly by Harpoc ratio n. See fr. 15 in DK. On Ari sto tle 'sr i l l i r lmu ol Antiphon here see Guth rie in CQ, 1946.
1 hi . 44 Λ , pp . toSf. above. For a fuller discussion of the bearing of these fragments on Anti-
plion'* oiiiologicnl v i e w s , and their relation to the use of langu age , see Mor ris on' s valuab lemih In In 1'hnmes 'is, 19Λ 3. Of Antiphon' s remar ks in fr. 44 Β (Oxy. Pap. 1797, p . n o above ,
dliniit l l i r inconsistency of applying the name 'justice' to the bearing of true witness ) , Morrison
•ityn (p . 44) : 'This a rgument , aga in , tends to the rejection of common name s, wh ic h have no
•Ι ι ιμ Ι ι ' meanin g, anil adop ting instead concepts whic h aie based on nature . '
2 0 J
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 216/357
(5) L A N G U A G E A N D I T S O B J E C T S
N o doubt Ant iphon was n o t a profound phi losopher, b u t o n e m a y
regret t h e scantiness o f our knowledge o f him because what w e have
g i v e s u s o n e brief gl impse o f a much-debated theme: t h e relat ion o f
l anguage to i t s subject-matter. H i s reference t o t he equ ivoca l u s e o f
w o r d s i n Galen's quotation is obvious ly d i sapprov ing , a n d i n another
place Galen, comment ing o n the fact t h a t ' each one of those con cer ned
w i t h logoi th inks fit to coin new names' , adds that this i s made suff ic i -
entlyjplainJby Antiphon, 'who teaches how they ought t o b e m a d e ' . 1
Presumably his teaching was that they should b e made to fit th e c o n
cepts which they were intended t o express. T h e p r o b l e m o f t h e
correctness o f w o r d s o r names (ό ρ θ ό τ η ς ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ) aroused
widespread interest a t this time, a n d Morrison h a s clear ly shown t h eimportance o f this debate ' i n t h e wider inves t igat ion o f the problem
o f h o w δ ν τ α ( ex i st i ng t h in g s) ar e t o b e k n o w n ' (Joe. cit. 49) . Ant iphon 's
posi t ion i n this debate was perhaps n o t f ar f rom that taken u p b y h i s
sparring-partner Socrates, a t least with reference t o moral terms: o n
the meaning o f ' j u s t ' a n d ' g o o d ' w e disagree with each other a n d
e v e n with ourselves, and this i s a state of things that calls for r em ed y. 2
Morr i son (loc. cit. 42 f.) g i v e s good reasons f o r suppos ing that e v e n
the method b y w h i c h , i n Plato, Socrates proposes t o rectify it , namely
' divis ion according t o natural k in ds ' (κ α τ ' ε ϊδ η δ ια τ έ μ ν ε ιν fj τ τ έ φ υ κ ε ν ,
Phaedr. 265 e, cf. Rep. 454a), was not invented b y Plato but current i n
the fifth century. H e cites t h e Clouds o f Aristophanes (740 £), and t h e
Hippocrat ic De arte 2 (quoted b y D K after fr. 1 o f A n t i p h o n ) . T h e r e
the writer says that the arts, o r sciences (technai, p . 115, n.- 3, a b o v e ) ,
take their terminology from th e k in ds (ε ΐδ ε α ), n o t vice versa, f o rw o r d s are an attempt t o impose legislation o n nature (ν ο μ ο θ ε τ ή μ α τ α
φ ύ σ ε ω ς ) , whereas the k inds are no t conven t iona l ly imposed bu t natural
g r o w t h s ( β λ α σ τ ή μ α τ α ) . O n e i s reminded also o f Antiphon 's contras t
b e t w e e n nature as a matt er o f gr owt h and l a w as conv enti onal agreement.3
1 Galen, Gloss. Hipp, prooem. v , 706 Β . , X I X ,66 , 7 K., quoted by Morrison, Proc. Camb. Philol.
Soc. 1 9 6 1 , 4 9 . ο ί π ε ρ ί λ ό γ ο υ ς έ χ ο ν τ ε ςsounds v e r y g e n e r a l , b u t λ ό γ ω ν τ έ χ ν η r e f e r r e d p a r t i c u l a r l y
to rhetoric (pp. I77f. above) . 2 Plato, Phaedrus 263a; see p . 165 above.
3 Fr. 44 A , D K 1 1 , 3 4 7 : τ ά τ η ; φ ύ σ ε ω ς φ ύ ν τ α ο ύ χ ό μ ο λ ο γ η θ ε ν τ α . S e e p . ι ο 8 a b o v e . O n
th e De arte passage Heinimann, N. u. Ph. 1 5 7 ; an d cf. Nat. horn. 5 (ibid. p . 159) . Also relevant
is Xen. Mem. 4 . 5 . 1 1 - 1 2 (Socrates, p p . 119 f .) .
204
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 217/357
orrec ness o anguage
Inst ructi on i n ' t he correc tness o f na me s' is ascribe d b y Pla to t o
Protagoras, Prodicus, and the Sophists in general . 1 It is sometimes
take n to mean s im pl y the corre ct, or effective, use of la ngu ag e as we
sh ou ld understa nd it , and we ma y be sure that for mos t o f the S ophi sts ,
as teachers o f rhet oric , it incl uded that . But Pla to ' s Cratylus s h o w s
that the que st io n at issue wa s wh et he r the nam es o f thi ngs had an
inher ent, or natural, fitness or wer e me re ly con ve nt io nal sig ns.
Tw o ^ x p r e s s i o n s have to be considered, orthoepeia, o f wh i c h the nearest
possible translat ion is perhaps 'co rr ect di ct i on \ and ' the correctness
o f names^ Jop0oxrjs ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ) . B o t h h av e b ee n t ho ug ht t o b e the
titles o f b o o k s b y Pro ta go ra s, bu t this is at least uncertain.* T h e y d o
not necessarily mean the same. Onoma is a single word, a name or a
n o u n . Epos ma y mea n a wo r d, sa yi ng or speech, but w a s also a current
term for po et ry (not on ly ep ic ); and Fe hl in g has dr aw n attenti on to
the significance of Prot. 338 eff . , where Protagoras claims that an
edu ca te d man o ug ht to be skill ed in this subj ect so as to und ers tan d
wh en a poet is co mp os in g corr ect ly and wh e n not ,3 and challenges
Socrates to in terpret a poem of Simonides. Moreover in his grammatical
pr on ou nc em en ts the target o f his cri tic ism is the Iliad. (See pp . 220
and 221, n. 2, below.) Fehling concludes that he had no systematic
pr og ra mm e t o offer, but s ugg est ion s for the right use o f la ngu age set
in the fra mewo rk o f a cri t icism o f poe tr y. T ha t orthoepeia had this
reference is indicate d by the title o f De mo cr it us 's wo r k ' O n Ho me r,
orthoepeia and unusual wo r ds ' , f rom wh ic h a com men t on Homer ic
1 Protagoras, Crat. 391c; Prodicus , Crat. 384b, Euthyd. 2 7 7 ε ; the Sophists, Crat. 3 9 1 b .
' At Phaedr. 267 c P la to in t roduces ό ρ θ ο έ π ε ια in connexion wi th Pro tagoras , and Hackfor th
translates it as the tide of a book. Murray (Gk. Stud. 176) assumed that π . ό ρ θ . ό ν ο μ . was an
alte rnat ive title for it, pre sum abl y (tho ugh he gave no reference) on the streng th of Crat. 3 9 1 c ,
where Hermoge nes is recommend ed to ask his brother τ η ν ο ρ θ ό τ η τ α π ε ρ ί τ ω ντ ο ι ο ύ τ ω ν|.ιι·. the nature of names] ή ν έ μ α θ ε π α ρ ά Π ρ ω τ α γ ό ρ ο υ ; Classen on the other hand (P. Afr. C.S.
" M 9 » 34^) thinks ό ρ θ ο έ τ τ ε ια was no more than a slogan or catchword, but i t is at least vouched
lor as a title amon g the wor ks of Democ rit us (fr. 20a, from a sch oli um on Dion . Thrac ) , t hough
not among Prota goras 's as listed by D.L. (9 .5 5) . Act ual ly the repl y of Hermo genes at Crat.
1·;ιι· shows cl early eno ugh that whatever Protagoras wrote on the subject occurred in the
Α λ ή θ ε ι α .
P r od ic us i s u s ua l ly c on ne ct ed w i t h ό ρ θ ό τ η ; ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν , b ut a l at e w ri t er ( T he m is t iu s , Or. 23 ,
p. 150 Dindorf) s a y s that h e t au gh t ό ρ θ ο έ τ τ ε ι α a nd ό ρ θ ο ρ ρ η μ ο σ ύ ν η . T h e c at ch-p hr as e i s b ro ug ht
in b y A ri st op ha ne s i n c on ne xi on w i th E ur ip id es ( τ η ; ό ρ θ ό τ η τ ο ; τ ω ν έ π ω ν ,Progs 1 1 8 1 ) .1 ι π ρ ίέ π ω νδ ε ι ν ό νε ίν α ι· ε Ό τ ι δ έ τ ο ΰ τ ο τ ά ΰ τ τ ό τ ώ νπ ο ι η τ ώ νλ ε γ ό μ ε ν α ο ΐό ν τ 'ε ίν α ι σ υ ν ι έ ν α ι ,
Λ Μ Α ρ Ο ώ ξ π ε π ο ί η τ α ι κ α ΐ ά μ ή . T he association of the wo rd s έ π η and ά ρ θ ώ ζ s ur ely i s s ugg es ti ve .
S e e I chliiig in Rh. Mus. 1965, 213.
205
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 218/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
206
v o c a b u l a r y has su rv ived . 1 Li ke the stu dy o f the 'corr ect nes s of na me s'
i t probably included speculat ion on the natura l fitness of na me s to
wh at the y signif ied, for Socrates introd uces H om e r as an auth ori t y on
the latter subje ct, ci ti ng first o f all his pra cti ce o f me nt io ni ng t w o na me s
for a thi ng, on e used by men and the other b y the g o d s : ' ob vi ou sl y
the g o d s mus t call them b y the names wh ic h r ig htl y and natural l ybe long to them ' (Crat. 391 d).
'C or re ct ne ss of na me s' is the subject o f the Cratylus, which d i s
cusses two opposing v i e w s .
1. The fact that a gr ou p o f me n hav e agre ed wh at th ey w i l l call a
thing does not make that i ts na me : indeed a w o r d wh ic h has no further
wa rr an ty is no t a name at al l . B el on gi ng to each thi ng is one natura l
and pr op er na me , the same for Gr ee ks and forei gne rs alike . It mus t be
supposed to have been bestowed by an original name-giver or l e g i s
lator w h o had com ple te insig ht into the na ture o f the thi ng itself,
doub tles s as a result o f supe rhuma n p o we r s. 2
2 . T o this thes is o f Cra ty lu s Her mog en es oppo ses h is o w n that
correct ness o f names is determine d solel y b y co nv en ti on and a gre e
men t, and differs for different peo pl e. A s k e d for his o w n op in io n,
Socra tes at first sup por ts Cr at yl us . T o maintain the co mp le te ly arbit rary
character o f names leads ine vita bly to accept ing the Prot ago rea n thesis
that there is n o obj ect ive reality bu t th ing s to o are different for e ach
individual, or else that o f E u t h y d e m u s that all things possess all
at t r ibutes to get her and al l the t ime. Th is the y agree is wr o ng . Pu tt in g
it in his o w n teleolo gica l terms, Socrates argu es that ac tio ns (τ τ ρ ά ξ ε ις )
l i k e t h ings ( π ρ ά γ μ α τ α ) h av e a fixed nature and must be perfo rmed wi th
the prope r instrument , as cutt ing wit h a knife. Th i s includes spee ch,
w h o s e i n st r um e nt s , n a m e l y w o r d s o r n a me s ( ο ν ό μ α τ α ) , h a v e t he f un c -1 He approved the use of ά λ λ ο φ ρ ο ν ε Τ νas a ter m for mental de rang ement . See vol . n, 45 2, n. 1.
Th at t his occur red in the above -ment ioned wo rk is not exp res sly stated, but it seems the ob vio us
p l ace .1 ν ο μ ο θ έ τ η ς , 429a, ό θ έ μ ε ν ο ;( τ ιθ έ μ ε ν ο ; )τ ά ο ν ό μ α τ α , 436b—c, 438a . Hen ce a s F eh li ng ha s
pointed out (Rh. Mus. 1965, 2i 8f f. ), the later contrast bet wee n a φ ύ σ ε ιand a θ έ σ ε ιtheory of
names is not appr opri ate at this date. (Perh aps one should not ove rl ook the attribution of it to
Democritus by Proclus, in Democr. fr. 26, but in all prob abi lit y Pro clu s is impo rti ng the cate
gories of his own time. See Momigliano, Atti Torino, 1929—30, 95 f.) Th e oppos iti on is bet wee n
θ έ σ ι ς ( κ α τ άφ ύ σ ι ν )by a single, mythical divine or heroic ε ύ ρ ε τ ή ς and the collect ive action
(ο μ ο λ ο γ ί αor σ υ ν θ ή κ η )of an ev olv ing socie ty. (F or the place of speech in evol uti ona ry theori esof society cf. D i o d . p. 81 above, and Soph . Ant. p. 80; and for the divine teacher Eur. Suppl.
p. So.)
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 219/357
Correctness of Names; the ' Cratylus'
t ion o f teach ing abo ut , and di st in guis hing , the essences o f real things .
T h e y are g iven by nomos, and hence by a legislator or word-maker
w h o (on the an al og y o f other crafts , e .g . a shutt le -maker w h o su b
serv es the w o r k o f the we av er ) must pr od uce the name natural ly
fitted for i ts object , w o r k i n g unde r the dire ct ion o f the ski l led user, tha t
i s , the dialec tician, or expert at dis cu ssi on.In wh at , then, d oes the correctness o f name s consis t? Socrates
disc la ims kn ow le dg e— th is i s the pro vi nce of the Sophis ts and po et s—
b ut is ind uce d to exp ou nd a th eo ry . A name is a vo ca l imita tion o f an
ob je ct —n ot in the cru de sense in w hi c h one imitates a c o w b y sayi ng
' m o o ' , b u t c o n v e y i n g t he na tu re o f the th in g, as, i f w e had no t speec h,
w e migh t convey the na tu re of heav iness b y a do wn wa rd mov emen t o f
the hand. Words being compound or s imple, this applies most direct lyto the sim ple, and still mo re dir ec tly to the letters and syllab les o f
w h i c h the y are co mp os ed . The se are l ik e the pi gm en ts wh ic h the painter
may use ei ther s ingly or in combination to build up his picture. The
for m o f the wo rd w i l l somet imes sh ow it ob vi ou s l y en ou gh , e .g . the
let ter r imi tates mot io n or v io l ent ac t ion , / smo oth ne ss ; but man y
words have become so bat tered and distorted in the course of history
tha t the inten tion o f the origin al nam e- mak er is no lon ge r reco gniz able .
Socra tes then proc eed s to i l lustrate his poi nt b y a series o f et ym ol og ie s
mo st o f wh ic h are ob vi ou sl y fanciful , ma ki ng evid ent his o w n sceptical
a t t i tude towards them by severa l i ronic remarks . 1 He is parodying a
current prac t ice , 2 and ke ep in g his o w n opi ni on to himself .
N a m e s , then, are no t arbi trar y labe ls, bu t a fo rm o f imitat ion o f
their objects . Ne ver the les s ( tur ning to Cr at yl us ) i t must be said tha t ,
as with painters , some w i l l be better imitators than others, and so w i l l
be their products , the names. Cratylus disagrees. Either the names are
right , or the y are no th in g, s im ply un me an in g noises l ike the ba ng in g
o f a gong. (I t is in keeping with this that Cra ty lus avows h imse l f one
o f those who hold that it is impossible to speak falsely.) Socrates
1 E.g. the references to Eu th yph ro at 39<Sd—e, 400a, 407c ! . Under his influence Socrates ha sl>rc <>me possessed, and is uttering his e t y m o l o g i e s under d i v i n e inspiration. He w i i l let it runiniJ.iy, but tomorrow w i l l find someone, 'either a priest or a Sophist', to purge it a w a y . Elsewhere (426b) he describes his e t y m o l o g i c a l g u e s s e s more st raightforw ardly as 'presumpt uous.ind r i d i c u l o u s ' .
' A practice with which Euripides shows h i m s e l f f ami l i a r when his Hecuba connects theΐ 'ρ ιu i n g s y l l a b l e s of 'Aphrod i t e ' w i th α φ ρ ο σ ύ ν η ,' f o l l y ' . (7>o. 989^: no te the i nev i t ab l e ο ρ θ ώ ς .)
2 07
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 220/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
208
counters that an imitation c a n never b e exactly l ike the original in all
respects, o r it w o u l d be t he original , b u t Cr aty lus remains unconv inc ed,
and falls back on the superhuman power o f t h e original inventor o f
n a m e s . 1
These l inguistic theories have an ob vi ou s conn exi on wit h current
theories o f k n o w l e d g e a n d o f reali ty. T h e thesis o f H e r m o g e n e s , that
w o r d s a re o f purely arbitrary a n d convent iona l o r ig in , is agreed i n
the dia logue t o lead to the Protagorean doctr ine that there is n o reali ty
behind appearances. T h e oppos i te v i e w o f Cra ty lus a l lows fo r a reali ty
(physis') t o w h i c h the name is essentially united (383a), so that ' h e
w h o k n o w s th e names knows the th ings a l so ' (43 5 d). False opinion
or statement i s impossible , but for the opposite reason t o that g i v e n
b y Pro tagoras . Whereas h e dissolved reality i n appearance, this more
paradoxical theory (which as we shall see immediate ly w a s that o f
Antis thenes) holds that there is a physis fo r e v e r y t h i n g and no poss i
bi l i ty o f naming o r descr ib ing it w r o n g l y. T o apply to it what others
w o u l d call t he wrong name o r logos is to utter n o name at al l b u t mere ly
unmeaning noises (430a, 438c). Only Socrates puts forward a n e x
planat ion o f language based on the antithesis commonly called
sophis t ic , a n d maintained es pecial ly clea rly b y D e m o c r i t u s a n d
A n t i p h o n , b e t w e e n physis a n d nomos. T h i n g s h a v e a fixed nature, a n d
w o r d s are an attempt t o reproduce that nature t h r o u g h t he m e d i u m o fs o u n d ; b u t such imitation is never perfect, and in some cases very
imperfect, even from th e beginning, besides which t he words have
bec ome cor rup ted th ro ugh use and the passage o f t ime (421 d) . N o r
ar e t he imitations attempted in different parts o f the w o r l d the same.
(The poss ib i l i ty o f a n o n - G r e e k o r i g i n fo r some words i s mentioned
at 409 d - e , 416 a, 425 c ) Further, just as a picture o f Smi th m a y b e
w r o n g l y identified as a picture o f Jones, s o a w o r d t o o m a y b e w r o n g l y
identified with something other than that o f w h i c h it is the image
(430 c ) . O n such a theory i t could w e l l . b e true, as Antiphon said , that
1 Aristotle in the first chapters of De interpr. obviously has his eye on the Cratylus. He sides
with Hermogenes in main ta in ing ( i6a i9 ) that a name i s φ ω ν ήσ η μ α ν τ ιχ ή κ α τ άσ υ ν θ ή κ η νandthat this means ( a2 7) ό τ ι φ ύ σ ε ιτ ώ ν ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ο υ δ έ νέ σ τ ι ν ,ά λ λ 'ό τ α ν γ έ ν η τ α ισ ύ μ β ο λ ο ν .
He distinguishes between inarticulate sounds, common t o ear ly man and animals, which arenatural a n d convey meaning but are not ye t l anguage , and ' names ' which a r e conventional
( a 28, δ η λ ο Ο σ ίγ έ τ ι κ α ί ο ί α γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ο ιψ ό φ ο ι ,ο ί ο ν θ η ρ ί ω ν ,ώ ν ο υ δ έ ν έ σ τ ι ν ό ν ο μ α ) .See onthis L. Amundsen in Symb. Osl. 1966, 11 f.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 221/357
Antisthenes on Names
men usual ly or convent ional ly apply the word ' just ice* to what is not
truly, corr ect ly or natural ly just . Th e end o f the Cratylus affords
ano the r fasci nati ng gl im ps e (cf. p . 187, n. 3, a b ov e ) o f the w a y in wh i c h
Socrates t u rned sophistic arguments to his own purposes. He suddenly
asks Cratylus if , granted t h a t w o r d s are images o f thi ngs, i t is not
better to learn o f the reality w h i c h an im ag e expresses rather than o n l y
o f the im ag e. Cr at yl us ca nno t dis pute this, and Socra tes leads hi m on
from i t to his o w n ' dr e a m' o f absolut e and unc han gi ng forms of
beauty, goodness and the rest, which alone can be said to be real and
k n o w a b l e , an d are diffe rent f rom the ir fleeting re pr esen ta ti ons in a
fair face or a g o o d act ion . Cr a t yl us is still in cl in ed to sti ck to his o w n
Heraclitean position, and the dialogue ends, l ike so many, in an agree
ment to g i v e the matter further th ou gh t. Bu t in a reader 's mi nd the
seed has been sown.
Ant is the nes , a disciple o f Socra tes w h o wa s a m o n g the intimate
circle pres ent at his deat h, sh o w e d his sense o f the im por ta nce o f
language b y en t i t l ing a w o r k O n Educat ion , or on Na me s ' , and
dec lar ing that ' t he foundat ion o f educa t ion is the s t udy o f nam es ' .
C a i z z i says t r ul y: ' T h e pr obl em of the relat ion bet wee n things andnames , or bette r the cl ose co nn ex io n o f the on e wi t h the other, is
fundamental t o Anti s the nes ' s th ou ght and w i l l have important
c o n s e q u e n c e s . ' 1
Unfo rtu nate ly w e are s t il l deal i ng wi th fragmentary quotat ions,
and it is difficult to be cert ain wh a t Anti st he ne s' s tea chi ng wa s . A s w e
hav e seen (p . 182, n. 2, a b o v e ) , he l ike Pr ot ag or as wa s credited wi th the
thesis that it is imp oss ibl e to con tr adi ct or to speak f a l s e l y, and it is
c o m m o n l y t h o u g h t that he wa s on e o f those w h o held tha t to predicate
one thi ng o f anoth er wa s er ro ne ou s: i t is not admissible to say ' man
is g o o d ' , but o nl y ' ma n is m a n ' and ' g o o d is g o o d ' . In fact the t wo
doctrines are held to be inseparable, 2 but recent work has shown that
1 his need not necessarily be so . W e must l o o k at the evi den ce.
1
α ρ χ ή π α ι δ ε ύ σ ε ω ςή τ ώ ν ο ν ο μ ά τ ω νε π ί σ κ ε ψ ις ,fr. 38· (Re fere nces are to C ai zzi 's edition ofdie fragments.) Th e title of the work oc curs in D.L .' s l i s t ( 6 . 1 7 ) . See also Caizzi in Stud. Urb.
1 9Λ 4 ,31. For Anti sth ene s in general see pp. 304 ff. be lo w.
' Grote, Plato, i n , 5 1 1 : ' " M a n is g o o d " was an inadmiss ible propo sit ion: affirming different
i l i i n g s to be the same, or one thing to be many. Accordingly it was impossible for two speakers
1 rally to contradict each other. ' ( M y i t a l i c s . )
209
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 222/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
In h is 'phi losophical d ic t ionary ' (Metaph. Δ ) ,1 Aris to t le deals wi th
the concept ' false ' . I t may refer (a) to thin gs or facts, i f th ey are n on
existent (e.g . a diag onal com mens ura te wi th the side) or pr od uc e the
appearance o f so met hi ng non-exi stent (e. g. dreams , or i l lusionist
p a i n t i n g ) ; (b) t o logoi. Here Ar i s to t l e w i l l have had in mind the classic
difficulty, often referred to by Plato and used by Antisthenes himselfin sup por t o f his thesis o f the impossi bil i ty o f co nt ra di ct io n: ' E v e r y
logos (statement) is t rue , for he who speaks says something, he who
says so me th in g says wh at is , and he wh o say s wh at is speaks t r u t h . ' 3
S p e a k i n g abso lu te ly ('qua false ' ) , says Aristot le, a false logos is of
what is not, therefore in practice when we speak of a false logos we mean
one which belongs to something other than that to which i t is applied,
e .g . the logos o f circ le is false i f appl ied to a tri angl e. ( A trian gle e v e r ypoi nt o n w hi c h is equidis tant fro m a gi ve n po in t doe s no t exist, y et the
logos 'p la ne f igure ev er y poin t on wh ic h is equidistan t from a g i v en
po in t ' does exi st ; i .e . i t describes some th in g wh i ch i s ; i t has o nl y
been misappl ied . ) F u r t h e r, a l t h o u g h there is in a sense only one logos
o f each th ing, namely that w hi c h descr ibes its essen ce, in ano the r sense
there are ma ny , since the th in g its elf and the thi ng pl us certain no n
essential at t r ibutes are somehow the same, e.g. Socrates and educatedSocrates (or Socrates the educated man). This is the reason, he goes on,
w h y i t wa s fool ish o f Ant ist henes to su ppos e that a thing can only be
sp ok en o f b y its pro per logos, one to on e; f rom wh ic h i t fo l lowe d that
i t is imp oss ibl e to contradi ct , and practi cal ly impo ssi ble to speak falsely.
T h e meaning o f logos here emerges from the context. It has been
und er st ood as a single w o r d or term,3 but cl early means a d escrip t ion,
or s ta tement o f wha t a th ing i s . Th is accord s wi th D . L . 6 . 3 : An t isth enes said ' a logos is that w h i c h sets forth w h a t a th in g wa s or is ' . 4
1 1024 b 1 7 ff. The reference to Antisthenes comes at tine 32.' Procl. In Crat. 37 Pasq. (Antisth. fr. 49) : "Α . Ι λ ε γ εμ ή δ ε ϊ ν α ν τ ι λ έ γ ε ι » .π δ $ γ ά ρ ,φ η σ ι ,
λ ό γ ο ζ α λ η θ ε ύ ε ι ,ό γ ά ρ λ έ γ ω ντ ι λ έ γ ε ι ,ό δ έ τ ι λ έ γ ω ντ ό ό ν λ έ γ ε ι ,ό δ έ τ ό δ νλ έ γ ω να λ η θ ε ύ ε ι .C a i z z i (Stud. Urb. 34^) detects a discrepancy between Aristotle's witness and Proclus's, andsuspects that Proclus has given a current justification of Antisthenes's paradox without goingback to the original source.
1 Campbel l , Theaet. xl i: 'T he re is only one term applicable to one thing. ' He refers notto Arist otl e but to Isocr. He/, ο υ δ έ δ ύ ολ ό γ ω π ε ρ ίτ ώ ν α υ τ ώ νπ ρ α γ μ ά τ ω νά ν τ ε ι π ε ϊ ν ,wherethe rendering 'terms' seems even more improbable in the context. According to Plato in theSnphht (262 a ff.) a logos must contain at least a noun and a verb.
4 Fr. 45 . Caiz zi not es (Stud. Urb. 29) that its authenticity is confirmed by Alexander, In Top.
4 2 , 1 j fT. (fr. 46). Ale xan der , comm ent ing on Arist otle' s definition of a definition as λ ά γ ο $ό τ ό
2 1 0
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 223/357
Antisthenes on False Statement and Contradiction
T h e ' f o o l i s h n e s s 5 o f Ant is thenes i s en larged on b y pseu do- Alex and er
in his commentary (Antisth. fr. 44 B ) , w h o explains h o w the assert ion
that each thing has only one logos led to the impossibi l i ty of speaking
f a l s e l y or o f t w o peo ple cont radic t ing eac h other. T o cont radic t , they
must say different things about the same thing, but since each thing has
o n l y one logos (w hi c h after all , in add iti on t o an y mo re spec ialized
u s es , m ea n s s i m p ly ' o n e t h i ng w h i c h c a n b e s a i d— λ έ γ ε σ θ ο η — a b ou t
it ') this is imp oss ibl e. If th ey say different thi ngs th ey must be s pe ak in g
about different things and hence not contradicting each other. N o n e
o f ou r authori t ies gi ve s example s, and mod er n scholars ha ve be en
similarly ret icent . 1 Presumably Ant is thenes would have c la imed that
' o n e cannot sa y ' 'm a n is a wi ng ed and feathered ani mal ' , for that is to
s ay w h a t is n ot , i .e . t o s ay n o t h i n g ( ο υ δ έ ν λ έ γ ε ι ν ) . 2 He who says
no th in g cannot contradict or be contrad icted, and the on ly al ternat ive
is that , alt hou gh ut ter ing the sou nd ' m a n ' , the speaker is real ly talkin g
about birds and so, once again, is not contradicting ano ther w h o g i v e s
a different logos of man.3
Such theories of lan guag e are mad e more comp rehe nsibl e b y the
probab i l i t y that t hey owed their origin to the prest ige enjoyed by
rhetoric, the art o f persuasion. Fo r Go rg ia s persuasion w as sov ere ign
because there was no t ru th over and above what a man could be per
suaded to bel ieve , and Pro tag oras w as already teachin g his pupils
that on every subject opposite posi t ions could be argued with equal
xi fjv ε ί ν α ισ η μ α ί ν ω ν ,defends the insertion of ε ί ν α ιon the grounds that without it the formulamight apply e q u a l l y to a statement of the genus (it is an answer to the ques ti on ' Wha t is ma n ? ' tos a y ' He is an an im al '; or, in the Peripatetic termino log y of Alexan der, genus is a predicate in theca tegory of b e i n g ) ,wh ic h ho wev er does not b y itself const itut e a definition. ' Th e fjv, then, is notsufficient b y itself as some hav e tho ught , of wh om Ant ist henes appe ars to have been the first.'
1 My discussion of these matters owes much to C a i z z i ' s lucid interpretations in Stud. Urb.
1 9 6 4 . Nevertheless more concrete examples woul d have been wel com e there too, e sp ec i a l l yin the discus sion of essence and acciden tal attr ibut es on pp. 33 f. Fo r Ant ist hene s ( s a y s th eaut hor ), to say 'Socra tes is bl ac k' woul d be to say nothing at all, wherea s for Aristo tle it is tos a y Socrates wit h an untrue predicate. One wou ld we lcom e a similar illustrat ion of a logos of theessence of Socrates which would maintain the difference between the two philosophers. Fieldg i v e s the example of a triangle (P. and Contemps. 166 ). Th is is helpful, but mathemat ical defini-1 ii >ns are a special ca se , and the application of the theory to natural objects is not so obvious to us.
2 For the effect on pro ble ms of this ki nd of the amb ig uo us Greek phrase ο υ δ έ νλ έ γ ε ι νe l . vol. 1 1 , 20. Th e doctr ine expound ed here is that parodi ed by Plat o at Euthyd. 28;dff. andreferred to π ο λ λ ο ίδ ή , and in particular to ol ά μ φ ίΠ ρ ω τ α γ ό ρ α ν .
1
If this sounds i mpla usi ble , I can only sa y that I see no al tern ativ e expl anati on, and thatothers have interpreted Antisthenes s i m i l a r l y but softened the imp lau si bil it y by refraining fromi l l u s t r a t i ng their interpretations with examples. Cf., in its context, Arist. Metaph. i oo6b20 .
2 1 1
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 224/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
2 1 2
va l id i ty, wh at a man be liev ed wa s true for him, and no man could
con tra dict an oth er in the sense o f op po si ng a t rue v i e w to a false.
Antisthenes may have gone further than Protagoras in at tempting a
philos ophical explanation of h o w this cou ld be so . In co nn ex io n
w i t h the last pa ra gr ap h it is int ere sti ng that Plato (Phaedrus 260b)
exa min es the effects o f ap pl yi ng the nam e ' h o r s e ' to the logos o fd o n k e y ( ' t a m e animal wi th the largest ear s ' ) , and persuadi ng so me on e
that the creature signified by this logos possesses the virtues generally
ascribed to horses, in order to compare them to the harm done by
rhetoricians who, ignorant themselves of the nature of good and e v i l ,
advoca te e v i l as bei ng real ly g o o d . 1 Ant i s thenes himsel f wrote rhetor ica l
e x e r c i s e s , of which we st i l l possess speeches of Odysseus and A j a x ,
contending for the arms of A c h i l l e s . *B u t Ari s to t le has mor e about Ant is th enes (or h is fo l lowe rs) .
s Elsewhere in the Metaphysics (1043b23) he sa ys : 'Th ere fo r e the
, difficulty which was raised by the Antistheneans and other such crude
J thin ker s is no t inapp osite, that you cannot define what a thing is,
^ because a definition is an extended logos? Y o u can explain wh at i t is
J like, e.g. of silver you cannot say what it is, but only that it is like tin.
j T h e r e is a c lass o f substance of wh ic h defin i tion (ό ρ ο ς ) or logos isI possible, namely composite substance, whether sensible or intel l igible;
\ bu t its elemen ts canno t be defined, since definition predicates on e th in gy o f ano ther , an d the one mus t be matter and the other form.'
A s an example , pseudo-Alexander ad loc. (Antisth. fr. 44 B ) takes
' m a n ' . ' M a n ' is a name. W e ma y say he is a rat ional mortal animal,
but this in t u rn is on ly a stri ng o f names . W e are si mp ly listi ng,
enumerating or naming his elements, but neither separately nor c o l l e ct i v e l y d o the y p r o v id e a definition,* for a defin ition is different fr om
1 The re is a sto ry in D.L. (6. 8) that Antisthenes taunted the Athenians with the ignorance
of their strategoi by saying that they ought to vote that don keys are horses (or 'vo te donk eys
into the position of horses', T O U S S V O U Sί π π ο υ ςψ η φ ί σ α σ θ α ι ) .1 Frr . 14 and 15 Cai zzi . He is said to hav e been a pupi l of Gorg ia s before he met Socr ates
( p . 306, n. 2, be lo w) , and to ha ve adopted a rhetorical sty le in his dial ogu es.3 λ ό γ ο ; μ α κ ρ ό ξ . That th is phrase was used by Ant isthenes h imsel f i s vouched for by pseudo-
Alexander, In Met. 554.3 Hayd. It suggests evasion, and Warrington renders it ad sensum,
' c i rcumlocut ion ' . Ro ss on Metaph. 109 187 giv es some evidenc e from lit erature that the word had
a contemptuous flavour.4 Arist otle wa s speakin g a little carelessly, or from his own point of vie w, whe n at 1 0 4 3 b 29
he used the two words opov κ α ι λ ό γ ο ν t o de sc ri be A nt i st he ne s' s v ie w.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 225/357
Antisthenes and Aristotle on Definition
a name. Wh a t is ' r a t i on al ' o r ' an im al '? E v en i f w e can d iv i de them
int o further pluralit ies o f nam es, ye t ult ima tel y w e shall c o m e to a
simple, elemental ent i ty which cannot be so divided, and this w i l l b e
indefinable. But how can we claim to have defined, or explained the
be in g of , so met hin g i f w e hav e s im ply descr ibed it as co mp os ed o f
elements which are themselves indefinable?
Plato in the Theaetetus (201 dff.) describes a similar doctrine anony
mously. There can be no logos o f the first e lem ents o f w h i ch w e and
eve ry th in g e lse con s is t ; they can on ly be named . Bu t the co mp ou nd s
mad e up ou t of the m, bei ng co mp le x the mse lves , can ha ve the names
b e l o n g i n g to them combined to make a logos, for this is just what a
logos is , a co mb in at io n of names. Elem ent s, then, are inexplica ble and
u n k n o w a b l e , bu t can be perce ived, wher eas com ple xes are kn ow ab le
and expl icable and comp rehe ns ib le b y a t rue o p i n i o n .
T h e theory assumes that a complex whole i s no more than its par ts
put to get her in a certain w a y . T o this Ar ist ot l e op po se s his o w n v i e w
( inspi red by Pla to) that the essence or substan ce o f an yt hi ng , wh ic h is
expressed in i ts defini t ion ( the 'what i t was to be the thing') , is not
s i m p l y e lemen t s -p lus -combina t ion bu t a new , un i t a ry ' f o r m ' . Fo r h im
a defini tion mu st in clu de an exp res sio n o f the caus e (see e. g. An. Post. 2
c h . 10, Metaph. 1043 a 146°.), that is, the final c au se , fo r in fact A ri st o tl e' s
th eo ry o f substa nce am ou nts to an assert ion o f his fai th in te le ol og y. A
ho use is no t to be defined as bri cks en clo si ng a space and co ve re d b y a
roof. If that were al l that cou ld be sa id, Ant i s the nes wo u ld be r ight , for
that is mer ely an enu mer atio n o f (ul t i mately indefinable) element s
and their arrang emen t. I t is defined b y sa yi ng that it is a she lter fo r
man and his possessions, and this type of definition applies to natura l
objects also, for ' n a t u r e m a k e s n o t h i n g w i t h o u t a p u r p o s e ' (De caelo
291 b 13, De an. 4 3 2b21 , e t c . ) . 1
A s far as can be judged from these second-hand and host i le reports ,
ii does not seem l i k e l y that Antis thenes suppor ted the doct r ine that
none but identical predicat ion is possible. This is referred to contemp-
1 I Icnce Antisth enes's mista ke of say ing tha t , wh en one thin g is predicate d of another, 'o ne
mil .1 he matter and the other fo rm' . A ll the element s stated in a definition are formal cons titu ents .
I I his is explained by pseudo-Alexander, In Metaph. 554, n ff .) F or Aristot le individu als are
i n i l r l i i i a b l c : only definitions of species and genera are possible. The mistake, in his view, resultedInnii a confusion bet wee n the part icular and the univ ers al references of a noun l i k e ' h o r s e ' .
ι< I. p. 2 1 5 , n. 3, below.)
21 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 226/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
2 1 4
tuously by Plato in the Sophist (251b) as something that is seized on
b y ' yo ut hs and old men of retarded in te l lec t ' , 'who objec t that it is
impossible for many things to be one or one many, and enjoy insisting
that w e mus t no t say a man is g o o d , but on ly man is man and g o o d is
g o o d ' . So me ha ve identified this wi th the thesis ascribed t o Ant ist hen es
b y Aris to t l e that ' a th in g can on l y be sp ok en o f b y its pr op er logos,
one to o ne ' , bu t in the lig ht o f other ev ide nce , in clu din g that o f
Ari s to t l e himself, it is plain that logos here is no t limi ted to a si ngl e ter m.
I t i s no t the same th ing as ό ν ο μ α (a name ) , 1 which in v i e w of the
current uses of logos w ou l d in an y case be impr oba ble . I f it is true that
Ant is the nes said ' a logos is that wh i ch sets forth w ha t a th in g wa s or
i s ' , he evide ntl y we nt on t o claim that such a logos could only sub
st i tute for the name of the thing a collection of the names o f its elements,w h i c h the mse lv es co ul d on l y be nam ed. Gr o t e calle d hi m the first
nomi nal ist , beca use he denie d the exist ence o f thos e for ms or esse nces
(ε ϊδ η o r ο ύ σ ία ι ) o f par t icular th ings , wh ic h Socrates sough t to de fine
and Pla to was already proc la im in g as inde pend ent realities. ( An t i
sthenes liv ed till abo ut 360.) T h e ri val ry be tw ee n the t w o phi los ophi es
is suggested by the anecdote that Antis thene s said to Pl at o: Ί see a
horse, but I don' t see hors enes s ' , to wh ic h Plat o repl ied: ' N o , fory o u have the eye with which a horse is seen, but you have not yet
acquired the eye to see horseness. ' This is told by Simplicius, whose
teacher Ammonius also quoted the mot o f Ant ist hen es as an illustr ation
o f his v i e w that ' th e kinds or forms existed on ly in our th ou gh ts '
(έ ν ψ ιλ α ϊ ς έ τ π ν ο ία ι ς ).2
' G r o t e (Plato, in , 521) was one wh o thought that Aristotle was credit ing Antisthenes with
the proposition that none but identical propositions were admissible, but had to admit (on
p . 526) that in tha t case the doctrine which Aristotle attributes to ot Ά ν τ ι σ θ έ ν ε ι ο ι at Metaph.
j 043 b 23 is no t in ha rm on y wi th that whi ch he ascribes to Antisthe nes himself. He also thoug ht it
probable Xp."<joj, n. x) that in the Sophist Plato does intend to designate Antisthenes as γ έ ρ ω ν
ό ψ ιμ α θ ή ί . (He may have been some 20 years o lder than Pla to. ) Ap ar t from the plural, such
commentators ignore the fact that the theo ry is ascribed equal ly to ol ν έ ο ι. Contr ast Ca mpb el l,
Theaet. x x x i x : the doctrine of Theaet. 201 d ff. (w hi ch we ha ve seen to b e the sa me as that ascribed
to Antisthenes at Metaph. io43b23ff.) ' is surely very different from such crude nominalism
[sc. as that described in the Soph.]... The opinion quoted, if properly examined, is not a denial
o f predication, but rather a denial that anything can be predicated of the prime elements . . . which
is by no means the same thing.'1 Simpl . Cat. 208, 28; Ammon. In Porph. Isag. 40, 6 (A nt is th . frr. 50 A and c). The story is
told in a slightly different form of Diogenes the C y n i c , naturally enough considering that he was
Antisthenes's pupil and Antisthenes himself came to be regarded as the founder of the C y n i c
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 227/357
Antisthenes a Nominalist ?
I f h o we v er no min ali sm is the doctr ine that assume s, as a recent
definition has it, ' that language imposes its own structure upon a
real i ty wh ic h b y i tself lacks an y such dis t in cti on s ' , 1 it does not appear
that Antisthenes was its advocate. His teaching does not resemble the
c o n v e n t i o n - t h e o r y o f names maintained b y Her mo ge ne s in P lato 's
Cratylus, so much as the nature-theory of Cratylus2
accord ing tow h i c h name s ha ve a natur al affinity w i t h their obj ects (o r, if th ey do
not, they are not names, and the man who utters them 'says nothing',
429bff .) : they ' r eve al the th in gs ' (433d), and he who knows the
names knows the things also (43 5 d). A complex object can be analysed
b y naming its elements, but the elements can only be named or des
cr ibed analog ically (si lver l ike t in) . T h e y are grasp ed b y intuit ion or
percept ion ( Ί see a h o r s e ' ; cf. Theaet. 202b), but cannot be explained,or kn o w n as k n ow l ed g e was und ers too d b y Socrates and Plat o, for
w h o m it meant the ability to g i v e a logos o f the essence o f the th in g
k n o w n . If we may judge by the criticisms of Plato and Aristotle,
C a i z z i is rig ht in sa yi ng that Ant ist hen es' s th eo ry o f ' on e, and on ly
one, proper logos for each thing' is based on a lack of the distinction
b e t w e e n essential and accidental predication plus a confusion between
pro per and co mm o n names.3 Pred icatio n is not impo ssib le, bu t i t must
school. Wh ethe r histor ically true or not, it is certain ly bien trouve. Othe r stories were also current
testifying to the ill w i l l between hi m and Plato, against wh om he wrote a dialo gue under the
opprob r ious name of Sathon. (See p. 310, n. 2, belo w.)1 Lorenz and Mittelstrass, Mind, 1967, 1. Th ey themselves add (p . 5) that realism and
nomina lism can be recognized as variant s of the nature-theo ry and the conven tion-t heory of the
Cratylus. It might be interesting to compare the latter with the conventionalist theory of neces
sary truth as it appear s in Hobb es, w ho l ike the fifth-centur y phil oso pher s sa w a close connex ion
between names and t r u t h : ' the first t ruths were arbitrarily made by those that first of all imposed
names upon thi ngs '. See W. and M. Kneale, Dev. ofLogic, 3 1 1 f.1 A si milar conclusi on wa s reached b y von Fr itz in Hermes, 19 27 : it is Antisthenean doctrine,
' glcichgult ig, ob dor t Antis then es pe rsonlic h oder allein geme int ist oder n ich t' ( p. 462). See
al.o Dummler, Akad. 5. Field, however, in a carefully reasoned account, concluded that ' there
i'. no real evidence for associating him with either view' (P. and Contemps. 168).3 Stud. Urb. 34. (T he confusion wo ul d be facilitated b y the fact that at this primitive stage of
) ' , i ' .uninat icals tudy the one word ό ν ο μ α had to do duty for both ' name ' and ' n o u n ' . According
i n l.orcnz and Mittelstrass (Mind, 196 7, 5), it pe rsis ts in the Cratylus an d t h roughou t Plato 's
w a i t i n g s . ) Cf. 32 : ' Fo r Plat o [and, one might ad d, for Arist otl e] the object of definition is not
11 ιι· part icula r but the un iv er sa l . . . Th er ef or e . . . the denia l o f τ τ ο ιά τ η ς impl ies a lso the denia l
1 if the definition of wha t a thi ng is. Acc or din g to Anti sth enes we not o nl y see but k no w the
indi vidu al horse, in who se na me is incl uded all that is proper to it. He does not seem to have
i i a l i / . c d that this wou ld i mp ly the necess ity of a nam e for ev er y sin gle thi ng, not o nl y for ev er y• l . i A n d on p. 3 1 : ' T he probl em of predication, whic h the thesis that only names can expiess
1111-rssen ce seemed to have rendered impo ssi ble, is therefore to be reso lved on this plane, i.e.
I i . r . i c . i l l y the descriptive.'
« 2 1 5 G S P
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 228/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
2 l 6
be assumed tha t what eve r fol lo ws the copu la is essential to the subject
(a par t o f ' w h a t it i s ' ) , and i f an y of the element s name d is inappl icabl e
to the subject the whole logos mus t be dismiss ed as mea nin gle ss. (H e
w a s misled , says pseudo-Alexander, In Metaph. 435, 1, b y the fac t that
a false logos is no t absolutely o r pr imar i l y (μ ή α π λ ώ ς μ η δ έ κ υ ρ ί ω ς )
the logos o f any thi ng into say ing tha t i t was nothing at all .)
O n those wh o denied the possibi l i ty of predi cat i ng on e thi ng o f
ano the r, Aristot le has this to say:
T h e more recent of previous philosophe rs wer e disturbed by the tho ugh t
of making the same thing one and many. For this reason some abolished
the word ' i s ' , 1 as Lycophron did, while others altered the form of the
expression, say ing not 'the man is wh it e' but 't he man has- been -whit ened '
[λ ε λ ε ύ κ ω τ α ι , one word in Greek ] , not ' i s wa lk ing ' but ' wa l ks ' , lest byadding ' i s ' they should make the one many, as if O n e ' or 'b ei ng ' had o nly
one sense. 1
Simpl ic ius (Phys. 91) explains tha t Ly co ph ro n s imp ly omi t t ed t he
ver b ' i s ' , say i ng 'whi te Socra tes ' 3 for 'Socra tes i s wh i t e ' , as i f to state
the at t r ibute in this wa y did not i nv ol ve the addit ion o f a ny th in g
re al ; bu t i f it did not, he adds , then there wo u l d be no difference
between saying 'Socra tes ' and 'whi te Socra tes ' . I t was to avoid theconsequence tha t no significant statement wa s poss ible t ha t the
'o th er s ' ( wh o m neither he nor Aris t ot l e ident if ies) t r ied usi ng other
ve rbs instead of the offensive cop ula . I f L yc op h r o n tho ugh t i t adm is
sible to say 'white Socrates ' he cannot , any more t han Ant i s thenes ,
ha ve been on e o f those at w h o m Pla to is t i l t ing in the Sophist (251b) .
T h e only o ther th ing kn ow n abou t h is tho ry o f kn ow le dg e i s tha t he
d es cr ib ed k n o w l e d g e as ' a n i nt er co ur se ( σ υ ν ο υ σ ί α ) o f t he psyche w i t hthe ac t o f k no wi n g ' . So Ar is t o t le p u t s it (Metaph. 1045 b 9f f. ), an d
pseu do- Alex and er expla ins (563, 21 ; D K , 83, 1 ) : ' L y c o ph r o n wh en
1 Sc. as copula. S i m p l i c i u s (Phys. 91) adds that Lycophron al lowed its existential use. ForLycop hron see pp. 3 1 3 ^ below.
1 Phys. i 8 5 b 2 j . T o sa y that Socrat es is (a) whi te , (h) a philosop her, and (c ) an Athen ianwould be to mak e the one subject, Socr ate s, ma ny (P hil op. Phys. 49, 17 ).
3 A c t u a l l yΣ . AEWKOSin the Greek, not XEUKOSΣ . One cannot folly understand these peoplewith out reference to current idiom. Th e c opula frequently was omitted in speech and writing, so
t ha t Σ . λ ε υ κ ό ξis as much a complete sentence, meaning 'Socr ate s is whi te ' , as if the ί σ η wereexpressly inserted. Lycophron was a l i t t l e na iv e if he tho ugh t th at those wh o omitte d it wer ecorrecting a l o g i c a l fault. Themistius's comme nt on his proc edure wa s κ α κ ωτ ό κ α κ ό νΙώ μ ε ν ο ς
(Phys. paraphr. 7 . 2 Schenkl, not in DK ).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 229/357
Impossibility of Predication
asked what it was that caused knowledge and the psyche to be one,
w o u l d reply that i t was their in te rcourse ' . Th i s ' i n t e rcour se ' o r
' c o e x i s t e n c e ' 1 of the mind wi th knowledge suggests a v i e w l ike that o f
Antist henes , not sceptici sm but beli ef in kn ow l ed ge b y direct acquain t
ance. O n e canno t say 'S oc ra te s is wh i te ' (himself plus whi ten ess ), b utone experiences 'white Socrates ' as a unitary essence.
T h e onl y peo ple specifically ment ione d as quali fyin g for Plat o 's
condemnation by confining speech to identical proposit ions ( 'man is
ma n' , ' g o o d is g o o d ' , etc.) are Sti lpo the Megar ian and the Eretr ians. 2
Since Stil po wa s pr ob ab ly bor n c. 380 and the Eretri an s ch oo l w a s
founded by Menedemus who was born after Plato's death, it is
improbab le that the former, and impossible that the lat ter, could havebeen Plato 's target . But Euclide s w h o foun ded the Megaria n schoo l
was a friend o f Socr ates , and the Eretria n wa s cl ose ly link ed wit h it,
Menedemus having been a pupil of Sti lpo. Plato stayed with Euclides
at Megara after the death of Socrates, and they may w e l l have differed
and had l i v e l y discussions of these questions. A doctrine w hi ch co ul d
lead to the same conclusion as that in the Sophist is ascri bed to th em
b y Simplicius (Phys. 120). After quoting from Eudemus that themistakes of Parmenides were excusable owing to the inchoate state
o f philosophy at his t ime, when no one had suggested that a w o r d
cou ld have more than one sense or had distinguished essence from
accident, he goes on :
/ Out of ignorance of this even the philosophers known as Megarians assumed
\ as an obvious premise that things having a different logos were different,
) and that different things were divided from each other, and so thought to) prove that everything is divided from itself, e.g. the logos of 'educatedt Socrates' is different from that of 'white Socrates', therefore Socrates is
\ divided from himself.1 In ordinary language σ υ ν ο υ σ ί αmeant interc ourse or association, but it co uld a l s o , an d
more l i t e r a l l y, be under stoo d a s 'co-be ing*. In the late comment ator s, the ver b σ υ ν ο υ σ η ό ο μ α ιis used to expre ss the idea of being ess ential ly uni ted . See L S J s.v.
' For Stilpo see Plut. Adv. Col. n i 9 c - d , and for the Eretrians Simpl. Phys. 91 , 28. It m ig htbe interesting to compare their doctrine with that which has been derived in modern times froma strict interpretation of Bishop Butle r's dic tum : 'E ver yth ing is what it is and not another thi ng' ,
I quot ed by Moore as the motto of Principia Ethica. This, it has been claimed, appears to rule outI not only a definition of 'good' (the 'naturalistic f a l l a c y ' ) , but all definitions of an y term wh at
soever, on the grounds that they must be the result of confusing two properties, defining oneb y another , or subst ituti ng one for another. Se e the discussi on by Fra nke na reprinte d in theFoot e s s a y s , pp . J7ff.
217 8-a
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 230/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
2l8
The same doctrine is o p p o s e d b y Ari s to t l e i n Soph. el. ( i66b28ff . )
without a t t r ibut ion: ' C o r i s c u s is a man [but no te tha t G r e e k has no
indefinite article], " m a n " is d i ff e ren t f rom "Cor i scus" , t he re fo re
Coriscus is different from himself. ' I t bears a resemblance to the ' on e
logos to each th ing ' o f Ant i s thenes , b u t w a s b r o u g h t t o a more radical
conclus ion . 1
In the fo rego ing accoun t an attempt has been made t o attach the var ious
theories t o indiv idu al authors . Suc h ass ignment has been th e subject o f
intensive research in the past, but the e v i d e n c e i s no t always sufficient
for certainty, nor is the m a t t e r o f great impor tance for the h i s t o r y o f
thought, since some o f t he poss ib le authors a r e n o w little more than
names. T h e impor tant th ing is to k n o w tha t in the lifetime o f Socra tes
and Plato these questions o f l anguage and i ts objec ts were be ing
zes t fu l ly thrashed o u t b y a g r o u p o f con tempora r i e s w h o i n t h e course
o f their debate threw u p a n u m b e r o f related o r rival v i e w s w h i c h w e r e
a ll ultimately th e result o f wres t l ing wi th th e c rude b u t e f f e c t i v e l o g i c
o f the Eleatics. T h e t h o u g h t o f Socrates a n d Plato, whose influence
on the subsequent h is tory o f p h i l o s o p h y has been profound, must b e
seen against this background, as an integral par t o f t he debate an d anattempt t o find a defini t ive solut ion to i ts prob lems . Tha t in Pla to ' s hands
it became only an element i n a great mora l a n d metaphysica l synthes is
does no t alter this fact, which a r ead ing o f t he Cratylus an d Euthydemus
alone (no t to ment ion mor e impor tant d ia log ues l ike th e Sophist)
puts beyond all d o u b t .
Summary of results. D u r i n g t h e lifetimes o f Socra tes a n d P l a t o the
f o l l o w i n g posi t ions were he ld . Names o f s o m e w h o held them are
g i v e n in brackets where ei ther certain o r p r o b a b l e .
1. It is imposs ib le t o speak f a l s e l y, fo r tha t is to say w h a t i s no t ,
and what i s no t canno t b e ut tered . (Protagoras , Ant is thenes . T h e
thesis depends o n P a r m . f r. 2 .7-8. )
2. A s a coro l l a ry, no one has a right t o contradict another.
(Protagoras , Ant is thenes . )
1 See on this Maier, Syllogistik, 2. Te i l , 2. Halfte, 7f7., wh ere th e relevance of Arist . Metaph.
Γ 4 is discussed, and it is sugges ted that in Aristot le 's t ime the eristic of Antisthenes and theMegarians w a s u n d e rg o i n g a certain fusion.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 231/357
Language and its Objects; Summary
3. Tr ut h is relat ive to the indi vidu al. (Pr ota gor as, Go rg ia s. )
4. W e use wo rd s inconsist ently and wi th no cor res pon den ce to
real ity. T hi s i s wr o n g , for there is a r ea li ty ( δ ν , φ ύ σ ι ς ) a nd there are
natural k i n ds ( ε ί δ η ) , t o w h i c h o u r t e rms should correspond univocal ly.
(Socrates , Ant iph on , Hippocr. De arte.)5. Def ini tio n o f the essence of a thi ng is imp oss ibl e, for one can
only list its elements and they themselves, not being subject to further
analysis, are indefinable, and can only be described analogically.
(Ant i s thenes , p rob ab ly Lyco phr on . )
6. T o ev er y object be lo ng s one and on ly one pro per logos, w h i c h
says wh at it is b y nam in g the elements o f wh i ch it is co mp os ed . If
an y of the m do not ap pl y to it, there is no logos. (Ant is thenes . )
7. Names have a natural affinity with their objects, wh i ch are
k n o w n b y direct cont act of mind w it h object as in sense-p ercepti on
(α ϊσ θ η σ ις ) . A name wh ic h has no such a ff in ity i s no t wr on g , bu t no
name at a ll . (Ant i s thenes , Ly co ph r on , ' Cr a t y l us ' in P la to . )
8. Na me s are labels arbitrarily cho sen , ha v in g n o natural c o n n e x i o n
wit h the objects to wh ic h they are appl ied. (De moc ri tus , ' He rm og en es '
in Plato.)
9. T h e use o f ' i s ' to join subject and predicate is illegi timate
because i t makes one thing many, though one may perceive and speak
o f a subject and its at t r ibute (e .g . wh it e Socrat es) as a un it y. ( L y c o
p h r o n . )
10. O n the same Eleat ic gr ou nd s that a thi ng can not be bo th on e
and man y, on ly identical predication is possible. (Megar ians, and pr ob
a b l y others.)
(6) G R A M M A R
T h e intense interest in the possibiliti es and limitati ons o f la ng ua ge led
to the beg in ni ngs of grammat ical st udy (dist inction o f gen der s, parts
o f speech and so forth) , o f wh ic h there are traces from Pr ot ag or as
onwards . The foregoing sect ions , however, as w e l l as the t reatment o f
these topics themselves, should make it clear that in con temporary
minds they were not divorced from wider questions, whether of the
ph il os op hy o f lan gua ge or of rhetorical practice. T h e aim wa s no t in
fact scientific, to sort out and c o d i f y exist ing usa ge, bu t practical , to
2 1 9
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 232/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
2 2 0
refo rm lang ua ge and increase i ts effect iveness b y a close r co rr es po nd
ence wi th rea l i ty. 1
Pro ta gor as, w e are tol d, w a s the f irst t o di vi de spee ch (logos') i n to
f ou r ba si c k in d s (π υ θ μ έ ν ε ς λ ό γ ω ν ) : r eq ue st ( or p ra y er ), q ue st io n,
ί answer , c om m a n d ; or acc ord ing to o ther au thor i t ies in to se v en :
narra t ion , ques t ion , answer, command , r e p o r t , r eques t , summons .
A l i t t le la ter Alcidamas said tha t the four logoi we re aff i rmation, ne ga
t ion, quest ion and address .* This comes from a late source, but
Aris tot le refers to the di vi s io n w h e n in the Poetics (1456b 15) he
J records that Pro tag o ras c r i ti c i zed Ho me r fo r wr i t i n g 'S in g , go dd es s ' ,
' because th i s wa s to co mm an d wh e n wha t wa s wan te d was a pray er.
The d is t inc t ion be tween noun and verb (rhema) occur s in P la to ,
and as Cornford remarks (PTK, 307), i t is in tr od uc ed in the Cratylus
(425 a) wi th ou t expl anat ion as so me th in g famil iar, so wa s p ro ba bl y
ma de earlier b y Prot ag or as o r so me other So phis t .3 I t is t rue , n e v e r
theless , tha t in the Sophist they are carefully defined and illustrated by
examples . A comb ina t io n o f no un w i t h ve rb y ie lds a s ta tement
(logos)J Rhema is here defined as ' w h a t s ignif ies ac t i on s ' , wh ic h seems
defini te en ou gh , bu t at this ear l y s tage te rm in ol og y is b y no mea ns
fixed, an d el se wh er e (Crat. 399 a - b ) w e find P la to sa yi ng t ha t i f the
name Dip hi lus i s sp l it in to it s co mp on en t par t s (Δ ι ϊ φ ίλ ο ς , ' de ar t o
Zeus ' ) i t becomes a rhema ins tead o f a name . Li t e ra l ly rhema m e a n s
o n l y a ' t hi ng sa id ' , and a nam e or nou n is cont raste d w it h i t as tha t o f
w h i c h th ings a re sa id . Even Ar is to t le wi th h is more technica l vocabu
la ry, fo r whom rhema is most often a verb and is so defined (De int.
1 ' A n c i e n t G r e e k grammatike was a τ έ χ ν η ,an art or craft, a study aiming at practice; modern
p h i l o l o g y i s n o t a τ έ χ ν η b u t a p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e .It takes the w o r l d w i d e phenomenon of humanspeech as its object, and is concerned merely to ascertain and co-ordinate the f a c t s . ' T h i s isfrom M u r r a y ' s h i g h l y readable essay on The Beginnings of Greek Grammar ( in Gk. Stud.), inw h i c h he also poi nts ou t the enor mo us difference result ing fro m the fac t that γ ρ α μ μ α τ ικ ή wasconcerned s o l e l y w i t h G r e e k speech: 'The phenomenon that lay before the G r e e k grammatikoi
w a s no t all hum an la ngu age . It was the Logos'1 D . L . 9.53 f. His wor ds might mean that others, not Pro tag oras , divi de into s e v e n , and so
Hicks translates. The second list l o o k s dubious, and it is diff icul t to see on what grounds, in sucha general classification, δ ι ή γ η σ ι ς w a s s epa ra ted f ro m α π α γ γ ε λ ί α . U nf or tu n at el y t he re i s n om or e nearly contemporary authority.
3 T h e classification of letters as v o w e l s , sonants and mutes, w h i c h pre ced es it at 424 c, is
ascribed t o ο ΐ δ ε ιν ο ί π ε ρ ί τ ο ύ τ ω ν .4 δ ν ο μ α ρ η κ ρ ή μ α =λ ό γ ο ; ,Crat. 425a, 4 3 I D _ C > Soph. 262cff. "Theaetetus sits' is an example
o f the simplest λ ό γ ο ς .O n these t w o parts o f speec h as the sole essentials of a λ ό γ ο ςsee thecomments of Corn fo rd , PTK, 307.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 233/357
Grammar
221
i 6 b 6 ) , uses it also to mean an adjective (ibid. 20b 1-2), and the wider
term 'pr ed ic at e ' must some time s be the best translat ion.
Stenzel noted (RE, x x v . H al b b. i o i o f . ) that , i f Plato 's definit ion of a
statement by its simplest grammatical form seems primitive, we must
bear in mind that his concern is not in fact with the grammatical formbut with such questions as how, of two grammatically equally correct
p ropos i t ions ( 'Theae te tu s s i t s ' , 'Th eae te t us f l i e s ' ) , one can be true
and the oth er false. T h e exalted po si tio n o f the logos in a Greek mind
is w e l l brought out by the bui ld-up which Pla to g i v e s it at Crat. 425 a.
N o u n s and ver bs are con str uct ed o ut o f letters and syll able s, and fro m
nouns and verbs we compose 'something great and beautiful and
comple te , the Logos, for med b y the art o f na mi ng or rhet ori c or
whatever it be, just as a l i v i n g figure is composed by the art of the
pa in te r ' . Th i s Gre ek at t i tude to L o g o s (in some contexts the capital
letter seems to impose itself) must never be forgotten when as cold
bl ood ed grammarians or logic ians w e f ind ourse lves g r o w i n g exaspera
ted by the looseness and ambiguity with which i t appears to be used.
Protagoras 's interest in the gender of nouns is vouched for by a
contemporary. Aris to t le te l l s us that i t wa s he w h o di vi ded no un s intomasculine, feminine and neuter, 1 and this is reflected in the Clouds o f
Ar ist op han es. T h e pla y contain s, und er the name of Socrat es, an at tack
on Protagoras 's claim to make the weaker ( ' u n j u s t ' ) argument the
str ong er, and Str epsiad es, w h o has co me to Socrates to learn the unjust
arg ume nt in order t o av oi d pa yme nt o f his debts, is dis may ed to di s
c o v e r that he mus t first learn ' ab o u t names , wh ic h o f the m are mas
culine and which feminine ' . His fai lure ( in common with al l his
f e l l o w - G r e e k s ) to dis tin gu ish anim als o f different sex b y different
termin ation s, a nd his use o f the mascul ine article wi t h no un s w h i c h
ha ve wh at is us ual ly a feminine end in g, earn him a sharp r eb uk e fro m
' S o c r a t e s ' . Th is cast igati on o f the gr amma r o f ord ina ry la ng uag e as
i l l o g i c a l or imprecise appears again in Protagoras 's contention that
the Gr ee k wo rd s f o r ' wr at h ' an d ' he l met ' , wh ic h are feminine , ou gh t to
be mascul ine . 2
1 Or things ( σ κ ε ύ η ) ,Ar . Poet. 140707. Aristotle himself c a l l e d them μ ε τ α ξ ύ(Rhet. 1 4 5 8 3 9 ,Soph. el. 1 66 b 1 2 , 1 7 3b 28). Th e w or d ο υ δ έ τ ε ρ ο »(Lat . neuter) came into use with later grammarians.
1 Arist . Soph. el. 1 7 3 b 1 9 . Some have supposed that this was on account of the warlike or
'unf emin ine ch arac ter ' (M ur ra y) of the conceptions wh ich the wor ds signified. Mor e pro bably
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 234/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
2 2 2
P r o d i c u s 1 is me nt io ned in the Euthydemus (277 ε ) as on e w h o in
sis ted on the pri mar y impo rtan ce o f ' t he correct ness of n am es ' ,
which Socrates there calls the first stag e o f init iati on in to the mys te ri es
o f the Soph ist s. His speci alit y wa s prec isi on in the use o f la ng ua ge and
the accurate dis t inct ion o f the mea nin g of wo rd s co mm on l y regard edas sy no ny mo us . He rebu kes me , says Socrates in the Protagoras
(341a), for us in g an express ion l ike ' t e r r ib ly c l ev er ' . 'T er r i b l e '
(deinos, see p. 32) mus t qualify unpleasant things l ike poverty,
disease or wa r. T h e same di al ogu e conta ins a pa ro dy o f his te ach ing ,
a somewha t po mp ou s speech in wh ic h he dis t inguishes bet we en dis
cussion and disput e, este em and praise, pleasure and enj oy me nt . In
the Laches (197 d) he is men ti one d, in co nn ex io n wi th the disti ncti on
bet wee n co ur ag e and fearlessness, as ' t he best o f the Soph ist s at
drawing such d is t inc t ions ' . 2 Aristot le shows him l is t ing enjoyment ,
delight and gl adn ess as sub div isi ons o f pleasure, and in co nn ex io n
wi th this a la te comme nta t or c red it s h im wi t h t h e ' inv ent ion ' o f ' verba l
accuracy ' .3
Perhaps the most interesting thing about all this is the evidence for a
personal relat ionshi p bet we en Pr od ic us and Socr ate s, w h o refers to
himself severa l t ime s in Pl at o as Pr od ic us 's pupil or friend.4 Pr od ic us 's
insis tence on dis t ing uishi ng preci sely be twe en wor ds o f close ly related
Protagoras was moved by purely morphological considerations connected with their terminations. See T. Gomperz, Gr. Th. I , 444f. and Fehling, Rh. Mus. 196 5, 21 5, and cf. the ar gum entabout κ ά ρ δ ο τ τ ο ς atClouds 670ff. Note that once a g a i n his targ et is Homer , and indeed his crit icis mof the concord μ η ν ιν ο ύ λ ο μ έ ν η νbe lo ng s to the same cont ext as that of the mood of ά ε ι δ ε ,v i z . a criticme of the opening l i n e s of the Iliad. See Fehling' s imag inat ive reconstruction, ibid.
2 1 4 , and, for his conclusions from this, p. 205 above.1 For Pr odi cus in ge nera l see pp. 274 ff. bel ow.1
Other Platonic references to Prodicus in this connexion are Prot. 340am, Meno 75 ε ,Charm. 163d , Crat. 384b.
3 τ έ ρ ψ ις ,χ α ρ ά a nd ε υ φ ρ ο σ ύ ν η ,Ar . Top. 1 1 2 b 22; cf. schol. on Phaedr. — Hermias, p. 283Couvreur (not in DK but added by Untersteiner, Sof. 1 1 , 1 73 f . ) : Prodicus τ η ν τ ώ ν ο ν ο μ ά τ ω νε δ ρ ε νά κ ρ ί β ε ι α ν .According to the scholiast, T i p y t s was pleasure through the e a r s , χ α ρ άpleasure of the mind, and ε υ φ ρ ο σ ύ ν ηv i s u a l ple asu re; a classification whi ch, if r e a l l y Prodicus ' s ,shows once a g a i n the norma tiv e rather than des crip tive charac ter of this kin d of teac hing, for ithardly corresponds to ordinary u s a g e . (In Prodicus's speech in the Protagoras, ε ύ φ ρ α ΐν ε σ δ α ιis contrasted with ή δ ε σ θ α ι ,and is defined as the enjoyment resulting from exercising the intellect.)The scholiast, however , has ver y l i k e l y intr oduce d a Stoic classification. Cf. A l e x , in DK, 84 A 19,and see on this Classen in Proc. Afr. C.A. 195 9, 39f. C lass en thi nks that e\'en Arist otle has
confused Prodicus with Platonic δ ι α ίρ ε σ ίξ .4 See pp. 275 f. be lo w. I agre e wi th H. Gom per z (S. u. R. 93) that these allus ions canno t be
dismissed as jokes wit hout a ny historic al foundation.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 235/357
Prodicus on Precise Diction
mea ni ng has o b vi o u s affini ties wi th the Socratic habit o f pi nn in g d o w n
an in ter loc utor and ma ki ng him say precise ly wh at cour age , temper
ance, vir tue, or whatever be the subject of their discuss ion, is —what
is i ts for m or b e i n g ; and the teach ing of Pr od ic us ma y w e l l have been
an influence directing his thought along these l ines. Whether, asC a l o g e r o has writ ten, ' the difference between the two approaches is
v e r y sha rp ' , Pro dic us car ing on ly for ' co rre ct sp ea ki ng ' and Socrates
interested i n ' the real t h i n g ' or wh et he r, as W . S ch mi d has i t , Pr od ic us 's
art o f div isi on wa s a 'scientif ic fert i l izat ion o f the So cratic sphere o f
t h o u g h t ' a n d ' h i s a t t e mp t to sharpen and regularize the use of language
t h r o u g h l o g i c a l demands an und oub ted ly va luab le p repa ra t i on for
the concep tua l clarif ication of l i terary l an gu ag e' , is a que sti on thatw i l l be taken up later. 1 One may add he re , however, tha t P r o d i c u s
l ike oth er So phis ts had a hi gh repu ta t ion as a political o ra to r and
g a v e paid publ ic d isplays of e loqu ence, and a lso , l ike Pro tag ora s ,
un de rt oo k to teach the art of success in poli t ics and the ma na ge me nt o f
private estates. It is l i k e l y therefore tha t his insist ence on p reci se
lan gua ge occur red in the conte xt o f rhetor ica l ins t ruct ion. 2
A D D I T I O N A L N O T E S
( i ) Prodicus and Thucydides. A n t i p h o n , G o rg i a s a n d P r o d i c u s w e r e
al l ment ioned in la te ant iqui ty as teachers or models of Thucydides .
(See D K , 84 A 9, H . May er , Prodikos, 61.) In May er ' s o w n opi nio n
the 'Schar fe und Pr ag na nz ' o f Th uc yd id es ' s s ty le i s a co mbi ned
inher i t ance f rom Gorg i as ' s an ti theses and Prod icus ' s 'S y n o n y m i k ' .
I t is no t easy to see in Go rg ia s a teacher o f 'S ch ar fe und P r ag n an z' ,
but in any case I do not wish to enter here on a discussion of influ
ences on Thucydides in genera l but s imply to f o l l o w May er in d r awi ng
a t ten t ion to som e places whe re the d is t inct ion bet wee n ne ar- sy no ny ms
1 See pp. 275 fT. For some further assessments of the valu e of Prodi cus 's li ngu is tic wo rk see
Grant , Ethics, i, i24f . ( ' W e must ack now led ge the merit of this first attempt at sepa ratin g the
different shades ofl a n g u a g e ,
and fixing a nomenclature ' ,e t c . ) ;
H. Gomperz, S. u. R. 124-6 (the
aim of his instruction was rhetorical—otherwise young men would not have paid 50 dr. a time
to hear h i m !— y e t ' aus der Bedeutun gslehre des Prodiko s ist die Begriffsphilosophie des Sokrat es
e r w a c h s e n ' ) ; an d other authorities referred to in Untersteiner, Sophs. 225, n. 66. Unte rstei ner
i s not quite correct in s a y i n g on p. 215 that 'a ll scholars are ag re ed ' on the qu estion .
* Plato, Hipp. Maj. 282c, Rep. 600c, an d see pp. 41 f. ab ov e.
3 ? . 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 236/357
Rhetoric and Philosophy
224
is dr aw n in a w a y so str iki ngl y reminiscent o f Pr odi cus in the Protagoras
that they must surely owe their inspirat ion to him.
In 1.23.6 we have the famous distinction between the true but dis
guised cause (ι τ ρ ό φ α σ ι ς ) o f the w ar and the reasons ( α ί τ ί α ι ) w hi ch w er e
openly given.
1.69.6, α ί τ ι α and κ α τ η γ ο ρ ί α . 'Please do not think that our remon
strance arises out of any hostile feelings. Remonstrance (α ι τ ία ) is what one
employs against friends who have erred, accusation (κ α τ η γ ο ρ ί α ) against
enemies who have wronged one.'
2.62.4, α ϋ χ η μ α and κ α τ α φ ρ ό ν η σ η . ' A n y coward can beboastful out of
ignorance and luck, but a proper disdain comes from reasoned confidence
in one's superiority over the enemy.'
3.39.2, έ τ τ α ν α σ τ η ν α ι and ά τ τ ο σ τ ή ν α ι . T h e Mytileneans are ' no t so much
revolutionaries —a wo r d whi ch applies to people w h o hav e suffered harsh
treatment—as deliberate insurgents plotting with our enemies to destroy us'.
4.98.6, α μ ά ρ τ η μ α and τ τ α ρ α ν ο μ ία . 'Involuntaryfaults [the Athenians
claimed] earned sanctuary at the altars of the gods, and the name crime
should be reserved for wrongful acts committed gratuitously, not under the
pressure of circumstances.'
6 .11 .6 , έ τ τ α ίρ ε σ θ α ι and Θ α ρ σ ε ϊν . ' Wh at matters is not to feel elation
at any chance setback of our enemies, but rather confidence in our own
superior planning.' 1
A l l bu t one o f these instances oc cu r in a spe ech , direct or re por ted ,
and the use ma de o f them b y Thu cy di de s is further evi den ce o f the
rhetorical purpose of such nice dist inct ions. They can indeed be
remarkab ly effective.
(2) Synonymic and philosophy. Mo mig l ia no has an in teres t ing the ory
o f the po ssible bear ings of Pr odi cu s ' s discriminat ion o f s y n o n y m s on
bo th ph i lo sophy o f l a n g u a g e and e th ic s . T h e wo rd s ' t he o r y ' and ' p o s
s ib l e ' are m y ow n , for Mo mi gl ia no presents his con clu sio ns as certain.
O n the evidence t ha t w e ha v e, it is difficult to be so confide nt, bu t ev en
on a more cautious v i e w the i n t e rp re t a t ion is to o inte rest ing to be pas sed
o v e r. It is as fo l lows QnAtti Torino, 1929-30, i o2 f . ) . Democr i tu s had
1 Not all the example s cited by Mayer see m rel eva nt. At ι . 84.3 the rhetor ical effect is ga in ed
b y u si ng α Ι δ ώ ς a nd α ι σ χ ύ ν ηind ist ingu ish abl y rather than differentiating between them, andat 1.36. 1 φ ο β ο ύ μ α ιand δ έ δ ο ικ α seem to be used simply to avoid clum sy repeti t ion. Nor is anydifference of meaning between Ι σ ο ςand K o t v o s suggested at 3 . 5 3 . 1 - 2 .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 237/357
Additional Notes on Prodicus
sa id that w o r d s d o n o t r ef le c t r e a l i ty b e c a u s e ( a m o n g o t h e r r e a s o n s ) n o t
e v e r y w o r d h a s a n o b j e c t c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o i t. ( S e ev o l . 11 ,4 7 5 . ) T h e o n l y
w a y t o r e fu t e h i m w a s t o s h o wthat i t d id , i .e . that o f s o - c a l l e d s y n o
n y m s ( l i k e τ ε λ ε υ τ ή , π έ ρ α ς , ε σ χ α τ ο ν ,Meno 75 ε ) eac h ha s in fac t i t s
o w n s e p a ra t e o b j e c t . W h a t P r o d i c u s i s d o i n g w i t h h i sapparentp e d a n t r y i s t o o p p o s e th e p r e v a i l i n g s c e p t i c i s m . A n d , s i n c e t h e o r e t i c a l
s c e p t i c i s m l e d t o p r a c t i c a l r e l a t i v i s m , h e i s e q u a l l y i n r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t
' t h e a r m y o f T h r a s y m a c h u s e s a n dC a l l i c l e s e s ' . T h i s e x p la i n s h o w
P r o d i c u s t h e h a i r - s p l i t t e r i s a l s o t h eauthor o f t h e m o r a l i z i n g f ab l e o f
t h e C h o i c e o f H e r a c l e s ( p p . 2 77 f. b e l o w ) . T h e a r t o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g
s y n o n y m s h a d i m p o r t a n t b e a r i n g s o n e t h ic s , i n v o l v i n g t h e s e p a r a t io n
o f α γ α θ ό ς f r o m κ ρ ε ί τ τ ω ν , δ ί κ α ι ο ν fr o m σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν . ( T h e s e p a r te x a m p l e s d o n o t , s o f ar a s I a m a w a r e , o c c u r i n t h e s u r v i v i n g r e c o r d o f
P r o d i c u s ' s a c t i v i t y. ) H i s r e a c t io n , c o n t i n u e s M o m i g l i a n o , i s t h e m o r e
i n t e r e s t i n g f o r n o t b e i n g s i m p l y a d e f e n c e o f t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f s . O n t h e
d a n g e r o u s s u b j e c t o f t h e g o d s h e w a s b o t h b o l d a n d o r i g i n a l ( s e e o n
t h i s p p . 23 8 ff. b e l o w ) , y e t h e f el t t h e n e e d o f u p h o l d i n g s o u n d m o r a l
p r i n c i p l e s i n d a i l y l i f e . H e thus ( c o n c l u d e s M o m i g l i a n o ) o c c u p i e s a
s p e c i a l p l a c e a m o n g t h e S o p h i s t s , d i f fe r en t o n t h e o n ehand f r o m t h es c e p t i c is m o f G o r g i a s , P r o t a g o r a s a n d T h r a s y m a c h u s , a n d o n t h e
o t h e r f r o m A n t i p h o n a n d H i p p i a s w i t h t h e ir a n t it h e si s b e t w e e nnatural
a n d c o n v e n t i o n a l m o r a l i t y.
225
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 238/357
IX
R AT I O N A L I S T THEORIESOF R E L I G I O N : A G N O S T I C I S M
A N D AT H E I S M1
( i ) C R I T I C I S M S O F T R A D I T I O N A L R E L I G I O N
The Presocra t ic phi losophers , whether or not they re ta ined a b e l i e f in a
d iv ine force or forces , a l l a l ike promulgated concept ions of re l ig ion
w h i c h we re far re mo ve d f rom the ant hro pom orp his m o f the po pula r
o r state cul t s based on the Ho me r ic pant heon. X en op ha ne s open ly
a t tacked them, and subs t i tu ted a non -an thr opo mor phi c mon oth e is m
or panth eism , whi le others ta ci t ly aba ndo ned th em in fav our, fi rst , o f
an eve r- l i v ing wor ld - s tu ff desc ribed vag ue ly a s go ve rn in g o r s t ee r ing
the mo ti on s o f the cos mo s and ev er yt hi ng in i t , and later, in A n a x a
go ra s, of a sin gle Mi nd separate fro m the mat te r o f the uni ver se andthe cause o f the rat ional ord er w hi ch i t disp lays . W e hav e seen
Heracl i tus co nd em ni ng phall ic and other cul ts for their uns eemli ness
and D em oc r i tu s (doubt less under the inf luence o f a l ready exis t ing
evo lu t iona ry theo r i e s ) c l a iming tha t i t was only the alarming na tu re o f
t h u n d e r, l igh tn ing and s imi lar phenomena tha t made men think they
were caused b y go ds . A s ' en l ig h te nme n t ' g r ow s , i t sh ow s i t s e lf unde r
t w o mai n aspects (wh eth er in ancient G re ec e or Eur op e since the
Ren ai ss anc e): first, the determi nati on to bel iev e on ly wh at is reason
able and a te nde nc y to identify reason wi th pos i t i vis m and the p rog re ss
o f natura l sc ience , and se con dly a genu ine conce rn wi th mora l i ty .
Moral i ty is identif ied w it h the amelio rat i on o f hu ma n l i fe and the
el imin at ion o f cru el t y, injury and al l forms o f exp loi tat ion o f hu ma n
beings by their f e l l o w s , and is base d on pur el y huma nist ic and r elat i ve
standards, for it is held tha t abso lu t e s tandards c la iming supernatura l
1 For a gene ral aper cu of the criticism of tradit ional re lig ion in Greece, a subject whi ch far
exceeds the scope of this history, see P. Decharme, La critique des trad. rels. che\ les Grecs.
2 2 ( 5
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 239/357
Criticism of Religion in the Fifth Century
authori ty not only have led in the past , but must inevitably lead, to
cruelty, intolerance and other e v i l s . The Greek gods were ve ry
vulnerable in both these aspects, and as soon as conventional piety
began to y i e l d to a mor e though tful a t t i tu de—wh en nomos in all its
aspects was no longer taken for granted but ra ther contras ted wi th whatw a s natural and universa l 1 —scept ic ism and disapproval began to
make themselves fel t in increasing volume.
T h e attack on rel igion was indeed c l o s e l y bound up wi th the
nomos-physis anti thesis . Plato (Laws 889 c) compla ins o f peo pl e w h o
cla im that ' the gods are human contrivances, they do not exist in
nature but on ly b y cu st om and la w, wh ic h mo re ov er differ fro m place
to place ac co rd in g to the agre ement ma de b y each gr ou p wh e n the ylaid down their l a w s ' .
Wh e n P la to wro te , such con ten t ions were no t h in g new. T h e
Ari sto ph ani c Socrates rejected the go ds as an out -of- date cur ren cy
(nomisma, p. 56 ab o ve ), and in Euri pide s He cu ba calls nomos super ior
to the gods because it is by nomos that w e bel iev e in them as w e l l as in
s tandards o f r ig ht and wr o n g (p. 23). Th er e is pl ent y of evi de nce that
the ho ld o f rel igi on ov er men' s mind s was we ak en in g in the intel lectualfermen t o f the Pe ric lean age, and also that Athenian off ic ia ldom was
ne rv ou s and to uc hy abou t i t . T h e cult o f the go ds wa s integral to the
l i fe of the state and a powerful cohesive force. I t may be claimed that
a l l that was necessary was conformity wi th cul t -pract ices , 2 and that
thought was free; but i t must have been as obvious to an Athenian
tradit ionalist as i t was to Cicero's Cotta that those w h o den y outr ight
that the go ds ex is t ' n on mo do supers ti t ionem t o l l u n t . . . s ed et i amrel ig ionem, quae deorum cul tu p io cont inetur ' (N.D. 1 . 4 2 . 11 7 ) .
Hen ce the imp iet y tr ials and the decree o f Dio pe it he s against atheism
and cosmic specula t ion.
1 Th e conventional attitude is exemplified b y the reply of Socrates in X e n o p h o n (Mem.
4 . 3 . 1 6 ) to Eut hyde mus, wh o ackno wle dge s divi ne provid ence but is worr ied by the t hough tthat no adequate return can ever be made to the gods by men. The gods themselves, he s a y s ,hav e provide d the answ er, for whenev er the Delph ic oracle is approached wit h this prob lem,
it a l w a y s repl ies : 'Fol low the nomos of your c i t y ' , which means propitiating the gods with
sacr i f i ces just as far as is in you r powe r. S uch an answer w oul d sca rcel y satisfy the more progressive and inquiring spirits of the fifth century.
2 'Ev en if we concentrate on the relig ious contr overs y whi ch occasioned the trial [of S o c r a t e s ] ,the problem of faith never became an issue.' ( S n e l l , Disc, of Mind, 26.) See also p. 237 , n. 2 belo w.
227
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 240/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
3.28
T h e y did no t to le ra te [ says P lu ta r ch (Nicias 23)] the na tu ra l p h i l o s o p h e r s
and s ta r-gazers , 1 as th ey ca l led th em, d i s so lv in g d i v i n i ty in to i r ra t iona l
causes , b l in d forces and nec essa ry prope r t ie s . Pr o t ag or as wa s b ani she d ,
A n a x a g o r a s p u t u n d e r r e s t r a in t and wi t h d i ff icu l ty sav ed b y Per i c les , and
Socra tes , t ho ug h in fac t he had n o con ce rn in su ch m a t t e r s , lost his life
t h r o u g h h i s d e v o t i o n t o p h i l o s o p h y.
A nd in his life o f Per icl es (32) :
A b o u t th is t ime [sc. j u s t be fo r e t h e o u t b r e a k o f t he Pe lo po n n es i a n W a r ]
Aspas ia w a s p r o s e c u t e d f o r i m p i e t y . . . a n d D i o p e i t h e s * i n t r o d u c e d a b i l l
fo r the im pea chm en t o f tho se w h o deni ed the g od s or t a ug ht abou t ce les t ia l
phenomena , d i r ec t i ng su sp i c ion at Pe r i c l e s t h ro u g h An a xa g o r a s .
T h e mot iv es mi gh t be politi cal, bu t the state of opinion was such tha t
imputations o f athei sm and natural science were a sure way to secure a
prosecution, as Socrates's accusers knew w e l l . N o dist inct ion wa s
drawn be tw ee n the scientific wri ter s and the paid teachers w h o m w e call
Sophists. T h e y shared the same reli gious scepti cism, wh ic h for the
Sophists wa s often t he result o f re adi ng the w o r k s o f the scientis ts, an d
at the time the word sophistes was applied as naturally to Anaxagoras
as to Pro tag ora s o r Hippias ( p. 30 ab ov e) .
Crit icism o f the go ds on moral gro un ds ca me early. It need ed no
scientific spec ulat ion or logi ca l sub tle ty to be scandali zed b y Z eu s' s
castration of his father or his m a n y amo ur s, the thefts and de ceit o f
Hermes, or the jealou sy o f Hera and the malic ious and ve nge ful char ac
ter of the immo rtal s i n gener al. M yt hs in wh ic h the go d s appear ed as
thieves, adulter ers, sed ucer s and glut to ns we re alr ead y rejected b y
Xeno phane s and Pindar . In the age o f enli ghte nment w e find Eur ipid es
eve rywh ere gi v i n g rein to such criticis m. It can take different f or ms —reproach o f the go d s for their behaviour, declarat ions that gods exist
" μ ε τ Ε ω ρ ο λ έ σ χ α ; ,lit. 'chat terer s about thing s in the sk y' . The wo rd occurs in Plato (Rep.
489 c ) , coupled with the adjective ά χ ρ η σ τ ο υ ; ,to illus trat e the kind of abuse that was l e v e l l e d atphilosophers.
a Not much is kno wn about t he appro priat ely named Diopeithes . The n ame is mentionedsevera l times in Aristophanes (Knights 1085, Wasps 380, Birds 988), but all that emerges isthat the holder of it was a soothsayer. Fragments of other comic poets depict him as a fanaticand as a drum mer in the Co ry ba nti c rites (Ameips ias 10 K., Telec lid es 6 K. and Phr yni chu s 9 K.;see Lobeck, Aglaoph. 981) . The prosecution of 'Anaxagor as the Sophis t ' is mentioned (b ut not
Diopeithes or his ψ ή φ ι σ μ α . )by Diodorus ( 1 2 . 3 9 . 2 ) . For the connexion of the Sophists wit h thenatural philosopher s cf. pp. 45ff. above , and for the supposed co nnexio n betwe en ' sk y- ga z i ng 'and immoral sophistic teaching Clouds 1283 (pp. H 4 f . ) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 241/357
Criticism on Moral Grounds
but do not and cannot behave l ike that , or assert ions tha t , since these
are the g o d s w e are ta ug ht to be li ev e in, either th ey d o no t exi st —it is
a l l li es —o r th ey are heedle ss o f hu ma n affairs and d o no t merit or
nee d our wo rs hi p. A s a dramatist Eurip ides co ul d reflect al l poi nts o f
v i e w through his various plots and characters. In the Ion w e see thedis i l lus ionment o f a p io us yo u n g acoly te w h o learns tha t the god he
serves has stooped to seduce a mortal woman. The Heracles conta ins
a vehement denial tha t t h e g o d s c o u l d b e h a v e w i c k e d l y ( i 3 4 i f f . ) :
I do not believe that the go ds take pleasure in unlawf ul intercourse, nor
have I ever thought nor can be persuaded that they load each other with
fetters, nor that one is lord ov er another. Go d , if he be truly g o d, lacks
nothing. These are the wretched tales of bards. 1
Co mp le te d isbel ief in the god s , based on the prosp er i ty o f the wi ck ed
an d the sufferings o f the just, is v o i ce d in a passio nate ou tb urs t in the
Bellerophon (fr. 286): Th er e are no go ds in hea ven . T o bel iev e in su ch
o ld w i v e s ' tales is f o l l y . Y o u hav e on l y to loo k a round y o u . T yr an t s
mur der , ro b, cheat and r av age , and are happier than the pious and
peaceful . Smal l god -fe ar i ng s ta tes are ov er wh el med by the mi l i tary
mi gh t o f thos e larg er and mo re wi ck ed . Mo re in the ve in o f theHeracles passage is the line, again from the Bellerophon (fr. 2 9 2 . 7 ) :
' I f gods act basely, they are no gods. ' That the example o f the go ds co u ld
be in vo ke d to excu se hu ma n fai l ings is also poi nte d o ut b y Eur ipi des ,
for instance when Phaedra 's old nurse co nd on es her i l l ici t passi on b y
remi ndi ng her, wi th the examples o f Zeu s and Eo s , tha t Aphrod i t e i s a
power too strong for the other gods themselves to resist , and again
b y Helen in extenuat io n o f her o w n con duc t (Tro. 948). T h e sam epoi nt i s mad e in co mi c vein b y Aris top hane s , wh en the Unju s t A r g u
ment claims tha t wi th ou t his rhetorical skil l a sinner w i l l be lost , but
with i t he w i l l confound his accusers (Clouds 1079):
Suppose you are caught in adultery, you w i l l argue that you have done
not hin g w ro n g, and point to Ze us, wh o could never resist lov e or wo me n.
How, you w i l l say, could you, a mortal, show greater strength than a god?1
Yet so strong was the force of tradition that the whole plot of the Heracles depends on thejealous wrath of Hera, of whose unspeakable cruelty the hero himself, who speaks these words,
has been the victim. Some have thought that the parado x was deliber ate, to bri ng out the inherent
abs urdi ty of the situation, but Le sk y (pr obab ly ri gh dy ) sees it as a product of the tension be
tween the subject-matter, impose d by tradition and my th ol og y, and the intellect of the d ramati st.
S e e Lesky, HGL, 382.
229
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 242/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
230
In contrast t o the ho me ly traditi onalism o f the nurse, the mo ral ist
could claim that a go d might be s impl y the prod uct of psy cho log ica l
transference: men gave the name to their own e v i l pass ions . ' M y son
wa s handsome, ' says Hecuba to Helen (Eur. Tro. 987), 'and at sight
o f him yo ur mind bec ame C yp ri s . A l l foolish acts are cal led Aph ro di te
b y m a n k i n d . ' 1 T h e kind of cr i t icism wh ic h so ug ht to abso lve the g o ds
f rom the unethical behaviour attached to their names in the myths
mus t not be th ou gh t of, and was not t ho ug ht o f at the ti me , 2 as an
attack on reli gio n as suc h, or ev en the established state- religi on. O n e
o f i ts most vigorous exponents was Plato, who in the Republic firmly
accused Homer and Hes iod of l y i n g , yet was an implacable opponent
o f unb eli ef either in the go d s or in their pro vi den tia l care for ma nk in d,
and an uph old er o f the official cul t s .
Besides mor al pr ob it y, self-sufficiency was be in g dem and ed as an
essential pro per ty o f dei ty. Ai de d perhaps b y Xe no ph an es and Eleat ic
not ions of God as 'unmoved ' and ' impass ib le ' , the ra t ional i sm of the
t ime saw the godhe ad as ' l ac ki ng no th in g ' . T hes e wo rd s o f Eur ip ides ' s
Heracles can hard ly be unc onne cte d wi th the pro nou nce men t o f
A n t i p h o n : ' Fo r this reason he has need of not hin g, nor does he expe ctan yt hi ng fr om a n y b o d y , bu t is infinite and all-suf ficient. ' 3 B e l i e f in the
1 Cf. als o fr. 254 N . :
A . Often the gods lead mortal men astray.B . Yo u take the easy line, and blame the go ds .
G. Devereux has pointed out that Helen's defence is anticipated by what Penelope s a y s about
her at Od. 23.2 22. See his From Anxiety to Method, 344, n. 2. (T he com paris on is made by S tan
ford ad loc. in his edition.) But whereas Homer accepts, Euripides, in the person of Hecuba,
cr i t i c izes .2 Decharme {Critique, p. vi i) has poin ted out a reason wh y no susp icion of imp iet y attached
to this purgation. Fundamentalism was a phenomenon unknown to the Greeks because there
w a s nothing i n their rel igio us literature correspo nding to the 'w or d of God'. ' l i s ne cr urent
point que les dieu x eux -me mes eussent ete les aute urs de leur theol ogie , ou ils vire nt seul ement
l 'ceuvre des poetes. '3 ( a ) F r. 10. W i th An ti ph on 's ο ύ δ ε ν ό ; δ ε ί τ α ι cf. δ ε ϊ τ α ι γ ά ρ ό θ ε ό ; . . . ο ΰ δ ε ν ό ; in E ur ip id es .
(b) The re is so muc h unc ert ain ty abou t the date of Antip hon 's wr it in gs (see p. 286, n. 2,
be low) that it is impossible on external grounds to say whether Euripides is copying this passage
from the "Α λ ή θ ε ια or not . Some have used 'echo es ' of Antiphon in Euripides as actual evidence
of his date , but this is a dan ger ou s criterion. Such statements as 'G od lac ks no th in g' could be
com mon to mo re than one writer of the time , and neither Euripi des nor Ant iph on need hav e
s a i dit first.
( c ) The quotat ion is given in a lexicon ( the Suda) to i l lustrate the meaning of ά δ έ η τ ο ; .
S i n c e context is lacking, the reason referred to in δ ια τ ο Ο τ ο is unkno wn. I t is not even stated
(but can scarcely be doub ted) that the subject is θ ε ό ;. (For the consensus of scholarly opini on
on this point see Untersteiner, Sophs. 259, n. 10.)
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 243/357
Divine Self-sufficiency and Providence
s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y o f the dei ty leads natu ral ly to dou bt s abo ut the reality of
an y divi ne pr ov id en ce or care for man ki nd. T h e idea w h i c h Pla to
deplored, that ' t h e r e are go ds , but they take no tho ug ht for hu man
affairs' (Laws 885 b , 888c), wa s current in the fifth cen tur y. X e n o p h o n(Mem. 1 .4 .10 ) represents a man called Ar is to de mus as prot est ing to
Socrates, when taxed with refusing to g i v e the gods their customary
meed of sacrifice and prayer, that far from contemning the divine, he
th ou gh t it wa s to o gre at to need his serv ice, and mo re ov er that the
g o d s co ul d hav e no th ou gh t for man kin d. An t i ph on is said to h av e
denied providence in the same work On Truth in which he declared the
s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y o f G o d and spo ke of the advisabil i ty o f con fo rmi ng to
convent ional moral i ty onl y wh en under obser va t i on; 1 and Thrasy
machus saw in the prevalence of wickedness evidence that the gods
are blind to what goes on among men (p. 97 above).
T h e rationalis m o f the natural philosophers was not completely
atheistic (as w e sh ou ld use the w o r d ) bu t non e the less des tru cti ve o f
the traditional and off ic ia l pantheon. In the Ionian tradition divinity
for long was identified with the living physis o f the wo rl d, until
A n a x a g o r a s separated it as a re mot e Mi nd wh i c h started the co sm ic
proc ess in the be gi nn in g. More impor tan t to his cont empor ari es than
the existence o f this Mi nd was his redu cti on o f the all-seein g Hel ios ,
w h o traversed the sky every day in his flashing chariot and was the
a w f u l wit nes s o f me n' s mos t sacred oath s, to the status o f a lifeless
lum p of gl o wi ng stone. Euripides wa s bol d en ou gh to intro duce this
descr ipti on into his traged ies and it made such a dee pl y unf avo ura ble
(</) I have translated ά π ε ιρ ο ς by infini te. Luria suggested that there wa s a double mea ni ng:
( i ) infinite, (i i) untr ied , and Unters teiner has followed hi m (Sophs. 259, n. 13 ). But in the
passages which he cited as parallel (Plato, Phil. 17ε and Tim. 55 d) , the second meaning is
active (ignora nt, inexperienced), L S J giv e no example of the passive sense (unexperienced, un
kn own or untr ied) , nor do I kn ow of any.
(e) Untersteiner (Sophs. 260, n. 13a, Sof. iv , 4 2 Q thinks Xen. Mem. 1 . 6 . 1 0 i s proof thatAnti phon wa s not giv in g his own vi ew but one that he was opposing. Schmid (Gesch. 1 . 3 . 1 , 1 6 0 )take s the fr. at it s face val ue and incl udes Mem. 1.6.3 among his r e f 8 r e n c e s without comment.
Th e reader ma y take his choice. Pers ona lly I think ev en Xe nop hon 's Socr ates wa s capabl e of a
bit of r a i l l e r y. What he s a y s i s : 'Y ou seem to imagine that happiness consists in luxury and
extravagance, έ γ ώ δ έ ν ο μ ί3ω τ ό μ έ ν μ η δ ε ν ό ςδ ε ϊ σ θ α ι θ ε ί ο νε ί ν α ι ', s l yl ybri ngi ng up his own word sagainst him.
1 Fr. 1 2, from Or ige n. For refe rences to moder n o pinions about this see Unter stei ner, Sophs.
264, n. 74. It should be noted that Unterst einer is one of those who be lieve that the whole passage
Laws 888 d - 890 a repr oduces t he doctri ne of Anti phon . S ee Sophs. 23 1, n. 17 , 263, n. 70,
2 6 5 ,n . 9 1 , a n dSof. I V ,I78ff.
I l l
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 244/357
Rationalist Theories oj Religion
232
impression on the Athenian mind that not only was it said to have
been the occas ion o f An ax ag or as 's banishment but Meletus th oug ht
it worth while to try to implicate Socrates in it at his trial. 1 But the
most popular phi losophi c th eo lo gy wa s that wh i ch identif ied div ini ty
w i t h the air or aither, revived as a scientific theory at this time byD i o g e n e s of Ap ol lo ni a and eas i ly absorbed by popular thou ght o w i n g
to its affinities with ancient beliefs. 2 Its familiarity is sh ow n b y the
i n v o c a t i o n o f Socrates to the ' L o r d and Master, measureless A i r ' in
the Clouds, and t he ident ifi catio n o f air or aither wi th Zeu s in the p ray er
o f Hecuba in Eur ip ides ' s Troades. Aither also takes the name of Zeus
in t w o other places in Eurip ides. Th e atomic god s o f De moc ri tu s we re
even farther removed from official re l ig ion.3
It is hard to arr ive at the mi nd o f Eur ipi des himself, be y on d sa yi ng
that he wa s int ense ly interested in the mo st adva nc ed th in ki ng o f his
day. He speaks through his characters, who mirror almost every point
o f v i e w ,4 and i t is as su ch a mi rr or o f his tim e that he is (for our pre sen t
purposes, natural ly) best regarded. A woman in the Thesmophoria^usae
accuses him rou nd ly o f atheism (450f. ' In his tragedies he persuades
me n that the g od s do not exi st ') , but the co mi c poe t has har dly ma de
her an impartial witness. Plutarch (Amat. 7 5 6 b - c ) says that , when the
Melanippe w as first per fo rm ed , t he line (fr. 480) ' Ze us , w h o e v e r Zeu s
ma y be , for I k n o w no t sav e b y he ar sa y' caused such an upr oar in the
theatre that for a sec ond pr od uc ti on he altered it to ' Z e u s , as t r u th
i t s e l f has said 'J A similar phrase, 'w ha te ve r the go ds ma y b e ' , occ urs in
the Orestes (418) in a cont ext o f out spo ken cri t icism of divi ne p ow er s . 6
1 See vol. n, 307, 269 and 323, Plato, Apol. z6d. 1 Vol. 1 1 , chapter vn, and vol. I, i28ff.3 See vol. 11 , 3 1 0 1 " . ,and Eur. frr. 877, 941 (quo ted from un kn ow n pl ay s and wit hou t c on te xt );
also Eur ipides 's α ίθ ή ρ Ι μ ό ν β ό σ κ η μ α atFrogs 892. For Demo cri tus vo l. II, 478 m, esp. p. 480, n. I .
There may be a flavour of Democritus in Tro. 886, but the idea was widespread . "Α ή ρ and α ίθ ή ρ
wer e inte rch ange abl e in these context s (vo l. 11, 480). In the Clouds i t is α ή ρ w ho έ χ ε ι ; τ ή ν γ η ν
μ ε τ έ ω ρ ο ν ,and γ ή ξ ό χ η μ α atTro. 884 must be the same, whereas in fr. 941 it is α ίθ ή ρ whi ch
'ho lds the earth in its bux om ar ms '.4 Though Lucian, Zeus trag. 41, quotes bo th fr. 941 and fr. 480 as places where Euripides
is speaking his real mind, not bound by the e xigenci es of the drama tic situation.5 It is cur iou s that the same line occurred in the Peirithous, now gen eral ly at tr ibuted to Cri t ia s
(Eur. fr. 5 9 1 . 4 N . = C riti as fr. 16 .9 DK ).6 The expressions of Euripides show a quite different spirit from some in Aeschylus which
supe r f i c i a l l y might be thought to resemble them.
( i ) The famous fr. of the Heliades (fr. 70),Ζ ε υ ςΙ σ τ ι να ίθ ή ρ , Ζ ε ύ ; δ έ γ η , Ζ ε υ ς δ ' ο υ ρ α ν ό ;,Zsus τ ο ι τ ά τ τ ά ν τ α ,χ ώ τ ιτ ώ ν δ 'ύ π έ ρ τ ε ρ ο ν ,
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 245/357
Euripides
A str iki ng cho ric passage wh ic h mus t sur ely express h i s o w n o u t l o o k
is fr. 910 w h e r e h e speaks o f the happiness o f a man w h o has learned
the w a y s o f scientific inquiry a nd observes ' t h e ageless order a nd
b e a u t y 1 {kosmos) o f immorta l nature , and how i t was put t o g e t h e r ' .
Such a ma n, he s a y s , w i l l have n o par t in w i c k e d o r injurious deeds.T h i s praise o f historia is not necessarily inconsistent with t he dis
paragement o f meteorologoi in fr. 913 : 'Beholding these th ings , w h o is
not conscious o f g o d ? 2 W h o does n o t cast fa r from him the deceitful
w i l e s o f t he star-gazers, whose mischievous tongues, void o f sense,
babb le at random o f matters un kn ow n? ' Misgu ided p rob ing in to the
secrets o f nature has brough t some t o atheism, but for a wise m an the
ageless kosmos w h i c h she reveals c a n only lead to the conc lus ion thatthere is a g o d , a n intel l igent orderer, in or behind i t . F r . 913 c a n stand
beside the air- or aither-god o f t he Troades an d frr. 877 an d 941, an d
the g o d o f Di og en es from wh o m the y doubtless deriv e, the air w h i c h
is also a consc ious plan ning mind (vo l . 1 1 , 369). I f it does n o t preach the
O l y m p i a n re l ig ion, it is far from being atheism. Lacking t he context ,
w e do no t k n o w fo r certain what ' these things ' are, the sight o f w h i c h
makes o n e aware o f t he divine , bu t , i f w e assume them to be natural,and especially celestial, phenomena, the lesson of t he passage is the
same as Pla to ' s in the Laws (9673-0): unders tanding of t he taxis
(orderly arrangement) o f t he stars does n o t lead t o atheism but to an
awareness o f t he mind that brought about this kosmos. A s t r o n o m e r s
(says Plato) g o t t he name o f atheists because some o f t he earlier ones
t h o u g h t that the he av en ly bod ies we re mere dead masses carried ro un d
b y necessi ty. B u t even among these the keener minds suspected thatdoes not reflect a n y rationalistic theories about an ai r-god, b ut c l e a r l y conveys the idea thatZeus i s present in all the manifestations of nature and at the same time transcends them. It isdeeply felt pantheism—the poet i s conscious of a living spirit in earth and sk y and everyth ing
else—and something more besides. Comparison with the last lines of Sophocles 's Trachiniae
(Lloyd-Jo nes in JHS, 1956 , 55) misses the mark badly, fo r τ ο ύ τ ω νthere refers to the changes andchances of human l i fe , not to 'aither, earth, sk y and al l th ings ' .
( i i ) A t Ag. 160 the cho rus i nvoke Ζ εύ ς , ό σ τ ι ;τ τ ο τ ' ε σ τ ίν ,but the following wor ds show
that this is the familiar case of a piety apprehensive lest i t offend b y addressing a god by thewrong name or one that i s displeasing to h im (as in Euripides himself, fr. 912, where ό -π ά ν τ ω ν
μ ε δ έ ω νi s addressed with the w or ds Ζ ε υ ς ε ί τ ' 'Α ίδ η ; ο ν ο μ α ζ ό μ ε ν ο ςσ τ έ ρ γ ε ι ς );and, as in theHeliades fr., the feeling expressed seems to be that Zeus i s omnipresent: ' A l l things have Imeasured, y e t nought have I found save Zeus.'
1 T h e complex force of kosmos cannot be rendered by one word. Cf. vol. I , n o and 206.* 6tou ο υ χ ί vo«I. For the meaning of voslv see vol . I I , 17"!.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 246/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
their perfect ly calculated movements could n o t have been ach ieved
without intel l igence, a n d dec ided tha t , a l t h o u g h th e stars t hemse lves
might b e l i feless clods a n d s tones , there w a s a min d behi nd th em
direct ing their movement a n d t he wh ol e cosm ic o rde r.
(2 ) A G N O S T I C I S M : P R O TA G O R A S
According to D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s (9 .24) , the Elea t ic phi lo sophe r Mel is -
sus sai d tha t i t w as w r o n g t o m a k e a n y p r o n o u n c e m e n t a b o u t the g o d s ,
because knowledge o f t h e m w a s imposs ib l e . B u t t h e classic case o f a n
agnostic in th i s century i s h is c o n t e m p o r a r y P r o t a g o r a s , w h o w a s
famous fo r h a v i n g w r i t t e n :
Concerning the gods I am unable t o discover whether they exist or not ,or wh at the y are like in fo rm; for there are many hindrances to knowledge ,
the obscurity o f the subject and the brevity o f human life.
T h e full text is q u o t e d b y D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s a n d E u s e b i u s , and t he
major par t b y S e x t u s , 1 a n d much nearer h is o w n t ime it is referred t o
by P l a t o , w h o i n t h e Theaetetus ( i 0 2 d ) imag ines th e grea t Sophis t as
objecting to the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f gods in to th e d i s c u s s i o n , ' w h o s e
existence o r non-ex i s t ence I expressly refuse to discuss i n m y speeches
and wr i t ings ' . T h e fo rm o f t h e s ta tement a s one o f personal opinion
(Ί a m unab le . . . ' ) cont ras ts s igni f icant ly wi th a n express ion l ike tha t
of X e n o p h a n e s fr. 34, tha t n o m a n h a s seen , n o r w i l l a n y m a n e v e r
know, th e t r u t h a b o u t t h e gods . Some be l i eved i n g o d s a n d s o m e d i d
not, an d so , in accordance wi th t h e ' m a n t h e measure ' p r inc ip l e , gods
existed fo r s o m e and n o t f o r o t h e r s ; bu t f o r Pro tagoras h imse l f sus
pension o f j u d g m e n t w a s t h e on ly poss ib l e cour se . 2 Sex tus and t he
Epicurean Diogenes o f Oenoanda inde fens ib ly r anked h i m w i t h t h e
atheists, b u t Ci ce ro carefu l ly d is t inguishes them.3 T h e sentence i s
said t o have s tood at the o p e n i n g o f a w o r k ( o r sec t ion o f a w o r k )
1 See Pro tagora s fr. 4 an d A 12 D K. It is also referred to b y Ti m o n of Phl ius (quoted b y S e x t u s ,he. cit.), Phi los t ra tus (V. Soph. 1 . 1 0 . 2 = A 2 ) , Cicero (N.D. 1 . 1 . 2 , 1 2 . 2 9 an d 2 3 . 6 3 ) , a n dDiogenes of Oenoanda ( A 23).
1 Cf. J a e g e r , TEGP, 189. Th is disposes sat isfactori ly of T. Gomperz 's contention (GT, I ,457) that if Pro t ago ra s h a d bel ieved , a s Plato s a i d he d id , tha t ' every man 's t ru th i s the t ruth
which appears to h i m ' , he could n o t have s a i d wha t he did about t he gods .1 N.D. 1 . 1 . 2 , ' D u b i t a r e se Protagoras , nu l los esse omnino Diagoras M e l i u s e t T h e o d o r u s
Cyrenaicus pu t ave run t ' . C f. ibid. 2 3 . 6 3 , 4 2 . 1 1 7 .
234
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 247/357
Agnosticism of Protagoras
called ' O n t he G o d s ' ,1 and scholars hav e naturally wo nd er ed wh at
cou ld have f o l l o w e d on such an unp rom isi ng begi nn in g. W e shall
never know, but ' t h e r e is not hin g against su pp os in g' ( to adopt a
phrase from the latest commentator) 2 that i t upheld rel igious worship
and cult according to the ancestral nomoi. Not only was this anintegral part of the l i fe of the polis, that c i v i l i z e d social and pol itic al
c om mu ni t y of wh os e va lu e, and indeed necessi ty, he wa s firmly c o n
v i n c e d , but also the instinct for worship was probably in his v i e w an
or iginal and ineradicable trait of human na tu r e . 3 (Cf. p. 65 above.)
(3) AT H E I S M : D I A G O R A S , P R O D I C U S , C R I T I A S ;
P L A T O ' S T W O T Y P E S O F AT H E I S T
' A s a do gma ti c cree d, con sis tin g in the denial o f ev er y ki nd o f su per
natural power, atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any
period of c i v i l i z e d tho ugh t. ' So A . C . Pearso n, in a bri ef art icle who s e
main merit is to demonst rat e the difficulty o f estab lishi ng b e y o n d do ub t
that any Greek thinker was an atheist in the full sense . 4 There is first
the need to dist ingu ish a rejection o f traditional po ly th ei sm fro m denialo f the wh ol e idea o f div ini ty, sec ond ly the fragmenta ry and somet imes
un tr us tw or th y character o f our authorit ies for this per io d, and thi rdl y
the ten de ncy to use a cha rg e o f atheis m as a we ap on against an y pub lic
1
D.L. 9. 52 and 54, Eus. P.E. 1 4 . 3 . 7 = Pro t . fr. 4, Cic. N.D. 23.63 (without t i t l e ) . Forσ ύ γ γ ρ α μ μ αapplied to part of a work see Untersteiner, Sof. 1, 78, von Fri tz, RE, X L V. Halbb. 919.
Th e ' ti tl e' of a prose w or k at this rime often consiste d, as in this case, of the openin g wor ds .
( S e e C. W. Muller, Hermes, 1967, 145.)1 'Ni cht s spricht gegen die Ver mut ung ', C. W . Muller. Earlier conjectures wer e collected
b y Nestle, VM^uL, 278—82. Untersteiner {Sophs. 38, n. 47) criticizes Nes tle' s, pa rt ly be causei t does not fit his own conviction that τ τ . θ ε ω νwas part of the Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ι(in which he followsH. Gomperz, S. u. R. 1 3 1 ) . Muller (Hermes, 1967) also thinks Nestle's suggest ion neither demon
strable nor probable, but his own is of course, l i k e everyone e l s e ' s , no more than ' Ve rmu tu ng' .
Nestle's idea (see also his edition of the Protagoras, p. 18) was that the work was directed against
popu lar proofs of the existence of god s and their care for men, and he adduce d in suppor t th eofficial anger which there is some evidence that it aroused at Athens.
3 Muller (Hermes, 1967, 143^) offers a new and subtle interpretation of Prot. 322a.
ό ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ςθ ε ί α ςμ ε τ έ σ χ ε μ ο ίρ α ς κ τ λ . is a m yt hi ca l r eve rsa l of the ' h o m o mensura ' d ic tum:man's 'kinship with the gods' means, when stripped of mythical clothing, that the gods are
s imply projections or reflections of humanity. This interpretation, he s a y s , removes the objectionto regarding the Platonic passage as genuinely Protagorean. I doubt if it is necessary for thatpurpose (cf. p. 6; above and my In the Beginning, 88f. and I 4 i f . , nn. 10 and 1 1 ) , but it has
i t s attractions nevertheless.4 'Atheism (Greek and Roman)' , in Hastings, ERE, vol. 1 1 , 184^
235
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 248/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
236
figure w h o m on other gr ou nd s i t w as desired to discredit . A s the case o f
Socrates sh ow s, w e must b e careful ab out ac cep tin g such an impu tat i on
at its face va lu e, and co nv er se ly on e or tw o o f his contemporar ie s w h o m
later antiqu ity regar ded, wi th som e reason, as out -an d-o ut atheists
seem never to have been brought to trial. That such atheists ( ' complete
disbelievers in the existence of the gods ' , 908b) w e r e c o m m o n b y
Plato's time is certain from his mentions of them in the Laws, w h e r e
he careful ly dist ingu ishes them fro m those w h o hol d (a) that g o d s
exist but have no interest in human conduct , (b) that they can be b ou gh t
off by offerings.
In later writers we find a kind of stock list of atheists, that is, those
w h o denied outr igh t the existence o f the g o d s . 1 I t i nc luded Diagoras
o f M e l o s , Prod icus o f C e o s , Cri tias and ( o f a later date) Eu he me ru s o f
T e g e a and Th eo do ru s o f Cy re ne . Dia gor as in par t icular neve r appears
wi th out ha v i n g ' the a the is t ' t acked on to h is name. Y e t , i f he defended
his atheism by any philosophical arguments, we know nothing at al l
o f what they were . 2 The only reason alleged for it , and that in late
sources, is mo ra l : he is said to hav e be gu n as a god -fe ar in g di t hyr amb ic
poe t , w h o later be ca me co nv in ce d o f the non-e xiste nce of go ds b y the
spectacle o f successful and unpu nish ed wr o ng do i ng , in this case aspec i f i c injury done to himself, though its nature i s var i ous l y repor ted .
Besides his unbelief, the only other fact recorded about him by con
temporaries is that he wa s con vic te d on a cha rge o f imp iet y b y the
1 T h e y φ α σ ιμ ή ε ί ν α ιθ ε ο ύ ;(Aet. ι .η .ϊ) or 'om nin o deos esse neg aba nt' (C ic . N.D. 1 . 4 2 .
i i 7 f . ) . Cic . ibid. 1 1 8 adds, thou gh wit hout n aming him, the theor y of Cr itias , who appears
by name i n Sext us' s list (P.H. 3 . 2 1 8 ) and with Diagoras in Plutarch, De superst. 1 7 1c. See also
S e x t . Math. 9 . 5 1 - 5 . On the or ig in of the list in the ι τ ε ρ ίά θ ε ά τ η τ ο ; of t he A ca de mi c C l it o -
machus (second century B . C . ) see Diels, Dox. 58 f. , and Nestle, VM^uL, 4 1 ο . For Hippon,known as ά θ ε ο ; and occurring in the l is t of Clem. Alex. (DK, 38 A 8), see vol. I I , 3 5 4 f f .
2 All the sources of infor mation on D ia go ra s are printed in full by Ja co by , Diagoras ό ά θ ε ο ;
(Abh. Bert. 1 9 5 9 ) , 3 - 8 . (He is omitted from D K.) For modern literature see ibid. 3 1 f., n. 2 , an d
Woo d bury, Phoenix, 1 9 6 5 , 1 7 8 ,n. 1 . Perus al of the different a rg ume nt s and conclusi ons of
Jacoby and Woodbury w i l l tell a reader all he needs to kn ow about Dia gor as- pro ble ms. Th e
Suda (Jacob y, p. 5 ) c a l l s hi m a phil osophe r ( as w e l l as a l y r i c poet) and s a y s that he wrote a book ,with the unintell igible title of Ά τ τ ο τ τ υ ρ γ ί ^ ο ν τ ε ;λ ό γ ο ι , descr ib ing h is abandonment of re l ig ious
belief. Jerome (see Woodbury, op. cit. 1 7 8 , n. 5 ) mak es him out to hav e been a φ υ σ ι κ ά ;with afol lowing. Hi s book was already known to Aristoxenus in the fourth century (ap. Philodemus,Jacoby, p. 5 = Aristoxenus fr. 1 2 7a, Wehrli , Schule des Ar. vol. X, p. 1 9 8 ) , which, pace Wo o d
bury (p. 2 0 7 ) , is more significant than the fact that Aristoxenus wished to athetize it. The b o o k ,or one called Φ ρ ύ γ ιο ι λ ό γ ο » (which may be the same), is mentioned in a number of late sources,
but beyond the meagre words of the Suda we have no clue as to its contents.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 249/357
The Atheists: Diagoras
2 3 7
Athen ians , and a price put on his head in his absence from t he c i ty.
Ar i s tophanes {Birds i o y i f f . ) does n o t specify the charge , and p s e u d o -
Ly s i a s (Andoc. 17) says merely that h e ' commit ted impie ty agains t the
rites a nd festivals in words ' . La te r wr i t e r s sa y that he insulted t he g o d s
b ym o c k i n g
an dd i v u l g i n g
theEleusinian mysteries. This
is not thesame as a charge o f intellectual atheism, b u t puts h i m m o r e i n l ine wi th
A l c i b i a d e s and his friends w h o parodied t h e myster ies , o r w i t h the
unknown mut i l a to r s of the Hermae . T h e ev idence o f Aris tophanes
sugges t s that hi s trial took place about the same time, shortly before
the launching of the Sicil ian expedi t ion , wh en nerv es we re taut a nd
the ci ty prone t o take instant alarm at anythi ng wh ic h mi ght offend
the gods or be of e v i l o m e n . 1 Never the les s , t hough i t may have been
some such irreverent fr ivoli ty that led to his actual prosecution, the
fact o f h is out-and-out atheism cannot b e doubted. Jacoby is r ight
w h e n h e says that al l witnesses al ike at t r ibute t o h im ' a repudia t ion
pure a nd simple of the whole concep t o f g o d s , an atheism radical,
ext reme and unco mpr omi s in g ' . Th i s goes back to his c o n t e m p o r a r y
Ar i s tophanes , fo r w h o m (and for his audience) Socrates could b e
immedia te ly branded as an atheist b y cal l ing h i m ' Socrates the M e l i a n ' . 2
Since nothing i s k n o w n o f Diag oras ' s mind save t he fact o f his dis
b e l i e f in the g o d s , h e can not clai m mu ch space in a h i s to ry o f p h i l o
sophy. More in teres t ing are those w h o a r e k n o w n t o have held a
* A t Birds 10711". Aristophanes introduces a quotation from the actual decree outlawingDiagoras (which i s known also from other sources : se e Jacoby, p. 4) wi th the words TTJSE
θ ή μ έ ρ αέ τ τ α ν α γ ο ρ ε ύ ε τ α ι .T h e allusion would have ha d little point if it were not topical, and theBirds w a s produced in 414. I do not see that a n y other evidence can stand against this, andJ a c ob y ' s attempt to make Diagoras a victim of the decree of Diopeithes in 433/2 h as been
countered b y Wo o d b u r y in his Phoenix article.2 T h e ousting of Zeus b y Dinos does not mean that Socrates i s here accused of introducing
δ α ι μ ό ν ι ακ α ι ν ά ,but that he agrees with those w h o were substituting natural ( α ν α γ κ α ί α )forces,
l i k e the vortex of the atomists an d others, for gods . Woodbury (op. cit. 208) contends that before
the Hellenistic a g e ( i .e . at the time when the label w a s first attached to D ia go ra s) ά θ ε ο ς did notmean 'atheist ' but on ly ' god l e s s ' or ' god-forsaken ' , but this is not so. Plato, Apol. 2 6 c , does not' s h o w the transition from one meaning to the other ' . When Socrates s a y s κ α ΐα υ τ ό ςά ρ α ν ο μ ί ζ ω
ε ί ν α ιθ ε ο ύ ςκ α ΐ ο ύ κε ίμ ΐ τ ό τ τ α ρ ά τ τ α ν ά θ ε ο ς ,h e shows that ά θ ε ο ς a lr ea dy me an s ' n o t bel ieving inthe existence of the g o d s ' . Nor can Woodbury's argument from the use of ν ο μ ΐ3 ε ινb eallowed. It may occasionally be possible to translate ν ο μ φ ι νθ ε ο ύ ςa s ' p a y respect, or custom
a r y worship , to the g o d s ' (as at Aesch. Pers. 497- 8, thou gh even here the meaning 'believe i n 'would be equally appropriate) , b u t never of course with ε ί ν α ι ,and usual ly (as in the same sen
tence of the Apology) ν ο μ <3ε ιν a nd ν ο μ ί^ε ι νε ί ν α ιare used interchangeably. There is no need
to g o into this, or cite once again examples l i k e Hdt. 4 . 5 9 . 1 or Plato, Laws 885c, because th epoint was demonstrated, it is to b e hoped finally, b y J . Tate in CR, 193G and 1937.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 250/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
238
p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r y o f t h e n a t u r a l a n d h u m a n o r i g i n o f t h e b e l i e f i n g o d s .
D e m o c r i t u s s a w i t , p a r t l y a t l e a s t , i n f e a r o f t h e m o r e v i o l e n t m a n i
f e s t a t i o n s o f n a t u r e ( v o l . π , 478). P r o d i c u s , l i k e m a n y o f h i s c o n t e m
p o r a r i e s , w a s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e o r i g i n s o f t h i n g s . T h i s i n c l u d e d c o s
m o g o n y ( f o r t h e c o m i c c o s m o g o n y o f t h e b i r d s i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ,
Birds 684 ff. , i s o f f e r e d a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o P r o d i c u s ) a n d m o r e p a r
t i c u l a r ly , a s b e f i t t ed a S o p h i s t , a n t h r o p o l o g y . U n l i k e D e m o c r i t u s ,
h e s a w t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i n g r a t i t u d e , n o t fe a r . W e h a v e t h e
f o l l o w i n g r e p o r t s : 1
(d) P h i l o d e m u s ( E p i c u r e a n o f f ir st c e n t u r y B.C.) De piet. c. 9, e d . G o m p e r z
p . 7 5 : ' P e r s a e u s 2 s h o w s h i m s e l f d e s t r u c t i v e , o r u t t e r l y i g n o r a n t , o f t h e
d i v i n e w h e n i n h i s b o o k o n t h e g o d s h e d e c l a r e s n o t i m p r o b a b l e w h a t
P r o d i c u s w r o t e , n a m e l y t h a t t h e t h i n g s t h a t nou r i s h a nd b ene f i t u s w e r e t h e
first t o b e co ns i de r ed go d s and ho no u r ed a s su c h , a n d a f t e r t he m th e d i s
co ve re r s o f f o od s and she l t e r and t h e o th e r p r a c t i c a l a r t s s u c h a s D e m e t e r ,
D i o n y s u s a nd t he . . . ' [break in papyrus](β ) M i n u c i u s F e l i x ( s e c o n d t o t h i r d c e n t u r y A . D . ) , Octavius 21.2 ( t e x t
o m i t t e d b y D K b u t g i v e n i n U n t e r s t e i n e r , Sof. 1 1 , 192, a n d N e s t l e , VM^uL,354, n . 22) : ' P r o d i c u s sa ys t h a t t h o s e w e r e a c c e p t e d as g o d s w h o i n t h e i r
j o u r n e y i n g s d i s c o v e r e d n e w c r o p s a n d s o c o n t r i b u t e d t o h u m a n w e l f a r e . '
( c ) C i c e r o , N.D. 1 . 3 7 . 1 1 8 : ' W h a t s o r t o f r e l i g i o n d i d P r o d i c u s o f C e o s
l e a v e u s , w h o s ai d t h a t t h i n g s u s e f ul t o h u m a n l if e w e r e a c c o u n t e d g o d s ? '
(d) Ibid. 1 5 . 3 8 : 'P e r s a e u s s a y s t h a t t h o s e w e r e c o n s i d e r e d g o d s w h o h a d
d i s c o v e r e d w h a t w a s e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l f o r c i v i l i z e d l i f e , a n d t h a t t h i n g s u s e f u l
a n d s a l u t a r y w e r e t h e m s e l v e s c a l l e d b y t h e n a m e s o f g o d s . '
(e) S e x t . Math. 9.18: ' P r o d i c u s o f C e o s s a y s , " T h e a n c i e nt s c o n s i d e r e d
as g o d s t he sun and mo o n , r i ve r s , sp r i ng s , a nd i n ge n e r a l a l l t h e t h i n g s t h a t
a s s i s t ou r l i f e , o n a c c o u n t o f t h e h e l p t h e y g i v e , j u s t a s t h e E g y p t i a n s d e i f y
t h e N i l e . " H e a d d s t h a t f o r t h i s r e a s o n b r e a d w a s c a l l e d D e m e t e r , w i n e
D i o n y s u s , w a t e r P o s e i d o n , fire H e p h a e s t u s , a n d s o o n w i t h e v e r y t h i n g t h a t
w a s o f s e r v i c e . ' ( T h i s i s r epe a t ed i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r en t w o r d s i n cha p t e r 52.)
(/*) Ibid. 51 i n c ludes P rod i cus i n a l i s t o f a t h e i s t s ' w h o s ay t h e r e is n o g o d ' .
(g) Ibid. 39-41 c r i t i ci z e s ' t h o s e w h o s a y t h a t t h e a n c i e n t s s u p p o s e d t h a t
a l l t h e t h i n g s w h i c h b e n e f i t l i fe a r e g o d s — s u n a n d m o o n , r i v e r s a n d l a k e s
a n d t h e l i k e ' , o n t h e g r o u n d s (a) t h a t t h e a nc i en t s c o u l d no t h a ve b e en s o
s tu p id a s t o a s c r i be d i v i n i t y t o t h ing s t h ey s a w p e r i s h i n g o r e v en a t e a nd
d e s t r o y e d t h e m s e l v e s , a n d (b) t h a t o n t h i s a r g u m e n t o n e o u g h t a l s o t o b e l i e v e
1 Som e of the p a s s a g e s are in DK (P ro dic us fr. 5), and all in Unte rste iner , Sof. 1 1 , 1 9 1S .
' S t o i c and pupil of Zeno, c. 306-243 B.C.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 251/357
Prodicus on the Origin of Religion
that men , especial ly phi losophers , are go ds , and even animals and inanimate
utensils, for all these work for us and improve our lot.
(k) The thirtieth oration of Themi stiu s (fourth centu ry A . D . ) is an
encomi um of husban dry contain ing the kind o f exagger ated claims thathad been commonplace at least since the days of Isocrates, 1 about agri
culture not o nly provi di ng the means of subsistence but bei ng the mother
o f all civi l ized life, the begetter of l aws , justice, peace, cities, temples,
philosophy and much else. In the course of this he speaks (p. 4 2 2 Dindorf)
o f ' the wis do m of Prodi cus , wh o derived all relig ious practices, mysteri es
and initiations from the benefits of agriculture, believing that the very
no tion o f go ds came to men from this source and maki ng it the guarantee
o f pie ty ' . 2
T h es e pass ages , the aut hor s o f wh i c h ran ge in date from 400 to800 ye ars after P ro di cu s, exemp lif y the wr et ch ed ly inadequa te material
at ou r dis pos al for re co ns tr uc ti ng the th ou gh ts o f a fifth-century
Sophist. But we must do our best. Philodemus presents a theory,
rather like so me in the nineteenth cent ury , of the de ve lo pm en t o f
re l ig ion fro m the cul t o f inani mate obj ects to the deification o f cult ur e-
heroes, the supposed discoverers of the amenities and arts which raised
man kin d f rom the beasts to civi liza tio n. It has bee n dispu ted wh et he rthe secon d hal f o f the statement, an d so the tw o- st ag e th eo ry o f
re l ig ion, sho uld be credi ted to Pr od ic us or on ly to Pers aeus. T h e
former n ot on ly co nf or ms better to the run o f the sen ten ce 3 but also
accords with Minucius F e l i x (passage b) and C i c e r o (</). T h e imp ort ant
thing about the latter is not that he attributes the theory to Persaeus
(for we know from Phi lodemus that Persaeus accepted it) but that he
puts both halves together as par ts o f one and the same th eor y. Sex tus,it is t rue (passage g), ridicules the idea that beneficial objects or pro
ducts were ever deified on the grounds (among others) that i t would
be as reaso nable to bel ie ve in the deification o f me n. I hesitate to
ado pt Unterst einer' s sol uti on of this difficulty, na mel y that the 'd is -
1 Paneg. 28. See p. 62 with n. 2 above.2 θ ε ώ νίν ν ο ια ν is pr oba bl y right, tho ugh since it is a correctio n b y Diel s of ε υ ν ο ι α ν(which
Din dor f prin ted) it is misl eadi ng of DK and Unterst einer to adopt it with no comment. See
Nestle, VM^uL, 3 5 2 , n. 1 4 . In the last phrase, κ α ΐ τ τ α σ α ν ε ΰ σ έ β ε ια νΙ γ γ ν ώ μ ε ν ο ς , Untersteinerprints the w i d e l y different conj ectu re of Kalbfl eisch, έ γ γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι .A s w i l l appear, a point of some
subst ance could depend on thi s. Die ls, foll owed by Unters teine r, sup posed a lacu na after
ά σ έ β ε ι α ν .' See Untersteiner, Sophs. 2 2 1 , n. 9 , or Sof. I I , 1 9 1 f., Nestle, VM^uL, 3 5 4 .
239
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 252/357
Rationalist Theories oj Religion
240
cove re r s ' whom Prod icus supposed to have been deif ied were never
in fact m e n , because I am not c o n v i n c e d that it is r igh t o r e v e n tha t I
unders t and i t c o r r e c t l y. 1 O n t h e other h a n d , e v e n i f Sextus h a d
Prodicus chief ly i n m i n d , he is cas t ing h i s cr i t ic i sm in genera l form, a n d
a l though the unexpres sed conc lus ion o f his arg ume nt mi gh t seem mo stna tura l ly t o b e ' a n d n o b o d y b e l i e v e s t h a t ' , this is imposs ib l e , f o r
Sextus w a s w e l l a w a r e o f t h e be l i e f tha t gods were deif ied m e n . H e
speaks o f t h e t h e o r y o f Euhemerus more than o n c e . 2 T h i s h o w e v e r
lands u s in a further difficulty, bec aus e in chapters 51 a n d 52 P r o d i c u s ' s
t h e o r y i s no t only described (repeat ing chapter 18) as a t heo ry o f t h e
deification o f sun , moon, r ivers , spr ings , a n d other beneficial objects ,
but express ly d is t inguished , as a different form o f atheism, from tha t o f
E u h e m e r u s w h o b e l i e v e d in the d e i f i c a t i o n o f ' m e n o f p o w e r ' . I t m u s t
be said t hen tha t t h e e v i d e n c e o f Sextus is decis ive ly aga ins t a
' E u h e m e r i s t i c ' t h e o r y f o r P r o d i c u s , t h o u g h tha t o f P h i l o d e m u s a n d
Minucius Fe l ix is in f avour o f i t ( i f Minuc ius w a s only paraphras ing
P h i l o d e m u s , a t least h e t o o k h i m i n this sense), and to a lesser extent
that o f C i c e r o , N.D. 1 . 1 5 . 3 8 . Ta k i n g all things into account ( includ
ing C ic . N.D. 1 . 3 7 . 11 8 ) , i t mus t a t least b e agreed tha t t h e feature o f
Prod icus ' s t heo ry wh ich made t h e greatest impression w a s tha t t h e
or ig in o f r e l ig ion la y in th e t endency o f pr imi t ive m a n t o regard th ings
useful to h i s l i f e — i n c l u d i n g s u n , m o o n a n d rivers as w e l l as bread a n d
win e— as gods .3 Th i s t heo ry wo u l d com e eas i ly to the m i n d o f a
ra t ional iz ing Greek , for in his l i t e ra ture f rom Homer onwards h e
w o u l d find th e name o f t h e appropr ia te g o d used for the subs tance
itself, as Hephaes tus f o r fire ( ' They sp i t t ed th e entrails a n d held them
o v e r H e p h a e s t u s ' , / / . 2 .426), and the su n , m o o n a n d rivers were g o d s .
1 Hi s n . 27 on pp. 222 f. of Sophs. I find very obscure. If the discoverers were not o r i g i n a l l ymen, wha t were they before they 'w er e received amo ng th e g o d s ' ( p . 2 1 1 ) ? H i s language heredoes no t sugges t that h e thinks they were purely mythical fo r Prodicus , and I cannot reconcilep. 210 and p . 223 at all .
1 Math. 9 . 1 7 , 34 (wi thout name) , 51 . H e would know, t o o , that th e theory w a s older a n dwent back to Prodicus 's t ime, fo r there a r e traces of it in Herodotus . (See Nesde, VMiuL,
3J4f.) H e must also have known that even man-made σ κ ε ύ η ,l i k e the hearth ( H e s t i a ) , wereworshipped a s gods .
3 T h e theory of two stages of rel igious development i s claimed fo r Prodicus b y Nest le(VM^uL, 3 5 3 f . ) , whom others follow including Untersteiner {Sof. 1 1 , 9 2 , Sophs. 211 and 222 ,n. 7) and Versenyi (Socr. Hum. 5 9 f . ) . None of these takes into account the w a y in which Sextuscontrasts th e theory, as that of the deification of useful objects, with that of Euhemerus.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 253/357
Prodicus on the Origin of Religion
' M y suitor was a r iver ' , says Deianeira quite naturally (Soph. Trach.
9 ) , and, be in g a g o d , he cou ld take any form he wis h ed —a bu ll , a
serpent or a man, as w e l l as wate r. Em pe do cl es ga v e the name s of
g o d s to the four elemen ts, and (for wh at i t is wo rt h) E pip han ius says
that Pro dic us ca lled them go ds , as w e l l as the sun and moon, ' becausethe l ife o f ev ery th in g depen ds on t h em ' . 1
A remarkable passage in the Bacckae (274 ff.) sh o ws h o w e asil y
the G re ek min d cou ld sl ip from the idea o f a substance as e mb o d y i n g
a l i v i ng g o d to that o f the go d as i ts inve ntor or d isco verer. At te mp t i ng
to sof ten the imp iou s host i l i ty of Penth eus to Di on ys us , Tires ias
tells h i m that
two things are primary in human l i f e : first, the goddess Demeter—she isEarth, but call her by which name you like [and of course Ge, the earth, was
a great goddess by that name too]. She gives men all nourishment that is of
a dry nature. T o balance this came Semele 's son, wh o discovered the flowing
liquor o f the grape . . . He , bein g a g od , is poured out to the go d s. 2
Here Di o n y su s, the go d o f wi ne , is described at the same t ime, wi th n o
sense of incongruity, as the discoverer of wine and the wine i tself .
Here, therefore, in al l probabil i ty, is the key to Prodicus 's doctrine.In the pious pro ph et Tir esi as he wo u l d see a perfect exa mpl e (and, since
Euripides is sure to have known his teaching, he too saw an example)
o f the menta l i ty ou t o f wh ic h re l ig ion aro se: to ask whe the r me n
imag ined thei r foo d, dr ink and other l i f e-gi vin g or l i fe-enhan cing
thing s as go ds , or a l ternat ively the bein gs w h o disc ove red and pr o
v i d e d them , wa s to mak e a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y unrea l d i s t inc t ion . Dionysus
w a s at the same time wi n e and the gi v er o f wi ne , Hep hae stu s fire andth e g i v e r o f fire.
W a s Prodicus an a theis t? 3 Cert a in ly a ll ant iqui ty th ou gh t s o .
1 Epiph. Adv. haer. 3 .21 (Dox. 591 and Untersteiner, Sof. 1 1 , 194, not in DK) . To o muc h
attenti on should not be paid to this . Th e Chr isti an wri ter is run ning h ast ily thr oug h all the
philosophers, one sentence to each, and commits some glaring blunders.
* Th er e is no need to translate the perfect p artic iple yeyebs as 'w he n he had be co me ' ( ' zu m
Got t geworden ' , Nes t le VM^uL, 354) and so see two c hronolog ical stage s. Th e perfect forms
of γ ίγ ν ο μ α ι mean ra ther ' to be ' . For the god who is wine cf. the Indian para l lel in Dodds ,
Bacch. ioof. , wh o quotes Sir Cha rle s Eliot on Vedi c hym ns addressed to So ma : 'I t is hard tos a y whether they are addressed to a person or a beverage.'
3 In tryi ng to reconstruct P rod icus 's outlook on reli gion and human l i fe , I have t h o u g h t i tbest not to follow scholars l i k e Cata udel la and Unter steiner in using the Birds of Aristophanes
a s a source . (See Untersteiner, Sophs. 22 1, n. 3, and 223, n. 33.) Th ey ma y be right , but the on ly
241
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 254/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
2 42
D o d d s (ad loci) identifies Tiresias's speech with the doctrine of Prodi
c u s , and then says that the reas on w h y it can be put in the mo ut h o f a
pio us and bel ie vi ng character is that Prodicus 's doctr ine was not in
fact atheistic. I have already offered a different explanation: to believe
that wi ne and brea d are g o d s is o f co ur se no t atheisti c, it is pr eci se ly
the bel ief wh ic h Pro dic us said ' t he anci ents ' had and from wh ic h
re l ig ion arose. T o Prod icu s him sel f they we re just wi ne and brea d.
T h e relevant passages in Sextus, o f wh ic h Do d d s quotes one, are
offered as expla natio ns o f his athei sm. D o d d s translates the last wo r d s
o f the Themist ius passage (h) as a claim that Prodicus had 'put piety
on a sou nd fou nd at io n' , but ev en if the ver b is no t co rru pt (see p. 239,
n. 2, ab ov e) , it need no t mea n that , and the claim that the very con
cept ion of go ds resulted from the practice o f agri cult ure doe s no t sou nd
as if it ca me from a be li ev er in th em. Pr od ic us m a y be just ly hail ed as
one o f the earliest ant hro pol ogi sts , wi th a the ory ab ou t the pur el y hu ma n
origi n o f bel i ef in go ds wh ic h wo u l d not hav e disgraced the nine
teenth century. In this theory, as the passage from Themistius shows,
he laid especial stress on the evi den tia l va lu e o f agr icu ltu ral pra cti ces .
T h i s was entirely natura l and reas onab le w h e n one con sid ers , first,
the belie f alre ady curr ent that no t onl y ou r fo od bu t all the benefits o f a
settled and c i v i l i z e d life are owed to this source, and secondly the
numb er and var iet y o f rel igi ous cults that in fact owe their existence
to the fertility o f the soil. Pr od ic us , as wa s to be expe cte d of one w h o
was both Sophist and natural phi losopher, and wrote on cosmogony,
evide nt ly subscribed to a 'p ro gr es s ' , not a 'de gen era t io n ' , theory of
hum an de vel opm en t (pp. 60 f. a b o v e ) ; and, l ike Pro tag ora s, he th ou gh t
o f rel igion, along with set t led condit ions, the building o f c i t i e s , the ruleo f la w and the ad va nce men t o f kn ow l ed ge , as one o f the fruits o f
c i v i l i z a t i o n and essential to its pre ser vat ion . T o ho ld these v i e w s it is
not necessary to believe in the existence of gods as the objects of
wors hip independent ly o f men 's concept ion of th em. 1
certai n inferen ce from the ment ion of Pr od ic us at v. 692 is that he produced a cos mog ony of
some sort , perhaps the very latest. It may equally be true that his nam e is sim ply being used to
stand for any ι κ τ ε ω ρ ο σ ο φ ι σ τ ή ς(Clouds 360): the birds can do better than any of these.1 In my In the Beginning (p. 142, n. 1 1) I quoted the case of Frederic Harrison, who 're gar ded
all religi ons as false, but insisted on the huma n necessity of wor sh ip '. Verse nyi (Socr. Hum. 60)
points out that 'g iv in g a psychological foundation to r e l i g i o n . . . is not tantamount to sayi ng
that religion has no legitimate basis'. It is true that a modern Chr isti an can accept such an origi n
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 255/357
Critias: Religion as a Political Device
C r i t i a s 1 was a wealthy aristocrat who would have disdained to be
a professional Sophist, yet he shared the intellectual outlook which
came to be known as sophistic. In his play Sisyphus 7, he depicted
reli giou s bel ief as a deliberate impo stu re b y go ve rn me nt to ensure an
ultimate and univers al sanction for the g o o d beh av io ur o f its subjects.
A l t h o u g h the spe ech is pu t into the mo ut h o f Si sy ph us himself, the
not ori ous sinner w h o no doubt received his we ll -k no wn punishment
b y the end o f the pla y, this is a fairly o b v i o u s de vi ce o f the aut hor 's
for pr omu lg ati ng an atheist ic vi ew wi th ou t gi vi ng to o mu ch offence.3
It starts wi th a br ief accou nt, wh ic h has already bee n qu ot ed
(p. 82 abo ve ), o f the pro gr ess of hu man life from lawless bru talit y to
the intro ductio n o f laws , punish ment and just ice. Th is w e k n o w from
other s ource s to have be en a seri ousl y held current v i e w. It cont inu es
(f r. 25 .off . ) :
Then whe n the laws preven ted men from open deeds of vio lence, but they
continued to commit them in secret, I believe that a man o f shr ewd and
subtle mind invented for men the fear of the gods, so that there might be
somethi ng to frighten the wi cked eve n if they acted, spok e or tho ug ht in
secret. F ro m this mot ive he introduced the concept ion of div ini ty. Th er e is,
he said, a spirit enjoying endless life, hearing and seeing with his mind,
exceed ing ly wise and all-observing, bearer of a divine nature. He w i l l hear
everything spoken among men and can see everything that is done. If you
are silently plotting e v i l , it w i l l not be hidden from the gods, so clever are
they. With this story he presented the most seductive 4 of teachings, con
cealing the truth with lying words. For a dwelling he gave them the placewhose mention w ou ld most power ful ly strike the hearts of men, whe nc e,
as he knew, fears come to mortals and help for their wretched l i v e s ; that is ,
for huma n beli ef in God w ith out ab and oni ng his convic tion of its truth, b ut thi s seems to me torepresent a stage of thought w e l l ahead of the pioneers of rationalism. (Drachmann (Atheism,
4 3 f . ) , l i k eDodds and Ver seny i, thought Pro dicus believed in—in deed 'too k for gra nt ed' —th eexistence of gods , and did not con nect the question of their existence wi th that of the ori gin ofthe conception of them.)
1 See be low , pp. 2o8ff.1 Ou r sole sourc e for the extract is Sextus (Math. 9.54), who attributes it to Critias. Some
ancie nt author ities gav e Eurip ides as the author. On t he autho rship see ZN, 1407, n. 2.3 On this, of course, two vi ew s are possibl e. For the opposi te one see Dra chm ann , Atheism,
45f., which goes against Sextus (P.H. 3 .218 , Math. 9.54) and Plutarch (De superst. 1 7 1 c ) .Schmid (Gesch. i8of.) thought that in any case no Athenian archon would have allowed the playto be performed, and Cr iti as must ha ve intended it only for rea ding.
4 ή δ ισ τ ο ν i s s t range in th is context of fear, and Nauck 's sugges t ion of κ έ ρ δ ισ -το ν (TGF 2, 773)i s tempting. Though he does not say so, Nauck doubtless had Eur. El. 743 f. in mi nd (qu ote don p. 244, n. 3, be lo w) .
*
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 256/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
144
the vault above, where he perceived the lightnings and the dread roars of
thunder, and the starry face and form of heaven fai r-wrou ght b y the cunnin g
craftmanship o f time ; whe nce too the burning met eor 1 makes its way, and
the liquid rain descends on the earth. W i t h such fears did he surr ound ma n
kind, and so by his story g i v e the godhead a fair home in a fitting place, and
extinguished lawlessness b y his ordinances . . . So , I t hink , first of all, did
someone persuade men to believe that there exists a race of gods.
T h i s is the first oc cur re nce in his to ry o f the th eo ry o f re li gio n as a
poli t ical invention to ensure good behaviour, which was elaborately
deve lope d b y Po ly bi us at R o m e and rev ive d in eightee nth-ce ntury
G e r m a n y. 2 T he r e is no ot her m en ti on o f it at this time , so it m a y w e l l
have been as original as it was daring, 3 and ingenious in the way in
w h i c h i t subsumes under a more general theory the teaching of both
Democr i tus and Prodicus that be li ef in g od s wa s a pr odu ct o f either
the fear or the gratitude produced by certain natura l phenomena. At
the same time the theory reverses the increasing volume of criticism
w h i c h at tacked the gods on moral grounds, insis t ing that i f they existed,
or dese rve d the name o f go ds , th ey ou gh t to be the guardians o f the
ap pr ov ed mor al co de . It wa s the dem and for a supernatural sanct ion
for mora l beh avi our , says Cri t ias , wh ic h br ou gh t the go ds into b ei ng
in the first place.
T h i s exhausts the list of those known to have argued, on some
1 O r the sun ( D K , Untersteiner) . I ha ve hesitantly f o l l o w e d R. G. Bury in the Loeb Sextus
( ag ai ns t D K ) i n t a ki n g λ α μ π ρ ό ; ά σ τ έ ρ ο ; μ ύ δ ρ ο ς to r efer to m et eo r s o r m et eo ri te s. ( He g i v e sno note . ) Cr it i as, i t i s t rue , was wr i t ing a fter Anaxagoras had ca lled the sun μ ύ δ ρ ο ; δ ιά π ν ρ ο ; ,
and sun and rain make a natural pair as tw o o f the ό ν ή σ ε ι; of mortal l i fe . This seems to me
s l i g h d y out weig hed b y the difficulty of taki ng δ θ ε ν wi th bot h rain and su n: rain comes from the
s k y, but not, surely, the sun. In pseudo-Ar. De mundo (395 b 23) μ ύ δ ρ ο ι δ ι ά π ν ρ ο ι are t he s to ne s
thr own o ut b y volcano es, and after all it was p rob ably the fall of the meteori te at Aegos pot ami
that ga ve Anaxagor as the idea that sun and stars might also b e μ ύ δ ρ ο ι. ( If Wec kl ei n' s σ τ ί λ β ε ι ,
not the MS σ τ ε ίχ ε ι , is what Cri t ias wrote, this wou ld obviate the difficulty of δ θ ε ν .)J See H. Trevelyan, Popular Background to Goethe's Hellenism, 28, n. 2. It is ho we ve r no t the
same as theor ies o f the ex ploit atio n b y politici ans o f already exi stin g rel igi ous beliefs , curren t in
and after the Renaissa nce and cu lmin ati ng in Mar xis m, wh ic h are identified wit h it b y Ne st le
(VMzuL, 419) .3 Eur. El. 743 f. φ ο β ε ρ ο ί δ έ β ρ ο τ ο ϊσ ι μ ϋ θ ο ι κ έ ρ δ ο ς π ρ ό ; θ ε ώ ν θ ε ρ α τ τ ε ία ν ma y ec h o it,
though to say 'fear is conducive to worship of the gods' is not the same as saying that w o r s h i p
based on fear is conducive to good behaviour and was invented to that end; and to express
d i s b e l i e f in the mo re incredible o f the m yt hs (λ έ γ ε τ α ι , τ ά ν δ έ π ί σ τ ι ν σ μ ικ ρ α ν π α ρ ' έ μ ο ιγ * έ χ ε ι
ν . 737) w a s certainly not atheism. The re is absolutely no evidence for Nestle's conte ntion
{VMruL, 416) that Dia gor as' s atheism was based on the same theo ry as that of Critias, and
w a s indeed its source.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 257/357
Immoralism and Sacrilege
1 4 5
k i n d o f theore t ica l ground, that t h e g o d s w e r e fictions o f t h e h u m a n
m i n d , f o r o f Hippon ' s a the i sm w e k n o w n o m o r e than o f D i a g o r a s
( v o l . I I , 355). B u t i t is h a r d t o be l i eve that t h e immoral i s t upholders o f
physis against nomos, l ike C a l l i c l e s a n d A n t i p h o n ( o r t hose whose
v i e w s h e depicts) , held a n y sort o f rel igious bel iefs . A t t h e most , theycould have subscr ibed t o Pla to ' s second type o f error, that gods exis t
bu t have n o interest i n human k ind , b u t i t is u n l i k e l y tha t t h e y t h o u g h t
t h e r e wa s mu ch d ifference be tw een go ds tha t were to ta l ly ineffec t ive
and n o g o d s at al l . Ant iphon indeed , w i th h i s adv ice t o heed nomos
before wi tnesses , b u t disregard i t when unobserved, exhibi t s prec ise ly
the at t i tude w h i c h o n Cri t ias ' s theory prevai led before t h e g o d s w e r e
invented . Such i r re l ig ion must have been common among t h e intel l igents ia o f t h e t ime. T h e profanat ion o f t h e myster ies a n d t h e mut i l a
t ion o f t h e Hermae were n o t t h e w o r k o f bel ievers . An ot he r ins tance
w a s Cines ias , a b u t t o f t h e comic poets o f t h e t ime o n m a n y c o u n t s —
his inflated verse, unconventional music, physical emaciat ion, a n d
i m p i e t y o r ' a t h e i s m ' . T h e ora tor Ly s ia s named h i m w i t h three others
as forming a k i n d o f 'He l l - f i r e c lub ' o r band o f Sa tan i s t s ( 'Kako-
d a e m o n i s t s ' as they ca l led themselves) , who del ibera te ly chose unluckyor forbidden days o n w h i c h t o dine together a n d m o c k t h e g o d s a n d
the laws o f A t h e n s . H e was also said t o have defiled a statue o f Hecate ,
an exploit parallel t o tha t o f t h e muti la t ion o f t h e H e r m a e . 1 A l l this
may have l i t t le direct connexion with t h e h i s to ry o f p h i l o s o p h y, b u t
t oge the r wi th t h e rat ionalism o f natural ph i losopher s a n d Soph i s t s i t
con t r ibu ted t o the a tmosphere i n w h i c h P l a t o g r e w u p , a n d w h i c h
m o v e d h i m t o cons t ruc t i n oppos i t ion a ph i losoph ica l t heo logy based
o n a t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n a n d g o v e r n m e n t o f t h e w h o l e u n i v e r s e a n d
o f man's place within i t .
1 F o r t h e κ α κ ο δ α ι μ ο ν ι σ τ α ΐs e e Ly s i a s ap. A t h . 1 2 . 5 5 1 ε . T h e defilement of the statue i smentioned b y Aristophanes in the Frogs (366, cf . Eccl. 330), where the scholiast s a y s Cinesias
w a s t h e perpetrator. F o r further information about them, Maas in RE, X I , 4 7 9 - 8 1 , Dodds ,
Gks. and Irrat. i88f. , Wo o d b u r y i n Phoenix, 1 9 6 5 , 2 1 0 .Woo db ur y (p. 199) makes the interest ing
point that such offences o f s a c r i l e g e an d blasphemy 'presuppose th e authori t y of somethin g ho ly.
A black mass implies th e author i ty a n d val id i ty of the sacrament. ' This can be so . Medieval
Satanists n o doub t believed themselves to be giving al legiance to one o f two opposed, a n de q u a l l y real, powers. But i t i s also possible to commit offences which might bring down t h ewrath of the gods , if they existed, simply to demonstrate one's confidence that they do no t .Th i s , on the evidence, i s more l i k e l y to be the explanation of the antics of Cinesias a n d his dining
club, and o f die perpetrators o f other outrages against religion at Athens .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 258/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
2 46
It is of interest that Pla to , commonly r ega rded as the m o s t b igo t ed
and ruthless o f theists , distinguishes two types of atheist, one much
more dange rous than the o the r and deserving much m o r e severe
t rea tment . He admits that atheism does not necessarily lead to i m m o r a l
con duc t, and recog niz es a ty pe somet hin g like the ethical humani s t so f our own day. The relevant passage is Laws 908 b - e :
T h o u g h a man m a y be a co mpl e t e unb el iev er in the exis tenc e o f the g o ds ,
i f he have a na tura l ly upr ight charac ter he w i l l detes t ev i l doe rs , and o ut o f a
r e p u g n a n c e t o w i c k e d n e s s w i l l have no des i re to commit wrongful ac ts , but
w i l l shu n the unr ig ht eo us and be dr aw n to the g o o d . Bu t there a re o ther s w h o
in addit ion to their b e l i e f t ha t there a re no gods anywhere are charac ter ized
b y a lack o f se l f -con t ro l in p leasures and pa ins , co mb in ed wi t h a v i g or o us
memory and keen in te l lec t . Both sor t s have in common the malady o f a the i sm,
bu t in res pec t o f in ju ry to othe rs the on e do es far less ha r m than the ot he r.
T h e o n e w i l l no d ou b t ha ve a v e r y f r ee w a y o f spe ak i ng abo u t go ds , s ac r i
fices and oa ths , and by r id icu l in g o the rs ma y per haps ma ke so me co nv er ts
i f he i s no t res t ra ined b y pu ni sh me nt ; bu t the o ther , ho ld in g the same
op in io ns bu t w i t h the re put at i on o f be in g a gif ted ma n, ful l o f craft and
t r eac her y—t his i s the k i nd w h i c h bree ds y o u r d iv ine rs and exper t s in a l l
so r t s o f qua cke ry . Som e t i mes a l so i t p ro duce s d i c t ato r s , dem ag og ue s ,
g e n e r a l s , con t r i ver s o f pr iv a te myste r i es , and the de vi ces o f those ca l ledsophis ts . Th er e are thus ma ny typ es o f a the is t , bu t tw o w h i c h des er ve t he
a t ten t ion o f the leg is la t or. T h e s ins o f the hy po cr i t es des erv e mo re than on e
death or ev en t w o , bu t the o ther s ca l l for ad mon i t io n and conf ineme nt .
In Plato's eyes the first and grea tes t crime against religion is not
open a the ism but the e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f supers t i t i t ion . Earlier too, in
the Republic (3640 - 6 ) , he had a r ra igned the pseudo-p r i e s t s and pro
phets w h o fleeced the gu ll ib le rich wi t h spur ious Orph ic booksp romis ing i m m u n i t y from divine pun i shmen t to all w h o wo ul d pa y
for their rites and incanta t ions . A character in Eurip ides calls pr op he cy
' a t h i n g o f n a u g h t , and full o f li es ' . T h e flames o f sacrifice, he th inks ,
and the cries o f bir ds, h av e n o t h i n g to teach us. Good sense and good
counsel are the bes t p rophe t s . 1 But this is not an a t tack on the gods,
1 F r o m the messenger's speech in the Helena, vv. 744Ά Wi t h 757 γ ν ώ μ η δ ' ά ρ ι σ τ ο ; μ ά ν τ ι ;ή τ ' ε υ β ο υ λ ία cf. fr. 973 μ ά ν τ ι ; δ ' ά ρ ι σ τ ο ; ό σ τ ι ; ε 'ικ ά 3ε ικ α λ ώ ; .Acco rdi ng to a late source
Ant iphon made a similar remark, that μ α ν τ ικ ή was ά ν θ ρ ω π ο υ φ ρ ο ν ίμ ο υ ε ίκ α σ μ ό ;(Gnomol.Vindol. DK , A 9). Thi s is anecdote, and , accordin g to Plutarch, Pyth. Or. 399 a (w ho also
quotes Eur. fr. 973 at Def. or. 432 c ) , the saying became proverbial. The at tack on μ α ν τ ικ ή
goes back to Xen opha nes. See Ci c. Div. 1 . 3 . 5 Aex. 5 . 1 . 1 (in DK, 21 A 52).
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 259/357
Plato s Two Types of Atheist
for h e a d d s : ' L e t u s sacrifice to the g o d s a n d p r a y f o r g o o d , b u t leave
prophecy a lone . ' N o r is P l a t o c o n d e m n i n g a l l prophecy a l ike . H e ful ly
respected t h e Delph ic o rac le , t h e m o u t h p i e c e o f A p o l l o himself , b u t
the mantic art had i ts h i g h e r a n d l ower fo rms , a n d the re w a s a w h o l e
tr ibe o f mercenary d iv iners , c la iming t o tell t h e w i l l o f t h e gods f romthe appearance o f sacrifices, th e f l ight o f b i rds , o r wri t ten col lec t ions
o f forged oracles (such as are r id iculed b y A r i s t o p h a n e s in the Birds)
w h o we re br in gin g re l ig i on in to cont empt . P la to g i ve s y e t further
ev idence o f t h e need t o dis t inguish a t tempts t o purify rel igion from
at tacks o n religion itself.
(4 ) M O N O T H E I S M : A N T I S T H E N E S
T o detect a n d isolate a n y express ions o f pure monothe i sm i n G r e e k
w r i t i n g s is as difficult as to p in d o w n unadul tera ted a theism. T h e
quest ion o f o n e g o d o r m a n y, s o central in the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n
tradit ion, hardly troubled t h e G r e e k s at al l . This is manifest even in the
w o r k s o f s o ph i losoph ica l a t h e o l o g i a n as P l a t o , w h o uses t h e e x p r e s
s i o n ' g o d ' 1 a n d ' t h e gods ' indi fferent ly, a n d of ten i n the closes t
p rox imi ty. Many ph i losophers were conv inced o f t h e exis tence o f a
single spirit o r i n t e l l igence i n o r beh ind t h e un ive r se , b u t t h e y w o u l d
not necessar i ly deny that there was ei ther practical value or an e lement
o f t ru th in the polytheis t ic be l iefs a n d cults o f t h e cities a n d t h e ord in
a ry m a n . This s ing le godhead , l iv ing a n d in te l l igent , could b e ident i
fied, as w e have seen i n many authors , wi th a physica l e lement ,
especial ly the a i r or aither. A n idea which came easi ly t o the G r e e k
mind was that t h e divine spir i t entered, i n a h i g h e r o r l o w e r d e g r e e o f
puri ty, into creatures o f a lower order such as daimones, m e n o r e v e n
animals . O n e form o f this be lief wa s that t h e l i v i n g a n d d iv ine aither,
in i t s less pure form o f a i r , w a s breathed in and so assimilated b y
morta ls , a doctrine shared b y re l ig ious myst ics a n d phys ica l ph i loso
phers from t h e t ime o f A n a x i m e n e s o r ear l ier. 2 In a cl imate o f t h o u g h t
w h i c h s a w t h e p r o b l e m o f ' t h e o n e a n d t h e m a n y ' i n these terms, i t
1 More often ' t h e g o d ' , f or Greek reg ularl y, though n o t invariably, uses the art icle, which
g i v e s the word less of the character of a proper name than o ur ' G o d ' . This applies to the NewTestament also.
1 It l i a s occurred 1'requently, a n d recently, in these pages, bu t see especially vol. I , 128ff.
i) 247 ο S P
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 260/357
Rationalist Theories of Religion
248
was n o t difficult for a ph i losopher t o take t h e popular gods under h i s
w i n g b y supposing them to be genuine manifestations o f ' t h e d i v i n e '
( τ ό θ ε ί ο ν : t h e abstract expression is frequent) in different aspects.
O n one po in t however t he phi losophers are a g r e e d : ' t h e d i v i n e ' i t s e l f is
not anthrop omorphic , whet her i t be the Logos - f i r e o f Heracli tus, t h eO n e g o d ' o f X e n o p h a n e s fr. 23 ( v o l . 1, 374) w h o i s ' i n no w a y l ike
mortals either i n b o d y or in m i n d ' , t h e g o d o f Empedoc les w h o is
pure thought a n d expressl y denied all bo di ly par t s (fr. 134, vol. 11 ,256),
or t he or ig ina l cosmopoeic Mind o f A n a x a g o r a s .So me o f these thinke rs
m i g h t b e classified, i f we wished, as monotheis ts o r pantheists, especi
a l l y Heracli tus a n d Xenophanes with their scathing at tacks o n popu la r
b e l i e f s a n d cults . N o such at tacks b y A n a x a g o r a s a re recorded, b u t h i s
expression o f h i s o w n doct r ine w a s ext remely outspoken and h i s
prosecu t ion fo r imp ie ty n o t surpr is ing . Empedocles o n the other hand
found room fo r a number a n d var i e ty o f g o d s in his unique amalgam
o f physical science a n d re l ig ion (vol . 11, 257ff.). O n t h e w h o l e it is
better t o av oi d these labels , wh ic h th ou gh ma de u p from Greek roots
were al ien to the Greeks themselves .
Never the less in the per iod o f t h e Sophists a n d Socra tes which w e
are now considering there does seem to be one unmista kable expressi on
o f a monotheis t ic v i e w , c o u c h e d i n terms o f t h e current antithesis
b e t w e e n nomos and physis. It is that o f Socrates 's disciple Antisthenes,
whose theory o f t h e relat ion o f l anguage t o real i ty w e have a l ready
examined, and as usual w e have only tantalizing little fragments o f
indirect test imony. Said t o come f rom a w o r k o n Nature , they are to
the effect t h a t ' a c c o r d i n g t o nomos there a re m a n y g o d s , bu t i n na tu re ,
or i n reality, there i s o n e ' (κ α τ ά δ έ φ ύ σ ιν έ ν α ) . S o Phi lodemus t h eEpicurean reports , a n d Ci cer o ' s Epicurean (al l o u r other versions are in
Latin) puts i t that 'An t i s thenes , in the book ca l led Physicus, b y s a y i n g
that there are many gods o f t h e peop le , b u t o n l y one in nature
(naturaliter unum), does away wi th t he p o w e r o f t h e g o d s ' . T h e
Christ ian Lactantius adds that t he one ' n a t u r a l ' god i s t he supreme
artificer o f the whole , a n d phrases i t that h e alone exists al th ou gh nati ons
and cities have their o w n popular gods. Christ ian wri ters also quoteAnt is thenes as s a y i n g that t he g o d i s l ike n o other thing ( o r p e r s o n ;
the dat ive could b e either masculine o r neuter) a n d that fo r this
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 261/357
Monotheism
249 9-2
rea son no one can learn o f hi m fro m an i m ag e . 1 If Lactantius is correct
in saying that for Anti sthe nes the one g o d wa s the creator o f the w or ld
( w h i c h in the absence of better qualified witnesses cannot be taken as
certain), then this is a remarkably early example in Greece of a pure
monotheism. The cont ras t be tween the many gods of nomos or
p o p u l a r b e l i e f and the one real god is clear and emphatic. Without this
addit ion, however, the emphasis on the unity of God and the im
poss ib i l i ty o f repres enting him b y any visible ima ge is reminiscent
o f Xenophanes and consistent with a pantheist ic , rather than a m o n o
theist ic credo. 2
1 The testimonies are collected by Caizzi as frr. 39 A-E and 40 A-D . Th ey are Phil od. De piet.
7,Cic.N.D. 1 . 1 3 . 3 2 , Min. Fe l ix 1 9 . 7 , Lac t . Div. inst. 1 . 5 . 1 8 - 1 9 and De ira Dei 1 1 . 1 4 , C l e m .
Strom. 5 . 1 4 . 1 0 8 . 4 an d Prot r. 6 . 7 1 . 1 , Euseb. P.E. 1 3 . 1 3 . 3 5 , Theodore t . Grace, aff. cur. 1 . 7 5 .' Caiz zi, the most recent s cholar to mak e a special stu dy of Ant isth enes , describes it cauti ousl y
a s 'u na fede monote istica, forse in ge rme pan tei stic a'.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 262/357
χ
C A N V I R T U E BE TA U G H T ?
' C a n you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue can be taught? Or is it a
matter of practice, or natural apt i tude or what? ' The urgency wi th
w h i c h this que sti on wa s deb ate d in the fifth ce nt ur y has be en me n
tione d in an in tr od uct ory chapte r (p. 25), wh er e the me an in g of
arete was briefly outlined and it was suggested that i t had pow erf ul
s o c i a l implic ations incli ning a writ er to ans wer in on e sense or anot her
on grounds not purely rational. The debate reflected the clash betweenold er aristoc ratic idea ls and the ne w classes w h i c h we r e the n risi ng to
promin ence under the democra t ic syste m of go ve rn me nt at Ath en s
and seeking to establish what would today be called a meritocracy. 1
T h e claim of Sophists that arete cou ld be impar ted for fees b y tr avel ling
teachers, instead o f be in g freely transmitted b y the precept and e xam ple
o f famil y and friends, and b y associati on wi th ' th e right p eo p le ' ,
cou pl ed wi th the qualities o f character nati ve to an y y o u n g ma n o fg o o d bir th , was to the conserva t ive-mi nded prof oundl y sho cki ng.
Phi losophica l ly, the question whether it was a matter o f natura l
talent, or could be acquired by either teaching or assiduous practice,
is c h i e f l y impo rtan t becau se, as a co mm on pl ac e o f the time, it wa s
cau ght up in the tho ug ht o f Socrat es and Pla to , w h o tried to ans wer
it at a deeper l e v e l . Sin ce the present s tu dy mus t be in par t pre
paration for meeting these two great figures we may take a brief
l o o k at the kind of answers offered in and before their time. A f t e r
war ds, of cour se, the topi c be ca me mo re co mm on pl ac e still, t i ll w e
get to Ho ra ce 's ' fortes creantu r fortibus et bon is . . . doctrina sed vi m
promove t in s i t am ' . 2
T h e old idea is typified by Th e o gn i s in the sixth cen tury . T o his
1 I fear it is too late to k i l l off this u g l y and bastard t erm and replac e it b y its leg iti mat e half-
brother ' a x i o c r a c y ' .2
Odes 4.4 .33 . For other passages in Latin literature see Sho rey in Τ Α Ρ Α , 1909, 185 , η . ι ,wh o rather surprisingly does not mention this one. In general his ar t icle (Φ ύ σ ι$, Μ ε λ έ τ η ,Έ τ τ ισ τ ή μ η )should be consulted on this topic.
25Ο
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 263/357
' Virtue' and Social Class
25Γ
y o u n g fr iend Cyrnus he writes (yv. 27 ff. Di e h l ; the rest o f his po et ry
makes it abundantly clear that for h im ' g o o d ' and ' no b l e ' mean
O f the right class'):
Out of the goodwill I bear you I wi l l tell y o u what I myse lf learned from
g o o d men when I was still a child. Consort not with bad men, but alwaysc l i n g to the good. Dri nk , eat and sit wi th the great and powerfu l, and take
pleasure in their company, for from noble men you wi l l learn noble w a y s ,but if y o u mingle with the bad yo u w i l l lose what sense y o u have . Und er
stand this and consort with the good, and some day you wi l l say that I am
a good counse llor to m y friends.
T h i s idea o f ha vi ng vir tue ' r ub off on on e ' thr oug h the right associa
tions was still a commonplace in the fifth century and later, its connex io n wi th social class be co mi ng mor e ten uou s w it h time. It wa s as a
conservat ive membe r o f the go ve rn in g democrat ic par ty 1 that A n y t u s
expressed his contempt for the professionals and claimed that ' a n y
Athenian gentleman' would fit Meno for political life better than a
Sop hi st . In Eur ip ide s (fr. 609) it so un ds mo re like the mor al c o m m o n
place which it became in Menander's ' E v i l communicat ions corrupt
g o o d man ne rs '. A bad co mp an io n, he says , educates his fe ll ows to bel i k e himself, and a g o o d one similar ly, therefore y o u n g me n sho uld
purs ue g o o d c o m p a n y ; a sentiment repeated in an actual S ophi st,
An ti ph on (fr. 62): Ά man necessari ly com es to resemble in his wa y s
w h o m s o e v e r he consorts with for the greater part o f the day . ' Pindar ' s
exaltat ion of natural gi ft s (φ υ ά ) i s a r is toc rat i c, 2 and the contexts in
w h i c h he expresses it show how the question whether arete is teachable
is a part o f the general antithesis be tw ee n physis and art, or physisa n d nomos.
Ο I. 2 .8 6: ' Wi s e are they to wh om know led ge of many things comes by
nature; but those who learn, vehement and garrulous as crows, utteridle words.'
Ol. 9.100: 'What i s natural is always best, but many have leaped to seize
fame through accomplishments (aretai) got by teaching.' 3
1 See pp. 38, η . i, and 39 above .1 T h o u g h th e A n o n . Iambi, shows tha t by the end of the fifth century an emphas is on φ ύ σ ις
had lost this association. For hi m it is a matter of chance (p. 71 above) .3 For an example of the anti thesis in prose , see T h u c . 1 . 1 2 1 . 4 (speech of the Cor in th i ans at
S p a r t a ) : ' T h e good qualities which we possess b y nature , they cannot acqui re by t eaching . '
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 264/357
Can Virtue be Taught?
252
T h i s does not mean that native talent cannot be improved by training.
A s he says in another Ol ym pi an ode (10.20), the man born to achieve
men t (φ ύ ν τ ' ά ρ ε τ α ) i s r ai sed to g rea t g lo r y wh en t r ain ing has pu t a
k e e n edge on his arete and the gods are on his side. Pindar's poems
w e r e com mis sio ned , and just as he con for med t o the aristocratic out
l o o k o f his pat ron s, s o (as his edi tor Gi ld er sl ee ve remi nds us) so me
praise of the trainer, w h o m in this pass age he has just ment io ne d b y
name, wa s part o f the contra ct.
T h i s ode was in praise of a boy boxer, which is a reminder that
besi des its gen era l sense, in wh i c h it st oo d for the ty pe o f exc ell enc e
most valued in the period of its use, arete could be qualified as e x c e l
l e n c e in a particular accomplishment or art. Just as w e (and the Gre ek s)speak not on ly o f a good man, but also o f a good runner, fighter, scholar
or carpenter, so arete, suitably qualified, stood for excellence or
p r o f i c i e n c y in these and othe r pursu its. T h i s is natural en ou gh , bu t
needs to be said in v i e w of the traditional but misleading English
translation 'virtue' . In the Iliad Polydorus as a swift runner 'displayed
arete o f the fe et ' (20.411) , and Peri phe tes (15.641 f.) exce ll ed his father
in 'all kinds of arete, b o t h in fleetness o f fo ot and in fi gh ti ng '. Th i s
application persists in Pindar, who in the tenth Pythian (v. 23) writes
o f som eo ne w h o ' co nq ue ri ng b y his hands or the arete of his feet wins
the greatest prizes by his daring and strength'. 1 In this sense horses too
can have it (// . 23.276, 374; Xen. Hieron 2.2, 6 .16) , and inanimate
o b j e c t s or substances like soil (i.e. fertility, Thuc. 1 .2 .4 , Pla to ,
Critias n o e , Laws 745d) or cotton (Hdt. 3 .106 .2 ) . Plato applies it
frequently t o particular skills, as wh en he mak es Pr ota gor as speak o f
'arete o f carpe ntry o r an y other cra ft ' (Prot. 322d), and o f cour se o fhis own speciality 'political arete'. In the Republic (353b ff.) Socrates
c l a i m s that there is a pr op er arete be lo ngi ng to whate ver has a part icular
function or job to perform, namely the condition in which it w i l l be
best able to perform that funct ion, and as exa mple s he ment ion s
pr un in g- ho ok s, eyes and ears. He then goe s on to mak e his o w n p oin t
1 Th is lingu ist ic usa ge could lead to what we cannot but re gard as a sli ghtl y comic confusion.
Arguing in the Meno that arete cannot be taught, Socrates (at 93 c-d) comments on the fact thatThemistocles was unable to impart his statesmanlike virtues to his own son, and with no hintof ir ony points to the yo un g man' s abil ity to th row a javelin whil e standi ng uprigh t on horseback
a s proof that he was not l acki ng in natural talent.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 265/357
The Meaning of 1 Arete
b y cla iming that the psyche o f m a n also has its function, namely t o
g o v e r n th e lower elements, t o deliberate and in general to ensure a l i fe
l i v e d to the best o f human capacity, a n d that i t s o w n arete is to be
identified with justice o r r ighteousness.
It might therefore b e said that i t was Socrates w h o enlarged the
meaning o f arete from talent o r proficiency i n a particular art or
function t o something l ike vir tue i n ou r sense, the prerequisite o f
a good human l i f e . T h e r e is some justification f o r this, b u t i t needs
qualification. T h e absolute use o f the w o r d h a d always exis ted , a long
side i ts part icularization b y means o f a geni t ive or an adjective, t o
stand fo r what i ts users thought w a s human excellence in general . It is
so used i n Homer, though w e m a y translate it ' v a l o u r ' , that b e i n g th evirtue most prized in a heroic age. Used thus i t was liable t o ' persuasive
definit ions ' b y reforming spirits w h o claimed that excel lence ' rea l ly '
consisted in this o r that , as when Heracli tus (fr. 112) declared that
' the greatest arete is se l f -con t ro l ' . T h e general us e is seen in the title o f
a w o r k o f D e m o c r i t u s ' O n Arete o r M anly V i r t u e ' ( ά ν δ ρ α γ α θ ί α ς ,
D . L . 9.46) . 1 T h e or iginal i ty o f Socrates did n ot l ie in r e c o g n i z i n g the
general us e , bu t in (a) the emphasis which h e laid on it as a mora lquali ty, rather than s imply the prerequisite o f success, a n d (b) h i s
attempt t o g i v e it philosophical justification b y demanding a universal
definition. In his eyes a general term w a s only valid i f i t cor responded
to a s ing le ' fo rm ' o r reali ty whose 'essence' could b e defined in a single
verbal formula. Here he w as on con t rovers ia l g round . When h e asks
M e n o t o tell h i m ' w h a t arete i s ' , Meno thinks it an easy question, fo r
he can sa y w h a t is the vir tue o f a m an , a w o m a n , a child, a slave, o ra n y o n e o r anything else. B u t he is puzzled when Socrates replies that
he does n o t w a n t a list o f virtues bu t a statement o f the essence, form
or being o f the o n e th ing, v i r tue , which in his v i e w must b e c o m m o n
to them all to justify calling them by the one name. I t looks l ike a
lesson i n elementary l o g i c , and so in Meno's case i t is, for he is no
phi losopher bu t an impetuous young aristocrat w h o genuinely does
not understand the difference between enumerating a str ing o finstances an d d r a w i n g a n inductive generalization from them. B u t h e
' See also p. 71 with n. 3, on t he Anon. Iambi., which however m a y have been influenced b ySocrates. Connexio n between this work and Democritus may be more than fortuitous. S eeA. T . Cole in HSCP, 1961, 154 .
*53
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 266/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 267/357
Nature, Teaching and Practice
o f the Greek heritage, and no on e w a s s o unrealistic as to suppose that
greatness could b e achieved without effort . There w a s nevertheless
great difference in the emphasis laid on the three elements o f natural
endowment , pract ice o r personal effort, a n d teaching respectively.
T h a t ' v i r t u e ' c o u l d b e taught w a s the basis o f the Sophists ' claim
to a l ive l ihood , and i ts justification la y in th e close connexion in the
G r e e k mind between arete and the special skills o r crafts (technai).
Protagoras 's references, in Plato , t o ' th e craftsman's techne ' a n d ' the
craftsman's arete' 1 s h o w that for h im they meant much the same. H e
h i m s e l f considers instruction in the special technai, which some
Sophists offered, to be beneath h i m, and the ' pol i t ica l a r t ' o r ' pol i t ica l
v i r t u e ' 2 w h i c h i s h i s o w n speciality is much closer t o moral virtue, fo r
it ha s its roots in the ethical qualities o f justice an d a respect fo r onese l f
and others. Without these, h e considers, l i fe in an organized socie ty is
impossible . ( C f . p . 66 above.) Nevertheless this poli t ical art is capable
o f precise definition as ' prudence i n personal affairs and the best w a y
to manage one's o w n househo ld , a n d also in the affairs of the State,
so as to b e c o m e a most powerful speaker and man o f a c t i o n ' ( 3 i 8 d - e ) ,
a subject practical a n d utilitarian and at the same t ime obviously suit
able for a course o f instruction. Protagoras 's v i e w o n whether v i r tue
is natural o r acquired can be extracted from h is l o n g a n d brilliant
speech in the Protagoras w h e n i ts mythical elements are thought away.
T h i s has been done already (p p. 65 ff.), an d a brief summary is all that
is necessary here. I t w a s no t , in the beg inn ing , a par t o f human nature
as such. Henc e, al t hou gh primiti ve men had the in te l l igence t o learn
var ious arts such as the use o f fire, the w o r k i n g o f metals an d so forth,
they treated each other savagely a n d cou ld n o t co-operate sufficiently
to protect themselves within walled cities from the attacks o f animals
fiercer and mo r e po we r fu l than they. Gradual ly a n d painfully some o f
them learned t o exercise self-denial and fair play sufficiently t o enable
them t o take joint action and so s u r v i v e . N o o n e comple te ly wi thou t
these virtues, therefore, is alive today, a nd e v e n t h e most v i l la inous
characters i n ou r c i v i l i z e d societies have some elements o f v i r t u e . T h e y
have been acquired b y teaching since early childhood, first from parents
and nurse, then from schoolmasters, and finally from t h e state, whose
' 322b and d. See p. 66, η . i . 2 τ έ χ ν η 3 19 a, 3 22 b, α ρ ε τ ή 32 2c .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 268/357
Can Virtue be Taught?
256
sys tem o f l a w s and punishmen ts has an educat ive pur pose . A dm on it io n
and pun ishm ent are on ly appro priate in the absence of such g o o d
qualities as ma y be acqu ired th ro ug h 'c are , practice and te ac h in g ' :
th ey are no t em p lo y ed again st natural deficiencies w h i ch a ma n can
do nothing to alter. All that the Sophist can claim is to carry the teach
i n g a litt le fur ther an d d o it a litt le be tte r, s o that his own pupils w i l l be
somewhat superior to their f e l l o w - c i t i z e n s . This does not mean of
course that everyone has an equal talent for learning political virtue,
any more than for mathemat ics o r pi an o- pl ay ing . It is an ob vi ou s fact
that all men are not equally endowed by nature, and this is no less or
more t rue of vir tue than o f an y other accom plis hmen t.
For all this we rely on Plato, but it accords w e l l wi th the meag re
quotat ions from Protagoras himself that have any bearing on the sub
j e c t . Successful teaching, he said, requires that the pup il co ntr ibut e
both na tural ab i l i ty and ass iduity in prac t ice (ά σ κ η σ ις ) , and he added
that to learn one mu st be gi n y o u n g (fr. 3). El se wh er e he said (fr. 10)
that art and pract ice, or s tudy (μ ε λ έ τ η ) , were inseparable . P la to , aga in
{Theaet. io yb -c ), make s him co mp ar e the influence o f the orato r o n
c i t i e s and the Sophist on individuals to that o f the hus ban dma n on
plants, recalling what seems to have been a commonplace, the comparison bet we en edu cati on and husb and ry in w h ic h the soil represents
the natural capaci ty o f the pup il. W e ha ve seen it recu rrin g in A nt ip ho n
and the Hippocratic Law (p p. 168 f. ab o v e) . 1
T h e claims o f t ra in ing or prac t ice (ά σ κ η σ ις ) were preferred to those
o f nature by Democritus (fr. 242), and his comment on the relation
be tw ee n natural ab ilit y and t eac hi ng wa s less superficial than most and in
modern terms might be said to have an existentialist tendency. The twow e r e complementary, because a man's nature is not i rrevocably fixed
at birth: he can be altered by teaching, which is therefore a factor in
the format ion o f his nat ure . 2 A line o f Cri tia s is also qu ot ed (fr. 9) to
the effec t that m o r e m e n b e c o m e g o o d t h r o ug h s t u d y ( μ ε λ έ τ η ) than
b y nature. Iambl ichu s's an on ym ou s writ er puts 'n at ur e' first, f o l l o w e d1 As Shorey pointed ou t (Τ Α Ρ Α , 1909, 190), Euripides in the Hecuba, 592ff., uses this simile
to make an entirely different point , that human nature cannot be changed by circumstances,whether from bad to good or good to bad.
2 Democr. fr. 33 . Hazel Barnes, An Existentialist Ethics, 33 f., speaks of Sartre's pronouncement ' that human nature is no t fixed, that man is indeed a creat ure w ho make s himsel f by aprocess of constant change*.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 269/357
Importance of the Question
*57
b y sustained ha rd w o r k a n d wil l ingness t o l earn , be gu n in e a r l y y o u t h .
Arete is o n l y to be acqu i red b y app ly in g onese l f d i l igen t ly to it o v e r a
l o n g per iod o f t ime. (S ee p . 71 a b o v e . ) T h e ' D o u b l e A r g u m e n t s '
d e v o t e d a chapter to the same wel l -worn theme o f whether v i r tue is
teachable( p p .
3i7ff .b e l o w ) ,
Isocrates summedup the
pos i t ion ,a n d
Plato himself in the Phaedrus speaks of it in m u c h th e same vein ,
indeed s o s imilar ly t o Isocrates tha t it is usual ly supposed that o n e o f
these w a s acquainted wi th the o t h e r ' s w r i t i n g . 1 A s w i l l have appeared
b y n o w , m u c h o f w h a t w a s said o n t h e subject w a s sentent ious a n d
t r ivial , y e t a t the t ime i t seemed o f paramount impor tance t o k n o w h o w
arete w a s acqu i red . In the compet i t ive soc ie ty of the day ambi t ious
y o u n g m e n l ike Meno a n d Hippocra tes ( in the Protagoras) w e r e w i l l i n g
to spend fortunes o n Sophis ts w h o m i g h t b e able t o impar t th e secret ,
and th e s u g g e s t i o n tha t n o teacher could communicate i t w a s in
Socrates ' s d a y a n at tack o n a large vested interest . In this discussion
Socra tes a n d Pla to took a v i g o r o u s par t . In the Euthydemus Pla to
ridicules t w o charlatans w h o cla im t o teach i t in the face o f Socra tes ' s
doubts whe ther i t ca n b e t augh t at a ll . In th e Protagoras h e expresses
the same doubts, a n d Protagoras counters them with ski l l a n d fo rce .
T h e Meno is w h o l l y d e v o t e d to the topic . Somet imes, as in the dis
cuss ion o f rhetor ic in the Phaedrus already ment ioned, Pla to jo ins in
the argument at the same ra ther banal l e v e l as the res t . 2 A t other t imes
he makes i t the s tar t ing-point fo r d e v e l o p i n g h i s o w n o r t h e Socrat ic
p h i l o s o p h y.
F o r S o c r a t e s — s u r e l y th e most uncompromis ing ly in te l l ec tua l o f all
e thical teachers—what o n e m a n c o u l d g i v e t o ano ther b y t each ingw a s k n o w l e d g e . I f then vi r tue ( in w h i c h h e cer ta inly includ ed t h e mora l
v i r tues ) cou ld b e t augh t , i t must b e a fo rm o f k n o w l e d g e (Meno 87c) .
A s to the t each ing o f i t , h is a n s w e r w a s neither crude n o r s imple (see
c o m p a n i o n v o l u m e o n S o c r a t e s ) ; b u t that i t w a s a f o r m o f k n o w l e d g e h e
1 F o r references to, and discussion of, the relevant passages in Isocrates a n d Plato, see Shorey's
art icle in Τ Α Ρ Α ,1909.2 O f certain passages in Plato a n d Isocrates, Shorey points ou t (op. cit. 1 9 5 ) tha t ' t he re i s
nothing in either of which th e sufficient suggestion i s no t found in the apologet ic a n d protrepticli terature of the day ' . P l a to may b e summariz ing the opinions of Isocrates, a conclusion whichma y b e unpalatable ' o n account of our natural tendency to regard Plato as the more original
th inke r ' , but , as Shorey r igh t ly adds , ' t h e or ig inal i ty of a work so surpassingly rich i n sugges t ion
a s the Phaedrus does not depend on these links of commonplace l i g h t l y assumed in passing ' .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 270/357
Can Virtue be Taught?
258
w a s c o n v i n c e d . Bu t i f vir tue is k n o w l e d g e , v i c e o r w r o n g d o i n g c a n
o n l y be du e to i gnorance and i t f o l l o w s that ' n o o n e sins deliberately ' .
R i g h t act ion w i l l f o l l o w automat ica l ly o n k n o w l e d g e o f what is r igh t .
Socrates was judging others b y himsel f for, astonishing as i t ma y seem,
in h i s case i t w a s t rue. H i s calm assurance that h e w a s f o l l o w i n g t h e
right course w a s unshaken b y the fact that i ts o u t c o m e w a s the cu p o f
h e m l o c k , w h i c h h e tossed off i n complete confidence t h a t ' n o harm c a n
c o m e t o a g o o d m a n ' . Such heroic doctr ine w a s no t fo r most m e n .
A r i s t o t l e said bluntly that i t was ' i n flat contradiction t o exper i ence '
(EN 1145 b 27). Pla to makes Socrates re cog niz e t h e prevalence o f t he
opposite v i e w in the Protagoras (352d-e) . ' Y o u k n o w ' , h e says ,
' tha t most m e n don ' t be l ieve u s . They mainta in that there are m a n y
w h o r ecogn ize the best but are u n w i l l i n g to ac t o n i t . I t m a y be o p e n
to them, b u t t hey d o otherwise. ' Since the s t ruggle betwe en conscience
and desire, o r weakness o f w i l l , is essentially dramatic, i t is n o t surpris
i n g that some o f t he most str iking expressions o f t he opposite point o f
v i e w occur i n Euripides, quite possibly in conscious contradic t ion o f
S o c r a t e s . T h i s has been suspected o f Phaedra ' s words in the Hippoly-
tas ι 1 ' We k n o w, w e r ecogn ize the right, bu t d o i t no t , some o f us from
i d l enes s , others thr ou gh ch oo si ng so me pleasure rather than t h e g o o d . '
F a c e d w i t h t he prospect o f k i l l ing h e r o w n children, Medea cries
(Medea io78ff . ) : Ί understand t he e v i l I a m prompted t o c o m m i t ,
but m y passions (θ υ μ ό ς ) are stronger than m y counsel , pass ion wh ic h
is the cause o f men's greatest crimes. ' In this connex ion 'na t ure ' wi th
her 'necess i ty ' , that despair ing resort o f the weak-w i l l ed , makes a n
appearance once again. (S ee p . 100 a b o v e . ) ' A l l that y o u w a r n m e
o f I k n o w w e l l ' , says anoth er char acter (fr. 840), 'but t h o u g h I k n o wit, nature compels m e . ' N o r i s t he other parner of t he antithesis,
nomos, l ac k in g . ' Na tu re wi l l ed i t , w h o cares nou ght fo r l a w ' is the excuse
o f a n err ing woman: women were made l ike tha t . 2 A g a i n (fr. 84 1) :
' A l a s , this is a heaven-sent curse for morta ls , that a ma n k n o w the g o o d
but pursue i t no t . ' ('Heaven-sent?' comments the moral iz ing Plutarch ,
' N a y , rather bestial a n d i rrat ional . ' Se e De aud. poet. 33e-f . ) ' T o b e
1
38off. S e e Snell i n Philologus, 1 9 4 8 ; Dodds , Gks. & Irrat. 186 with n . 4 7 ; O'Brien, Socr.Paradoxes, 55, n. 78.
1 Fr. g i o , and see Dodds , op. cit. 187 with n. 55.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 271/357
Video Meliora.
o v e r c o m e b y pleasure ' w a s a phrase o f t h e d a y, 1 a phrase which is
subjected t o a cri t ical investigation b y Socrates in the Protagoras
(352d ff .) . F o r h i m t h e natural course was to a ct as reason a n d k n o w
l edge dic ta ted , though i t does n o t f o l l o w ( indeed there is some evidence
to t h e c o n t r a r y )1
that h e was ent i re ly wi thout emot ions a n d w o u l d n o th a v e qualified fo r Ant iphon ' s desc r ip t ion o f a temperate ( σ ώ φ ρ ω ν )
m a n . ' H e w h o h a s neither felt the desire for, no r c o m e i n contact wi th ,
w h a t is foul a n d e v i l ' , sa id Ant iphon (fr. 59), ' is not temperate, fo r
the re is n o t h i n g that he has ha d to o v e r c o m e in order t o show h imse l f
wel l -behaved ( κ ό σ μ ι ο ν ) . '3 Ant iphon a l so b rough t in the idea o f
' m a s t e r y o f se l f ' , where ' s e l f stands for the l o w e r s e l f o r base desires 4
(fr. 58 ad fin.): ' T h e best judge o f a man's temperance i s one w h o 5makes himself a bulwark agains t the momentary pleasures of the
passions and has been able t o c o n q u e r a n d master h imself . Whoever
chooses t o yie ld to his passions at ev er y mome nt choos es t h e w o r s e
instead o f the bet ter. ' T hi s se l f -mastery ho we ve r i s no t r e c o m m e n d e d
b y A n t i p h o n o n a n y pure ly mora l g rounds , b u t ra ther as a piece o f
calculated self-interest. He has just said that ' t e m p e r a n c e ' o r self-
restraint (it is th e same wo rd , sophrosyne, o r its adjective sophron, w h i c hunfor tunate ly cannot b e fu l ly covered b y a n y s ing le Eng l i sh one) 6
consists in admi t t ing t h e t ruth o f the o l d Gree k adage that th e doer shall
suffer. ' W h o e v e r t h in k s he can injure h is neig hbo urs wi t ho ut suffer ing
h imse l f is no t a temperate man. Such hopes have br ou gh t ma ny t o i rre
v o c a b l e disaster, when they have turned ou t to suffer exa ctl y wh at th ey
t h o u g h t t o inflict o n others. ' Therefore think before y o u g i v e y o u r
passions rein. There is here at least th e g e r m o f the ' hedon ic ca lcu lus 'w h i c h Socrates advocates in the Protagoras a n d w h i c h o b v i o u s l y p l a y e d
an important par t in the format ion o f his though t . Every th ing depends
1 See e.g. Ly s i a s 2 1 . 1 9 , Thuc . 3.38.7. In the Gorgias Socrates ca l l s i t ' t he popular not ion '
( ώ σ π ε ρο ί π ο λ λ ο ί , 491 d ).1 S ee Socrates, p p . 73 ff.3 Scholars have made much of the moral tone of this , which is indeed sufficiently remarkable.
S e e the quotations in Untersteiner, Sof. ι ν , I 4 4 f . Wh en Phaedra opposes Socratic doctrine inthe words {Hippol. 3 5 8 ) oi σ ώ φ ρ ο ν ε ςy a p ο ύ χ έ κ ό ν τ ε ς ά λ λ ' ό μ ω ςκ α κ ώ ν έ ρ ώ σ ι ν ,Euripides m a yhave had Antiphon in mind.
4 As is explained in the Republic, 4 3 0 6 - 4 3 1 a.5 Jacoby's al teration of ά λ λ ο ςto ά λ λ ο υ ,adopted b y D K , seems unnecessary. S ee Unter-
steiner's note, Sof. i v , 142 (where ά λ λ ο νis presumably a misprint) .6 A full-scale study of the history of the concept has now been made b y Helen Nor th
(Sophrosyne, 1 9 6 6 ) .
259
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 272/357
Can Virtue be Taught?
260
o n ma ki ng the right dec isi on, i .e. on the cor re ct cal cul ati on and
w e i g h i n g up of one 's o w n interests . T hi s bri ngs us close to So crat i c
intel lectual ism. W h a t is wa nt ed for a corre ct cho ic e o f pleasures is , in
Socra tes ' s phrase , an "ar t of measurement" . ' 1 The d i fference be tween
them is tha t for Socrates no pleasure could exceed tha t of a go od co n
science, and no pa ins , th ou gh the y mig ht inc lude pove r t y, d isgra ce ,
w ou nd s and death, cou ld out we ig h i t . I t is bet ter, and to the man w h o
k n o w s less painful, to suffer injury than to inflict it, for what mat te r s
is the soul, the psyche, not the b o d y or appearances , and to pro spe r
and en joy wh at are vu l ga rl y call ed pleasure s b y selfish and unjus t
means is to maim and injure one's own psyche.1 So K. Gantar in Ziva Ant. 1966, 156, disc ussi ng Antip hon fr. 58. His reference is to Pl at o,
Prot. 35 6d ~35 7b . See further on this Socrates, pp. 142 ff.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 273/357
X I
THE M EN
I N T R O D U C T I O N
In t h e fo r ego ing chap te r s man y o f t h e v i e w s o f Sophis t s a n d their
con tempora r i es have been in t roduced i n a discuss ion o f the main topics
o f phi losophical in teres t in the fifth century. T h e p r i o r i t y g i v e n t o this
d i scuss ion over a t rea tment o f each th inker individual ly m a y b e
justified b y t h e reflection that o n t h e whole th i s w a s a debate o f c o n
tempora r i es eager ly exch ang ing v i e w s a n d that t h e subjects o f peren
nial human interest o n which they a rgued d o n o t admi t o f t h e same
linear progress from o n e th inker to the n e x t w h i c h c a n b e detected i n
the more scientif ic theorizing o f the Presocra t ics . I t seem ed best there
fore t o r e p r o d u c e , so far as poss ib le , t h e in terplay o f the i r minds o n
this topic o r tha t . T h e r e i s the fur ther considera t ion that , as I h a v e
tried t o b r i n g o u t more than once dur ing t h e discuss ion , i t i s not
a l w a y s poss ib le o n t h e evidence avai lable t o ass ign a par t icular v i e w t o
i t s author wi th cer ta in ty. Salomon went so far as to say (Sav. Stift.
1 9 1 1 , 1 3 1 ) that ' t h e pic tu re o f t h e ind iv idua l Soph i s t s which w e
cons t ruc t o n t h e basis o f such o f their dicta as are prese rved i s , i n so
far as it is determined b y t h e vic iss i tudes o f t h e t radi t ion, t h e result
o f pure chance . ' A t t h e same time there i s s o m e t h i n g i n N e s t l e ' s
reasons ( in the preface t o Vom Mythos ium Logos) f o r c h o o s i n g a n
ar rangement b y persons ra ther than b y subjects , namely tha t O t h e r
w i s e much repet i t ion would have been necessary a n d t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s
o f the great personal i t ies , whose uni tary v igour was i n fac t responsible
for t h e in te ll ec tua l p ro gress ach ieved , wo ul d hav e been d i s mem ber ed ' .
A n at tempt t o h a v e t h e bes t o f bo th w or l ds w i l l o b v i o u s l y in c re as e t h e
risk o f repet i t ion , a poin t which mus t b e b o r n e i n m i n d . O n e reason
w h y , i f t he a d v a n t a g e s o f ar rangement b y subject seemed t o o grea t t o
miss , it is never theless advisable t o at tempt a shor t uni f ied account o f
each individual is tha t in scat ter ing th e v i e w s o f o n e m a n t h r o u g h
several wi de ly separated chapter s—here h i s remarks o n l a w o r e th ics ,
261
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 274/357
The Men
262
and far removed from these a d ic tum o n e p i s t e m o l o g y a n d another o n
t he gods—i t wou ld be al l too easy t o over look incons is tencies a n d
at t r ibute to the same phi losopher v i e w s w h i c h n o sane m a n cou ld have
held simultaneously. I t w i l l b e salutary to see i f together they add up
to a credible character, an d at the same time there remains some detail
to b e f i l led i n a b o u t t h e ev idence for the dates o f these people, the
events o f their l i v e s , an d in some cases aspects o f their teaching which
in t h e previous general discussion have been omitted o r dismissed with
a bare mention. I n w h a t f o l l o w s therefore I shall t r y to su m up w h a t is
k n o w n o f each indiv idual , wi th t h e briefest reference possible t o w h a t
has already been said. I have confined m y s e l f t o those w h o h a v e
appeared in the previous chapters , a n d omit ted o n e o r t w o m i n o r
figures abo ut w h o m ev er yt hi ng neces sary h a s been said there.
( i ) P R O T A G O R A S
Pro tagoras w as a nat ive o f A b d e r a , t h e c i ty in the remote north-east
o f Greece which a lso gave b i r th t o D e m o c r i t u s . 1 Since for our p u r
poses relative dates are more impor tant than absolu te , w e m a y no te
first that Plato makes h i m s a y, before a company which inc ludedSocrates, P rod icus a n d Hippias , that he is old enough. _t o. b f i L th e father
o f any one o f t h e m (Prot. 3 1 7 c ) . In the Hippias Major (282ε ), to o,
Hippias describes himself as a m u c h y o u n g e r m a n than Pro tagoras .
T h i s sugges t s a date o f n o t later than 490 for his bir th (which would
make h i m about t wen ty years o lder than Socra tes , probably the eldest
o f his auditors) , and in the Meno (91ε ) he i s said t o have died at the
age o f about seventy after forty years as a practis ing Sophist . H i s death ,therefore, m a y b e assumed t o have occurred about 420. 2 T h e r e w a s a
s to ry that he w a s a chi ld at the t ime o f t he i nvas ion o f X e r x e s (480),
w h o i n re turn for h i s father's hospitality ordered t h e m a g i t o g i v e h i m
1 A n isolated reference t o h i m a s Π . ό Τ ή ι ο ; occurs in the comic poet Eupolis (ap. D . L .9.50). Abdera w a s colonized from Teos ( H d t . 1 . 1 6 8 ) , and the continuous long s y l l a b l e s o fΑ β δ η ρ ί τ η ;would have been difficult to accommodate to the metre.
1 T h e chronologist Apollodorus followed Plato ( D . L . 9.56) , a n d gave Ol. 84 (444-441)
as hi s floruit, probably i n allusion to his drafting o f the constitution o f Thur i i in 444-443. Accord
ing to D.L. , some said he l ived t i l l near ly 90, but see on this Davison in CQ, 1953, 35 . Forreferences to other discussions of his date see Untersteiner, Sophs. 6, n. 7, and fo r his l ife in general
Morrison i n CQ, 1941 a n d Davison i n CQ, 1953.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 275/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 276/357
The Men
ou tc ome of their relat ionship was the invi tat i on to Protag oras to
coll abor ate in an exc it in g ne w enterprise. Af te r the sack and dest ruct ion
o f Sybari s in So ut h I taly b y the Cro toni ate s, the surv iv in g Sybari tes
appealed to Athens and Sparta to assist their re turn and share in the
ref oun di ng o f the cit y. Sparta refused, but the At he ni an s acce pted
w i t h enthusiasm, and invit ed vol unt eers from any Gr ee k ci ty to joi n
the ne w co lo ny , wh ic h thus bec ame a truly pan-Hell enic enterprise.
A l l this is told b y Di od or us , but Heraclides Pon ti cus in a stu dy o f the
l a w s of Greek states added that Protagoras was the man chosen to
draft a lega l co de for Th u r i i . 1 He w^l Tfa lr i ih ' ar f igure to the We st er n
G r e e k s , for he^ lS oT Iv ed for a t ime in S i c i l y, where he made a reputa
tion in his profession (Plato, Hipp. Maj. 282d-e ) .
There is little point in trying to list the titles of his separate works.
D i o g e n e s Laer t ius (9 .55) g i v e s a cat al ogu e, but m a ny o f the nam es
w i l l ha v e be en arbi tra ril y att ache d in later cen tur ies . In the fifth c en tu ry
the cu st om o f att achi ng titles to pro se w o r k s wa s in its inf ancy , an d
fo r a long t ime those who quoted them would at tach a descript ive
name to wha t wa s on ly a section of a lon ger con ti nuo us wo r k. Th er e
w e r e at least two main treatises: (1) Truth (known a l ternat ive ly, a t
least in later t imes, b y a wre st l i ng term as the ' T h r o w s ' or arg ume ntsto floor an opponent), which is cited as such by Plato several times; it
opened wi th the 'm an the meas ure ' pr ono unc eme nt ; (2) Antilogiae o r
contrary arguments . On the Gods also sou nds lik e a separate wo r k , an d
it is certainly ineffective to argue that after the agnostic first sentence
there would have been nothing left to say on the subject. It might, as
already suggested (p. 235), have dealt with the value of religious cults
as a part o f c i v i l i z e d l i fe , or al ternatively have been an anthropologicaltreatise describing the forms of b e l i e f and wor shi p current am on g
var ious peo ple s. Th er e is also refere nce to a ' Gr ea t L o g o s ' , w h i c h m a y
be the same as Truth, and a nu mb er o f othe r ti tle s. 2
1 D i o d . 1 2 . 1 0 , Heracl. Pon t . Π . ν ό μ ω ν , fr. 1 50 We hr li (ap. D.L. 9.50). There seems no
reason to doubt Heraclides's information, t hough it is a little curious tha t Diodorus does not
mention Protagoras with the others at 1 2 . 1 0 . 4 . On the foundation of Thurii see Ehrenberg in
AJP, 1948, 149- 70 . He speak s of the part play ed b y Protag oras on pp. 1 6 8 f.1 F or t he Α λ ή θ ε ι α in Pl at o s ee Theaet. 1 6 1 c, Crat. 391 c. T h e a lt er na ti ve tide Κ α τ α { ϋ λ λ ο ν τ ε 5
occurs in Sextus, Math. 7 . 6 0 (P ro t . fr. 1). T h a t Eur. Bacch. 202 is an allusion proving that it was
a l r e a d y current in the fifth century has been denied outr ight by Wilamowi tz {Plat. 1.80 n. 1),
and asserted by Gigante (Nom. Bas. 21 6, n. 2) to be 'no t mer ely possible but cert ain '. On
264
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 277/357
Protagoras: Plato's Evidence
265
M u c h o f o u r informat ion about Protagoras ' s thought comes f rom
Plato ' s d ia logues , and our assessment o f h is phi losophic achievement
therefore depends t o a considerable extent on the historical value
w h i c h w e are prepared t o grant them. Many scholars have joined in the
debate , a n d complete agreement w i l l probab ly never b e reached. O n eth ing , however, which canno t b e argued against Plato 's veracity is
that his a im w a s to blacken o r dest roy Protagoras ' s reputa t ion. T h e
respect wi th which h e treats his v i e w s is all th e more impress ive for his
profound disagreement wi th them. In the dramatic set t ing which is
on e o f the chief charms o f the dia logue Protagoras, the great Sophis t is
cer ta in ly por t rayed as fu l ly conscious o f his o w n merits , with a harm
less v a n i t y and l o v e o f admirati on wh ic h amused Socrates a n d tempted
h i m t o a l i t t l e good- tempered l eg -pu l l ing ; but in the discuss ion h e
remains consistently urbane in the face o f considerable provocat ion,
including fal lacious a n d unscrupulous argument , on the par t o f
Socra tes , disp lay ing at the end, as Vlas tos w e l l expresses it, a m a g
nan imi ty which is ' s e l f - consc ious b u t n o t ins incere ' . H i s o w n con t r i
bu t ions to the discuss ion are on a consis tent ly h igh l e v e l both intel lec
tual ly an d mora l ly, a n d leave n o d o u b t o f the high esteem i n w h i c h
Plato held h i m . E v e n G r o t e , the arch-castigator o f P l a t o for h is un
fairness a n d animosi ty towards t h e Sophis ts ( p p . 1 1 f. a b o v e ) , had to
agree that ' that d i a l o g u e is i t se l f enough t o p r o v e that Pla to d id no t
c o n c e i v e Protagoras e i ther as a cor rup t , o r u n w o r t h y, o r incompeten t
t eacher ' , a n d c o n c l u d e d that , on the ev idence o f the Protagoras itself,
the ethical code o f Protagoras appears as super ior t o that of the
Platonic Socra tes . 'P ro ta go ra s ' , said Grant , ' i s represented b y Pla to
t h r o u g h o u t t he dia logue as exh ib i t ing an elevated s tandard o f mora l
Π . Tfjs έ ν ά ρ χ η κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ;see p. 63 above. F o r those interested in opinions o n this minor
and insoluble question here i s a selection. Nesde identified the Μ έ γ α ; Λ ό γ ο ;(fr. 3) wi th theΠ . α ρ ε τ ώ ν ,Frey wi th the Π ρ ο σ τ α κ τ ικ ό ; ,D K a n d Untersteiner with the Α λ ή θ ε ια .S e e Nesde,
VM^uL, 296 (b ut cf. his edition of th e Prot. p . 3 1 ) ; D K , 1 1 , 264 n . ; Unterst . Sophs. 1 4 . V o n Fri tz
(RE, X L V. Halbb. 920) thinks it an independent work. F o r Π . τ ο ϋ ό ν τ ο ; seep. 47 wi th n . 1 above.
Untersteiner (pp. cit. ioff .) has a n elaborate theory (charitably characterized b y Lesky, HGL, 344,
a s ' t o o sweeping to be f u l l y demonst rable ' ) that all the titles in D.L . 's catalogu e refer to sub
sections of the Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ι ,which contained four main sections: (1 ) on th e Gods, (2) on Being,
(3 ) on the L a w s a n d other problems concerning the polis, (4) on the A rt s ( τ έ χ ν α ι , i nc lu di ngπ . π ά λ η ;and π . τ ώ ν μ α θ η μ ά τ ω ν ).One of D.L. 's t ides is Π . π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ; ,commonly ass igned toth e Ά ν τ ιλ ο γ ί α ιbecause of the scandalous story of A ri s to x en us (α ρ . D . L . 3 . 3 7 , and cf. 3 . 5 7 ) thatalmost all of Pla to ' s Politeia wa s to be found in the latter work.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 278/357
The Men
f e e l i n g s ' , and n o unpre judi ced reader o f the dia log ue co uld disag ree.
V o n Frit z , af ter poi nt in g out the fairness wi th w hi c h Plato treats the
'ma n- t he- mea sur e ' doct r ine in the Theaetetus, adds: ' In o ther w a y s
also Pla to , in spi te o f al l his opp osi t io n, has treated Pro tag ora s wi th
more just ice than hav e o ther of h is oppo nent s . ' Unl ike Ar is toph ane s ,
w h o in terpre ted ' w e a k e r ' as 'un jus t ' in Prot agor as ' s c la im to mak e the
weaker arg ume nt pre vai l , Pla to nev er accused hi m or other Sophi sts
o f flouting the est abl ish ed mo ra l rul es . 1
For many people one of the c h i e f obstac les to be l i evi ng in Pla t o ' s
veraci ty has been the speech in which Protagoras g i v e s a brilliant
acc oun t o f the orig ins of hu ma n s oci ety del ibera tely cast in the for m
o f a myth (Prot. ^^oc~ ^^ά ), though, as he has said (32.0c), i t could
equal ly w e l l have been told as a rational logos wi thou t the myth ica l
accret ions.* What s t icks in their throats is the statement that man is
the onl y creature w h o believe s in the go ds and pract ises rel i giou s cult
'b ec au se o f his kin ship wi th the di vi ne ' . I ho pe I ha ve dispo sed of this
objec t ion . Th a t the inst inct to bel iev e and wo rs hi p is fundamental to
h u m a n nature is plain fact, and to at t r ibute i t to div ine kins hip no mo re
than is to be expected in an account confessedly cast in the form of
popul ar my th o l o g y to mak e i t mor e enter ta in ing (320c) . 3 Tha t P la to
reprod uced Prot agor as ' s teaching wi th compl e te acc urac y i s som eth ing
w e shall never know for certain, but with this proviso, so long as what
he say s is bo th int ern all y cons iste nt and no t in confli ct wi th the rest
o f ou r scan ty inf orm ati on (and this I be li eve to be true) , I shall pre fer
to make use of it as I have done in the earlier par t of th is book ra ther
than assume, as w e sho uld ha ve to do if Pla to ' s tes t i mon y is rejected,
that w e k n o w v e r y l i t tle inde ed abo ut this s t imu lat i ng and influentialfigure.
Pro tag ora s 's in no va ti on wa s to achie ve a reputa t ion as a poli t ica l
and moral th inker wi th ou t supp or t i ng any pol i t ica l par ty, a t tem pt ing
political refo rm, or se eki ng p ow e r for himself , but s im pl y b y le ctur ing
and spe aki ng and offering hims el f as a professi onal advis er and ed uc a-
1 Grote , History (1888 ed.) , VH, 5 9 - 6 2 ; Grant, Ethics, I , 1 4 4 ;von Fri tz , iv / i , X L V. Halbb. 917.
* For v ie ws on the aut hen tic ity of the my th see the references on p. 64, η . 1, abo ve, espe cial ly,
for objectors to the mention of divine kinship, Havelock, L.T. 408 f.3 Se e pp. 88 ff. a bo ve an d In the Beginning, 88 f. If my e xplana tion is unsat isfy ing, read ers
have the choice of C. W. M i i l l e r ' s (p. 235, n. 3, above).
266
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 279/357
Protagoras s Teaching
267
tor to ma ke others better and mo re successful in bo t h their pers ona l
and po li t ical careers. I t wa s a bri l l iant sol uti on for an able and amb it io us
man bo rn in an uni mpo rta nt c i ty in the remo te nor th-eas t w h o lon ge d
for wea l th , reputa t i on and the co mp an y o f h is in te l lec tual equals bu t
c o u l d o n l y find th em in the le ad in g cities o f Gr ee ce , wh er e his alien
status debar red h im from active part i cipat ion in poli t ical l i f e . H i s
character evi den t ly seemed to ov er co me , in the min ds o f ma ny p ro m
inent At hen ian c i t izens , the pre judice agains t h is profe ss ion al ism, and
i t was not long before o thers f o l l o w e d his exam pl e. (C f . p p . 40 f.
a b o v e . ) T h e a im of h is teac hin g wa s ab ov e a ll pract ica l , and in acc or d
ance w i th the need s o f the d ay he ba sed i t lar gel y on the art o f pe rsua
s i v e sp eak in g, trai ning hi s pup ils to argu e b ot h sides o f a case and
pr ov id in g examples to p r ov e h i s po in t that there are con t ra ry a rgu ment s
on ev er y subject . T h e ar t o f logoi was acquired by var ious exerc ises ,
inc lud ing s tu dy and cr i t ic ism o f the poet s ( the Soph is ts ' pre decesso rs
in educat ion for l i f e ) , and ana lysis and cri t ici sm o f curr ent for ms o f
speech . T h e leg i t i mac y o f taki ng e i ther s ide in an arg ume nt ac co rd in g
to c i rcumstances was found ed on theor ies o f kn ow le dg e and be in g
w h i c h cons ti tu ted an extreme reaction from the Eleati c anti thesis o f
k n o w l e d g e and opinion, the one t rue and the other false. There was no
such th ing as fa lsehood, nor could anyone contradic t another or c a l l
hi m mistak en, for a ma n wa s the sole ju dg e o f his o w n sensatio ns and
b e l i e f s , w h i c h w e r e t r ue for hi m so l o n g as the y app eare d to be s o.
Since there was no absolute or universa l t r u th , no one needed to con
sider, before at tempting to make an individual , a jury or a state c h a n g e
i ts min d, whe th er or not he w o u l d be persuadi ng th em o f a t ruer state
o f affairs . The personal nature o f ou r sensations did no t mean tha t all
perc ept ibl e pro pert ies co exi st in an external object bu t I pe rce iv e so me
and you others . I t meant ra ther that the y hav e no obje ct iv e exis tence ,
bu t co me to be as th ey are pe rce iv ed, and for the perci pien t . Co ns is te nt
w i t h this wa s his at tack o n mathem atician s for deali ng in abst racti ons,
des cri bi ng straigh t l ines, circles and so forth as no ma n per cei ve s th em
an d as, the refo re, th ey d o no t exist . (S ee v o l . 11, 486.)
I f each of us l i v e s l ik e this in a pri vat e w o r l d o f his o w n , the at tem pt
to chan ge ano the r man ' s wor ld mig h t be tho ugh t no t on ly un ob j ec
t ionable but imposs ible . This d i ff icul ty i s overcome by subst i tu t ing a
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 280/357
The Men
268
s tandard o f adva ntag e and d isad vanta ge for that o f t ru th and fa lsehood,
and exte nd ing b y an al og y the case o f sensat ions in heal th and sick ness .
T h e f o o d that to a sick man tastes unpleasant is unpleasant , for him,
but a doctor can change his world so that it w i l l both appear and be
pleasant to him. The doctr ine becomes more diff icult when applied to
values in gene ral . T o be consis tent , Prot ag or as must ho ld an extr eme
re la t ive theo ry o f va lu es acc or din g to wh ic h not on ly ma y the same
thi ng, or cours e o f act io n, be g o o d for A but bad for B, but also,
just as w h a t a ma n bel ie ve s to be t rue is t rue for him, so also what he
b e l i e v e s to be g o o d is g o o d for him, so lo n g as he bel iev es i t . W e ha ve
no record o f h o w Prota gor as appl ied th is doct r ine to indiv idu al mor a l
i ty, bu t o f a state he certainly said that whatever cus toms or pol ic ies
it believed in and embodied in its laws were right for it so long as itheld them to be r ig ht . Th i s diff iculty he g o t ov er b y equ ati ng ' j us t ' or
' r i g h t ' w i th ' l aw fu l ' bu t d i s t ingu i sh ing i t f rom ' t he exped ien t ' , wh ic h
w a s that bel ief or co urse o f ac t ion wh ic h will produce better effects in
the future. A s the doct or , wi th the pat ient 's co nsen t , administers t rea t
m e n t w h i c h w i l l improve the pat ient 's condit ion (cause pleasanter
sensati ons bo th to appe ar and be for hi m) , so a wi se So phi st or or ato r
may , wi th the c i ty ' s g oo dw il l , con ver t i t b y arg ume nt and not b yv i o l e n c e to ge nui ne be l ie f in the v i r tues o f a ne w pol icy wh ic h w i l l
lead (e . g . b y pr om ot in g a sou nder e co n o my or be t te r rela t ions wi th
its ne ig hb ou rs ) to a hap pier life for its citi zens . A t the ro ot o f this
cur io us arg ume nt i s Pro tag ora s ' s invinc ib le respect for the democra t ic
vir t ues of just ice, respect for oth er me n's o pin ion s and the process es o f
peaceful persu asion as the basis o f co mm un al l i fe , and the necessi ty of
co mm un al l ife to the v er y su rv iv al o f the hu ma n race. L a w and ord er
were not in our na ture f rom the beg inn ing , but the agreem ent wh ic h
br ou gh t the m into bei ng wa s the frui t o f bi t ter experi ence , for th ey
are essential to our preservation. It f o l l o w s that al l men now l iv ing in
soc ie ty posse ss the cap aci ty for mo ra l and intellectu al vi rtu e, and tho se
in w h o m it i s inadeq uate ly dev elo ped may be punish ed, i f persuas ion
f a i l s , p r o v i d e d that pun ish men t is des ign ed to be on e means a m o n g
others o f educ ation in vir tue .
O n e would hardly expect a rel igious spir i t in a man of these v i e w s ,
and Protagoras confessed that on the existence o f g o d s he pe rso nal ly
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 281/357
Protagoras. Gorgias
269
c o u l d on ly suspend jud gmen t . Th i s wo ul d n o t prec lude a n interest in
the phenomena o f re l ig ious be l i e f a n d w o r s h i p , a n d w i t h h i s c o n v i c t i o n
o f t h e v a l u e t o s o c i e t y o f es tabl ished custom a n d l a w , h e p r o b a b l y
be l i eved that this nomos ( ' f o r ' , as Euripides sa id , ' i t i s b y nomos tha t
w e b e l i e v e in the g o d s ' ) w a s t o b e e n c o u r a g e d as m u c h as others .
G o d s , after a l l , existed f o r those w h o b e l i e v e d in t h e m .
A w o r d m a y b e added abou t P ro tagoras as a l i te rary cr i t ic . There
i s ev idence independen t o f P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e that h i s cr i t ic ism o f
p o e t r y w a s n o t conf ined t o grammat ica l pedan t ry o r m o r a l i z i n g .
A p a p y r u s o f a b o u t t h e first century A .D . , c o n t a i n i n g c o m m e n t o n
Iliad x x i , s h o w s h i m e x a m i n i n g t h e poe t ' s purpose an d the s t ructure
o f t h e p o e m i n a surpr i s ing ly modern w a y . ' P r o t a g o r a s ' , runs t h e
c o m m e n t , ' s a y s that th e p u r p o s e o f t h e e p i s o d e i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g
the fight between th e r i v e r X a n t h u s a n d mor ta l m e n i s to d i v i d e t h e
bat t le a n d m a k e a t rans i t ion to the theomachy, perhaps a lso t o g l o r i f y
A c h i l l e s a n d . .
(2 ) G O R G I A S
The o the r g rea t member o f t h e first generation o f Sophis ts , a lmost
e x a c t l y c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h P r o t a g o r a s , w a s G o r g i a s s o n o f C h a r m a n -
t i d e s . T h o u g h a We s t e r n G r e e k , he t oo w a s an Ion ian , for h is c i t y
L e p n t i n i i n S i c i l y w a s a c o l o n y o f C h a l c i d i a n N a x o s in the east o f t h e
i s land. H e w a s b o r n a b o u t 490 or a few years after, an d a l l author i t ies
, ι a re agreed that h e l i v e d t o a g r e a t a g e : the i r r epor t s va ry be tween
11 105 and 109. 2 Tr a d i t i o n s a y s h e w a s a pupi l o f E m p e d o c l e s ( v o l . 11,
135), a n d this is l i k e l y, t h o u g h h e cou ld have been on ly a v e r y f e w
y e a r s y o u n g e r. P l a t o (Meno 76 c) con nec ts h is n a m e w i t h t he E m -
p e d o c l e a n t h e o r y o f p o r e s , a n d h e w o u l d a l s o o w e t o E m p e d o c l e s a n
interest in the arts o f persuas ive speech a n d o f medic ine . H i s b r o t h e r
H e r o d i c u s t o o w a s a d o c t o r , a n d h e cla imed t o be o f se rv ice t o m e d i c i n e
b y b r i n g i n g h i s p o w e r s o f persuas ion t o bear o n recalci trant patients
1 Oxy. Pap. II , 221. S e e Gudemann in RE, 2. Reihe , m . Halbb. 640.* For the sources see Untersteiner, Sophs. 97 , n. 2. Pla to (Apol. 1 9 ε ) speaks of him as still
active in 399, and from Pausanias ( 6 . 1 7 . 9 , D K, A 7) i t would seem that h e e n d 8 d h is d a y s a t thecourt of Jason, w h o became tyrant o f Pherae i n Thessa ly about 380. (P l a to , Meno 7 0 b , shows
him a s al ready a familiar figure i n Thessa ly b y 402.) Athenaeus (505 d, A 1 5 a) tells a s tory which
if t rue would mean that h e l ived long enough to read Plato 's characterization of him in theGorgias, written probably c. 385 (Dodds , Gorg. 24 ff . ) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 282/357
The Men
o f his brother o r other prac t i t ioners . 1 N o r c o u l d h e have failed to be in
touch wi th the Syracusan rhe tor ic ians C or ax a n d Tis i a s (wi th w h o m
Plato associates h i m , Phaedr. 267a) , and his o w n ora to ry w as o f t he
flowery S i c i l i a n t y p e : his name is not connec ted , as were those o f
Pro tagoras an d Prod icus , w i th the linguistic studies o f orthoepeiajixia
' the correctness o f n a m e s ' (p. 205 ab ov e) . Li ke o ther Sophis ts h e w a s
an itinerant, practising in various ci t ies and gi vi ng publ ic exhibi t ions
o f h is skil l at the great pan-Hellenic centres o f O l y m p i a a n d D e l p h i ,
and charged fees for his instruct ion a n d performances . Bes ides The ssa ly,
there are repor ts o f visi ts t o Boeo t i a an d A r g o s (where h e w a s b a d l y
received and h is lectures balmecT). 2 A special feature o f his displays w a s
to invite miscel laneous quest ions from the audience and g i v e i m
promp tu r epl i es . W h e n h e came t o A t h e n s in I427, o n a n e m b a s s yfrjDmJLfiOiitim, h e w a s already abo ut s i xty, and t o o k t h e c i t y b y s t o r m
w i t h h is novel s ty le o f ora to ry, as w e l l as earning large sums b y
special performances a n d classes for the y o u n g ( p p . 40 an d 179, n . 3
a b o v e ) .
His wr i t ten works inc luded Technai, manuals o f rhetorical instruc
t ion , which m a y have consisted largely o f m o d e l s to be learned b y
hea r t , o f w h i c h the ex t an t Encomium of Helen and Defence of Palamedes(frr. 11 and 11 a) w o u l d b e e x a m p l e s . 3 T h e n there w e r e h i s o w n
speeches, epideict ic , poli t ical a n d other. Aristot le quotes from the
i n t roduc t ion to his Olympian o ra t ion , the subject o f w h i c h w a s
Hellenic unity (frr. 7-8 a ) , wh ich h e also touched on in his funeral
ora t ion f o r Athenians fal len in w a r ( f r r. 5 a - 6). A l s o in Ari s to t l e is a
br i e f quota t ion f rom an Encomium on the Eleans (fr. 10), an d th e
Pythian ora t ion i s ment ioned b y Phi los t ra tus ( 1 . 9 . 4 , A I ) . T h e o n l yconsiderable extant fragment is one f rom the funeral orat ion, quoted
b y a late writer t o illustrate h is rhetorical s tyle (fr. 6), which Ar i s to t l e
st igmatizes more than once as b e i n g in ba d taste (frr. 15 an d 16). A p a r t
from th e speeches, w e have paraphrases o f t he a rgument o f t he i ronic
1 There is no t the slightest evidence fo r Schmid's topsy-turvy idea that Empedocles owed h i sfame as a teacher of rhetoric (see vol. n , 135) to his brilliant pupil (Gesch. 1 . 3 . 1 , 58, n. 4) . SeeClassen in Proc. Afr. CI. Ass. 1959, 37f . For Gorgias's assistance to the doctors by his 'mas ter-
a r t ' o f rhetoric se e Pla to , Gorg. 456 b. H is interest in the π ό ρ ο ι theory i s also mentioned b yTheophrastus (Gorg. f r. 5 D K ) .
1 See Untersteiner, Sophs. 93 with notes, and Schmid, Gesch. 1 . 3 . 1 , 59, n. 10 .I 3 On these tw o works see p. 192 with n. 2 above.
2 7 0
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 283/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 284/357
The Men
not to know a l ready '—an admiss ion which makes nonsense of h is
denial that he teaches arete. 1 He makes i t only, of course, because he
has been driven into a corner, and we cannot be certain that he would
have said such a thing in real l i fe . A t an y rate, wh er ea s rhetoric w as
in the cur ric ulu m o f ev er y Soph ist , Gor gi as mus t hav e put i t mo re
pro min ent ly in his sho p w i n d o w than an y of the others. He saw the
I po we r o f persuas ion as param ount in ev er y f i e ld , in the study of nature
! and othe r phil oso phi ca l subje cts n o less than in the la w- co ur ts or the
political arena. O n e essential to the art wa s the sense o f oc ca si on ,
hairos, the r ig ht t ime or op po rt un it y, for, as Disra el i also k ne w , ' t he
opp ort une in a pop ula r ass emb ly has some time s mo re success than the
weight ies t efforts o f research and re as on ' . 2 T h e speaker must adapt
his w o r d s to the audie nce and the si tu at io n. 3 He was , s a id Dionys ius
ι o f Hali carn assus , the first t o wr it e ab ou t this, t h o u g h neither he no r
a n y o n e later had yet developed it as a techneA
H is rhetorical practices were based on, and justified by, a relativistic
p h i l o s o p h y similar to that o f Pro ta go ra s. If there we re an y uni ver sal l y
v a l i d t r u t h wh ic h coul d be com muni ca t ed to another, then no dou bt
only that t ru th , bac ked b y incont rover t ib le evi denc e , ou gh t to be
c o n v e y e d .* Gorgias's disclaimer has naturally aroused discussion. Joel (Gesch. 669) drew attention not
only to Plato, Gorg. 460a, but also to the epitaph writt en by his grea t-nep hew Eumolpus for his
statue at Olympi a (mentioned by Pausanias, 6 . 1 7 . 7 = DK, A 7, and discovered in 1 8 7 6 ) . T h i s
speaks of hi m as hav in g 'in ven ted the best τ έ χ ν ηf o r training the soul f o r the lists of vi rt ue '
( α ρ ε τ ή ς ά γ ω ν α ; ) .Rensi , quoted by Untersteiner (Sophs. 182), forces this in to agreement with
the disclaimer by a ( f o r its ti me) rather artificial distinct ion betwe en theoreti cal exposit ion and
practical training. Schmid (Gesch. 66f.), relying on a h i g h- f l o w n bit of rhetoric in the Epitaphios,
claims Gorgias believed α ρ ε τ ήto be ' im vollen und hochsten Si nn ' a gift of the god s, ye t in the
same paragraph s a y s that , whereas f o r Pro tagoras α ί δ ώ ;an d δ ί κ ηw e r e part of a divine order, for
Gorgias the y wer e human and muta ble ! Wer e they not in his eye s a p r r a l ? I have ventu red toconnect the disclaimer with his denial that any single thing, arete, existed.
1 Q u oted b y Robe r t Blake, Disraeli, 266.3 In vol. II of his autobi ograp hy Lor d R ussel l describes his visi t to Russ ia soon after the
First World War. He speaks of the utter horror wit h whic h he observed the cruelt y, persecution
and poverty, the spying and hypocrisy that prevailed. The shock, he s a y s , was almost more than
he could bear. Later in the same year, when he was on his way to China, the English on the boat
asked him to give a lecture about Soviet R ussia and, he continues (p. 12 5), ' i n vie w of the sort
of people they were, I said only favourable things about the Soviet Gove rnmen t ' . This seems a
g o o d illustration of the Gorgian attitude to t ru th and kairos.4 Dion . Hal. De comp. verb. 12 (Gorg . fr. 13) . In Philo str atus 1. 1 (A l a ) έ φ ι ε ί ;τ ω κ α ι ρ ώ
refers only to his gift of improvisation—•' trusting to the inspiration of the m o m e n t ' , as the Loe b
translation has it. Some have made a great deal of this ' K a i p o s- L e h r e ' , in which among other
things they see medical influence. See Schmid, Gesch. 1 . 3 . 1 , 58, n. 5, 65 wi th n. 2, 24, n. 3
(Protagoras); Nest le , VM\u L, 3i6f . ; Shorey, Τ Α Ρ Α , 1909.
272
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 285/357
Gorgias: the Philosophy of a Rhetorician
I f everyone had a memory o f all that is past, a conception o f what is happen
ing at present and a foreknowledge o f the future . . . 1 B u t as it is, there isno easy way o f either recollecting the past or investigating th e present o rdivining the future, so that o n most subjects most m en have only opinion
to offer the mind as counsel lor ; and opinion is slippery and insecure {Hel.I I ) .
T o express , wi th al l th e intel lectual force at h is command, th is thes is
that w e are al l a t t he m e r c y o f o p i n i o n an d the t r u t h is for each o f u s
w h a t e v e r w e c a n b e persuaded t o be l i ev e , because there is n o p e r m a n
ent a n d stable t r u t h t o b e k n o w n , h e cast i t in to t h e phi losoph ica l fo rm
o f a cha l l enge to the Eleatic assert ion o f a s ingle changeless being
grasped b y a n infal l ible reason as o p p o s e d to the c h a n g i n g w o r l d o f
appearance, o r o p i n i o n , w h i c h w a s u n r e a l . N o t h i n g is as P a r m e n i d e s
used t h e v e r b , that i s , exists as at the same t ime a n immutable rea l i ty
and t h e objec t o f h u m a n k n o w l e d g e . I f there were such a rea l i ty w e
c o u l d n o t grasp i t , an d e v e n i f w e c o u l d , w e c o u l d n e v e r c o m m u n i c a t e
o u r k n o w l e d g e t o others . W e l i v e in a w o r l d w h e r e o p i n i o n (doxd) is
supreme , a n d the re i s no higher cr i ter ion b y w h i c h i t ca n b e verif ied
o r t h e reverse . This leaves t h e Sophis t -ora tor, master o f the a r t o f
persuas ion both pr ivate a n d publ ic , i n c o m m a n d o f t h e whole f ie ld o f
exper ience , f o r o p i n i o n c a n a l w a y s b e c h a n g ed . O n l y k n o w l e d g e ,
based o n unshakeab le p roof , c ou l d wi ths tand t h e at tacks o f peitho, a n d
there i s n o such th ing . Th i s was , i n P l a t o ' s e y e s , t h e a r c h - h e r e s y w h i c h
he must do h i s u t m o s t t o des t roy. H e must show, f irst , that there is
such a t h i n g a s t r ue a n d fa lse opinion. Next , because i f t h e y a re only
o p i n i o n s t h e t rue o n e w i l l be as vulnerab le as the false to the w i l e s o f
the persuader, h e must restore t h e cr i ter ion o f j u d g m e n t a n d d e m o n
strate h o w o p i n i o n c a n b e c o n v e r t e d t o k n o w l e d g e b y ' t h i n k i n g o u t
th e r e a s o n ' (Meno 98a) .
T h e influence o f G o r g i a s w a s considerable , especia l ly o f c o u r s e o n
l i te rary s ty le , where i t w a s felt b y wri te r s a s diverse as the his tor ian
T h u c y d i d e s and the t r a g i c p o e t A g a t h o n . ( F o r A g a t h o n s e e P l a t o ,
Symp. 198 c. ) H i s most f amous pup i l wa s I socra tes . A m o n g o the r s w h o
are said o r t h o u g h t t o have been ei ther h i s pupi ls o r subject to h is1 T h e apodosis, omitted here, i s uncertain i n text and meaning. F o r different solutions see
DK adloc. and Untersteiner, Sof. 1 1 , 101 f. It does n ot affect th e main point, that k n o w l e d g e is ingeneral impossible an d fa l l ib le opinion th e only guide. Cf. fr. 1 1 a, §35, quoted on p . 180 above.
2 7 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 286/357
The Men
2 7 4
influence are A n t i s t h e n e s a n d A l c i d a m a s , a n d more doub t fu l ly L y c o -
phron , P rod icus , a n d Hippocra te s t h e grea t phys ic i an ; a n d a m o n g1 act ive pol i t ic ians Per ic les , Alc ib i ade s , Cr i t ias , Pro xen us a n d M e n o .
(3 ) P R O D I C U S
T o a n y reader o f P l a t o th e name o f Prodicus inevi tably reca l l s , before
anything e lse , t h e pic ture o f t he unhappy p ro fes so r, ' su ffe r ing g r i evous
p a i n s ' as the sobr ique t Tan t a lus sugges t s , l y i ng o n h i s be d w r a p p e d i n
sheepskins a n d b lanke t s ( ' a n d p l e n t y o f t h e m ' ) , h i s w o r d s d r o w n e d b y
the reverberat ions o f h i s d ron ing vo ice in the smal l room in the h o u s e
o f Cal l ias where h e holds for th t o a se lec t group o f listeners. T o d r a w
such a p ic tu re , t ho ugh t S i dg wic k , w a s a n a c t o f ' r e f ined ba rba r i ty '
on Pla to ' s par t , whereas Joel , tak ing Pla to ' s p ic ture for the t r u th ,
denied that this miserable creature could possibly have been t h e
author o f t h e heroic fable o f Heracles a t the c r o s s r o a d s . 1 I n Joel ' s
p s y c h o l o g y , a wri ter about Herac les should h imsel f b e w r a p p e d i n
l ion ' s sk in , n o t s h e e p ' s . H o w e v e r tha t m a y b e , since there is no o the r
ev idence fo r Prodicus ' s personal id iosyncras ies , w e a r e free t o accep t
P la to ' s i f w e w i s h as a not unk ind ly exaggera t ion (so at least i t seems
to m e ) o f genuine trai ts .
H e w a s a na t ive o f t h e Ionian c i ty o f Iul is o n C e o s in the C y c l a d e s ,
the home of t he poe t S imonides , as Socrates reminds h i m w h e n tha t
p o e t ' s w o r k s a re under d iscuss ion (Pla to , Prot. 339 ε f f . ) . T h e Suda
( D K , A 1) calls h i m ra ther v a g u e l y a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f D e m o c r i t u s a n d
G o r g i a s , w h i c h a l l o w s a n y t h i n g b e t w e e n 490 a n d 460 fo r h is b i r t h ; b u t
i t must have been nearer t h e second , for the Protagoras tells u s thathe w a s m u c h y o u n g e r than P r o t a g o r a s . O n e canno t d o better than
put i t , wi th Mayer (Prod. 3) and o the r s , be tween 470 a n d 460. H e w a s ,
then, a f e w years o lder than Socra tes , an d al l that can be said about t h e
l eng th o f his life is that h e o u t l i v e d h i m , f o r w i t h G o rg i a s a n d Hipp ias
he is ment ioned in the present tense a t Pla to Apol. 1 9 c Pla to says tha t
he often came t o A t h e n s o n off ic ia l missions from C e o s , a n d l ike
G o rg i a s t o o k t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o earn some money b y dec la iming h i scompos i t ions i n pub l i c a n d g iv ing ins t ruc t ion to the y o u n g m e n . I f
' Plato, Prot. 3150-0! ; S idgw ick in J. Philol. 1873, 6 8 ; Joe l , Gesch. 689.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 287/357
Prodicus
w e accept the obvious d ramat ic da te for the Protagoras, h e must have
b e e n w e l l k n o w n i n A t h e n s b e f o r e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the P e l o p o n n e s i a n
Wa r , a n d Aris tophanes could ra ise a l a u g h b y m e n t i o n i n g h i s name i n
423 a n d 414. 1
He was a S o p h i s t in the ful l sense o f a professi onal freelance ed uc ato r,
whose name is c o u p l e d w i t h that o f P r o t a g o r a s as t each ing the a r t o f
success i n pol i t i c s a n d pr iva te l i fe . There seems t o have been a s tand ing
j o k e a b o u t t h e difference between h is one-drachma lec ture and h i s
fifty-drachma lecture ( o r c o u r s e ? S ee p . 42, n . 1) o n semant ics . In the
Cratylus (384b) Socrates says that i f he could have afforded t h e
fifty drachmas h e w o u l d n o w b e f u l l y exper t on the ' c o r r e c t n e s s o f
n a m e s ' , b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y he had to be con ten t wi th t h e o n e - d r a c h m a
lecture . Ar is to t le (Rhet. 1415 b 12), g i v i n g hints o n h o w t o recall th e
w a n d e r i n g at tent ion o f a n aud ience b y some s t r ik ing p r ono unce ment ,
says this is what P rod icus ca l l ed ' s l i p p i n g in a bi t o f the fifty-drachma
w h e n t h e aud ience beg ins t o n o d ' .
A s o n e o f those present at the g a t h e r i n g o f Sophis ts descr ibed in the
Protagoras, h e takes pa r t in the c o n v e r s a t i o n at var io us po in t s , wh ere
the main emphasis is o n a somewhat i ron ic t r ea tment o f h i s insistence
on fine distinctions o f m e a n i n g b e t w e e n w o r d s c o m m o n l y r e g a r d e d
as synonyms . Socra tes ( o f wh os e re la t ions wi th Pro d icu s som eth i ng
has already been said, p p . 222 f.) call s hi ms el f h is p u p i l i n this s k i l l ,
and e lsewhere in the dia logue speaks o f h i m a s a m a n o f ' inspi red w i s
d o m ' , w h i c h h e th inks m a y b e ' anc ien t a n d g o d - g i v e n , g o i n g b ac k t o
Simonides o r even ea r l i e r ' . In the Meno also h e speaks o f h i m s e l f as
h a v i n g been trained b y P r o d i c u s as M e n o b y G o r g i a s , and in the
Charmides says he has l is tened t o ' i n n u m e r a b l e d i s c o u r s e s ' o f P r o d i c u s
o n th e dis t inct ion o f names. In the Hippias Major h e calls h i m h is
friend o r c o m p a n i o n . In the Theaetetus, af ter expla ining h i s maieu t i c
s k i l l i n a i d i n g t h e b i r t h - p a n g s o f m e n w h o s e m i n d s a r e b i g with ideas ,
he adds that w h e n he has j u d g e d tha t p e o p l e a re no t p r e g n a n t ( that i s ,
p r e s u m a b l y, are w i t h o u t a g o o d i d e a in thei r heads ) , and so h a v e n o
need o f h i m , he has passed many o f t h e m on to P r o d i c u s a n d o t h e r
' w o n d r o u s l y w i s e m e n ' w h o a re m o r e l i k e l y t o help them. T h e infer
ence i s not f l at t er ing. Un do ub te d l y Socra tes tho ugh t o f h i s o w n d i a -
1 Pla to , Hipp. Maj. 282c; Ar is tophanes , Clouds 361 an d Birds 692.
275
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 288/357
The Men
276
l e c t i c , whereby one man helps another to mature and formulate his
o w n ideas, as the only genuinely philosophic method, and the implica
tion is that sophist ic educat ion, as exemplif ied b y Pro dic us , t reats the
pupi l rather as a pas si ve rec eiv er o f re ad y- ma de facts or theo ries .
In the Laches, on the other han d, i t is Lach es w h o , in opp os it i on to
S o c r a t e s , disparages Pr odi cus 's acco mpli shme nt as ' the sort o f cl ev er
ness that befits a Sop his t rather tha n a sta tes man '. T o extra ct fro m the
nuances of Plato 's l i terary portrai ts a prosaic and agreed account of
the relations bet we en the t w o men is prac tic ally imp os sib le, or at least
v e r y mu ch at the me rc y o f subjec tive impress ions. Th er e is no do ub t
that Socra tes had clo se pers onal relations wi t h hi m, atte nded his
lectures on the impo rta nce o f usi ng wo rd s preci sely, and (I shoul d sa y)
f e l t a certain affection for his don ni sh gu lli bil ity . T o Socr ate s, as to
C o n f u c i u s (Socrates, p . 168, η . i ) , corre ct la ngu ag e, ' t he rect if icat ion of
names' , was the prerequisi te for correct l i v i n g and even efficient
government , and i t may w e l l be that this t ru th first dawned on him
w h i l e l is tening to the one -dra chma di scourse o f Pro dic us . But Pr od i
c u s , th ou gh his l inguis t ic teaching und oub ted ly inc luded semant ic
distinctions between ethical terms, had stopped at the threshold. He was
l i k e the orators who 'when they have learned the necessary pre
liminaries to rhetoric think they have discovered the art itself, and that
b y teaching them to others they have g i v e n them complete ins t ruct ion
in rhetor ic ' (Phaedr. 269b-c) . T h e compl ete ar t o f logoi embraces no
thing less than the whole of phi losophy. 1
O n e would suppose f rom Pla to that the essence of Prodicus 's
teaching was l inguis t ic . ' T h e correc tness o f na mes ' wa s the found a
tion of all else (Euthyd. 2 77 ε ) . The Suda however ( A 1, D K ) classifies
' Other references for this paragraph: Plato, Prot. 3 4 1a , 3 1 5 ε , Meno 96c!, Charm. 1 6 3 d ,
Hipp. Maj. 282c, Theaet. 1 5 1 b , Laches ι <) η & . Whe th er or not one agrees wit h Joe l and Mo mi
gliano (see the latter in Atti Torino, 1929-30, 104) that the ' my t h ' of Prodicus as master of
Socrates is Cy ni c in orig in depends, of course, on ho w one chooses to interpret the ma ny refer
ences to their relations which, since they come from Plato, are free from suspi cion of suc h an
origin. However, Momigliano does go further than I have ventu red to go here in attri butin g to
Prodicus an awareness of the consequences of his semantic teaching as it affected bo th ethics and
epistemology, thus bringing him much closer to Socrates. (For more on this see pp. 224f. a bo ve .)
To say that it led him to renounce the scepticism and relati vism of his brothe r-Sophis ts is to p ay
hi m a comp lim ent wh ic h I sho uld be inclined to reser ve for Socrat es. For a su mmi ng up of t heSocr ati c-Pl ato nic picture of Prodi cus see also May er, Prod. 18-22 , who thought that th e Prot.
g i v e s distortion, caricatur e and iro ny ; elsew here Plato ackno wle dge s the scientific va lu e of
Prodicus 's procedure.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 289/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 290/357
The Men
imaginations of youth in favour of a life of labour for noble objects, and
against a life of indulgence? If it be of striking simplicity and effect even to
a mod ern reader, ho w muc h more pow erfu lly must it hav e wo rk ed up on the
audience for who se bel ief it was speciall y adapted, wh en set off b y the oral
expansions of the author?
H j I t is , Gr ot e th ou gh t , a vin dic at i on o f Pr odi cus and a wa rn in g against
put t in g confidence in the sarcastic remarks o f Pl ato . O n e mig ht rather
say tha t if all sophi stic te ach ing we re like this it w o u l d con fir m the
v i e w expresse d b y Pla to in the Republic (493 a) tha t the so-cal led w i s
d o m o f the Sophis ts boi ls d o w n to a rehash o f the conven t iona l opin i ons
o f t h e c r o w d . 1 There is no need to repeat every detail of the w e l l -
k n o w n ta le. W h e n Herac les as a y o u n g man i s pond er i ng wh ic h pa th
o f l i fe to take, he is acco ste d b y t w o tal l w o m e n represe nting Vi rt ue
and V i c e , w h o compe te for his al legia nce. Ea ch is sui tab ly descri bed,
Vir tue han dso me an d noble in mie n, her b o d y clo the d in pur i t y and
her eye s in mod es ty, her wh ol e appearance s ugg es t ing se l f -cont ro l ,
and V i c e plump and soft , with a complexion not lef t to na tu re , a
wa nd er in g ey e, and a dress rev eal ing ra ther t han conc eal i ng her charms.
She speaks first, and the pleasure and ease tha t she promises can be
ima gine d. Vir tu e b y contrast p romis es a l i fe o f severe t raining, hardw o r k and s impl ic i ty, wh ic h w i l l how ev er be r ewarded wi th honour,
t rue fr iendship and, i f he wis hes i t , wea lth and pow er , wh ic h ca n on ly
be w o n b y toil and sw ea t. Idlenes s, pleasu re and v i c e on the oth er
hand w i l l weaken his body and destroy his mind. His later years w i l l
be a bu rd en to him, w he re as if he has fo ll ow ed vir tue he can ba sk in
the mem or y o f past glo rie s and enj oy the happiness that his efforts
have mer i ted . 2
1 Grote , History (1888 ed.) , V I I ,57. For a more balanced criticism see Gran t , Ethics, 1,145 f . ,
wh o make s some tellin g point s. Thi s is not to de ny that it may have become, as Schmid ca l l s it ,
' One of the most influential pieces of wor ld- li ter atu re' (Gesch. 4 1 ; see his n. 9 for bib l io gra phy ).Its basic idea of the choice of two w a y s in l i fe , the primrose path and the arduous climb to virtue,
w a s alre ady in Hesiod (Erga 287—92). Schultz's article Herakles am Scheidewege, in Philol.
1 9 0 9 , go es further int o the myth ic al affinities of the tal e, esp eci all y its relation to t he Y sym bol
a s (a) crossroads and (J>) tree of l i fe .1 The full text, from Xen. Mem. 2 . 1 . 2 1 - 3 4 ,is print ed as fr. 2 of Prod icu s in DK. It appe ared
in a work called Horai, a tide of dub iou s mean ing whi ch if it wa s the author's ow n (L esk y,
HGL, 348) wa s doubt less expla ined some whe re in the wo rk itself. On this wo rk see especially
Nestle in Hermes, 1936 and H. Gomperz, S. u. R. 9 7 - 1 0 1 . J o e l took the extreme view, which
has not been gen era lly followe d, that the fable wa s not b y Prodic us at all, but an Antisthe nean
wo rk C yn ic in character. (See l i i s Gesch. 686-9 .) T hi s is refuted by the reference to it in a schol ion
278
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 291/357
Prodicus
Prod icus ' s ou t look , l ike that o f other Sophists , w a s humanis t ic ,
and h e t o o k a purely naturalistic v i e w o f re l ig ion ( p p . 2 3 8 ff . above) .
His theory w a s that pr imi t ive ma n, to whom many aspects o f na ture
must have appeared hostile, w a s s o impressed with t h e gifts that s h e
p r o v i d e d for the furtherance o f his l i fe , welfare a n d e n j o y m e n t — s u c h
as t he sun , earth a n d water, air an d fire, foodstuffs an d the v i n e — t h a t
he believed them either to be the d i s c o v e r y a n d especial benefaction
o f divine beings o r themselves t o e m b o d y t h e godhead . Th i s theory
w a s n o t only remarkable for i ts rat ionalism bu t had the addit ional
merit o f discerning a close conn exio n betw een re l ig ion a n d agr icul ture .
T h i s w a s based o n observed fact, since fertility-cults are not o n l y
widespread at an early stage of c i v i l i z a t i o nb u t were especia l ly common
in Greece , wher e moreo ver it w a s cus tomary t o trace all the benefits
o f c i v i l i z e d life to an or ig in in the inven t ion o f agr icul ture .
T h e only recorded t i t les o f w o r k s b y Prod icus are On Nature,
On the Nature of Man, a n d Horai, a n d about these w e must remind
ourselves o f what was said earlier ( p . 26 4) about t h e dubious author i ty
o f such titles i n general . Some have thought that t h e Horai w a s a
universa l work including as internal sections h is v i e w s o n nature ,
h u m a n a n d otherwise , h i s theory o f the or ig in o f re l ig ion , a p a n e g y r i c
on agriculture leading t o though t s o n moral vir tue an d the educa t ion
requisite t o attain i t , an d e v e n t h e doctr ine o f s y n o n y m s . 1
to Aristophanes (Prodicus fr. i ) , whose independence seems assured b y i t s mention of the t i t le
and final choice of Heracles, which are not in Xenophon. There is of course n o means o f knowing
how close Xenophon h a s kept to the original . I have ventured what can be no more than a nopinion. Grote, Grant and Untersteiner (Sophs. 207) also regard it as authentic in subs tance;
others (Wecklein, B l a s s , Schacht, Mayer in Prod. 8f.) suppose him to have handled the tale very
f ree ly. In this connexion attention has been drawn to the us e of words of clos ely related meaningwhich some have connected with Prodicus 's 's yn on ym ic ' whi le to others they have appeared asmere stylistic variations a la Gorgias and entirely unlike Prodicus, w h o insisted that no twowords ought to be used as if they h a d identical meanings. See Spengel i n Gomperz, S. u. R. 1 0 1 ,
n .225, Mayer, Prod. 10 f. Although such arguments can never lead to certai nty, there is more to besa id fo r Spengel and Gomperz. T h e first set quoted (κ α τ α σ κ ο π ε ίσ β ο η ,έ π ι σ κ ο π ε ί ν , θ ε α σ θ α ι ,α π ο β λ έ π ε ιν ) neither have no r appear intended to have the same meaning, b u t g i v e the impression of being carefully chosen fo r their context.
' S e e Untersteiner, Sophs. 207 an d (for Nestle's reconstruction) 225, n. 7 4. Fo r Untersteiner
the Horai was 'his greatest work, in which the c y c l e of things and the ethical law which governs
all found one of their unifying vi sion s ' . Thi s would be difficult to substantiate. H i s insistence
on the correct use of words naturally permeated al l his work , but it is plai n from Pla to thatinstruction in the subject was given in an independent lecture or course of lectures. T h e inclusion
of the Heracles fable involves, as Gomperz frankly s a y s (S. u. R. ioof . ) , assuming that much inXenophon's description of it as an epidcixis is fiction.
1 0 2 7 9 G S Γ
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 292/357
The Men
280
F i n a l l y o n e m a y mention references t o P r o d i c u s i n t w o p s e u d o -
Pla tonic d ia logues . Thei r da te is uncertain, and the v i e w s attr ibuted
to h i m cannot b e regarded as certainly authentic . In the Eryxias
(397 d ff.) he is repor ted as s a y i n g that weal th , l ike everyth ing e lse ,
is a b les s ing t o a g o o d m a n w h o k n o w s h o w t o u s e i t p r o p e r l y, bu t a
curse to the i gnoran t a n d e v i l . I f he d i d s a y this , h e w a s r emarkab lyin harmony wi th Socra tes , w h o argues for i t in the Meno (87 ε f f .) ,
t h o u g h th e au thor o f the Eryxias makes h i m take part in the d i s c o m
fiture o f t h e Soph i s t , who , h e s a y s , β ε ε π ^ t o e v e r y b o d y t o b e t a lk ing
nonsense . B u t th e thesis itself was perhaps a c o m m o n p l a c e , a n d s o m e
thing very l ike i t appears in the ' A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i ' ( D K , 11 , 401,
16-19) . * n t n e Axiochus (366cff . ) 'S oc ra te s ' , a fter some boo r is h a n d
i l l -phrased cri t icism o f Prod icus ' s g reed f o r f e e s , says tha t Ι ι ε h a s
heaxA him, in an epideixis d ε l iv ε r edat the η ο ^ ε o f C a l l i a s , give ventto such depressingly pessimist ic comments o n t h e worthlessn8SS o f
l i fe that h e himself fel t a s t rong u rge fo r death. T h e ment ion o f a n
epideixis is circumstantial , and the allusion t o P r o d i c u s as Tan ta lus in
the Protagoras, t oge the r wi th h i s b ε d r id d en stat8 (unti l Ι ιε w a s hauled
o u t o f it b y t h e o the r s ) , m a y s u g g e s t tha t h e was incl ined t o a g l o o m y
v i e w . 1 W h e n all is sa id , however, th e only facets o f his teaching about
w h i c h w e k n o w e n o u g h t o m a k e i t o f philosophic interest are hispassion for the exact u s e o f l a n g u a g e an d h i s t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f
r e l i g i o n .
(4 ) H I P P I A S
Hippias s o n o f D i o p e i t t ^ s w a s another o f t h e younger gen8ra t ion o f
Sophis ts , con tem por ary wi th Socra tes ra ther than wi t h Prot agor as a n d
G o r g i a s . H i s w i d o w e d daught8r mar i^d I soc ra t e s in the latter 's o l d
a g e . 2 T h e on ly au thor i ty for h i s date is P l a t o , w h o s imply says tha t
Ι ιε w a s much younger than P ro tagoras , 3 a n d impl ies that h e w a s al ive
1 H . Gomperz has a long discussion o f bo th these passages i n S. u. R. 1 0 2 - 1 0 . For the first,
see also the references in Untersteiner, Sophs. 226, n. 82.1 F o r authori t ies see DK, A 3 an d 4.3 Prot. 3 1 7c, Hipp. Maj. 282 d -e . Untersteiner's belief that he w as no t born until about
443 depends on his theory that he wrote t h e proem to Theophrastus 's Characters. (See Sophs.
2 7 2 and 274, n. 3.) Unterstein er also claims that he is the A n o n y m u s of Iamblichus a n d wrote
T h u c y d i d e s 3 .4 (on events in C o r c y r a ) . I cannot follow h i s argument (Sof. i n , 7 6 ) that,because according to Pausanias 5 .25 .4 (a) Hippias wrote an inscript ion for the statues b y
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 293/357
Hippias
in 399. C o m i n g f r o m E l i s , h e w a s , as Nes t le h as p o i n t e d o u t (VM^uL,
360), unl ike most Sophis ts in b e i n g a D o r i a n , a n d hence t ravel led more
to Dorian c i t ies than t o Athens , most of ten t o Spar ta (Pla to , Hipp.
Maj. 281b) bu t also t o S i c i l y (ibid. 282 ε ) . H e boasts ( in P l a t o ) that the
Eleans a lways tu rn to h im as the ideal m a n t o represent them abroad,an d o f t h e vast sums o f m o n e y w h i c h he has earned o n these visi ts
b y h i s outs tand ing v i r tuos i ty as a Sophis t , which h e also displayed at
A t h e n s a n d O l y m p i a and no doubt e l sewhere . A t O l y m p i a , ' a t t he
f e s t i v a l of a l l H e l l a s ' , h e offered both prepared discourses a n d e x
t empore answers t o quest ions pu t to h i m on the spo t (Hipp. Min.
363 c - d ) .
M o s t o f o u r infor mat ion a bou t Hippias co mes f rom Plato , w h o i ntwo d ia logues made h i m t h e only in te r locu tor o f S o c r a t e s 1 as w e l l as
i n c l u d i n g him in the Protagoras. Those the re fore w h o a re c o n v i n c e d
that Pla to w a s possessed b y a hatred o f the Sophis ts which bl inded h i m
to their real character m a y i g n o r e i t and c o n c l u d e that w e know l i t t l e
o r no th ing abou t h i m . O n t h e other hand there is a marked difference
b e t w e e n h is t rea tment o f them as i n d i v i d u a l s . W h e n o n e th inks o f
the respect which h e accords t o P r o t a g o r a s , h is tactful handling o fG o r g i a s , w h e r e b y t h e real onslaught o n w h a t t o Pla to were t h e dis
astrous effects o f his teaching w a s rese rved f o r other, less sympathet ic
characters , a n d e v e n h i s mildly i ronical at t i tude to the pedantic side o f
Prodicus 's semant ic d is t inct ions , t h e cons i s tency wi th which h e m a k e s
b r o a d f u n o f Hippias surely justif ies a susp ic ion that h e w a s i n fact a
somewhat bombas t i c , humour less a n d th ick-sk inned charac te r. 2 H e is
g i v e n t o breath- taking remarks l ike ' I have never found a n y m a n w h o
Calon of the drowned Messenians which was later than the statues themselves, t h e inscription
on th e base of a different statue b y Calon ( whi ch has been excavated) sho ws lettering o f 420-410,
therefore th e inscription b y Hippias is to be assigned to that decade. This is not t he inference
of Frazer, to whom Untersteiner refers.1 I w i l l not at this point enter into the question of the genuineness of the t w o Hippias dia logues .
For modern authorit ies pro a nd con see Friedlander, Plato, n , 101 with 316 n. 1, 146 with 32 6n. 6, an d for the major D . Tar ran t ' s ed . pp . i x - x v i i ( s h e believed it to be probab ly b y a pupi l ofPla to ) and E. Edelstein, X u. P. Bild, 24 , n . 7 . T h e minor i s quoted b y Aris to t le , Metaph. 1025 a 6,
though without mention of i ts authorship.
* Nestle drew a different conclusion from the va r i e ty of treatment (VM^uL, 3 6 0 ) : because
Pla to l i k e d Protagoras b u t felt a deep antipathy fo r Hippias , the pic ture of him in the Hippias
dia logues is just a caricature, though (Nestle admits) Plato does take h i m more seriously in theProtagoras. Th i s , he t hough t , makes Hippias 's character th e most difficult to grasp o f a n ySophis t ' s , but tlic difficulty seems to be of his o w n making.
1 0 - 2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 294/357
The Men
w a s m y superior i n a n y t h i n g ' , and t he unsuspect ing innocence wi th
w h i c h h e laps u p t h e mo st bl at an tl y iro nic al flattery fro m So cr at es is
a lmost a t t rac t ive . Cer ta in ly he i s a man w i t h w h o m i t w o u l d b e
d i f f i cu l t t o b e a n g r y.
T h a t he had s o m e t h i n g t o boas t about is equ all y certain. Pl ato
speaks o f h i s Macau lay - l ike mem ory , wher eb y h e could retain a l ist
o f f i f ty names after a single hearing, and h i s as tonish ing versa t i l i ty.
W e l l m i g h t X e n o p h o n c a l l h i m a p o l y m a t h . H e w a s e v i d e n t l y o n e o f
those w h o absorb learning easi ly a n d qu ick ly, some o f i t such as to
demand high intel lectual g i f t s . Subjec ts tha t h e w a s prepared t o t each
inc luded as t rono my, geom et ry , a r i thmet ic , gramm ar, rhyth m, m usic ,
g e n e a l o g y , m y t h o l o g y a n d his tory, inc luding t h e h i s to ry o f p h i l o s o p h y
and mathemat ics .1
H e also wrote declamations on the poe t s , wh ich i nthe hands o f a Sophis t were more l i k e l y t o deal wi th mora l quest ions
than w i t h w h a t w e shou ld c a l l l i terary cr i t icism. In the Protagoras
(347 a) h e lays claim t o a logos o n Simon ides (wh ich h e w i l l recite t o t he
c o m p a n y i f reques ted) , and a t the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e Hippias Minor h e
ha s ju st finished a n epide ix is o n Homer. Mos t o f his subjects a re l is ted
b y Pla to wi thou t a n y i l lustrat ions, a f e w o f which have come down i n
la ter wri ters . H e s p o k e o f Thales drawing f rom t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a m b e rand t h e loads tone t h e c o n c l u s i o n that inanimate objects h a d s o u l , 2
and o f Mamercus , b ro the r o f t h e poet S tes ichorus , as a successo r
o f T h a l e s in g e o m e t r y. A s a his tor ian h e no ted tha t t h e w o r d tyrannos
w a s n o t used before t h e t ime o f A r c h i l o c h u s , s p o k e o f Ly c u r g u s ' s
military talent, a n d pub l i shed a list o f O l y m p i c v i c t o r s , as A r i s t o t l e
did later o f t h e P y t h i a n v i c t o r s . ( O l y m p i a w a s o f cour se o n h i s h o m e
ter r i tory. ) An th ro pol og ic a l in teres ts a re s u g g e s t e d b y a work ca l l ed
Nomenclature of Tribes. I n m y t h o l o g y h e differed from Pindar over
the name o f Phr ixus ' s s t epmothe r a n d c la imed tha t t h e cont inents o f
A s i a a n d Eu ro pe wer e cal led af ter Oc ean ids o f these names. T h e o n l y
as t ronomica l p ronouncemen t tha t h a s c o m e d o w n i s tha t he pu t t he
1 X e n . Symp. 4.62, Plato, Prot. 31 5 c, 3 18 ε , Hipp. Maj. 2850-6;.2 Aristotle introduces this cautiously a t De an. 405 a 19 in the f o r m : ' T h a l e s t o o seems t o have
supposed, from what i s reported about h i m . . . ' , a n d D . L. (1.24) at t r ibutes the information toboth Aristot le a n d Hippias. Snell, an d fol lowing h i m Classen, have deduced that fo r this an d a ll
hi s other references t o Thales Aristot le made use of the work of Hippias mentioned b y Clementin fr. 6, of which they have detected further traces in Plato Crat. 402b a n d Symp. 1 7 8 a. S e eClassen i n Philol. 1 9 6 5 .
2 8 2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 295/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 296/357
The Men
panion, 385), ' f r o m a l l other Sophis t s a n d places h im in the ranks o f t h e
sc ient i f ic d iscoverers ' . This i s th e curve cal led quadratrix ( τ ε τ ρ α γ ω ν ί -
·$ο υ σ α ), w h ic h as i ts name implies was used f o r squa r ing th e c i rc le , a n d
also fo r t r isect ing an angle o r d i v i d i n g it a c c o r d i n g t o a n y g iven r a t io . 1
In ment ioning it as Hippias ' s work Proclus does no t ad d ' o f E l i s ' , a n d
since th e name i s no t uncommon ( the re a re e ighteen in the Real-
Encyclopadie) some have been scept ica l , th inking i t scarcely credible
that o u r universa l v i r tuoso could have achieved such or ig ina l work
in a n y single f ield. Others argue that P r o c l u s h a d earlier in his w o r k
attr ibuted t h e remark about Mamercus t o Hippias o f E l i s , and i f he
now meant a different m a n would have sa id s o . T h i s i s no t v e r y
cogent (par t icu lar ly as the Mamercus passage comes nearly 200
Teu bne r pages be fo re t h e earlier o f t h e t w o references to the quadratrix'), b u t mos t modern op in ion is in f avour o f t h e a t t r ibut ion to the
S o p h i s t . 2
Gro te r emarked (History, 1888 e d. , v n , 63 f.) tha t Pla to , fo r a l l h is
' s nee r an d con tem ptu ous ba nter ' , ne ver accuses Hippias , as he did
some other Sophists , o f preach ing ' a l o w o r cor rup t mora l i t y ' . In the
Hippias Major (286 a ) H i p p i a s m e n t i o n s a Trojan Discourse w h i c h h e
has recited a t Sparta a n d intends t o repeat at A t h e n s . Its t heme is adiscourse b y N e s t o r in r ep ly t o N e o p t o l e m o s , w h o h as asked h im ( as
Grote puts i t ) ' w h a t w a s t h e p lan o f l i fe i ncumben t o n a y o u n g m a n o f
honourable asp i ra t ions ' , a n d Gro te sugges t s tha t f o r high mora l p u r
pose i t was p r o b a b l y n o t u n w o r t h y to be set bes ide Prodicus ' s Choice
of Heracles. T h a t m a y o r m a y n o t b e s o ( w e k n o w n o t h i n g o f i t s c o n
tent) , bu t i n any case Hippias h a s better claims to be accepted as a
serious ethical thinker. H e w a s o n e o f those w h o contrasted l a w a n d
na tu re an d uphe ld th e latter o n mora l a n d humanitar ian, n o t selfish a n d
ambi t ious , g rounds . H e held a form of t he soc ia l -cont rac t theory o f
l a w : pos i t i ve l a w, b e i n g a matter o f human agreement a n d f requent ly
1 T h e sole authori ty is Proc lus , Eucl. pp . 272 ( = Hipp. fr. 2 1 ) an d 556 Friedlander, whose
source i s Eudemus.2 A m o n g the sceptics were Wilamowitz (Platan, 1, 136, n. 1) and Schmid (Gesch. 54 f . ) .
Bjornbo in RE, v m , i7o8f., mentions four objections to the attr ibution to Hippias, a n d finds
none of them cogent; but he makes no reference to the silence of S i m p l i c i u s , w h o a t Phys. 546°.
seems to be g i v i n g a s complete an account as he can of attempts to square the c i r c l e , a n d s a y snoth ing of Hippias. This might be thought significant. T h e authorship of Hippias w a s accepted
by Heath, Hist. Gr. Math. I , 23 . For detai ls of the quadratrix see Freeman, Comp. 386-8, orBjornbo, toe. cit.
284
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 297/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 298/357
The Men
tragic poet, as the author of a work on dreams, and as a soothsayer.
Thus He in imann (N. u. Ph. 134) pronounced: 'It must be taken as
certain that the Sophis t, the oligar chi c orat or and the trag edian are
three different people. ' It has even been suggested that the works
On Truth and On Concord are b y different m e n . 1 Whatever the answer,
one thin g must be bo rn e in mi nd thr ou gh ou t: references in our autho ri
ties to 'Antiphon the Sophist ' do not suffice to distinguish a Sophist
f rom an orator, since in ancient times the word sophistes w o u l d b e
applied equally to both. In any case Origen says that t he An t iphon
w h o w r o t e On Truth wa s k n o w n as an orator (A nt ip ho n, fr. 12) . T h e
ques tion is o f mi no r interest for the his tor y of ph il os op hy , and dis
cus sio n o f it has be en rel egat ed t o a no te (p p. 292-4 b e l o w ) , w h i c h
m a y be thankfu lly omi tte d b y all bu t classical specialists.
T h e oratorical wo r ks , wh oe v e r wr ot e them, are not our present co n
cern. A b o u t the external circumstance s of the Soph ist ' s l i fe (if he is
different from the ora tor ) no th in g is k n o w n , nor is there any precise
informat ion abo ut his date, th ou gh he wa s ob vi ou sl y a c ont emp or ar y
o f Socrates. The orator is said (pseudo-Plut . Vit. or. 832 f ) to ha v e
bee n bo rn ab ou t the time o f the Persian Wa r s , and to ha ve be en a
l i t t le younger t han Go rg ia s, and this certa inly does not militate a gainsttheir identi ty. 2 An ti ph on nev er appears in Plat o 's dial ogues , pos sib ly
because, as Schmid sugges ted {Gesch. 159), Plato thought him only
second-rate.
Th er e is another p ro ble m to be faced. Tw en ty -n in e fragments are
gr oup ed b y D K unde r the t i tle On Concord, bu t few o f th em are
1 Schmid (Gesch. 100) said 'Die grosste Wahrscheinlichkeit spricht dafur' that the Sophist
wrote both . Nesde (VM^uL, 1942, 38 7^ ) does not mention Schmid , but s a y s with a choice ofphrase that is surely deliberate, 'Es spricht daher die grosste Wahrscheinlichkeit dafur', thatthe author of Concord is not the Sophist, who wrote Truth, but the orator.
1 Attempt s have been made to date the Sophist 's wri tin gs. Π . ό μ . has been put close to 440
on the rather sha ky gro und of ' ec ho es ' in Euripides (Alt we gg and J. H. F i n l e y ) , and Π . ά λ .about a decade later also on echoes of his ethical doctrines in drama plus A l y ' s a n a l y s i s of the
relation of his mathematical work to that of contemporaries. See Greene, Moira, 232 with n. 74and 236 with n. 94. Heinimann (N. u. Ph. 1 4 1f.), adding to the other arg ume nts one from the
s t y l e of the pap yru s fragments, puts Π . ά λ . in the twenties. He rejects the idea (see p. 11 4
above) that it is satirized in the Clouds in 423. Antiphon was not of course 'the Sophist against
whom Aristophanes is especially t i l t ing ' , but that he as w e l l as Protag oras (and perhaps other s)contri buted to the Sophist ic mor ali ty whi ch is the target does seem at least l i k e l y. Schmid
(Gesch. 159) s a y s that the conversat ion of Ant iph on wi th Socra tes in Xenophon is to be dated inthe last decade of the cent ury (i .e. after the orat or's deat h) and his wri tin gs shou ld be put nolater than the thirties.
286
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 299/357
Anttphons Writings
e x p l i c i t l y attributed to that work, and none of them deal with the
subject o f co nc or d. 1 T h e str engt h o f the case for so ass ig ni ng t hem
ma y be ju dge d from Schmi d's conte ntio n (Gesch. 163, n. 1) that ,
beca use so me of th em (those in Sto baeu s) are in the for m o f max im s,
and P hilo stra tus s ays in his l i fe o f An t i phon ( o f Rhamnus) that his
w o r k on con co rd included collect ions o f max ims (gnomologiai),
therefor e we ma y safely assign these fragment s to the Sophi st ' s w o r k
o f that name. E v e n if w e cou ld, the wo r d gnomologia does not g i v e
much encouragement to suppose that they express his original thought,
bu t in fact the genu in ene ss o f these snippet s fr om John of S tob i ' s
an tho logy (there are tw el ve o f them, each headed sim pl y ' f ro m
Ant iphon ' ) has been cha l lenged . 3 Comparison with the papyrus f rag
ments , th inks Havelock (L T, 419), mak es their rejection inev ita ble, wi th
the partial e xc ep ti on o f fr. 49.3 W . C . Gr ee ne , on the ot her han d (Moira,
239), saw no real in con si ste ncy bet we en the ethical doct rin es in the
supposed fragments of Concord and those of Truth as seen in the p ap yr i . 4
M o s t o f the ' f ra gm en ts ' expressl y attr ibuted to Concord come from
the lexico n o f Harpo crat ion and consist of single words.5 Th r ee o f
th em (frr. 45-7) refer to myt hi ca l tribes, the Sciap ods , Mac roc eph ali
and dwellers und er the earth or Tro gl od yt es , wh ic h wi th fr. 48 ( ' ma n
c a l l s himself the most godl ike o f animals ' ) sh ow an anthro pologi cal
1 Some have t hough t Ant iph on intend ed the word ( whi ch does not occ ur at all in the frag
ments) in the sense of inner harm ony (wh at Iamblichus many centuries later, and with Plato
behind h im, called τ η ν ε ν ό ς έ κ α σ τ ο υ τ τ ρ ά ;ε α υ τ ό νά μ ο γ ν ω μ ο σ ύ ν η ν ,α ρ . Stob. 2 .3 3· Ι5)> wh ich
they equate with his emphasis on σ ω φ ρ ο σ ύ ν ηand self-mastery. See Stenzel in RE, suppl. iv, 40f.
Nestle denied this (VM^uL, 381) , while Praechter (Ueb er we g- P. 129) t hough t to have it bo th
w a y s .1 Comp are the case of Democr itus, vol . 1 1 , 489 ff.3 Thi s fragment deals with the cares of marr iage , and appears to Have lock to be compatible
with the oudook of Antiphon, provided we assume that a later wri ter has conta minate d wha t he
wrote with 'moralizing reflections borrowed from the Medea and the Phaedo'. It does indeed
contain phrases reminiscent of both these works (some have t hough t Euripides was influenced
by Antip hon) , and (as Have lock also notes) remarka ble coincidences wit h frr. 27 5- 7 ° f De mo
cr i tus , but this does not deter h im from diss ecti ng the passage in confidence that we kn ow the
mind of the Sophist w e l l enough to sift the true from the false.4 Tha t there we re two separate wor ks is undoubte d, but we must remind ours elves at some
s t a g e , as Havelock (op. cit. 418) pertinendy does, that the titles of pre-Platonic works were
probably bestowed not by the author but by Alexandrian scholars with the conceptions of the
Academy, Lyceum and other schools in mind.5 An astou ndin g amo unt ha s been built on the entries in Harpo cra tion, espe cia lly frr. 4- 8,
wh ic h afford no justification at all for cr edit ing Antip hon wit h an Eleatic belief that all things are
one, and sense-experience (sig ht, smell etc.) is illus ory, as Freeman does (Comp. 395, cf. Unt er
steiner, Λ «/> /ΙΛ .258, n. 5).
2 8 7
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 300/357
The Men
interest . 1 Fr. 52 makes t h e ' ph i losoph ica l ' obse rva t ion that y o u can ' t
take back your l i fe l ike a m o v e at draugh t s , 2 others comment i n a
commonplace ve in o n misplaced hesi tat ion (55) and on consor t ing
wi th flatterers instead o f t rue friends (65). Fr. 63 r eads 'When they
k n o w the diathesis (set t ing i n order, arrang ement) they l is t en ' , a n dM o m i g l i a n o in his article i n Riv. di β ίο ι. ( 1 9 3 0 )buil t o n this, i n c o n
junction with certain fragments o f t he Truth, an interest ing a n d v e r y
probable recons t ruc t ion o f a basic tenet underlying an d un i t ing A n t i
phon ' s ph i losophy o f t h e universe an d o f m a n . In f r. 24a w e r e a d :
'An t ip hon app l i ed the w o r d diathesis t o mind ( γ ν ώ μ η )o r i n t e l l i g e n c e . . .
In the second book o n Tr u t h h e also uses i t for the orde r ing o f t h e
un ive rse ( δ ι α κ ό σ μ η σ η ) ' ;and in f r. 2 : ' F o r a l l m en mind ( γ ν ώ μ η )
cont ro ls the i r body in matters o f health a n d disease and e v e r y t h i n g
e l s e . ' With these goes fr. 14: ' D e p r i v e d o f material she would o rde r
(δ ι α θ ε ϊ τ ο ) m a n y g o o d t hi ng s b a dl y. ' ( T h e subject is genera l ly taken
to b e nature, b u t cou ld now equa l ly b e mind o r γ ν ώ μ η . ) M o m i g l i a n o ' s
conclus ion is that A n t i p h o n sa w a single active rational principle at
w o r k in b o t h man and nature, an idea which h e c o u l d w e l l have taken
from t h e Nous o f A n a x a g o r a s . 3 I fee l some difficulty i n r econc i l ing
this with his alleged denial o f p r o v i d e n c e (fr. 12), b u t from such sorry
fragments w e cannot hope fo r anything l ike a compl e te ins ight in to
his tho ugh ts. Mo mi gl ia no him sel f thinks this act ive principle, wh i ch
o the rwise wou ld b e a comple te ly au tonomous natura naturans, must
be distinct from t h e supremely self-sufficient being mentioned in
fr. 10, and it is jus t conceivable that this possibi l i ty m a y concea l ( fo r
one cannot sa y it reveals) the so lu t ion .
O f th e Stobaeus extracts, three express deep pessimism. Fr. 491 θ ε ε ιδ έ σ τ α τ ο ν ,not θ ε α ι δ έ σ τ α τ ο ν ( ' go d- f ea r in g ') , mu st s ur el y b e correct (pace Nesde
VM^uL, 382), in v i e w of Photius 's lemma. Momigliano (Riv. di β ίο ι. 1930, 129) thought tha tin 4 5 - 7 Antiphon w a s giving examples of those living closest to the state of nature, h i s ideal,
whereas fo r A l t w e g g ( s e e Greene, Moira, 233, n. 78) they were ' types of man's wretchedness ' .
(Both vie ws existed earlier, Nestle, VM^uL, 382, n . 50.) Bignone (Studi, 86) connected them with
Antiphon's assertion in O.P. 1364 that there was n o difference between Greeks and barbar ians :
Antiphon's purpose, he t hough t , w a s probably t o br ing o u t that among the most barbaric
peoples there were traces o f humanity a nd social l i fe . T h e names in Harpocration afford not theslightest evidence for an y of these conjectures.
3 F r o m Harpocradon. T h e wordiy anthologizer Stobaeus quotes a longer version of thesame sentiment under the name of Socrates! See Untersteiner, Sof. i v , 1 3 1 .
3 Antiphon's interest in cosmology and natural philosophy ha s already been noted (p. 203above).
2 8 8
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 301/357
Antiphon s Moral Aphorisms
is o n m arr iag e (see p . 287, n. 3, a b o v e ) . I f a w i f e proves unsu i t ab le ,
d i v o r c e is t i resome and makes enemies of fr iends, but keeping her is
painful . A good w i f e br in gs joy , bu t pain lur ks roun ds the cor ner . I t is
ba d en o u g h to ha ve to lo o k after one' s o w n health, dail y need s and
g o o d name, but care i s doubled when there are two . Ch i ld ren b r ingno th in g but w o r r y , and so on take the spr i ng out o f y o u r s tep and the
b l o o m f rom your cheeks . L i f e , says fr. 50, is l ike a day on watch-duty—
just a single day to look at the l ight , then we hand i t over to our suc
c e s s o r s ; and fr. 51 abuses i t roundly: i t has no greatness or nobil i ty,
no th in g but wh at i s smal l , we ak , sho r t - l ived and shot thr ou gh wi t h
g r i e v o u s pai ns. 53 an d 53a attack mise rs and th os e w h o l i v e in the
presen t l i fe as i f pr ep ari ng for ano the r, and s o let the t im e sl ip by(and ' t i m e ' , he sa ys in fr. 77, ' i s the mo st co stl y th in g that one ex
pends ') , and 54 simply retel ls a fable of A e s o p o n the same th em e and
conc ludes that i f G o d g i v e s a man wealth but not sense he in fact
depr ives h im o f bo th . T w o mo re are mere ly com mon pl ace s , 62
(character form ed b y the co mp an y ke pt ) and 64 (ol d fr iendshi ps mo re
necessary than n e w ) . Fr . 58, alre ady no ted (p. 259 ab o v e ), has mo re
ind iv idua l i ty, wi th i t s warn ing that ind ulg ence in the imme dia te impulse may get one in to greater t rouble than s e l f - m a s t e r y. ( A y o u n g
man's urge to marry might be an example of this , as w e l l as the urge to
assaul t a neighbour. ) I t could w e l l have stood in the same context as
59, that a ma n ca nn ot be called self -con tro lled if he has nev er be en
tem pte d. Fr. 61 is the stron ges t card in the han d o f tho se w h o wa nt to
a rg u e that the teaching of On Concord ( f rom which they assume i t to
c o m e , th ou gh Sto baeu s doe s not say so) i s i r reconci lable w i t h that of the
Truth, bu t i t is ha rd ly a tru mp . I t be gi ns b y par aph ras ing a l ine o f
Sophoc les w h i c h s a y s that there is no greater e v i l t h an a n a r c h y, 1 b u t
g o e s on to app ly th is sol e ly to the upb r i ng in g of ch i l dr en : i t i s the
reason w h y ' th e men o f o ld ' accus t omed ch i ld ren f rom the start to
su bm it to co nt ro l and d o as th ey are tol d, to sav e th em fr om ge tt in g
too g rea t a shock when they g row to manhood and f ind th ings ve ry
different. He nc e the imp ort an ce o f edu cat ion (fr. 60), for a g o o d
e n d i n g d e p e n d s o n a g o o d b e g i n n i n g .
1 Ant. 672. Bignone (Studi, 140) thought Sophocles dependent on Anti phon. W e shall never
know.
289
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 302/357
The Men
I f w e may assume th e fragments to be genu ine , o r at least those which
bear an individual s tamp, o n e t h ing that seems certain about An ti ph on
is tha t , for his t ime, he was a cons iderable psychologis t . H e w a s
certainly ahead of the advoca t e s of the ' d o - a s - y o u - l i k e ' t h e o r y o f
educat i on, especial ly popu lar wi ththe
intel l igentsiaof the 1930s, in
real izing that this was n o prepara t ion fo r adult l i f e , in w h i c h i f one does
not submit to the discipl ine imposed by t he c o m m u n i t y one is in for
some harsh experiences ( f r. 61) . Hi s p h i l o s o p h y o f l i fe is a refined a nd
intel lectual hedonism. O n e must plan to ge t the m a x i m u m o f pleasure
and t he m i n i m u m o f suffering from o u r br i e f a n d imperfect existence,
and this could not be ach ieved in a comp le t e ly anarchic soc i e ty,
whe re eve ryone w a s free to act on the impulse o f t he m o m e n t , an d
assaulted h is n e i g h b o u r a t eve ry oppor tun i ty. Such behav iou r w ou ld
v e r y soon br ing i ts o w n nemesis . T o acknowledge th i s i s no t to deny
that (as he says in fr. 44 A ) laws are artificial a n d often bad , o r that
whi le l i v i n g i n such a w a y as no t to destroy their f ramework a m an ma y
disregard the l a w for h i s o w n ends wheneve r he ca n d o so undetec ted
and wi t h impun i ty.
It is in thi s psyc hol ogi ca l conn exio n that o n e must see the 'ar t of
painless l i v i n g ' (τ έ χ ν η ά λ υ τ τ ία ς ),as to w h i c h I should l ike t o g o on
the assumpti on ( dev iat ing perhaps , as an occasional luxury, f rom the
strictest standards o f scho la r ly c r i t i c i sm) 1 that th e s to ry in the Lives
of the Orators (ps . -P lu t . 833 c , D K , A 6) is founded o n fact a nd refers t o
the same Ant iphon w h o w r o t e On Truth? I f there were several A n t i -
1 I was seriously taken to task b y a rev iewer of vo l. ι for report ing withou t comment C icer o's
statement that Anaximander gave the Spartans warning of an earthquake, and sugges t ing that hemight have done i t by a method s t i l l employed (according to The Times) in modern Greece.
I confess that in this compar ativ ely unimport ant matter I thought readers might l i k e to k n o w
the titbit about the storks without caring too much about the verification (no longer possible)
of Cicero's remark.
* Η . N . Fowler (Loeb Plut. x , 3 47 n.) and most others have supposed that the Sophist i smeant. There is no other authority except that Philostratus, also in a l ife of the Rhamnus ian ,
s a y s that he ' announced a course of sorrow-assuaging ( ν η τ τ ε ν β ε ϊ ς )lectures, claiming that noone could tell hi m of a gr ie f so terrible that he could not expel i t from hi s mind ' . ' Conso la t ion-
l i terature ' la ter became a regular genre (cf. Greene, Moira, 232), and many have supposed thew or d τ έ χ ν η i n τ . ά λ υ τ Κ α ςto have been used in the sense of a writ ten work, which Altw egg
even identified w it h Π . ο μ ο ν ο ία ς ( ' i r r i g ' St enz el , ' h a l d os ' D K ) , bu t t he context makes this
h i g h l y improbable, and in Pla to (Symp. i 8 6 e ) σ υ ν έ σ τ η σ ε ντ ή νή μ ε τ έ ρ α ν τ έ χ ν ην means 'founded
ou r ( the phys ic ians ' ) a r t ' . (Cf. σ υ ν ε σ τ ή σ α τ οi n pseudo-Plut . ) Morrison (Proc. Camh. Ph. Soc.1 9 6 1 , 57) conjectures that the ' c l i n i c ' w a s or ig ina l ly a comic invention l i k e the phrontisterion
of the Clouds.
290
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 303/357
Antiphon as Psychologist
291
p h o n s , t h e w r i t e r h a s probably confused them. H i s subject is A n t i p h o n
o f R h a m n u s , a n d , after saying that sixty orations a r e ascr ibed t o h i m ,
he adds that h e also wrote t ragedies and ' invented an a r t o f painlessness
comparab l e t o the medical therapy o f t h e diseased. In C o r i n t h h e
fitted up a r o o m near t h e a go ra a n d adver t ised that h e could cure t h edistressed b y w o r d s . W h a t h e d i d w as t o br ing conso la t ion t o those i n
t roub le b y quest ioning them as t o th e causes . ' T o sugges t that A n t i p h o n
set u p t h e first psychiatric clinic i s a t an y rate n o more improbable than
some proposed explanat ions , e . g . that t h e techne in this case w a s a
wr i t t en work . H e knew, after al l , that th e roo t s o f phys ical il lness wer e
to b e soug h t i n the m i n d (fr. 2) an d that i t could somet imes b e explained
as a n escape-route from active l i fe (praxis, fr. 57 ). It is in keep ing w i thA n t i p h o n ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e hedonic calculus , h i s a d v o c a c y o f self-
mas te ry a n d depreca t ion o f y i e l d i n g t o the pleasures a n d impulses o f
the mome nt , that the ideal so ugh t sho uld be a negat ive one, f reedom from
pain . Bignone (Studi, 83) justly compares this state o f calm content
(alypid) with the euthymia o f D e m o c r i t u sand the ataraxia o f E p i c u r u s .Autil i tarian hedonism, h e adds , was undo ubte d ly t h e basis o f A n t i p h o n ' s
ethics , b u t i n the moderate form upheld by these two other philosophers.
O f t h e ethical doctrines o f t h e Truth, whi ch have been expou nded
in earlier chapters a n d o f necessity referred t o in the present account ,
w e need on ly remind ourselve s that they were based o n a sharp c o n
trast b e t w e e n physis a n d nomos to the advantage o f t h e former. Nature
c o m p e l s us to avo id pain a n d seek t h e m a x i m u m o f pleasure , f o r pain i s
harmful a n d pleasure beneficial . O n e should therefore f o l l o w t h e dic
ta tes o f c o n v e n t i o n a n d t h e l aws on ly in so far as flouting them f o rone 's immediate pleasure would br ing more pain i n t h e f o rm o f pun i sh
men t o r disgrace . (There i s n o sugges t i on o f des t roy ing them b y open
rebe l l ion . ) Moreover nature k n o w s n o distinctions o f class o r race .
S o far as w e know a ny t h in g a bou t Concord, i t m a y seem t o s h o w a
different emphasis, b u t n o th ing t o make o n e suppose tha t i t w a s n o t
wr i t t en b y t h e same m a n , perhaps a t a different stage o f l i f e , b u t i n
v o l v i n g n o c o n v e r s ion t o cont ra ry convic t ions . I n fac t , however, i n
spite o f many at tempts , t h e attested fragments o f th i s work , o r test i
mon ie s to i t s conten t s , a r e insufficient t o p r o v i d e t h e basis o f any con
t inuous a rgument .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 304/357
The Men
T h e r e i s no need t o repeat h i s v i e w s o n l anguage , wh i ch , l i ke h i s
ethics a n d doubt less n o t uncon nect ed wi th them, seem t o have been
based o n t h e nomos-physis antithesis (p . 204) a n d l inked wi th a n
o n t o l o g y a l l o w i n g a place t o both real i ty a n d appearances ( p p . 202 f . ) .
A s y e t unno t i ced are h i s interest ing observat ion about t ime (fr. 9),
tha t i t has n o substant ive existence but is a menta l concept o r means
o f measuremen t , 1 an d h i s a t tempt t o square t h e circle b y a m e t h o d o f
exhaus t ion which Ar is to t le c r i t ic ized a s n o t based o n geomet r i ca l
p r inc ip l e s . 2
A D D I T I O N A L N O T E : T H E I D E N T I T Y O F A N T I P H O N
Hermogenes (3rd century A .D. , D K A 2) is the first extant writ er to dist ingui sh
tw o Antiphons, though he says that Didymus did so some 200 years earlier.
There were several of the name, b u t ' t w o w h o practised sophistry', (a)the orator, cited as author o f speeches o n homicide cases, political speeches,
and suchlike logoi, (b) the one w h o i s also said to have been a diviner andinterpreter o f dreams, to w h o m are ascribed On Truth, On Concord, and aPoliticus. Hermogenes himself is convinced o n grounds o f style that these
are different people, b u t when h e reads what Plato and others say (Plato,
Menex. 236a, mentions Antiphon o f Rhamnus as a teacher o f rhetoric) heis again thrown into doubt. Many cal l Thucydides a pupil o f the Rhamnusian,
whom he knows as the author o f the forensic speeches, ye t he finds Thucy-
dides's style more like that of the Truth. In any case he thinks i t necessary totreat the tw o as separate, because the difference between the tw o groups o fwrit ing is so great.
O f the many modern discussions, I summarize Bi gnon e's , wh ic h is thefullest and most judicious. 3 A f t e r citing Hermogenes, he remarks that it is
strange that n o contemporary distinguishes between t w o such famous m enl i v i n g in Athens at the same time. Moreover w e are told the orator's deme
1 T h i s i s d i e earliest extant Greek definition of t ime, fo r that ascribed to Archytas (Iambi.
ap. Simpl . Phys. 786, 1 1 ) , even i f genuine , would b e a little later. Aristotle (Phys. 223321) also
doubted whether there could b e t ime without thinking beings, for time, h e said, i s not s imply
succession b u t ' succession in so far as i t i s numbered ' (ibid. 2 1 5 ^ 2 ) , and nothing can be numbered
or counted i f there is no one to count . H e s a y s i n agreement with Antiphon that time i s a measure
( ' the measure of motion a n d res t ' , ibid. 2 2 o b 3 2 , 2 2 i b 2 2 ) , b u t also that the relat ions betweentime and motion a r e rec iproca l : ' w e n o t only measure motion b y t ime b u t also rime b y motion,
because they a re defined b y each o t h e r ' (ibid. 220b 1 4 ) .J Phys. 1 8 5 3 1 4 . It is explained in detail b y Simplicius (Phys. 54, see Ant iphon fr. 13 DK),
whose description i s summarized b y Freeman, Comp. 397.3 ' A . oratore ed A. sofista ' , i n Studi, 1 6 1 ^ 7 4 .
2 9 2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 305/357
The Identity of Antiphon
293
and his father's name, but not those o f the Sophist (Gomperz, S. u. R. 58),and pseudo-Plutarch, writing about the Rhamnusian orator (832c), saysthat he had conversations with Socrates as recorded b y Xenophon. That
Xenophon called h im 'Antiphon the Sophist ' is not against the identity,
and Croiset supposed hi m to be distinguishing the orat or-c um-So phist from
others including the tragedian.1
Aristotle always refers to 'An t iphon 'simply, without feeling the need for a distinguishing title. T h e chronology
o f both is about the same. T h e orator died in 411 (Thuc. 8.68), and the dis
pute with Socrates in Xenophon is probably earlier than this, because
Plato, who became Socrates's follower after this date, says nothing about it.[I should no t attach much weight to this argument.] T h e orator was bornc. 480 (B la s s , Att. Bereds. i 2 , 94ft.) and probably wrote the extant orations
late in life, after 427, because they show the influence o f Gorgias. Cou ld he
not have been Sophist-philosopher first and orator later? (Croiset thoughtit probable.) T h e oratoi shows marked sophistic characteristics, and both
o f them taught the y o u n g and had schools (for the orator o f Rhamnus seePlato, Menex. 236a, for the Sophist X e n . Mem. 1.6) and took fees. (Bignone's
references for this are X e n . ibid., pseudo-Plut. 833 [doubtful?], Diod. ap.
C l e m . A l . r . 365, 2.66 D . , Amm . Marc. 30.4 and the papyrus o f Antiphon's
Apology published b y N i c o l e , REG, 1909, 55.) T h e orator had an active
political l ife, and the Sophist rebuked Socrates for taking no part in politics
( X e n . loc. cit.).O n th e argu ment from s tyle, already used b y Hermogenes, Bignone says
that the papyrus fragments, the most extensive that w e have o f the Sophist,
do in fact suggest that he was not also the orator, bu t on the other hand this
is a somewhat subjective criterion and the same man might have changed hisstyle during his lifetime. Howe ver , there is also a strong historical argument.
T h e orator wa s a pugnacious aristocrat and oligarch (Thuc. 8.68, 89, 90,A r i s t . Ath. Pol. 32), whereas fr. 44 Β of the Sophist expresses extreme
democratic sentiments. A l s o the orator wa s an emphatic upholder o f thel a w s , as is shown b y many passages in his speeches, wh ic h again contrasts
strongly with the Sophist. Bignone's final conclusion therefore w as thatorator and Sophist were different persons (though he thought that the Sophist
could w e l l be the diviner and writer o n dreams).
1 A s to the tragedies, i t is b y no means impossible that a Sophist should write them, and it isinteresting that one l ine employs a form of the ν ό μ ο ς -φ ύ σ ι ςantithesis, of which Antiphon theSophist w a s such an enthusiastic exponent (fr. 4 N auc k : τ έ χ ν η κ ρ α τ ο ϋ μ ε νώ νφ ύ σ ε ιν ικ ώ μ ε θ α ) .On the other hand the tradition associates the tragedian (as the Rhamnusian) wi th Dionysius Iof S y r a c u s e , which some have thought puts h i m later than the Sophist (Vit. or. and Gnomol.
Vindob. A 6 and 9 DK) , tho ugh Wil am owi tz felt this no objection (Platon, 1, 84, n. 1.). T h eRhamnusian w a s k i l l ed in 4 1 1 , but we know nothing of ho w long the Sophist l i v e d if h e is adifferent man.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 306/357
The MenThis is the conclusion which has found most favour, so that Stenzel could
begin his article in the RE (suppl. i v , 33) 'Antiphon, o f Athens, to be dis
tinguished, as is n o w generally recognized, as a Sophist from the orator o fRhamnus ' , and Untersteiner (Sophs. 228 f.) simply refer to Bignone and addΊ do not think that there is any occasion to re-examine the question'.
However, J. S. Morrison in 1961 reopened it, and maintained that the orator
whose speeches w e possess w a s identical with the Sophist w h o wrote theTruth and the Concord and is shown arguing with Socrates in the Memorabilia of Xenop hon. This provoked a sharp retort from S. Luria, wh o quoted
f ree ly from the speeches to show that the orator, whom Thucydides (8 .90.1)named as an extreme oligarch, and singled o u t among the Four Hundred
as o n e w h o w a s particularly strongly opposed to democracy, could n o tpossibly have held the left-wing v i e w s expressed in the papyrus fragments
o f the Truth. These are b y one w h o rejects the laws in favour o f ' na tu re ' ,
and is a fervent preacher o f egalitarianism. T h e speeches reveal an ultra-
conservative, w h o upholds the laws in the traditional manner as sacred,
and all the better for having lasted through centuries unchanged (Or. 5 .14 ,6.2). ' I t does n o t d o ' , he continues, ' t o start from the accuser's speech and
ask whether the laws are w e l l founded o r n o t ; w e must rather judge theaccuser's speech b y the l a w s , and see whether he is setting forth the matter
rightly and lawfully. ' T h e speech-writer is moreover an enthusiastic sup
porter of the traditional religion, praising the gods and exhorting to worship
and sacrifice in terms impossible (says Luria) for one w h o denied divine
provi dence as did the author o f Truth (fr. 12). 1
(6 ) T H R A S Y M A C H U S
Thrasymachus came f rom Cha lcedon on the B o s p o r u s , a c o l o n y o f
Megara . T h e only f ixed points from which t o j u d g e h is date are (1) The
Banqueters o f Ari s tophanes , p roduced in 427, in w h i c h he is made fu no f ( D K , A 4); (2) a sentence from o n e o f h i s speeches (fr. 2) w h i c h
s h o w s i t to have been wri t ten dur ing t h e rule o f A r c h e l a u s o f M a c e d o n
o v e r T h e s s a l y (413-399). T h e r e is an obscure hint that h e m a y h a v e
1 Morr i son i n PCPS, 1 9 6 1 , L u r i a i n Eos 1963. O f course, i f Kerferd were right i n suppos ing
that t h e views expressed in the papyrus fragments were n o t A n t i p h o n ' s at all (p. 108 a b o v e ) ,
most of Lur ia ' s a rgument wo uld fa l l to the g r o u n d ; but I find n o evidence i n them that A n t i p h o n
i s simply set t ing forth t h e ideas o f others fo r examination, a n d Kerferd seems someti mes t o raise
imaginary difficulties i n order t o dispose o f them b y this hypothesis (especial ly on p . 28). Nesde
(VMiuL, 394) adopted an unusual division, at t r ibuting Truth and the tetralogies to the Sophis t ,and Concord to the R h a m n u s i a n . F o r further references see Morr ison , loc. cit. 50, n. 1, an d for anexcellent brief survey, culminating in a non liquet, L e s k y, HGL, 353 f.
294
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 307/357
A Speechby Thrasymachus
295
commit ted suic ide . 1 H e w a s known pr imar i ly as a teacher o f rhetoric,
in which he wa s someth ing of an innova tor, and most of the extant
references to him are concerned with his style. In wr i t i ng his hand
b o o k s an d model speeches he paid great attention to the technical
details o f the art , an d exper imented with the use o f prose- rhy thms , as
w e l l as d eve lop i ng t he appeal to the emot ions o f an audience (Plato,
Phaedr. 267c). Aris to t l e (Soph. el. 183 b 31) called him a successor o f
Ti s i a s , a nd Theophrastus named him as the inven tor o f the so-called
'm idd l e s t y l e ' (fr. 1) . The only considerable fragment o f h is wr i t i ng
w h i c h has su rv ive d w a s preserved b y D i o n y s i u s o f Halicarnassus
s o l e l y as an example o f h is s ty le . H e wa s a Sophis t in the fu l l sense,
w h o charged for his instruction (Rep. 337d), travelled t o fore ign cit ies,
and though specializing in rhetoric w a s prepared t o answer ethical
questions also. H i s teaching o n justice seems t o have been w e l l k n o w n .
I n th e Republic (loc. cit.) he c l a ims a f ee fo r it, an d in t h e Clitophon
t h e young m a n threatens to desert Socrates fo r Thra symachus , w h o ,
he thinks, is better informed o n this subject.
T h e sur vi vi ng passage o f his works (fr. 1) is the open ing o f a speech
to the Athen i an A s semb l y. A s a foreigner h e cou ld n o t have del ivered
it himself, but i t reads like a genuine contr ibut ion t o a debate held i n
the later stages o f the Peloponnesian w a r rather than a mere school-
p i e c e . T h e speaker feels it necessary t o beg in b y a p o l o g i z i n g for his
y o u t h . 2 T h e rule that y o u n g m e n should keep silence w as a g o o d o n e
s o l o n g as the older generation were managing affairs competently,
but those fo r w h o m the prosper i ty o f the c i ty is only hearsay and its
disasters their o w n exper ience 3 —disasters moreover which cannot b e
blamed o n heaven o r chance b u t o n l y on the incompetence o f those i n
charge—must speak ou t . He cannot submit t o deliberate mismanage
ment o r car ry the blame for the unprincipled plot t ing o f others . W e
have seen, h e s a y s , t h e city pass from peace to wa r and peril a n d f rom
internal harmony t o quarrel l ing a n d confusion. Elsewhere it is p r o s -
1 Nestle (VMtuL, 348) states this as a fact, but i t depends on a corrupt l ine of Juvenal ( 7 .204), in which some editors prefer th e reading 'Lys imac hi ' , wi th the comment of the scholiast
' rhetoris apud Athenas qui suspendio periit ' (DK, 85 A 7 ) .2 T h a t the prooimion should engage the audience's sympathy was a textbook maxim. See
Theodectes in Rose , Arist.frr., Berlin ed. vol . v, 1499 a 2 7 3 2 > a n < l Arist . Rket. 3, chapter 1 4.3 In this imperfectly preserved clause I have followed Havelock's rendering, which seems to
combine Blass's τ ά ς μ έ νΕ ΰ τ τ ρ α ξ ία ςwith th e τ τ ά σ χ ε ι νof Diels. Thi s makes good sense.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 308/357
The Men
peri ty that leads to arrogance and faction, 1 but we kept our heads in
the good times and have lost them in adversity. The parties are simply
fighting mindlessly for power. They may think their policies are
opposed but in fact there is no real difference between them. What, if
on e go e s ba ck to first pri nci ple s, are bo th side s l oo k i n g for ? In the
first place it is the ques tio n of the 'ancestral co ns ti tu ti on' wh i ch th ro ws
th em into con fu si on, th ou gh it is the easiest th in g to gra sp and mo re
than an yt hi ng else the con cer n of the wh ol e citize n b o d y. Th e n in the
last sentence of the extract, pres uma bly wi th his o w n com par ati ve
youth still in mind, the speaker says that for matters go in g back bey ond
our experi ence w e mus t rely on the accou nts of form er gener atio ns or,
wh e n the y are wi th in the me mo r y of older men , learn direct from th em.
T h e spe ech is ma in ly of poli tica l interest, and the reference t o the
'ancestral const i tut ion ' suggests that i t was written by an oligarch,
' s om e y ou n g ar is tocrat o f Spartan sympath ie s ' . Hav elo ck ho we ve r
is impress ed b y its 'no n-pa rti san quality, its air o f obj ect iv ity , i ts
plea for clar ity o f t hi nk i ng ' , and sees in it ' a serious intell ectual
posi tion , a rationale o f political beh av io ur and meth od, if not a the or y
o f polities'. Certainly its main plea is the timeless one for e f f i c i e n c y
and principle in government, and for reconciliation between theparties to that e n d . 2 Its cou nse l w o u l d be no less useful tod ay , and
the point that party struggle is based on the thirst for power rather
than on fundam ental differences o f p o l i c y has an unc omf or ta bly familiar
sound.
T h i s is the onl y indep endent passage b y wh ic h w e can ho pe to j ud ge
the fairness or oth erw ise o f Pla to' s sketch o f Th ra sy ma ch us in the
Republic(p p. 88 ff. a bo v e ) . T h e spe ech is co mp os ed for a client to
deliver, but let us g i v e Thrasymachus the credi t for not wri t ing any
th ing that wa s against his o w n principl es. It ma y fairly be sup pos ed
that he cou ld onl y put the arg ume nt in so co nv in ci ng a form i f his o w n
mind w as behind i t . Ev er yt hi ng , o f course, depends on wha t v i e w w e
1 Thi s accords wit h the common Greek v i e w that κ έ-pos breeds ύ β ρ ις , bu t Thucydides
woul d not have agr eed wi th the speaker . Cf. 3. 8 2. 2: ' In peace and prosperi ty cities and in di
viduals behave more sensibly because they are not forced to act against their w i l l , but war which
deprives them of their d a i l y cheer is a harsh s choolmaster and reduce s the temper of most me n
to the level of their cir cumst ances .'2 ο μ ό ν ο ι α ,concord or conse nsus. On the impo rta nce of this concept cf. pp. 149 f. ab ov e,
t o r ll av el oc k's analysis and appraisal of the piece see his L.T. 233—9.
296
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 309/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 310/357
The Men
298
l o n g e r w o r k s . He is n o less o f a realist, bu t the At he ni an s mus t learn
to adapt themse lve s to ch an ge d circu mstan ces. T h e y cann ot afford the
l u x u r y o f an in ternal s t ru ggle for po we r. T o quot e Hav el oc k agai n
( Ζ . Γ . 2 3 4 ) :
T o begin with, he assumes that the purpose o f government is to be successful
and efficient; this is the criterion by whic h it should be j u d g e d . . . Heassumes that prosperity and disaster are not g od -g iv en but man-ma de; and,
s e c o n d l y, that it is the purpo se o f any go ve rn men t to preserve the one and
a v o i d the o t h e r . . . Traditi onal piety, and the archaic fatalism of the Gree k
temper, seem to be rejected.
T h e character depi cted b y Pla to w o u l d no t ha ve quarrel led wit h these
assu mpti ons, no r w o u l d the ma n w h o , to quo te a f inal bi t o f in de pe n
den t ev id en ce (fr. 8, p. 97 ab o v e ) , affirmed that the go ds to ok no heedo f hu ma n affairs, or th ey w o u l d no t a ll o w justi ce to be set aside as it is .
Pla to has shown his wors t s ide , perhaps re ly ing on th ings that he said
or wr ot e wh en Ath en s wa s a t the heig ht o f her p o we r and arro ganc e
(the most l i k e l y dramat ic date for the Republic is ab ou t 322), bu t w e
need f ee l no doub t tha t it w as on e side o f the real ma n.
(7) C R I T I A S
C r i t i a s1 would seem to provide Plato with the perfect example of a
fine nature ruined b y the soci ety o f his day , and b y sophist ic te ach in g
w i t h its emphasis on the a t t a inment o f p o we r and indifference to the
mor al con sequ enc es o f rhetorical and debati ng s k i l l . We a l t h y, h i g h
born and handsome, he was a lso r ichly endowed wi th phi losophic
and liter ary gifts and an eager listener to Soc rat es, ye t desert ed hi m top lay pow er- pol i t i cs and ended up as the most b loo dth i rs ty and un
scrupul ous membe r o f the Th ir ty . The se men, e lec ted a t the end o f
the war to draw up a consti tut ion, made themselves tyrants instead and
massacred their op po ne nt s. He wa s pers ona lly respo nsibl e for the deat h
o f Theramenes , an ol igarch l ike h i m s e l f and a pers onal fr iend, w h o wa s
u n w i l l i n g to go to such extre mes . In the ey es o f the d em oc ra cy the fact
that Socrat es had associated wi th men l ik e Crit i as tol d str on gl y agains t1 Where references to authorities are not given in the following paragraphs they can be
found in the accounts of Critias given by Diehl, RE, x i , 1 9 0 2 — 1 2 ,and Nestle, VM^uL, 400—20.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 311/357
The Enigma of Critias
299
him. He seems exactly to fit the role of a C a l l i c l e s , or might , one would
think, be designed to prove Plato's point in the Republic ( 4 9 i d ) that
'the finest nature given the wrong nur ture w i l l tu rn out worse than
the commonest ' and that (495a) ' the very quali t ies which make a
ph i losoph ic nature w i l l , with bad upbringing, be the cause of his
f a l l i n g away, no less t han wealth and other external advantages ' . But
doe s Pl ato speak o f hi m lik e this? O n the con tra ry, he sh o ws hi m o n ly
as an intimate me mb er o f the So cratic circle, wi th no h int that he was
w o r s e than the rest, an d ev er y ind ica tio n o f a ge nu in e interes t in
phi losophy. In the Timaeus and Critias he has a le adi ng role , an d the
w h o l e s tory of At lant is i s to ld thr ou gh his mout h . T h o u g h wri t in g
ye ar s after his death , Pl at o still th ink s o f his unc le Cri ti as wi t h resp ect
and affect ion. 1
There is a mystery here which the evidence does not allow us to
s o l v e co mp let el y. It is lessened, o f cour se, if w e bel iev e w i t h Sir Kar l
P o p p e r that Pla to 'be tr ay ed S ocrat es, just as his uncl es had d o n e'
(O.S. 194). W e cann ot decid e that here, but in any case no one would
a c c u s e Plato of co nd on in g the murd erous excesses o f the Thi rt y, nor
did he, if the Apology and the Seventh Letter (3240-d) are any evidence
at all . There are however certain points to take into account, beginningw i t h their relations hip. T h e family wa s an old and distin gui shed on e,
including Solon among its earlier generations, and family feeling
w o u l d be strong. Critias was the son of Callaeschrus and cousin of
Plat o 's mot her Perict i one, wh os e father Gl au co n wa s Callaesc hrus 's
brot her, and wh en G la uc on died her broth er Ch armi des bec ame
Critias 's ward. Plato would also be attracted by his brilliant intellect
and literary and artistic g i f t s , and undoubtedly they shared the conv i c t i o n that unb rid led d em oc ra cy wa s the ruin o f the state. Ar is to tl e
w a s o f the same min d, and there is a curi ous disc repa ncy be tw ee n his
references to Cri t ias and the Th ir ty and the accou nt o f X e n o p h o n in
his Hellenica wh ic h is our sole con tem po rar y s ource for the l eadin g
par t played by Critias. In the Constitution of Athens (3 5 if .) he fran kly
1 Besides the Timaeus and Critias, he has a par t in the Charmides and Protagoras, and also
in the pseudo-Platonic Eryxias. On the question whether the speaker in the Critias was thesam e one or his gran dfat her see Die hl in RE, x i , i o o i f . , Levinson, Defense, 35 9^ , and R osen-meyer in AJP, 1949. It is only fair to add that in Plato's picture of him in the CharmidesM. J. O'Brien sees 'a self-assertive man more concerned with honour than w i t h t r u t h ' (Socr.Parad. I 2 4 f . ) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 312/357
The Men
relates the atroci t ies of the Th ir t y and the exec uti on o f Th er ame nes
for attemp ting to curb the m, bu t wit h no men tio n o f Cri t ias , and in
the Politics (1305b 26) he na mes Ch ar ic le s as their leader . In the
Rhetoric ( i 4 i 6 b 2 6 ) , on the subject of e u l o g i e s , he s a y s , wi th seeming ly
deliberate in ten t , that i f y o u wa nt to praise A c h i l l e s y o u need n ot
recount his deeds, because everyone knows them, but in praising
Crit ias you must , because they are l i t t le known. This may have been
t rue . 1 Philostra tus, wr i t in g in the t ime o f the 'se co nd S op his t ic ' , said
that his ph ilo so ph y wa s not take n seriously b y the Gr ee ks becau se his
wo rd s we re diff icult to reconci le wi th his character. X en o p ho n 's
acco unt o f his relat ions wi th Socrates (Mem. i . 2 . i 2 f f . ) is that he and
A l c i b i a d e s wer e con sum ed wi th ambi t ion , and, k n o w in g Socra tes ' s
mastery of a rgument , thought that his teach ing wo u ld help the m togain their ends. They had no desire to be converted to his way of l i fe ,
and left hi m as so on as th ey th ou gh t th ey had learned en o u gh to attain
their political ambitions. In spite of this, such was Socrates's influence
that so long as they were with him their worst passions were held in
check . T h e bre ak came w h en Socrates pu bli cly reprimand ed Cri t i as
for tr yi ng to seduc e a y o u t h in their circle, a h u r t for which Cr i t ias
neve r for gav e h im. W h e n the Th ir ty came to po we r, he wa s in t roublewi th Cri t ias and Cha ricl es for his ou ts po ken cri t icism o f their co nd uc t ,
and as we learn from Plato's own version of his Apology (32 c ) , del iber
ately dis obe yed an order from them wh ic h wa s desig ned to implicate
him in their guilt .
Co ns id er in g al l this , Plat o ma y indeed hav e th ou gh t o f him as the
t y p e o f bri l l iant yo u n g man w h o m he describes in the Republic, with the
roo ts of ph il os op hy in him and an immen se capaci ty for g o o d butalso for harm if his en vi ro nme nt c orr upted him . Unfort una tely i t did,
and the sto ry o f his e v i l lat ter days wa s on ev er yo ne 's l ips. T o redress
the balan ce, and ou t o f reg ret for on e w h o wa s his relative and at one
time a co mp an io n o f his master S ocrates, Plato on this hyp oth esi s w i l l
ha ve conc entr ated on the earlier, happ ier year s o f ho pe and pr om is e.
He reserved his attack for the corrupting forces which he considered
responsible for the dow nfa ll o f such prom isi ng y o u n g men, the l icence
and mo b- or at or y prev ail i ng und er the de mo cr ac y and the rh etorical
1 See Diehl in RE, x i , ic>iof.
300
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 313/357
Critias: Character and Beliefs
301
teachers who c la imed that the art o f spe aki ng had no th in g to do w i t h
moral s tandards . 1
Crit ias died in c i v i l war against the democrats in 403, when he is
genera l ly bel ieved to have been about fifty. He first appears in politics
in 415, w h en wi th others o f his persua sion he wa s im pri son ed forc o m p l i c i t y in the mut i lat ion o f the Herm ae. H e w as bo th a bi t ter
oppo nen t o f dem ocr acy and v io len t ly p ro -Spar t an , and ma y have
be en , wi t h his father, a me mb er o f the Fo ur H un dr ed in 41 1 . z H o w e v e r ,
he wa s not im med ia te ly exiled after their f a l l , and helped to engineer
the recall o f Al ci bi ad es . Late r the de mo cr ac y did exile hi m and he
we nt to Thess a ly , wh er e i f he d id not conso r t wi th G or gi as persona l ly
the intel l igentsia w er e steeped in his teach ing.3 Af te r the capit ulat iono f Athens in 404 he r e t u r n e d , and wa s elected one of the co mm is si on
o f Thi r ty, wi th the consequences that ha ve been m ent i oned .
Cr it ia s wa s no t o f co ur se a So phi st in the full sense of a pai d teach er,
but it has been fairly said t h a t ' in his personality we find a union of all
the impulses of the sophis t ic mo ve me nt , wh os e per i od o f Sturm und
Drang reached a sy mb ol ic end in h is dramat ic dea th ' (L es ky , HGL,
357). W e ha ve seen that he shared wi th P ro ta goras , Demo cr i tu s andothers a be l ief in the progre ss i ve ev ol ut io n o f man kin d b y the i r o w n
efforts, that he th ou gh t o f la ws as neither inheren t i n human na ture
fro m the beg in ni ng no r a gif t of an y go ds , and o f rel igi on as a pu re ly
hum an inven t i on a imed at p rev en t i ng l awless behav iour. Re l i g io n was
for the subject , to ensure his obe die nce , no t for the enl igh ten ed ruler.
Hi s interest in techni cal prog re ss co me s ou t also in a set o f ele gia cs in
w h i c h he ass igns inve nt io ns to par t icular people s or countr i es . T h e yinclude char io ts , chai rs , beds , working in gold and bronze , wr i t ing ,
ships, the p o t t e r ' s wh ee l and (cur io us ly en ou gh ) the ga me o f Kottabos
(fr. 2). Perhaps for this reason, coupled with the close relationship
1 Acco rdin g to Philostratu s, ep. 73 ( C r i t i a s A 1 7 ) , C r i t i a s learned from G org ias but t urn ed histeaching to his own purposes.
2 See Diehl in RE, x i, 1903, Nestle, VMiuL, 401. The only evidence is [Dem.] 5 8 . 6 7 .Nest le speaks of his 'striking reserve ' v i s - a - v i s the Four Hun dred , whi ch he interpr ets as a
concession to the demos to f ac i l i t a t e A lc ib i ades ' sreturn.3 S y o p y l a j o v tv Θ ε τ τ α λ Ι αμ ι κ ρ α ίκ α ΐ μ έ λ ο υ ς τ τ ό λ ε ι ; ,Philostr. V.S. 1 . 1 6 (Cr i t . Α ι ) .
Cf. Plato, Meno 70a—b. Xenophon {Mem. 1 . 2 . 2 4 ) c l a i m e d that it was the Thessalians thatcorrupted him. Plato's opinion of the country was that it was full of α τ α ξ ί ακ α ΐ α κ ο λ α σ ί α(Crito 53d). But Philostratus concluded {V.S. 1.16) that it was rather C r i t i a s who corruptedth e T h e s s a l i a n s .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 314/357
The Men
b e t w e e n arete in general and the craftsman's s k i l l , his ar is tocrat ic
sympath ies d id not prevent h im f rom saying tha t more men become
g o o d by prac t ice than t h r o u g h na tu ra l e n d o w m e n t . 1 His l i terary ou tp ut
w a s l a rge and d iverse , inc lud ing bo th po et r y and prose . His po em in
pra ise o f Alc ib i ade s rev i ves the pol i t ica l e l e g y o f h is ances tor So lo n
and of Th eo gn is , th ou gh w i t h charac ter i s t ic bold nes s , since the name o f
Alc ib i ades resis ted incl usi on in dac tyl ic ver se, he subst i tut ed an i amb ic
for the cus tom ary pentame ter. Th er e i s no recor d of h is speeche s , bu t
He rmo ge nes (see A 19) ment ions a co l le c t ion o f 'p ro oe mi a for publ ic
spe ake rs ' . W e ha ve f ragments o f t w o se ts o f Politeiai, so cal led, one
in prose and one in verse. The prose set included one on the Thessal ians
(fr. 3 i ) , 3 where he ment ioned the i r ex t ravagant w a y s , and one on the
Spartans, o f w h i c h the on ly extant fragme nts do not deal wi th their
cons t i tu t ion but wi th the i r way of l i f e . He ment i ons the ir d r in kin g
habits and cup s (ma de sui table for use on camp ai gn s) , dress, furni ture,
dancing, and the precautions which they take against the Helots , and
praises the eu ge ni c effects o f the hard y reg im e im po se d on me n and
w o m e n alike (frr. 32 -7 ) . His poem on the Spartans also deals mainly
w i t h the i r dr inking habi t s , emphas iz ing the i r modera t ion , and a t t r i b u t
i ng to Ch i lo n the s ay in g ' no t h in g too m uc h ' ( fr r. 6 - 8 ) .3
Literary interestis shown in his hexameters on Anacreon (fr. 1) and h is prose works .
I t is combined with ar is tocrat ic pride when in fr. 44 he takes A r c h i l o -
chu s to task for ex po si ng his hu mb le bir th a nd we akn es ses in his vers e.
T w o b o o k s o f Homilies mus t have been mo re phi los ophi c in conten t ,
and a quo ta t i on fr om the fi rs t tou ch es o n the relat ion be tw ee n the
mi nd an d the sense s. A t least the cont ex t in Ga le n ma ke s it fairly
certain tha t ' they' are the senses in the sentence (fr. 40): ' I f y o uy o u r s e l f s tudy to become s t rong in in te l lec t , you w i l l be l ea s t wronged
b y them . ' T hi s co me s in a passage wh er e Gal en i s quo t i ng e xamp les
to prove his point tha t gnome in earlier times was used with the same
mea nin g as o ther wo rd s for mind or tho ugh t . He adds tw o mor e quo ta-
1 See pp. 2; 1 and 256 above.2 The manuscripts g i v e the author's name as Cratinus, but the alteration has been accepted
since Casaubon.3
A prose 'Constitution of Athens' has been inferred as the l i k e l i e s t home for two unassignedquotati ons. In one, Critia s charact eristica lly g i v e s the exact amount of the fortunes made out ofpolitics by Tlie mis toc les and Cl eo n, and in the other he has the effrontery to criticize Cim onlor his pro-Spar tan poli cy. (Fr r. 45 and 52. See Diehl i n i ? £ , x i , 1908, and Nestle, VM^uL, 405.)
302
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 315/357
Critias: Writings
t i ons which he says are f rom t he Aphorisms o f Cri t ias (fr. 39) : ' N e i t h e r
w h a t h e perceives wi th t he rest o f h i s body n o r what h e k n o w s w i t h h i s
m i n d ' an d ' Men hav e awareness whe n they have accu stom ed themselv es
to b e heal thy i n the i r mind ' . Ar is to t le (De an. 405 b 5) says he w a s on e
o f those w h o identified t he psyche with b lood: regarding sensat ion as
the mo st typica l characteristi c o f psyche, they believed that i t w a s due
t o t he nature of t he b lood . Ph i loponus in his commentary (after
ident i fy ing Cr i t ias as ' o n e o f t he Thi r ty ' ) a t t r ibu ted to h i m the line o f
E m p e d o c l e s (fr. 105.3) which says that ' t h e blood around t h e heart is
t ho ugh t ( ν ό η μ α ) ' . ( S e e Cri t ias , A 23. He m a y have learned o f E m p e d o -
clean theor y f rom Gor gia s . ) In fac t Empedocles , a n d evident ly a lso
Crit ias, dist inguished tho ugh t from sensation, th ou gh cons ide rin g
b o t h to be equally corporeal phenomena. T h e Hippocratic treatise o n
the heart uses the w o r d gnome w h e n it declares that the mind rules t h e
rest o f t he psyche a nd resides in the left ventricle. (See on th is vol . n ,
229 w i t h n . 2.)
Crit ias also wrote dramas. W e have excerpts from three t ragedies ,
the Tennes, Rhadamanthys and Peirithous, and the l on g passage from
the satyr-play Sisyphus con ta in ingthe
t heoryo f
the origino f
r e l i g i o n . 1
T h e Rhadamanthys (fr. 15) contains a list of the various objects o f
men's longing. Simi lar l i s t s were commonplace , 2 b u t Cri t ias ' s has
s o m e touches of the sophist ic a g e . Heal th is miss ing, a n d w e h a v e ,
besides high birth a n d weal th , t h e p o w e r a nd audaci ty t o persuade
one 's ne ighbours o f w h a t is unsound . T h e speaker then declares that
his o w n choice is to h a v e a f i n e reputat ion. T w o choric fragments o f
the Peirithous a re c o s m o l o g i c a l . Fr. 18 speaks o f unwear ied Time
endlessly bringing i tself t o bir th i n unceas ing f l o w, and in fr. 19 the
epi thet ' se l f -born ' sugges ts that it is again Time that is addressed as
embrac ing all nature in the heavenly whir l , whi le l ight a n d darkness,
and t he innumerable host o f stars, perform their endless dance around
h im. C lement o f Alexandr ia , w h o quotes the passage , took ' t h e
1 P p . 243 ff. above. T h e reader should b e warned that all were commonly attributed toEuripides in antiquity, though the Vita Eur. rejected the t ragedies ( C r i t i a s fr. 1 0 ) , an d the Sisyphus
is given to Crit ias b y Sextus. They were rescued for him by Wilamowi t z , N. Job. 1908 , 57 ;Hermes, 1927 , 291 f.; and Analecta Eurip. 166 . Schmid s t i l l had reservations about Critias'sauthorship (Gesch. 1 7 6 ) .
! Cf. the sclinlion on the good things of l i fe , Diehl, Anth. Lyr. no. 7 (11, 1 8 3 ) with th evar ious aut l io in ic . 1 in-d.
303
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 316/357
The Men
304
se l f -born ' to be ' the demiurgic nous', 1no doubt wi th Pla to rather than
Anaxagoras in mind, but most scholars have seen a suggest ion of
Ana xa go ra s in the passage as a w ho le . Mor e prom ine nt is the e ff ec t o f
Orph ic cosmogon ies o r o f Phe recydes o f S y r o s , w h e r e C h r o n o s
( T i m e ) appears as a primeval creat ive power. Evidently Cri t ias (assum
i n g tha t he and no t Eur ipi des is the aut hor ) shared Eu rip ide s' s interest
in cosmolog ica l specu la t ion . 2 A fe w further q uot at ion s from this pl ay
in Stob aeus ' s an th ol og y are easy to reconci le wi th Cri t ias as w e k n o w
h i m : 3 fr. 21 ' H e ha d no unp ra ct is ed mi nd w h o first said tha t for tune
fights o n the side o f the w i s e ' ; fr. 23 'Better not to l i v e at all than to
l i v e mise rab ly ' ; and f r. 22 on the sup eri ori ty o f charact er to nomos(p. 69 above).
W e are left w i t h the pict ure o f a ma n o f brilliant int ellect ual and
artistic g i f t s , pl un gi ng eag erl y into the phil osop hica l discussions of his
time, all the more so as many of them had a direct bearing on political
l i f e . But some of the headier theories consp ired w it h his o w n a mb i
t ious, hea dst ron g and unstable character, the pro duc t of gene rat i ons
o f poli t icians and poets , to lead him away from the wisdom of Socrates
to vio le nce , crue l ty, and death in c i v i l s t r ive .
(8) A N T I S T H E N E S
Ant ist hene s is one of those interest ing bri dge-f igure s w h o ser ve to
remi nd us h o w mu ch happ ene d in a short space o f t ime be tw ee n the
ma nh oo d o f Socra tes and the death o f Plato . A s a pupil o f Socrat es,
and reputed teacher of Di og en es and founder o f the C y n i c s c h o o l ,
his pro per place in the hist ory o f th ou gh t mi gh t see m to be as a'S oc ra t i c ' , af ter an acc oun t o f Socrates himself . Y e t he l i ve d in
the he yd ay o f the Soph ists , pr ob ab ly a li t tle older than Prodicus and
Hip pias , and, as w e hav e seen, wa s dee ply in vo lv ed in the arg ume nt
abo ut the use of la ngu age and the possi bi l i ty o f cont radi ct io n wh i c h
fo rmed par t o f the the ore tic al ba c k g r o un d o f fifth-century rh et or ic ,
and in wh ic h Prot agor as p la yed a leading par t . Sin ce this has
1 Strom. 2. 40 3. 14 Staehli n, quoted by N auc k o n Eur. fr. 5 9 3.1 For Chronos in Orphic cosmogonies and Pherecydes see Guthrie, O. & Gk. Ret. 85-91
and Kirk in KR, 56.
' liv en if we ignor e our complete i gnora nce of the dramatic context and the speakers.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 317/357
Antisthenes, a Bridge-figure
305
br ou gh t h im into our d iscuss ion a l ready, i t seems approp r ia te to ma ke
so me genera l obse r va t ion s abou t h im n ow . Before co mi ng unde r the
inf luence o f Socra tes , he wa s h imse l f a rhetor ic ian and pu pi l of Go rg ia s .
In recent t imes he has be en the subj ect o f v er y var ied ju dg me nt s.
P o p p e r ' s v e r d i c t , that he wa s the on ly w o r t h y successor o f Socra t es ,
the l as t o f the 'G re a t Gen era t io n ' (O.S. 1 9 4 ) , w a s f o r e s h a d o w ed
b y G r o t e : 'An t i s the nes , and h i s d i sc iple Di og en es , wer e in m an y
respects c loser app rox ima t io ns to Sokr ates than either Plato or any other
o f t h e S o k r a t i c c o m p a n i o n s ' (Plato, in , 505 ) . O n the o ther hand
S c h m i d cons ide red that ' i n spite o f his enth usias m for Soc rate s in
Socra tes ' s las t yea rs , h is o w n ph i l os op hy we nt the w a y o f an un
disc ip l ined f ree- th inking agains t which Pla to had to be emphat ica l lyo n h i s g u a r d ' (Gesch. 2 7 2 f . ) , a n d t o C a m p b e l l , r e l y i n g o n X e n o p h o n
and Ar is to tl e, he ' seems to ha ve been the b u t t of the Socra t ic school , a
sor t o f mixtu re o f A j a x a n d T h e r s i t e s . . . H e f o l l o w e d ra ther the form
t h an the spiri t o f the Socrat ic te ac hi ng ' (ed. o f Theaet. x l - x l i ) . Karl
Joel ' s verdic t i s a lso in teres t ing (E. und X. S. 2 5 7 ) :
W h a t in Socrates was an unconscious miracle of his nature became in
Ant ist hen es a set pu rp os e, a basis for var iet y and an artificial pr od uc t. He
copied the Socratic mo de o f life and fanaticized the Socratic teaching,
trust ing ther eby to seize up on the essence o f his master, to w h o m he s to od
in the relationship of flagellants imitating a genuine saint, or better of the
Romantics—the poet of Lucinde—to Goethe.
Pe rh ap s the truest statements are tho se o f P op p er (O.S. 2 7 7 ) , tha t
' V e r y l i t t le is k n o w n ab ou t An ti st he ne s from first-rate s o u rc es ' , and
Fie ld , that there has be en ' an imm ens e amo un t o f conjec ture and h y p o
t h e s i s a b o u t h i m ' (Plato and Contemps. 1 6 0 ) .M o s t o f ou r info rmat ion ab ou t h is l i fe and c i rcumstances comes
f rom many centur ies la ter, and must be t rea ted wi th corresponding
r e s e r v e . 1 I t was be l i eved that he had founded the C y n i c s c h o o l a n d
th ro ug h i t inf luenced the Stoics , and a cer ta in am ou nt o f h inds igh t
m a y ha ve crep t into ac cou nts o f his tea chi ng wr it te n after these
1 The source-material is collected in Caizzi 's Antisthenis Fragmenta, the a r rangement of which
i s unus ual . After the t i t le ' Fr am me nti ' the passages are number ed contin uous ly t h roughou t , bu t
divided into three parts: 'Frr. i — 1 2 1 ' are the testimonia and actual fragments (or what are
reckoned as suc h), 122-44 a r e ' not izi e bio gra fich e' and 1 45-9 5 anecd otes. The re is als o a full
b ib l iography.
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 318/357
The Men
schools became famous. H e w a s said to be the so n o f an A t h e n i a n an d
a Thracian slave, a n d hence not an Athenian c i t izen , 1 and to have
fough t at Ta n a g r a ( D . L . 6. i ) , which must refer to the battle there in
426 ( T h u c . 3 . 9 1 ) . D i o d o r u s ( 1 5 . 7 6 ) speaks o f h i m as still alive in 366
and Plutarch (Lycurgus 30) quotes a remark which h e made on thebattle o f Leuct ra (371) . Xenophon (Symp. 4.62) says that h e in t roduced
the Sophist- lover Call ias t o Prod icus and Hippias , a n d speaks o f h i m
in general as an older m a n than himsel f a n d Pla to , s o ( a l though w e
have n o certain informa tion) abou t 455-360 w i l l no t be far o u t fo r the
span o f his long l i fe . H e wa s a rhetorician a n d pupi l o f G o rg i a s , w h o m
he afterwards attacked, a n d some have seen in h im the influence o f
other Sophists as w e l l .2 Later h e became a friend a n d fanatical admirer
o f Socrates. That a t least is certain, an d Pla to (Phaedo 59b) ment ions
h im among the few intimates w h o were with Socrates i n pr ison in the
last hours o f h i s l i f e .
H e w a s especial ly at t rac ted b y t h e ascetic side o f Socrates's life an d
his independence o f w o r l d l y g o o d s , a n d carried this t o such lengths
that i n later antiquity h e w a s commonly r ega rded as the founder o f
t he Cyn ic schoo l , w i th D iog ene s ' t h e D o g ' f o r h is pupi l . (S ee f r r.
138 A - F , 139 C a i z z i . ) N o w a d a y s it is general ly held that the C y n i c s
o w e d their most distinctive features, as wel l as their name, to D i o g e n e s .
There never was a C y n i c s c h o o l in the literal sense in w h i c h the
A c a d e m y , Ly c e u m an d Stoa we re schools. Anti sthen es himsel f m a y
h a v e had a sort o f schoo l , or at least a g r o u p o f pupils with a fixed
place o f meet ing , fo r Diogenes Lae r t iu s (6 .13) says that h e used to
conver se ( o r ' u s e d ia l ec t i c ' ) in the g y m n a s i u m o f C y n o s a r g e s , 3 b u t
1 D . L . 6. 1, 2 . 3 1 ; Seneca Deconst. sap. 1 8 . 5 . B ut Field notes (Plato and Contemps. i 6 o n . ) t h a t
in the Phaedo Plato speaks o f him as an ίτ τ ι χ ώ ρ ιο ς wi thno hint that h e wa s different from Cr it o,
Aeschines and the rest. D . L . introduces the fact to g i v e point t o two probably apocryphal
anecdotes.2 Antisthenes and Gorgias , D . L . 6 . 1, Athen. 22od (from the Archelaus of Antisthenes). F o r
Protagoras and the impossibil i ty o f contradiction see p. 182, n. 2, above. Diimmler (Akad. 194)argued that Antisthenes's denial that one can ca l l a statement false originated with Gorgias
(MXG 980a 1 0 ) , an d claimed also to see the influence of Prodicus an d Hippias (ibid. 158, 161,
2 5 6 , 274)·3 This wa s the gymnas i um ass igned to bastards, or me n of mixed descent (Demosth. 23.213
and later sources), which t a l l i es with the report of his half-foreign origi n. Bu t D.L. or h is sourceis t ry ing b y every means to represent hi m as the founder of Cyn ic i sm . 'Cynosa rge s ' i s brought
in as an alternative origin for the name, and D.L. immediately goes on to say that Antisthenes
h imse l f was called Ά τ τ λ ο κ ύ ω ν(just as he was also called Κ ύ ω νb y Herodicus in the first century B . C .
306
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 319/357
Antisthenes and the Cynics
307
this certainly does n o t b r i n g h i m closer to the C y n i c s , w h o n e v e r
adop ted su ch met hod s. Antisth enes was pr oba bl y horrified at some o f
D i o g e n e s ' s principles a n d behav iour. There is every reason t o th ink
that they were acquainted, and the stories about them are al l to t he
effec t that D i o g e n e s w a s far from a favourite o f his, b u t w o n h i m o v e rb y sheer importunity a n d persistence. Nevertheless th e portrai t o f
Ant i s thenes i n X e n o p h o n ' s Symposium does show traits w h i c h ,
d e v e l o p e d to an extreme, were characteristic o f the C y n i c s .1 H e cal led
himself th e richest o f men, because wealth resided i n men's souls , n o t
in their pockets, a n d equated pover ty wi th independence. M e n w h o
w e n t t o all lengths t o increase their fortunes h e pitied as diseased. They
suffered as m u c h a s m e n whose bodies were never satisfied however
much they a te . Happiness lies n o t i n having great possessions b u t i n
l o s i n g th e desire f o r them. A l l this h e claims t o ha ve learned fro m
Socrates . T h e r e i s a specially C y n i c touch in his reference t o se x as a
purely bodi ly need, f o r whose satisfaction a n y w o m a n w i l l d o (Symp.
4.38) . C y n i c also w a s h is anti-hedonism. Later sources m a y perhaps
be suspected, because they h a d already adopted h i m as the founder o f
the sect, when they report h i m as decla iming that h e w o u l d ra ther g oma d than enjoy pleasure (frr. 108 A - F ) ; b u t the bias i s already there i n
X e n o p h o n (Symp. 4.39) , w h e n i n speak ing o f t h e appeti te f o r s e x —
w h i c h h e regards as a natural o n e l ike that f o r food—he says that h e
w o u l d prefer t o satisfy i t without pleasure, since t h e intense pleasure
derived from i t is harmful. Similarly o n e should eat an d drink solely
to banish hunger a n d thirst . T h e only pleasure to be r e c o m m e n d e d
is that w h i c h f o l l o w s f rom hard w o r k (fr. 113) a n d which b r ings n o
ap. Ath. 2 1 6 b ) , whereas there can be little doubt that th e original D o g was Diogenes. Aristotle
a l r e a d y knew h im by that name (Rhet. 1 4 1 1 3 2 4 ) ,b u t spoke of the followers of Antisthenes asΆ ν τ ι σ δ έ ν ε ι ο ι .T h e s tory i n D .L . (loc. cit.) that he had few pupils because as he said h e ' d rove
them a w a y with a silver rod' , if it ha s a n y basis i n fact, implies that in spite of his Socraticism h echarg ed h igh fees whic h many were unwi lli ng to pay. H e would have learned to do so as arhetorician and pupil o f Gorgias.
1 Cf. Socrates, p . 2 1 . (C yn ic s wer e notor iousl y 'difficult ' characters.) Thi s h a s been most
recendy argued b y Caizzi, Stud. Urb. 1964, 7 3 f. Wilamowitz made a vigorous protest against
the ' legend ' of Antisthenes t h e C y n i c in Platon, 1 1 , 1 6 2 - 4 , and rm>n
yn a v e
followed h i m, e . g .Ta y l o r , Comm. on Tim. 306, Dudley, Hist, of Cyn. 1 ff., Field, Plato and Contemps. 16 2 £., andthe references collected in Burkert , Weish. u. Wiss. 197, n. 6 9. Bu t see also Popper, O . S . 277,
and, for an older view on the other side, Ueberweg -Praecht er, 160 n. Fo r Zeller t oo Antisthenes
w a s ' t h e founder of Cynic i sm ' ( PA . d. Gr. 280-1). Chroust in h i s Socrates Man and Myth
speaks of a unitary philosophy which he ca l l s ' Antis thenean-Cynic ' , but no t everyone would
follow h i m .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 320/357
The Men
repentance ( fr. n o ) . T h e v i r tues o f hard w o r k h e r e c o m m e n d e d
th ro ug h the exam ples of Heracle s and C y r u s in b o o k s cal led after
them (frr. 19-28) . 1
T h r o u g h t h e C y n i c s he wa s su pp ose d also to ha ve bee n a fou nde r o f
Stoicism befo re Ze no , and the succ essi on- writ ers , represented for u sb y Di o ge n es Laer t ius , assu med a direct l ine o f master and p u pi l :
A n t i s t h e n e s - D i o g e n e s - C r a t e s - Z e n o . If, a s is g e n e r a ll y s u p p o s e d n o w
adays , this is not strictly historical, i t is probably t rue that he gave the
impu lse to an out sta ndi ng characteris t ic o f ea ch : that i s , a s Dio ge ne s
Laert iu s puts i t , ' t he indifference o f Di o g en es , the self- contr ol o f
Cra te s , and the endurance o f Ze n o '— a l l traits which he h imse l f wou ld
claim to hav e fo un d in Socr ate s. In his do ctr ine o f vi rt ue as the en d o fl i fe (fr. 22) he cer tai nly antic ipat ed Ze n o . Vi rt u e can be ta ug ht and
on ce acqu ire d can no t be los t (frr. 69, 71) . It nee ds a Soc rati c str eng th,
is taught by deed and example ra ther than argument and erudi t ion ,
and is sufficient in its elf to ensu re ha ppi nes s (fr . 70). Ed uc at io n is
nece ssar y (fr. 68), b ut it is the ki nd o f ed uc at io n that C h i r o n
g a v e Her acle s (fr. 24). V ir tu e has n o use for l o n g speec hes (fr. 86).
The sage is self-sufficient, for his wealth includes that o f al l oth er me n
(fr. 80, a particularly Stoic touch). So far as our evidence goes, it
seems that his ethical teac hin g wa s pu rel y pract ical . Th er e is no trace
o f sys temat ic th eor y nor o f any con nex io n wi th h is logic a l doct r ine
such as w e ha ve foun d in som e o f the Sophi sts . T h e nomos-physis
anti thesis (also to be found in his the olo gic al pr on ou nc em en t, p. 248
a b o v e ) is echoed in the dictum that the wi se ma n acts no t acco rd in g to
the established l aw s bu t to the law s o f vir tue (fr. 101, p. 11 7 a b o v e ) .
Otherwise a l l that one can say of his political v i e w s is that he was no
egalitar ian, as appe ars fro m his referen ce to w h a t the lions th o ug ht
w h en the hares mad e publ ic speeches in fav ou r o f equal r ights for al l .
(Th i s comes f rom Ar i s to t l e , Pol. 1284315.) H is Politikos Logos, w e
are to ld , a t tacked 'a l l the de ma go gu es o f A t h e n s ' , 2 and he made a
special target o f A l c i b i a d e s (frr. 43, 29, 30). His Archelaus attacked his
former master G or gi as , a natural cons equen ce of h is con ver s io n t o
" For Anti sthen es's vi ew s on pleasur e Caizzi has collected references in her notes to frr.
1 0 8 - 1 3 .
* Compa re his advice tha t they ough t to vot e asses to the posi tio n of horse s, p. 21 2, n. 1,
above.
308
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 321/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 322/357
The Men
Nicera tus that he is a better m an beca use he k n o w s the Home ri c po em s
b y h e a r t : so does any rhapsode, he retorts, and there is no more foolish
set of men t han the rhapsodes. A h , says Socrat es, but Nicer atus has
been to sch ool wi th the al legor izers and kn o w s all the hidden mea nin gs.
Later (4.6) Ant ist hen es asks Nic era tus ironi cal ly i f he co ul d take o v er
a k ingdom because he knows a l l about Agamemnon. These exchanges
are in a li ght post -p ran dia l ve i n, bu t it doe s no t l o o k as i f in his refe r
ences to Homer as wr i t ing now 'opin ion ' and now ' t r u t h ' he was
begu i l ed either b y the craz e for finding allegor ical mea nin gs or b y the
current idea that Ho m e r wa s a practic al gu id e to all the subjects me n
tioned in the poems. 1
M a n y scholars , part icularly in Germany, have claimed to discover
vei led at tacks on Antis thenes in various dialogues of Plato, sometimes
u n d e r other nam es, and b y this means to rec onst ruc t mu ch o f his
teachi ng. Gre at labo ur and considera ble ing enu ity ha ve been expe nded
in this a t t empt , and t he re is g o o d reason to assume host i l i ty be tw ee n
the t w o . Ap ar t from anecd otes, Antis thene s wr ot e a dial ogue ab usi ng
P la to u n d e r the oppr obr ious n ame of Sa th on. 2 Nev ert hele ss the resul ts
are in no case certain, and in recent times a more cautious at t i tude has
prevai led .3 The same may be said of K. Joel 's theory that X e n o p h o n ' s
por tr aya l o f Socr ates had no historical valu e beca use it mad e hi m into
an essential ly Anti s th enea n and C y n i c f igure. In Joel 's bo o k the im
por tance and inf luence o f Ant is thenes gr o w to eno rmo us propo r t io ns ,
and Pla to him se lf is pu t he av il y in his de bt . 4 So long as we know no
1 The Homeric interpretat ions are in C a i z z i ' s frr. 5 1 - 6 2 , and discussed by her in Stud. Urb.
1 9 6 4 , 51 ff. The re has been con tro ve rsy over the question wheth er Antisthe nes was an al leg ori st:
se e the references in C a i z z i , loc. cit. 59, n. 47.
* See Antisthe nes frr. 36—7.I ts second t i t le w a s ' On contradi ct ion' (D. L. 6 . 1 6 ) , lending colourto the anecdot e that he wrot e it as a counter blast to Plat o's critic ism that his denial of contr adict ion could be turned aga ins t i tsel f. Σ ά β ω ν , appl ied to babies , was a d iminut ive of σ ά θ ηmeaning
penis.3 See e.g. Field, Plato and Contemps. 160. Suc h speculation we nt v er y far. In 1894 Nat orp
could c l a i m i t as 'proved repeatedly ' that the Theaet., Euthyd., Crat. and probably also Hipp.
Maj. and Min., Ion and Euthyphro, were c h i e f l y devot ed to polem ic agai nst Antis thene s, either
anonymously or under another name. On the Ion see now C a i z z i , Antisth. Frr. p. 109. On
Theaet., Crat. an d Soph. pp. 2 1 3 - 1 5 abo ve, and for Crat. von Fri tz in Hermes 1927.
Rep. 495 c- d w as supp osed b y Dum ml er to refer to him , but see Ad am ad loc. For the same
possibility elsewhere in the Rep. Popper, O.S. 277. For Socra tes ' s 'd re am ' in Theaet. Gillespie
in Arch.f. G. d. Phil. 1913 and 191 4.1 J o e l , Der echte u. d. Xenoph. Sokr. Joel held the remarkable theory that Prodicus in both
Xenophon and Plato was not Prodicus but a mask for Antisthenes, to whom even the fable of
3 Ι Ο
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 323/357
Antisthenes in Plato ? His Writings
m o r e t h a n w e d o about Antis thenes from independent sources, the o n l y
top ic o n which such theor ies c a n claim any th in g l ike a firm basis is
his logic . P la to says n o m o r e o f h i m t h a n th e bare ment ion o f h i s n a m e
a m o n g the in t imate friends w h o w e r e presen t with Socra tes in pr ison
u p to the m o m e n t o f h i s death.
He was a prolif ic wri ter, both rhetorical a n d ph i losoph ica l . D iogenes
Laert ius lis ts abo ut se ve nt y-f our t i t les div ided into ten v o l u m e s . In his
rhetorical period, l ike h is t eacher Gorgias h e composed dec lamat ions
on mythica l themes , t w o o f which have su rv ived , in w h i c h A j a x a n d
Odysseus de fend i n t u r n the i r claims to the arms o f A c h i l l e s .1 A defence
o f Ores t e s is a l so men t ioned . Ac co rd in g t o Diogenes Lae r t iu s ( 6 . 1 ) ,
his rhetorical s tyle overf lowed into h is d ia logues , a n d Ari s to t l e g ives
an example o f his so me wh at ex t ravagant metapho rs . 2 O f t he d ia logues ,
s o m e , t h o u g h no t a l l , were Socra t ic ( D . L . 2 .6 4) . T h e Heracles a n d
Cyrus were ethical in content , ex to l l ing the vi r tues o f h a r d w o r k , a n d
the Aspasia contained scurr i lous at tacks o n Per ic les an d h i s sons . T h e
Sathon, Archelaus a n d Politicus have a l ready been ment ioned, a n d w e
hear o f a Physiognomonicus an d a Protrepticus, as w e l l as the w o r k s o n
Nature , which conta ined the s ta tement o n m o n o t h e i s m , a n d ' O n
E d u c a t i o n o r o n N a m e s ' (pp. 248, 209 a b o v e ) . 3
(9 ) A L C I D A M A S
A c c o r d i n g to the Suda , A lc idamas w a s a nat ive o f t h e A e o l i a n c i t y o f
Elaea , th e p o r t o f P e rg a m o n . 4 T h e only indica t ion o f h i s date i s that ,
l ike Ant is thenes a n d Ly c o p h r o n , he w a s a pupi l o f Gorg ia s .5 Gorg ia s
the choice o f Heracles must b e transferred. (See o n this H . Mayer, Prod. 120.) T h e book h a sbeen criticized b y many , including Jo el himself (see his Gesch. 7 3 1 , n. 3) , an d a reappraisal of thequestion h a s n o w been undertaken b y Caizzi , Stud. Urh. 1964, 60-^76.
1 Thei r au thent ic i ty h a s been queried, but see Caizzi , loc. cit. 4 3 .1 Aris t . Rhet. 1 4 0 7 a 10. H e compared a l ikeable b u t thin a n d w e a k l y m a n t o frankincense,
w h ich g i v e s pleasure as i t i s consumed!3 I hav e mention ed som e wh ich occur outside D.L .'s c ompreh ensive list. References w i l l b e
found i n Ca izz i ' s Fragmenta. Acco rd ing to the list, the Physiogn. was g iven t h e subti t le ' on th eSophis t s ' .
4 F o r gene ral information ab out h i m see Brzoska i n RE, 1, 1 5 3 3 - 9 . T h e surv iv i ng remains a r e
in Baiter—Sauppe, Orat.Att. pt. n (1850) , 1 5 5 - 6 2 , a n d Radermacher, Artium Scriptores, 1 3 2 - 4 7 .5 S ho re y (Τ Α Ρ Α , 1909, 1 9 6 ) discussed th e poss ib i l i ty o f dat ing h i m through coincidences
between h is w o r k on the Sophists , Plato 's Phaedrus, a n d Isocrates's Panegyricus, b u t concluded
that 'these facts hardly suffice to date Alcidamas relat ively to either Plato o r I socra tes ' .
• 5 T I
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 324/357
The Men
himself h a d dealt both i n carefully prepared w ri t t en declamatio ns a n d
in imp ro mpt u speeches , b u t h i s ' s choo l ' ev iden t ly d iv ided i t s e l f o n
th is poin t , wi th Alc idamas as the c h a m p i o n o f improv i sa t ion , e m
phas iz ing Gorgias ' s doct r ine o f kairos or the o p p o r t u n i t y o f t h e
moment , a n d Isocrates o f t h e wri t ten speech. W e still possess a shor t
piece b y Alcidamas ent i t led ' o n those w h o co mp os e wr i t ten speeches ,
or o n S o p h i s t s ' , i n w h i c h h e b e g i n s b y at tacking some o f those called
Sophists fo r neglec t ing research a n d cul ture ( o r educat ion) a n d h a v i n g
no technique o f public speaking. They parade their cleverness in
wri t ten words a n d think themselves masters o f rhe tor ic when they
possess only a small fraction o f the ar t . H e w i l l censure them n o t because
the wr i t ten word is alien t o o r a t o r y b u t because it shou ld b e n o m o r e
than a parergon, no t a t h ing t o pr ide onese l f o n , a n d those w h o spend
their l i v e s on i t i g n o r e a great deal o f rhetoric a n d p h i l o s o p h y a n d d o
not deserve t h e n a m e o f Sophis ts . When th is is taken with passages
from Isocrates 's works it is ev iden t that t hey a re conscious rivals a n d
f o e s .1 H i s little treatise shows that w e a r e a m o n g t h e epigoni, a n d that
Sophists have changed their methods since the great days when
Protagoras a n d G o rg i a s w e r e in the i r pr ime. 2
Alc idamas h a s acquired great , a n d perhaps justifiable, fame among
the moderns for h i s bold asser t ion that ' G o d h a s s e t a ll m e n free,
Nature has m a d e no man a s l a v e ' (p. 159 a b o v e ) . H e w a s h o w e v e r
primarily a n ora tor an d a faithful pupil o f his master i n defining rhetoric
as ' t h e p o w e r o f t h e p e r s u a s i v e ' . D e m o s t h e n e s is said t o have s tudied
his speeches. 3 A p a r t f r o m t h e o n e com ple te pam phl et against wri t te n
speeches* almost a l l ou r quota t ions f rom h i m o c c u r in the Rhetoric o f
Aris to t le , w h o cites most o f t hem no t fo r their content bu t a s exampleso f faulty style.5 A s a n instance o f inappropr ia te metaphor h e ment ions
1 F o r their opposition see the references in Lesky, HGL, 353, n. 4.1 Cf. Morrison i n D.U.J. 1949, 56 .3 Plut . Demosth. 5, 7 (Radermacher, p . 154) and [P lu t . ] Vic. orat. 844 c.4 The re i s also a speech against Palamedes, one of those exercises o n mythical subjects which
the teachers o f rhetoric provided fo r their pupils t o learn, but i t s authentici ty i s doubtful. It i s apoor thing, a n d bears n o relation to the Palamedes of Gorgias.
5 A n exception i s the sentence about slavery in the Messenian oration, introduced to i l lustrate
the difference between l e g a l a n d natural justice. ( T h e actual quotation w e ow e to the scholiast . )
He also g i v e s at 1 3 9 7 3 1 1 a n d 1398 b 10 exampl es from Alci damas o f types o f argument (argument
from the opposite a nd inductive argument) a s used i n oratory. Elsewhere he castigates hi m forhis use of poetical comp oun ds (1406a 1 ) , o f exotic voca bul ary ( 1406a 8), o f redundant epithets
or descriptive phrases ( e . g . ' d amp swea t ' , ' l a w s the monarchs of c i t i e s ' , i 4o6a i8 ff . ) and in -
3 1 2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 325/357
Alcidamas: Lyophum
3 1 3
' p h i lo so ph y, a bu lw ar k agains t the law. (numoi)' ( A ' / n y . I - | O O I I I I ) ,
and we may take this , together with ι lie* d e i l a i a i i o n ili.il »ilavery is
agains t nature and the plea that Sophists six>ιil«I return i n ph i losophy,
as indicat ions that Al ci da ma s aspired to be .1 Sophist o l the old sch oo l,
in w h i c h rhet oric and ph il os op hy weni Ii.iucl in k i n d , and was c o m
parable to An t i ph on as a cha mpi on o f na iu ie against co nv en t i on . 1
O f his other works wc hear ol a MoiiM-inn or miscel lany, which
in cl ud ed a con tes t be tw ee n H om er and I lesiod and p erha ps also the
'e nc om iu m of dea th ' ment ioned by Ci ce ro as conta in ing a ca ta lo gue
o f the i l ls of human l i fe . The whole col lec t ion was probably a source
b oo k o f materia l for ora t ors . 1 Athenaeus (592c) ment ions an encomium
o f a hetaera cal led Nats, and ac co rd in g to D io ge ne s Laert i us (8 .56 ) he
also wr ot e a w o r k on natural phi l osop hy conta in ing h is tor ica l asser tions
w h i c h , for a champion o f historia and paideia, have genera l ly been
t h o u g h t ra ther wi ld , unless they ha ve bee n man gle d in transmi ssion.
O n t h is ho we ve r see n ow D . O ' Br i e n in JHS, 1968, 95 f.
(10) L Y C O P H R O N
Lycophron has already found mention in these pages for his theory
that la w wa s a means o f gua ran tee ing an ind ivid ual 's r ight s against his
fel low-ci t izens but had no concern with posi t ive morali ty, his dis
pa ragemen t o f nob le b i r t h , and h is the ory of lan gua ge and epi s tem o-
l o g y . T h o u g h the chal lenge to ar i s tocracy wa s c om mo n en ou gh a t or
befo re his t ime, as w e see from A nt ip ho n and Eurip ides , these dicta are
co l l ec t i ve ly sufficient to m a ke hi m ap pea r a h i g h l y in te re st in g figure,
and it is unfor tuna te that w e k n o w scarce ly an yth ing e lse abo ut h im.Aristot le referred to him as a Sophist , 3 and he is gen era l ly agr eed to
appropriate metaphor ( 1406 b n ) . Cicero thought better of him, calling his redundancy ulertas
and judgi ng h im rhetor antiquus in primis nobilis, wh il e admi tti ng that the subtlet ies of phil osop hic
reasoning were beyond him (Tusc. 1 . 4 8 . 1 1 6 ) .1 Nestle (VM\uL, 344f.) const ructs a theor y of the relation between politi cs and phi los oph y
in Alc idamas by t r ans l at i ng a poo r ly a tt es ted r ead ing ν ο μ ίμ ο υ ς for ν ό μ ο υ ς i n Ar. Rhet. 1406323.No editor prints this , and i t wo ul d weaken Aristot le 's point about red undancy , but Nestle
adopts it with out comme nt or hint of another rea ding . (He has in fact silent ly take n it over from
Salomon in Savigny-Stift. 1 9 1 1 , 154. )3 C i c . Tusc. 1 . 4 8 . 1 1 6 . See Radermacher, 155.3 Pol. 1 2 8 0 b : 1 . Th is is presum ably w h y DK include him in the Vorsokratiker but not A l c i
damas with his striking statement about slavery. The testimonies occupy just a page (DK no. 83,vol. 1 1 , 307 f . ) .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 326/357
The Men
have been a pupi l o f Gorg ia s , wh ich , t hough it is nowhere express ly
stated, 1 w e m a y take as ext remely probable , as also that h e was rough ly
con tempora ry wi th h is fe l low-pupi l Alc idamas . Ar is to t le c r i t ic izes all
three fo r similar faults o f s ty le . O f Lycophron ' s b i r thplace , da te a n d
l i fe-history nothing whatever is recorded.
( i l ) A N O N Y M O U S W R I T E R S 2
( a ) The 'Anonymus Iamblichi ' 3
O f the content o f th i s work I have spoken above (p p . 71 ff.). T h e
Protrepticus o f Iambl ichus is a cento o f u n a c k n o w l e d g e d b o r r o w i n g s
from earl ier phi losophers, as one may see f rom i ts incorpora t ion o fword-for-word ext rac ts f rom the Phaedo. It is universal ly agreed
(however much opin ions m a y differ i n detail) that B y w a t e r w a s
correc t in detec t ing in it considerable port ions o f t he lost Protrepticus
o f Ari s to t l e . The re is then n o a priori difficulty in suppos ing that other
parts are taken straight from an o the rwise unknown wr i t i ng of t he
late fifth o r early fourth century, a n d this w a s demonstrated b y
Friedrich Blass in 1899, t h o u g h that is not to say that the paragraphs
in question form either o n e continuous extract or the w h o l e o f t he work .
Many attempts have been made t o assign th e fragments t o a k n o w n
author, b u t none h as w o n general assent. B l a s s , wh o s e ac um en first
detected their origin in the per iod of the Aufklarung, t hough t o f
A n t i p h o n th e Sophist , b u t this w a s d i sp roved b y t h e la ter discovery
o f the papyrus fragments o f A n t i p h o n ' s Truth. F o r K . Joel h e w a s
Ant is thenes (and it is true that Ant is thenes wrote a Protrepticus,
which Iamblichus could have plundered as he did A r i s t o t l e ' s ) ;
W i l a m o w i t z surpris ingly thought Cri t ias ' n o t imposs ib l e ' ( t hough h e
had earl ier considered Protagoras); Cataudella saw the w o r k as a
collect ion o f extracts from an ethico-political treatise o f D e m o c r i t u s ,
1 DK say 'v iel leicht Gorgiasschuler ' ( n , 3 07 η . ). T h e argument for placing him in the school
of Gorgias (an d it is a stro ng one ) depe nds on Aristotle's criticisms of hi s s t y l e . Se e ZN , 1 3 2 3 ,n. 3,and Nestle, VMiuL, 343. On his date and relation to Alcidamas se e Popper, O.S. 261, w h ofrankly admits that all this, l i k e anyth ing to do with th e circumstances of Lycophron ' s l i fe , must
be highly speculative.3 Of the 'Anon. τ τ .ν ό μ ω ν 'enough has been said above, pp . 75 ff.3 Text, from Iambi. Protr. chapter 20, in DK, 1 1 , 400 ff.
3 M
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 327/357
'Anon. lamblichi': Authorship ,ιη ,Ι Ihiw
N e s t l e t h o u g h t o f A n t i p h o n o f R h a i n m r ; , I inirnii-itn-ι b ι n n v i i u r d
tha t t h e au thor is Hippias . H . G o m p i r / . .il-.n im l i m d m i h h v i e w hut
did n o t , i n Unters te ine r ' s op in ion , yn l.n r n n i i | ' , h in ρ π ιν ί ι ιμ , i l .
(Cont ras t Nes t l e , V M { u L , 4 3 0 : 111» · U I I I < T v. ' i n ev iden t oppos i t ion
to t h e reo^zoj-doctrine o f H i p p i a s * . ) M 0 . 1 nu nl rm cii ti i' -i ho we ve r
w o u l d admi t tha t w e cannot now In >pe in |>ni Ι mi linger on the aul l inr.
He cou ld w e l l b e some pupi l ο ! Ι Ί η ΐ. Ψ Η Ι . ΐ Ί ,, κ ' ψ ι .t in te d w i t h th e
t e a c h i n g o f other Soph i s t s a n d wiih Ν Η ΐ Ί ,Ι ΐ Ι ··, , ,ιη ιΙ p robab ly not himsel l
a profess ional S oph is t . I I . C o m p e l / . ιΙ ιο ιψ ,Ι ιι he w as on e (.V. u. It. 79) ,
b u t o n s h a k y g r o u n d s , a n d N e s t l e (op. cii. 424) i h o u g h t o f h i m as an
educa ted l ayman l ike C r i i i a s . Wh.il makes il especia l ly unl ikely that
he was a S o p h i s t is his lo w o p i n i o n o ! rhe to r i c . 1
Est imates o f t h e d a t e of the w o r k o n which Iambl ichus d rew have
var ied f rom t h e later years o f the Peloponnes ian W a r , t h e t ime o f t h e
' p o s t - P e r i c l e a n e x t r e m e d e m o c r a c y ' ( N e s t l e , op. cit. 430; D o d d s ,
Gr. and Irrat. 197, n. 27, mak es a s imi lar guess) , t o some t ime i n t h e first
ha l f o f t h e four th cen tu ry. Thus Gigan te (Norn. Bas. 177) t h o u g h t o f
it as h a v i n g a l r e a d y a Socra t i c -P la ton ic bas i s . Pau l Shorey s t ruck a
n o t e o f c a u t i o n i n Τ Α Ρ Α , 1909 , 192 , η . ι . H e p o i n t e d o u t tha t s ince
Blass ' s t ime t h e f ragments have been pruned b y t h e re jec t ion o f s o m e
material taken from Plato a n d Isocra tes , a n d c la imed to see e c h o e s o f
Plato here a n d there i n what r emains . H e though t the re fo re tha t w e
should l imi t t h e a m o u n t o f dir ect ly qu ot ed fif th-cen tury pr os e st i ll
further, and admit t h e h y p o t h e s i s tha t what remains came t o I a m b l i c h u s
t h r o u g h a n in te rmedia te P la t on iz ing source . I n m a k i n g u s e o f t h e
extracts earlier I have t r ied t o conf ine m y s e l f t o indubitably fifth- a n d
four th -cen tu ry mat te r.
F o r b i b l i o g r a p h y o n t h e subject see Z N , 1328, n . 2 ; D K , 11, 400 n .
( w i t h t h e Nachtrage i n la ter edi t ions) ; Unters te iner, Sof. 111 , 1 1 o f . ;
G i g a n t e , Norn. Bas. 1 7 7 ; a n d t h e notes t o A . T . C o l e ' s art icle i n
HSCP, 1961.1 A . T. C o l e h a s recently ( in HSCP, 1961) argu ed stron gly for a modi f i c adon of Cataudel la ' s
v i e w, acco rd in g to w h i c h th e wri te r i s ' an Athen i an fol lower o f Democr i t u s , much more influ
enced t han h i s master b y late fifth-century rhe tor ic \ His art icle i s especial ly in te res t ing a b o u t t h einfluence of the ' A n o n . ' on later phi losophy.
1 1 31 5 G S P
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 328/357
The Men
(b) The 'Double Arguments' 1
T h i s curious litt le work in a mainly Doric dialect appears at the end
o f manuscripts o f Sextus Emp iri cus wi th no indicat ion of author or
title. It is ob vi ou s ly inc omp let e, and the ultimat e purp ose of the wri te r
is not clear. Stephanus christened it the Dialexeis, but in recent times
it has been known as the Dissoi Logoi, ' D o u b l e ( o r Tw i n ) A r g u m e n t s ' ,
f rom the ope nin g wo rd s, wh ic h recur later, ' D o u b l e argu ments are
mainta ined (or ' two v i e w s a r e t a k e n ' ) c o n c e r n i n g . . . ' 2 It has no
literary or philosophical merit , and is most plausibly thought to be a
pupil ' s notes from a teacher w h o had adopt ed P rot agor as ' s me tho ds
or alternati vely som et hi ng wr it te n by a teacher for his pupils . A s suc h
it is o f interest for the typ e o f te ach ing current in the seco nd gen er ati ono f Sophists and also as sh ow in g h o w the arg ume nt a bout the teach
abil i ty o f vir t ue had degenerat ed into a sch ool com mo npl ac e. T h e
date is fortunately fixed at about 400 B . C . b y a refer ence to the
v i c t o r y o f the Spar tans ov er the At he ni an s an d their allies as ' v e r y
recen t ' .
Pro tagoras , we know, main ta ined that there are t wo cont rar y a rg u
ments on eve ry subjec t , and h imsel f com pos ed tw o bo ok s o f 'A nt i l og i e s ' . In this w a y he set his pupil s to debate, rec onc ili ng the op po si ng
v i e w s or jus tif ying one against the other. T h e present le ct ur e— or
series o f te xt boo k ex am pl es —l oo ks l ike an imitat ion o f this met hod .
Many of the chapters start off by saying that ' t w o v i e w s are taken '
about good and e v i l , or justice and injustice, fair and foul, t r u t h and
fa l sehood : the one that they are the same, the other that they are differ
ent. The writer sets out the arguments, and adopts one v i e w himself .
Th us in chapte r 1, ' O n G o o d and E v i l ' , we have the relativist v i e w o f
g o o d and bad set forth in a way similar to Protagoras's in Plato's
d ia logue (Prot. 334, pp. 166f. a bo v e ) , but w it h so me rid icul ous ar gu -
1 For a fuller account see Taylor, Var. Socr. i, chapter 3, 9 1 - 1 2 8 .Attempts to assign the w or k
to a particular author have not been successful. For various views on this, and on its general
character, see Untersteiner, Sophs. 308, n. 2, and Sof. i n , I48f. Further bibl iography w i l l be
found in O'Brien, Socr. Paradoxes, 75, n. 47. Text in DK, I I , 405 ff.2 If the conception is Prot agor ean, the phras e itself seems to be an allusi on to Eu rip ides ,
fr. 189 (fr om the Antiope):έ κ π α ν τ ό ς ά ν τ ις π ρ ά γ μ α τ ο ςδ ι σ σ ώ νλ ό γ ω να γ ώ ν α θ ε ΐτ 'α ν εΐ λ έ γ ε ι νε ϊη σ ο φ ό ς .
Fo r other echoes of Euripides see Taylor, Var. Socr. 1, 96.
3 1 6
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 329/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 330/357
The Men
These evidently form a series o f stock object ions to the sophistic
profession. T h e writer proceeds t o reply t o them one b y one .
1 . This a rgument , h e thinks, is ' v e r y s i l l y ' (κ ά ρ τ α ε ύ ή θ η ) , fo r
he knows that teachers o f w r i t i n g an d l y re -p l ay ing d o retain the k n o w
l edge they impart .
2. In rep ly to the argument that there are n o recognized teachers o f
vir tue, what , h e asks, do the Sophists teach, i f no t w i s d o m an d vi r tue?
(In the Meno Socrates suggests that the Sophists are the r ight m e n t o
teach vir tue. Anytus is furious at the idea, an d Men o admires Gor gi as
because, unlike th e other Sophists, he makes n o claim t o teach i t . )
A n d what , he g o e s o n , were t h e Anaxagoreans an d Pythagoreans?
(Meaning presumably that they were pupils w h o learned wisdom and
vir tue from Anaxagoras a n d Pythagoras . )3. Against th e th i rd argument , he simply says that Polyc l i t u s d id
teach h i s sons t o make statues (thereby imparting h i s particular sophia
and arete). (Po lyc l i t u s w a s instanced at the v e r y end o f Protagoras ' s
speech, Prot. 328 c, with the sugges t ion that , i f a man's sons did no t
turn out to equal h im a t h i s own arete, this w a s n o t necessarily fo r
l a c k o f t eaching . ) Moreover, i f someone h as failed t o teach, this i s no
argument, whereas, i f a single one has taught i t , that is p r o o f that i t
can b e taught .
4. If it is true that some have n o t learned wi s do m from Sop hists ,
it is also true that m a n y w h o have been taught t o read a nd write have
not learned these arts.
5. Against th e fifth argument he says that after all natural talent
(physis) does count fo r something . O n e w h o h a s n o t learned from t he
Sophists m a y d o v e r y w e l l , i f he h as a g i f t f o r picking things u p easily,
after learning a little from those w h o teach us l anguage—that i s , our
parents. O n e m a y learn from h is father, another from his mother, o n e
more , o n e less. I f anyone bel ieves that we do no t learn language b u t
are born with a k n o w l e d g e of i t , let him consider tha t , i f a n e w b o r n
child were sent straight to Persia and b r o u g h t u p there, h e w o u l d
speak Persian and no t Greek . W e learn language without knowing
w h o are our teachers.
In th e same w a y Protagoras at Prot. 327 introduces the not ion o fnatural bent ( ε ύ φ ν ί α , cf. ε υ φ υ ή ς in Diss. Log.), s u g g e s t i n g that some
3i8
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 331/357
The 'Double Arguments' on Teaching Virtue
h a v e a greater talent f o r virtue just as fo r flute-playing, and g o e s o n to
in t roduce the a n a l o g y o f l anguage , which w e l ea rn wi th ou t k no wi ng
w h o are our teachers. A child 's education in vir tue begins at bir th
w i t h h i s parents an d nurse and is cont inued b y the schoo l and in later
l i fe b y the ci ty i t se lf thro ugh its laws (325 c i f . ) . T h e Sophis t does n o t
claim to be the sole teacher o f vir tue , b u t o n l y t o carry this education
further than others.
Since w e m a y assume this document to hav e bee n wri t ten befor e
P la to ' s Protagoras, it s h o w s that the object ions to the thesis that vir tue
is teachable, which Socrates raises i n that dia logue i n order t o d r a w
Pro tagoras out , a re based o n we ll -k no wn mater ial f rom current and
ear l i e r con t roversy. When w e add the points in c o m m o n b e t w e e n the
wri ter ' s reply an d that o f Plato ' s Protagoras , it lends support t o w h a t
o n e w o u l d in any case think probable, that the long speech which
Plato assigns t o Protagoras reproduces substantial ly t h e v i e w s o f the
Sophist himself . 1
C h a p t e r 7 argues that the use of the lot rather than election i n
appo in tment t o O F F I C E is neither efficient n o r t ruly democratic, chapter 8is an attempt t o maintain that the good speaker knows every th ing
a b o u t e v e r y t h i n g , 2 and the final, incomplete section deals with the
va lue o f a g o o d m e m o r y. T h e argument that magis t ra tes ought n o t
to b e appointed b y l o t because exper t knowledge is as necessary fo r
g o v e r n m e n t as for a n y other occupat ion is on e used b y Socrates . That
w h i c h f o l l o w s i t , h o w e v e r , that the lot is undemocrat ic because i t
l e a v e s it to chance whether a friend o f d e m o c r a c y or an ol iga rch is
appo in ted , would n o t have commended i t se l f t o Socrates, w h o h a d
g r a v e doubts abou t t h e w i s d o m o f democra t i c government . I t recurs
in Isocra tes . 3
1 P. 64 above, with notes. Cf. Nestle in his edition of the Protagoras. H e takes it for granted
that the obvious connexions of Dissoi Logoi, chapter <5, with th e speech in the Prot. are connexions
of both wi th the original work of Protagoras on which they are based, and sugges ts that i t wa sthe Π ε ρ ί α ρ ε τ ώ νmentioned in D.L. 9.55, just as the story of human nature and progress in thedia logue w a s based on his Π ε ρ ίτ η ςε ν ά ρ χ η κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς .
1 1 cannot agree widi Taylor that the purpose of this chapter is to establish the Socratic thesis
that th e dialectician i s also th e philosopher wh o i s identical with the ' t rue ' s tatesman and orator.
Its claim is far more l i k e that of Hippias (whom Taylor mentions in a footnote, VS, 127, n. 1)that th e Sophist-orator is omniscient.
3 See Xen . Mem. 1 . 2 .9 , Arist . Rhet. I393b4, Isocr. Areop. 23, Tay lo r, VS, I23f.
3 1 9
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 332/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 333/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 334/357
Bibliography
B I N D E R , G. and L I E S E N B O R G H S , L . 'Eine Zuweisung der Sentenz ο ύ κ i c m v ά ν τ ι λ έ γ ί ΐ υ
an Prodikos von Keos' , Museum Helveticum, 1 9 6 6 , 3 7 - 4 3 .
B J O R N B O , 'H ipp ias ' , RE, v m ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 1 7 0 6 - 1 1 .
B L A K E , R. Disraeli. London, 1 9 6 6 .
B L A S S , F. Die attische Beredsamkeit. 2 n d ed., 3 vols., Leipzig, 1 8 8 7 - 9 8 .
B L A S S , F. De Antiphonte sophista lamblichi auctore. Kiel, 1 8 9 9 .
B L U C K , R. S. Plato's Meno, edited with Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge, 1 9 6 1 .B O R T H W I C K , Ε . K. Review of Anderson's Ethos and Education in Greek Music, CR, 1 9 6 8 ,
2 0 0 - 3 .
B R O C K E R , W . 'Gorgias contra Parmenides', Hermes, 1 9 5 8 , 4 2 5 - 4 0 .
B R O C K E R , W . Die Geschichte der Philosophie vor Sokrates. Frankfurt am Main, 1 9 6 5 .
B R Z O S K A , J . 'A lk idamas ' , RE, 1 ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 1 5 3 3 - 9 .
B U R K E RT, W . IVeisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien ^u Pythagoras, Philolaos und PLton.
Niirnberg, 1 9 6 2 .
B U R K E RT, W . Review of Untersteiner's / Sofisti, GGA, 1 9 6 4 , 1 4 1 - 4 .
B U R N E T, J. Greek Philosophy: Part I, Thales to Plato (all published). London, 1 9 2 4 .
B U R N E T, J. Early Greek Philosophy. 4t h ed., London, 1 9 3 0 .B U R Y, R. G. The Symposium of Plato edited with introduction, critical notes and com
mentary. Cambridge (Heffer), 1 9 0 9 .
B U R Y, R. G. Sextus Empiricus, with an English translation. 3 vols., London, Cambridge
(Mass.) and New York (Loeb ed.), 1 9 3 3 - 6 .
C A I Z Z I , F. ' Antistene', Studi Urbinati, 1 9 6 4 , 2 5 - 7 6 .
C A I Z Z I , F. D . Antisthenis Fragmenta. Milan, 1 9 6 6 .
C A L O G E R O , G . Studi sull' Eleatismo. R o m e , 1 9 3 2 .
C A L O G E R O , G . 'Gorg ias and the Socratic Principle Nemo sua spontepeccat', JHS, 1 9 5 7
( 1 ) , 1 2 - 1 7 .
C A M P B E L L , A. H. 'Obl iga t ion and Obedience to Law', Proceedings of the British
Academy, 1 9 6 5 , 3 3 7 ~ 5 5 -
C A M P B E L L , L . The Theatetus of Plato, with a revised text and English notes. Oxford,
1 8 8 3 .C A P I Z Z I , A . Protagora: le testimonian ^e e iframmenti, edi ione riveduta e ampliata con uno
studio su la vita, le opere, il pensiero e la fortuna. Florence, 1 9 5 5 .
C A S S I R E R , E . The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, transl. F. C. A. Koelln and J . P.
Pettegrove. Princeton Univ. Press, 1 9 5 1 . (Beacon Press repr. 1 9 6 2 . )
C AT A U D E L L A ,Q . 'Intorno a Prodico di Ceo', in Studi di anticliita classica offerti. . .a
E. Ciaceri. Genoa, 1 9 4 0 .
C AT A U D E L L A ,Q . ' C h i e l 'Anonimo di Giamblico?', REG, 1 9 5 0 , 7 4 - 1 0 6 .
C H E R N I S S , H. Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy. Baltimore, 1935 (reprinted
New York, 1 9 6 4 ) .
C H I A P P E L L I ,A . 'P er la storia della Sofistica greca', Archivfiir Geschichte der Philosophie,
1890 , i— 21.
C L A S S E N ,C . J . 'T he Study of Language among Socrates' Contemporaries' , Proceedings
of the African Classical Associations, 1959, 33—49.
C L A S S E N ,C . J . 'Bemerkungen zu zwei griechischen Philosophie-historikern', Philologus,
τ9 6ϊ> 1 7 5 - 8 1 .
C O L E , A. T. , JR. 'The Anonymus lamblichi and its Place in Greek Political T h e o r y ' ,
HSCP, 1 9 6 1 , 1 2 7 - 6 3 .
C O L E , A. T., JR. 'The A p o l o g y of Protagoras', Yale Classical Studies, 1 9 6 6 , 1 0 1 - 1 8 .
C O O K , R. M. ' A m a s i s and the Greeks in E gy p t ' , J H S , 1 9 5 7 , 2 2 6 - 3 7 .
322
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 335/357
Bibliography
C O P E , Ε . M . The Rhetoric of Aristotle with a Commentary, revised and edited by J. E.
Sandys . 3 vols. , Cambridge, 1 8 7 7 .
C O P E , Ε . M . An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric. L o n d o n , 1 8 6 7 .
C O R N F O R D , F. M. Before and After Socrates. Cambridge, 1 9 3 2 (and later reprints).
C O R N F O R D , F. M. Plato's Theory of Knowledge. L o n d o n , 1935 (and later reprints).
C O R N F O R D , F. M. The Republic of Plato, translated with introduction and notes. Oxford,
1 9 4 1 (and later reprints).
C O U L T E R , J . A. 'The Rela t ion of the Apology of Socrates to Gorgias 's Defense of Pala-
medes and Plato's critique of Gorgianic rhetoric', HSCP, 1 9 6 4 , 2 6 9 - 3 0 3 .
C R O I S E T , A. 'Les nouveaux fragments d 'An t iphon ' , Revue des etudes grecques, 1 9 1 7 ,
1 - 1 9 ·C R O S S , R. C . and W O O Z L E Y , A . D . Plato's Republic, a Philosophical Commentary.
L o n d o n , 1 9 6 4 .
C R O S SM A N ,R. H. S. Plato Today. 2nd ed., L o n d o n , 1 9 5 9 .
C U F F L E Y, V. ' T h e Classical Greek Concep t of Slavery ' , JHI, 1 9 6 6 , 3 2 3 - 4 2 .
D ' A D D I O , M . L'idea del contratto sociale dai Sofisti alia Riforma. Milan, 1 9 5 4 .D AV I S O N , J . A. 'P ro tagoras , Democritus and Anaxagoras ' , CQ, 1 9 5 3 , 3 3 - 4 5 .
D E C H A R M E ,P . La critique des traditions religieuses che{ les grecs. Paris, 1904 .
D E S P L A C E S , E. R e v i e w of Heinimann's Nomos undPhysics, L'Antiquiti Classique, 1 9 6 5 ,
6 7 3 f.
D E V E R E U X ,G. From Anxiety to Method in the Social Sciences. T h e Hague and Paris , 1 9 6 7 .
D E V L I N , L O R D . ' T h e Enforcement of Morals' , Proceedings of the British Academy, 1 9 5 9 ,
1 2 9 - 5 1 .
D E V L I N , L O R D . The Enforcement of Morals. L o n d o n , 1 9 6 5 . (Oxford p. backs, 1968 . )
D I E K L , E. 'Kririas', RE, xi ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 1 9 0 1 - 1 2 .
D I E H L , E. (ed . ) . Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, 2 vols . , Leipzig, 1 9 2 5 .
D I E H L , E. ' M o s c h i o n ' , RE, x x x i . Halbb . ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 3 4 5 - 7 .
D I E L S , H . Doxographi Graeci. Berlin, 1 8 7 9 .
D I E L S , H . 'Gorgias und Empedokles", Sit^ungsberichte der preussischen Akademie (SB
Berlin), 1 8 8 4 , 3 4 3 - 6 8 .
D I E L S , H . and K R A N Z , W . Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Greek and German). 10 th
ed., 3 vols . , Berlin, 1 9 6 0 - 1 .
D I T T E N B E R G E R ,W . Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 3rd ed., 4 vols . , Leipzig, 1 9 1 5 — 2 1 .
D I T T M A R , H . Aischines von Sphettos: Studien $ur Literaturgeschichte der Sokratiker.
Berlin, 1 9 1 2 .D O B S O N ,J. F. The Greek Orators. L o n d o n , 1 9 1 9 .
? D O D D S , E. R. Euripides, Bacchae, edited with an introduction and commentary. Oxford,
1 9 4 4 .
D O D D S , E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. California Univ. Press, 1 9 5 1 .
D O D D S ,E. R. Plato, Gorgias, a Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford,
1 9 5 9 .
D O V E R , K. J. 'Eros and N o m o s ' , BICS, 1 9 6 4 , 3 1 - 4 2 .
D R A C H M A N N ,A. B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. L o n d o n , 1 9 2 2 (transl. from D a n i s h ) .
D U M M L E R , F. Akademika: Beitrage %ur Litteraturgeschichte der sokratischen Schulen.
Giessen, 1 8 8 9 .
D U P R E E L , E. Les Sophistes. Neucha t e l , 1 9 4 8 .
E D E L S T E I N , L . The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity. Baltimore, 1 9 6 7 .
E H R E N B E R G ,V . Die Rechtsidee imfruhen Griechentum. Leipzig, 1 9 2 1 .
E H I I E N B K R G ,V. ' I sonomia ' , RE, Suppl. vn ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 2 9 3 - 9 .
3 2 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 336/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 337/357
Bibliography
G R O T E , G . Plato and the other Companions of Sokrates, 3rd ed. 3 vols., London, 1 8 7 5 .
G R O T E , G . A History of Greece from the Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation
Contemporary with Alexander the Great. 10 vols. , 6 t h ed., vol. 7, London, 1888 .
G U T H R I E , W . K. C . 'Notes on seme passages in the second book of Aristotle's Physics',
C Q , 1 9 4 6 , 70-6·G U T H R I E , W. K. C. The Greeks and their Gods. London, 1950 (and later reprints).
G U T H R I E , W . K. C . Orpheus and Greek Religion. Corrected ed., London, 1 9 5 2 .
G U T H R I E , W . K. C . Plato, Protagoras and Meno, translated with introduction, sum
maries, etc. Harmondsworth (Penguin Books), 1 9 5 6 (and later reprints).
G U T H R I E , W . K. C . In the Beginning: some Greek views on the origins of life and the early
state of man. London, 1 9 5 7 .
H A C K F O R T H , R. Plato's Phaedrus, translated with introduction and commentary. C a m
bridge, 1 9 5 2 .
H A M I L T O N , E. and C A I R N S , H . (ed.). The Collected Dialogues of Plato including the
Letters. New York, 1 9 6 1 .
H A M I L T O N , W . The Symposium by Plato, a new translation. Harmondsworth (PenguinBooks), 1 9 5 1 (and later reprints).
H A R D T F O U N D AT I O N .See Entretiens. . .
H A R E , R. M. Freedom and Reason. Oxford, 1963 (and later reprints).
H A R R I S O N , A. R. W. The Laws of Athens: Family and Property. Oxford, 1 9 6 8 .
H A R R I S O N , E. L . 'Was Gorgias a Sophist? ' , Phoenix, 1 9 6 4 , 1 8 3 - 9 2 .
H A R R I S O N , E. L. 'Plato 's Manipulation of T h r a s y m a c h u s ' , Phoenix, 1 9 6 7 , 2 7 - 3 9 .
H A R T , H. L . A. Law, Liberty and Morality. Oxford, 1 9 6 3 .
H AV E L O C K , E . A . The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics. London, 1 9 5 7 .
H E A T H , T. L . A History of Greek Mathematics. 2 vols. , Oxford, 1 9 2 1 .
H E I N I M A N N , F. Nomos und Physis: Herkunft undBedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen
Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts. Basel, 1945 (reprinted 1 9 6 5 ) .
H I R Z E L , R . Der Dialog. 2 vols. , Leipzig, 1 8 9 5 .
HlRZEL, R . "Α γ ρ α φ ο ςν ό μ ο ς .Abhandlungen der sdchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Ph.-hist. Klasse, 1 9 0 3 , no. 1.
H O B B E S , T . Leviathen, ed. R. Waller. Cambridge, 1904 .
H O L L A N D , R. F. ' O n Making Sense of a Philosophical Fragment', CQ, 1 9 5 6 , 2 1 5 - 2 0 .
H O U R A N I , G. F. ' T h r a s y m a c h u s ' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic', Phronesis,
1 9 6 2 , 1 1 0 - 2 0 .
H U M E , D . Essays and Treatises. Edinburgh, 1 8 2 5 .
H U M E , D . Of the Original Contract. In Social Contract, ed. Barker, q.v.
J A C O B Y, F. Diagoras ό ά θ ε ο ς . Berlin, i 9 6 0 . (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der
IVissenschaften, Ph.-hist. KL, 1 9 5 9 , no. 3. )
J A E G E R , W . Paideia: the Ideals of Greek Culture, transl. G . Highet . 3 vols. , Oxford,
1 9 3 9 - 4 5 (vol. 1, 2nd ed.).
J A E G E R , W . The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Oxford, 1 9 4 7 .
J A E G E R , W . Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development, transl. R. R o b i n
son, 2 n d ed., Oxford, 1948 (and later reprints).
J O A D , C . Ε . M . 'P la to Defended ' , Journal of Education, 1 9 4 5 , 1 6 3 - 5 .
J O E L , K. Geschichte der antiken Philosophic 1. Band, Tubingen, 1 9 2 1 .J O H N , H. 'Das musikerziehende Wirken Pythagoras ' und D a m o n s ' , Das Altertum, 1 9 6 2 ,
6 7 - 7 2 .
J O N E S , W . H. S. Hippocrates, with an English Translation. Vols . 1 , 1 1 and IV, London and
New York (Loeb ed.), 1 9 2 3 - 3 1 .
3 2 5
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 338/357
Bibliography
326
J O S E P H , Η . W . B . Essays in Ancient and Modern Philosophy. O x f o r d , 1 9 3 5 .
J O W E T T , B . The Dialogues of Plato translated into English with Analyses and Introductions.
4 t h ed. , 4 vols . , Oxford, 1 9 5 3 .
K A E R S T, J. ' D i e Ents tehun g der Vertragstheorie im Al ter tum', Zeitschrift fiir Politik,
1 9 0 9 , 5 0 5 - 3 8 .
K A H N , C . H . Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmogony. N e w York , i 9 6 0 .
K A H N , C . H . ' T h e Greek Ve rb "to b e" and the Con ce pt of Be in g' , Foundations of
Language, 1 9 6 6 , 2 4 5 - 6 5 .
K E L S E N , H . ' P l a t o n i c L o v e ' , American Imago, 3 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 3 - 1 0 9 .
K E N N E D Y, G . The Art of Persuasion. L o n d o n , 1 9 6 3 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'T h e Doctr in e o f Thrasymachus in Plato 's Republic', Durham Univ.
Journal, 1 9 4 7 , 1 9 - 2 7 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'The First Greek Sophists ' , CR, 1 9 5 0 , 8 - 1 0 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'Protagoras's Doctrine of Justice and Virtue in the Protagoras o f P l a t o ' ,
JHS, 1 9 5 3 , 4 2 - 5 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'T h e Relat ivism of Prod icus ' , Bulletin of the John Rylands Library,
x x x v n ( 1 9 5 4 - 5 ) , 2 4 9 - 5 6 ·
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'Gorgias on Nature or that which is not' , Phronesis, 1 9 5 5 , 3 - 2 5 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'T h e Moral and Poli t ical Do ctr ines of A nti phon the Sophist ' , PCPS,
n.s. iv ( 1 9 5 6 - 7 ) , 2 6 - 3 2 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. 'Thrasymachus and Just ice: a Reply ' , Phronesis, 1 9 6 4 , 1 2 - 1 6 .
K E R F E R D , G. B. Review of L loyd ' s Polarity and Analogy, CR, 1 9 68 , 7 7 - 9 .
K E R N , O . (ed . ) . Orphicorum Fragmenta. Berlin, 1 9 2 2 .
K I R K , G. S. and R AV E N , J. E. The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambr idge , 1 9 5 7 . (Selected
texts with introduction and commentary.)
K N E A L E , W . and M. The Development of Logic. O x f o r d , 1 9 6 2 .
K N I G H T , A . H. J. Some Aspects of the Life and Work of Nietzsche, and particularly of his
connexion with Greek literature and thought. Cambr idge , 1 9 3 3 .
K R O L L , W . ' R h e t o r i k ' , RE, Suppl. vu ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 0 3 9 - 1 1 3 8 .
L A S L E T T, P . See L O C K E , J.
L A S S E R R E , F. Plutarque De la musique (text, translation and commentary, with a study
of musical education in Greece). Lausanne, 1 9 5 4 .
L E E , H . D . P. Plato, the Republic: a new translation. Harmondsworth (Penguin Classics) ,
1 9 5 5 ·
L E I S E G A N G , H. 'P la ton ( 1 ) D e r P h i l o s o p h ' , RE, XL. Halb b . ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 2 3 4 2 - 5 3 7 .
' L E S K Y, A . A History of Greek Literature. 2 n d ed. , transl. J. Wi llis and C . de He er,L o n d o n , 1 9 6 6 .
L E V I , A . ' L e teorie metafisiche logiche e gnoseol ogiche di An tis te ne ' , Revue del'histoire
de la philosophie, 1 9 3 0 , 227—49.
L E V I , A ' T h e Ediica l and Social Th ou gh t of Protagoras ' , Mind, 1 9 4 0 , 2 8 4 - 3 0 2 .
L E V I , A . 'Studies on Pro tagoras. T h e Man- measure Prin ciple: its mean ing and applica
t ions ' , Philosophy, 1 9 4 0 , 1 4 7 - 6 7 .
L E V I , A . 'Ippia di Elide e la corren te naturalistica della Sofis tica' , Sophia, 1 9 4 2 , 4 4 1 - 5 0 .
L E V I N S O N , R. B. In Defense of Plato. Ca mbr idge , Mass ., 1 9 5 3 .
L E V Y, M . A . Political Power in the Ancient World, t ransl . Jane Costel lo. London, 1 9 6 5 .
L E Y D E N , W . V O N . 'Ar i s to t le and the Concept o f Law' , Philosophy, 1 9 5 7 , 1 - 1 9 .L I T T R E , E. (Euvres Completes d'Hippocrate. Traduction nouvelle, avec le texte grec en
regard. . . accompagne d'une introduction, de commentaires medicaux, etc. Paris, 1 8 3 9 — 6 1 .
L L O Y D , G. E. R. ' W h o is Atta cked in On Ancient Medicine?', Phronesis, 1 9 6 3 , 1 0 8 - 2 6 .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 339/357
Bibliography
L L O Y D , G. E. R. Polarity and Analogy: two types of argumentation in early Greek thought.
Cambr idge , 1 9 6 6 .
L L O Y D , G. E. R. ' T h e Role of Medical a n d Biological Analogies in Aristot le ' s Ethics ' ,
Phronesis, 1 9 6 8 , 6 8 - 8 3 .
L L O Y D - J O N E S , H . ' Z e u s i n A e s c h y l u s ' , / / z ^ S , 1 9 5 6 , 5 5 - 6 7 .
L O C K E , J . Second Treatise on Civil Government. In Social Contract, ed. Barker, q.v.
L O C K E , J . Two Treatises of Government. Edited by P. Laslet t , Cambridge, i 9 6 0 .
L O E N E N , D . Protagoras and the Greek Community. Amsterdam, 1 9 4 0 .
L O N G R I G G , J . 'Ph i losophy a n d Medic ine : some early interactions', HSCP, 1 9 6 3 , 1 4 7 - 7 5 .
L O R E N Z , K. a n d M I T T E L S T R A S S, J . 'O n Rat iona l Phi l osophy of La nguage: t h e P r o
gramme in Plato ' s Cratylus Reconsidered', Mind, 1 9 6 7 , 1 - 2 0 .
L U R I A , S. 'Ant iphon d e r Sophis t ' , Eos, 1 9 6 3 , 63—7.
M A A S, P. 'Kinesias ' , RE, x x i . H a l b b . ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 4 7 9 - 8 1 .
M A A SS , E. ' Unte rsuchungen zur Geschi cht e d e r griechischen Prosa: I . Uber d i e erhal-
t e n e n Reden d e s G o rg i a s ' , Hermes, 1 8 8 7 , 5 6 6 - 8 1 .
M A G UI RE , J . P. ' P l a t o ' s Theory of Natura l Law' , Yale Classical Studies, 1 9 4 7 , 1 5 1 - 7 8 .
M A Y E R , H . Prodikos von Keos und die Anfange der Synonymik hei den Griechen. Paderborn ,
1 9 1 3 .
M E N Z E L , A . ( 1 ) ' P ro tagoras a l s Gesetzgeber v o n T h u r i o i ' , ( 2 ) ' D i e Sozialphiloso-
phischen Lehren d e s Protagoras ' . Both n o w i n his Hellenika (Gesammelte Heine
Schriften), B a d e n - b e i - Wi e n , 1 9 3 8 , pp . 6 6 - 8 2 a n d 8 3 - 1 0 7 .
M E R L A N , P. 'Alexander t h e Great or Antiphon t h e Sophist? ' , CP, 1 9 5 0 , 1 6 1 - 6 .
M E W A L D T , J . Kulturkampf der Sofisten. Tu b i n g e n , 1 9 2 8 .
M O M I G L I A N O ,A . 'Prodi co d i C e o e le dottrine d e l l inguaggio da De mocri t o ai Ci ni ci ' ,
Atti della Accademia delle Science di Torino, Classe di Science morali, storiche e filologiche,
L X V ( 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ) , 9 5 - 1 0 7 .
M O M I G L I A N O ,A . ' S u l pensiero di Antifonte i l sofista', Rivista difilologia classica, 1 9 3 0 ,
1 2 9 - 4 0 .
MoNDOLFO, R. Proilemi del pensiero antico. Bologna , 1 9 3 6 .
M O N D O L F O .See also Z E L L E R - M O N D O L F O .
M O O R E , G. E. Principia Ethica. Cambr idge , 1 9 0 3 .
M O R R I S O N , J. S. ' T h e Place o f Protagoras i n Athenian Publ ic Li fe ' , CQ, 1 9 4 1 , 1 - 1 6 .
* M O R RI SO N , J. S. 'A n Introductory C hapter in t h e His tory of Greek Educati on ' , Durham
Univ. Journal, 1 9 4 9 , 5 5 - 6 3 .
M O R R I S O N , J. S. ' T h e Origins of Plato 's Philosopher-Statesman' , CQ, 1 9 5 8 , 1 9 8 - 2 1 8 .M O R R I S O N , J . S . ' A n t i p h o n ' , PCPS, 1 9 6 1 , 4 9 - 5 8 .
M O R R I SO N , J. S. ' T h e Truth o f A n t i p h o n ' , Phronesis, 1 9 6 3 , 3 5 - 4 9 .
M O S E R , S. a n d K U S TA S , G . L . Ά C o m me n t o n t he " Relativism " of Protagoras', Phoenix,
1 9 6 6 , i n — 1 5 .
M U LL E R , C . W . 'Protagoras uber d i e G o t t e r ' , Hermes, 1 9 6 7 , 1 4 0 — 5 9 .
M U RR AY, G . Greek Studies. O x f o r d , 1 9 4 6 .
N A U C K , A . (ed.) . Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 2 n d ed. , Leipzig, 1 8 8 9 .
N E S T L E , W . Euripides, der Dichter der griechischen Aufklarung. Stuttgart, 1 9 0 1 .
N E S T L E , W . 'Unte rsuchungen uber d i e philosophischen Quellen d e s Euripides ' ,
Philologus, Supplementband vm, 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 0 1 , 5 5 7 - 6 6 5 .
N E S T L E , W . 'Kr i t i as ' , Neue Jahrbucher fur das klassische Altertum, 1 9 0 3 , 8 1 — 1 0 7 a n d
1 7 8 — 9 9 (reprinted in h i s Griechische Studien, Stuttgart, 1 9 4 8 , 4 0 3 - 2 9 ) .
N E S T L E , W . ' D i e Schrift d e s Gorgias "Uber d i e Natur oder uber d a s N i c h t s e i c n d e " ' ,
Hermes, 1 9 2 2 , 5 5 1 - 6 2 .
327
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 340/357
Bibliography
328
N E S T L E , W . Platon: Protagoras. 7 . Auflage, Leipzig and Berlin, 1 9 3 1 .
N E S T L E , W . ' D i e Horen des Prodikos ' , Hermes, 1 93 6 , 1 5 1 - 7 (reprinted in Griechische
Studien, Stuttgart, 1 9 4 8 , 4 0 3 - 2 9 ) .
N E S T L E , W . 'Xenophon und die Sophist ik ' , Philologus, 1 9 3 9 , 3 1 - 4 0 (reprinted in
Griechische Studien, Stuttgart, 1 9 4 8 , 4 3 0 - 5 0 ) .
N E S T L E , W . Vom Mythos ium Logos. 2 n d ed., Stuttgart, 1 9 4 1 .
N E U R AT H , O . and L A U W E R Y S , P . 'Plato 's Republic and German Education', Journal oj
Education, 1 9 4 5 , 4 7 - 5 9 .
N E W M A N , W . L . The Politics of Aristotle, with an introduction, two prefatory essays and
notes critical and explanatory. 4 vols . , Oxford, 1 8 8 7 - 1 9 0 2 .
N O R T H , H . Sophrosyne: self-knowledge and self-restraint in Greek literature. New York,
1 9 6 6 .
Ν ο τ τ , K. 'German Influence on Modern French T h o u g h t ' , The Listener, 1 3 Jan.
1 9 5 5 ·
O ' B R I E N , D . ' T h e Relation of Anaxagoras and E m p e d o c l e s ' , J H S , 1 9 6 8 , 9 3 - 1 1 3 .
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Β . P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt et al. 1 8 9 8 - (in progress).
P A G E , D . L . 'Pindar: P. O x y. 2 4 5 0 , fr. 1 ' , PCPS, 1 9 6 2 , 4 9 - 5 1 .
P E A R S O N , A . C . ' A t h e i s m (Greek and R o m a n ) ' , Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,
ed. Hastings. Vol . 2 , Edinburgh , 1909 , 184 f.
P E I P E R S , D . Untersuchungen iiber das System Platos. Erster Theil: Die Erkenntnistheorie
Platos. Leipzig, 1 8 7 4 .
P L O B S T . ' Ly s i a s ' , RE, x x v i . Halbb. ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 2 5 3 3 - 4 3 .
P O H L E N Z , M . ' A n o n y m u s Tr e p i ν ό μ ω ν ', Nachrichten der kbniglichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften, Gottingen (Ph.-hist . Klasse), 1 9 2 4 , 1 9 - 3 7 (reprinted in his Kleine
Schriften, vol. II, 3 1 4 — 3 2 ) .
P O H L E N Z , M . ' N o m o s ' , Philologus, 1 9 4 8 , 1 3 5 - 4 2 (reprinted in his Kleine Schriften, ed.
H . Dorrie, Hildesheim, 2 vols . , 1 9 6 5 , vol. 11 , 3 3 3 - 4 0 ) .
P O H L E N Z , M . ' N o m o s und P h y s i s ' , Hermes, 1 9 5 3 , 4 1 8 - 3 8 (reprinted in his Kleine
Schriften, vol. II, 3 4 1 - 6 0 ) .
P O H L E N Z , M . Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 2 vols., Gottingen, 3 r d ed.,
1 9 6 4 .
P O P P E R , SIR K. R . Conjectures and Refutations. 2n d ed., London, 1 9 6 5 .
P O P P E R , SIR K. R . The Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 1, T h e Spell of Plato, 5 th ed.,
London, 1 9 6 6 .
R A D E R M A C H E R , L . Artium Scriptores: Reste der voraristotelischen Rhetorik. Vienna, 1 9 5 1
(Sit^ungsherichte der Osterreichischen Akademie, 227 , 3 ) .
R E N S I , G . Figure di filosofi. Naples, 1 9 3 8 .
R O B I N , L . Greek Thought and the Origins of the Scientific Spirit, transl. from La Pense'e
Grecque by M. R. Dobie. London, 1 9 2 8 . ( A third ed. of the French was published b y
P. - M . Schuhl in 1 9 6 3 . )
R O S E N M AY E R , T. G . ' T h e Family of Critias', AJP, 1 9 4 9 , 4 0 4 - 1 0 .
R O U S S E A U , J.-J. Social Contract and Discourses. London (Everyman ed.), 1 9 1 3 (re
printed 1 9 6 6 ) .
R O U S S E A U , J.-J. The Social Contract, transl. G . Hopkins. In Social Contract, ed. Barker,
q.v.
R U S S E L L , L O R D . Autobiography, vol. 1 1 , London, 1 9 6 8 .S A C H S , E . De Theaeteto Athen'tensi Mathematico. Berlin D i s s . 1 9 1 4 .
S A L O M O N , M. 'Der Begriff des Naturrechts bei den Sophisten ' , Zeitschrift der Savigny-
Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Romische Abteilung, 1 9 1 1 , 1 2 9 - 6 7 .
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 341/357
Bibliography
S C H L A I F E R ,R . 'Greek Theories of Slavery' , HSCP, 1 9 3 6 , 1 6 5 - 2 0 4 (reprinted in Finley,
Slavery, q.v.).
S C H M I D , W I L H E L M and S T X H L I N , O . Geschichte der griechischen Literature. I. Teil, Di e
Classische Periode, 3. Band, 1. Halfte. Munich , 1940 .
S C H U LT Z , W . 'Herakles am Scheidewege', Philologus, 1 9 0 9 , 4 8 9 - 9 9 .
S E LT M A N , C . T. Approach to Greek Art. London, 1948 .
S H O R E Y, P. 'Φ ύ σ ι ς , μ ε λ έ τ η , έ τ τ ί ο τ ή μ η ' ,Τ Α Ρ Α , 1 9 0 9 , 1 8 5 - 2 0 1 .S H O R E Y, P. What Plato Said. Chicago , 1 9 3 3 .
S I C K I N G , C . M. J . 'Gorg ias und die Phi losophen ' , Mnemosyne, 1964, 225—47.
S I D G W I C K , H . ' T h e Sophis ts ' , Journal of Philology, 1 8 7 2 , 2 8 8 - 3 0 7 , and 1 8 7 3 , 6 6 - 8 0 .
S I N C L A I R , A . T. A History of Greek Political Thought. London, 1 9 5 1 .
S K E M P, J. B. Plato's Statesman: a translation of the Politicus of Plato with introductory
essays and footnotes. London, 1 9 5 2 .
S N E L L , B. Die Ausdrucke fur den Begriffdes Wissens. Berlin, 1924 (Philol. Untersuchun
gen, 2 9 ) .
S N E L L , B. The Discovery of the Mind: the Greek Origins of European Thought. Oxford
(Blackwell), 1 9 5 3 .
S O L M S E N , F. Rev iew of Heinimann's Nomos und Physis in AJP, 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 1 — 5 .
S T E G E M A N N , W . ' Te i s i a s ' , RE, 2 . Reihe, ix. Halbb. ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 1 3 9 - 4 9 .
S T E N Z E L , J. 'Ant iphon ' , RE, Suppl. iv ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 3 3 - 4 3 .
S T E N Z E L , J . 'Log ik ' , RE, xxv. Halbb. ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 9 9 1 - 1 0 1 1 .
S T E N Z E L , J. Plato's Method of Dialectic, translated and edited b y D . J. Allan. Oxford,
1 9 4 0 .
S T R A U S S , L . ' T h e Liberalism of Classical Political Ph i lo sophy ' , Review of Metaphysics,
1 9 5 9 . 3 9 0 - 4 3 9 ·
T A R R A N T , D . The Hippias Major Attributed to Plato, with introductory essay and com
mentary. Cambridge, 1 9 2 8 .
T A T E , J. (a) ' T h e Greek for Atheism' , CR, 1 9 3 6 , 3 - 5 . (b) 'More Greek for Athe i sm ' ,
CR, 1 9 3 7 , 3 - 6 ·
T A T E , J. Review of W . K. C. Guthrie, The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle,
CR, 1 9 5 1 , 1 5 6 f.
T A Y L O R , A. E . Plato, the Man and his Work. London, 1 9 2 6 (p. back reprint, i 9 6 0 ) .
T A Y L O R , A. E . A Commentary on Plato's Timaeus. Oxford, 1 9 2 8 .
T H E I L E R , W . ' Ν ό μ ο ςό π ά ν τ ω ν β α σ ι λ ε ύ ς ', Museum Helveticum, 1 9 6 5 , 6 9 - 8 0 .
T H O M P S O N , Ε . S. The Meno of Plato, edited with introduction, notes and excursuses.
London, 1901 (reprinted 1 9 3 7 ) .
T H O M S O N , G . The Oresteia of Aeschylus, edited with introduction, translation and com
mentary in which is included the work of the late W. G. Headlam. 2 vols. , Cambridge,
1 9 3 8 .
T H O R S O N , T . L . (ed.). Plato, Totalitarian or Democrat? Englewood Cliffs. N. J., 1 9 6 3 .
T R E V E LYA N , H . The Popular Background to Goethe's Hellenism. London, 1 9 3 4 .
T U R N E R , E. G. 'Athenians learn to write: Plato, Protagoras 3 2 6 d ' , BICS, 1 9 6 5 , 6 7 - 9 .
' U E B E R W E G - P R A E C H T E R . ' Ueberweg, F. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, ed.
K. Praechter. 1 3 t h ed., Basel, 1953 (photographic reprint of 1 2 t h ed., 1 9 2 3 ) .
U N T E R S T E I N E R , M . The Sophists, transl. K. Freeman. London, 1 9 5 7 .
U N T E R S T E I N E R , M . / Sofisti, testimonian^e e frammenti, Florence. Fasc. 1, Protagora e
Seniade, 2nd ed., 1 9 6 1 . Fasc. II, Gorgia, Licofrone e Prodico, 2n d ed., 1 9 6 1 . Fasc. ill,
Trasimaco, Ippia, Anon. Iamblichi, Δ ι σ σ ο ί λ ό γ ο ι ,Anon. τ τ . ν ό μ ω ν ,Anon. π . μ ο υ σ ι κ ή ς ,
1 9 5 4 - Fasc. ι ν (with Α . Battegazzore), Antifonte, Crista, 1 9 6 2 .
329
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 342/357
Bibliography
V E R S E N Y I , L . 'Protagoras' s Ma n-measure Fragm ent', AJP, 1 9 6 2 , 1 7 8 - 8 4 .
V E R S E N Y I , L . Socratic Humanism. Ne w Ha ven, C onn., and Lo ndon (Yale Uni v. Press),
1 9 6 3 ·
V L A S T O S , G. 'Ethics and Physics in Democri tus ' , Philosophical Review, 1 9 4 5 , 578—92,
and 1 9 4 6 , 5 3 - 6 4 .
V L A S T O S , G . Plato's Protagoras: B. Jowett's translation extensively revised by Martin
Ostwald, edited with an introduction by Gregory Vlastos. N e w York, 1 9 5 6 .V L A S T O S , G . "Ι σ ο ν ο μ ί α π ο λ ι τ ι κ ή ' , Isonomia, Studien %ur Gleichheits-vorstellung im
griechischen Denken, herausgegeben von J. Mau und E. G. Schmidt. Berlin, 1 9 6 4 , 1 - 3 5 .
V O G E L , C . J . DE. Greek Philosophy. A collection of texts, selected and supplied with some
notes and explanations. Vo l . 1 , Thales to Plato, Leiden, 1 9 5 0 .
V o G T , J . Sklaverei und Humanitat: Studien ^ur antiken Sklaverei und ihrer Erforschung.
Wiesbaden , 1 9 6 5 .
V O L K M A N N , H. Review of Gigante's Nomos Basileus, Gnomon, 1 9 5 8 , 4 7 4 f.
W E B S T E R , Τ . B. L . From Mycenae to Homer. London, 1 9 5 8 .
W E H R L I , F. Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte undKommentar (Basel), Heft x: Hierony-
mos von R hod os , Kritolaos, Ruc kbl ic k, Register, addenda, 1 9 5 9 ; Heft vn: Herak-
leides Pontikos, 1 9 5 3 ; Heft 1 1 :Aristoxenos, 1 9 4 5 .
W E N D L A N D , P. Review of H. Gomperz's Sophistik und Rhetorik, GGA, 1 9 1 3 ,5 3 - 9 .
W I L A M O W I T Z - M O E L L E N D O R F F , U . V O N . Analecta Euripidea. Berlin, 1 8 7 5 .
W I L A M O W I T Z - M O E L L E N D O R F F , U . V O N . Aristoteles und Athen. 2 vols., Berlin, 1 8 9 3 .
W I L A M O W I T Z - M O E L L E N D O R F F ,U . V O N . Platon. 2 vols., Berlin, 1 9 2 0 .
W I L A M O W I T Z - M O E L L E N D O R F F , U . V O N . 'Lesefriichte', Hermes, 1 9 2 7 , 2 7 6 - 9 8 .
W I L A M O W I T Z - M O E L L E N D O R F F ,U . V O N . Der Glaule der Hellenen. 2 vols., Berlin, 1 9 3 1 - 2 .
W I L C O X , S. 'T h e Scope of Early Rhetorical Instruction', HSCP, 1 9 4 2 , 1 2 1 - 5 5 .
W O O D B U R Y, L . ' T h e Da te and Atheism of Dia goras of Melos ' , Phoenix, 1 9 6 5 , 1 7 8 - 2 1 1 .
Z E L L E R , E . Die Philosophie der Griechen, 2 . Te i l , 1. Abte i lung , Sokrates and die Sokratiker:
Plato und die alte Akademie. 5 . Auflage, Leipzig, 1 9 2 2 (repr. 1 9 6 3 ) .
' Z E L L E R — M O N D O L F O . ' L a filosofia dei Greci nel su o svi lu ppo storico. Florence, vari ous
dates from 1 9 3 2 . (Zeller's work translated and enlarged b y R . M ondol fo .)
' ZE L L E R - NE S T L E . ' E . Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, 1 . Te i l , 1. Hali te ( 7 t h ed.,
1 9 2 3 ) and 2 . Halfte ( 6 t h ed., 1 9 2 0 ) , edited b y W. Nestle (Leipzig) .
Z E P P I , S. 'L'etica di Prodico', Rivista critica di storia della filosofia, 1 9 5 6 , 2 6 5 — 7 2 .
Z E P P I , S . ' L a posizione storica di Antiphon', Rivista di storia della filosofia, 1 9 5 8 , 3 5 7 - 7 1 .
Z E P P I , S. Protagora e la filosofia del suo tempo. Florence, 1 9 6 1 .
330
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 343/357
I N D E X E S
I N D E X O F PA S S A G E S QUOTEDO R REFERRED T O
AELIANH.A. 6 (10) , 283 n. 2V.H. 12 (32), 42
AELIUS ARISTIDES2 (6 8 D i n d o r f ) , 132 n. 3; (7 0) , 133
AESCHINES, oratorIn Tim. (173) , 34 n. 2
AESCHINES, Socraticusfr. (34 D i t t m a r ) , 30 n. 4
AESCHYLUSAg. (160) , 232 n. 6 ; (385 f. ), 50 n. 2 ; (1084),
15 8 n. 3; (1563 f . ) , 113 η . 1Cho. ( 1 0 ) , 1 9 1 ; (144) , 11 3 n . 1 ; ( 3 0 6 - 1 4 ) ,
1 1 3 η . 1Eum. ( 2 6 9 - 7 2 ) , 121 n . 2 ; (275 )5 1 2 1 Η · 2
Pers. (496-8) , 237 n. 2
Pr- (39 ) , 32 η · ; ( 59 ) , 3* η · ; ( 6*) , 3 3 " · ' ί( i 2 9 ) , 1 98 η . ι ; (442-68) , 7 9 ; (444),80 η . 3 ; (450), 8o η . 2 ; (478-506) , 79
Sept. (269), 56 η . 2 ; (382), 2 7 η . 2Suppl. ( 2 2 8 - 3 1 ) , 147 η · ; ( 7 ° 7 ) , 1 2 1 η · 2 >
(770) , 27 η . 2 ; (1039 f - ) , 5 °fr. (314) , 3 ° η · 2 ; ( 3 7 3 ) , 3 2 η · ; ( 3 9° ) , 2 8 η · 1
AETIUSΙ ( 7 . 1 ) , 2 36 η . ι ; (η . ι) , 69 η . ι5 ( ι . ι ) , 246 η .
[ALEXANDER]
In Metaph. (435· 0 , 2 ΐ 6 ί (554· 3 ) , 2 1 2 η · 3 ;(554· " ff-), 2 ΐ 3 η ·; C5<>3- 2 0 > 2 ΐ 6
^ ί ί / A r . Metaph. ( 1 0 4 3 0 2 3 ) , 2 1 2
In Top. (42 . 13 ff.), 2 1 0 η . 4 ; ( ι 8 ι . 2 ), 22 2η . 3
AMEIPSIASfr. ( 1 0 Kock) , 228 n. 2
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS1 6 (5. 8), 283 n. 2
3 ° (4) , 2 9 3AMMONIUS
In Porph. Isag. (40. 6), 2 14 n. 2ANAXIMANDER
fr. ( 2 ) , 136 n . 2ANDOCIDES
De myst. (85) , 126ANONYMUS IAMBLICHI
in D K 11 (400. 3-4) , 7 1 n. 3; (400 n . ) , 3 1 5 ;(400 ff.), 314 n . 3 ; ( 401 . 16 ) , 71 n . 3 ;( 4 0 1 . 1 6 - 1 9 ) , 2 8 ° , (401-16—23) , 7 2 η · 2 ;(401. 23) , 72 n. 1; (402. 1 2 ) , 72 n. 2 ;
(402. 29 f . ) , 72; (403. 3) , 74 n . 1; (403.1 6 - 1 8 ) , 81 n. 1; (404. 27 ff .) , 74 η . 1
Anthologia Lyrica
I (78 ff.), 45 n. 2I I ( 1 8 3 , n o . 7 ) , 303 n. 2
ANTIPHON, orator5 (14) , 2 9 4 ! 6 (2), 294
ANTIPHON, Sophistfr. ( 1 ) , 202 and n . 3 , 203; (2) , 288, 2 91 ;
( 4 - 8 ) , 287 n. 5; ( 9), 292 ; (1 0) , 230 n. 3,228; ( 1 2 ) , 231 n. 1, 286, 288, 29 4;( 1 3 ) , 292 n. 2 ; ( 1 4 ) , 288 ; ( 1 5 ) , 203 nn. 1,2 ; ( 2 2 " 4 3 ) , 46; ( 2 3 - 3 6 ) , 2 03 η . 1 ; ( 2 4 a ) ,288; (44 ), 138 n. 2 ; (44Α ), 100 n. 3, 11 9n. 3, 12 2 n. 4, 1 38 , 203 n. 3, 204 n. 3, 290,(44B), 100 n. 3 , 203 n . 3 , 29 3; ( 4 5 - 7 ) , 287,288 n. 1; (48), 287; (49), 2 « 7 - (5 0 ) , 2 « 9 ;( 5 1 ) , 2 8 9 ! ( 5 2 ) , 2 » 8 ; ( 5 3 ) , 2 8 9 ; ( 5 3 a ) ,289; (54), 2 8 9 ; ( 5 5 ) , 288 ; ( 5 7 ) , 168 n. 1,2 9 1 ; (58), 128 n. 3, 259, 260 n ., 289; (59),259, 289; (60), 168, 289 ; ( 6 1 ) , 289 ; (62 ) ,2 5 1 , 289 ; (63), 288 ; (64), 289 ; (65) , 288 ;
(77 ) , 2 « 9ANTIPHON, ? tragoedus
fr. (4 N a u c k ) , 293 n.ANTISTHENES
fr. (1 -121 Ca izz i ) , 305 n . ; (1 4) , 21 2 n . 2 ;( 1 5 ) , 212 n . 2 ; (19—28), 308; (22) , 308;(24), 308; (29), 308; (30), 308; ( 3 6 - 7 ) ,310 n. 2 ; (38), 209 n. 1; (39 A-E), 249
η . 1; (40 A - D ) , 249 η . 1 ; (42 ) , 309 η . 1 ;(43), 3°8; (44 B), 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 ; (45), 210 n. 4 ;(46), 210 n. 4 ; (49), 210 n. 2 ; (50 A) , 2 1 4n. 2 ; (50 c ) , 214 n . 2 ; ( 5 1 - 6 2 ) , 3 1 0 η . 1 ;(68), 308; (69), 308 ; (70), 308 ; ( 7 1 ) , 308 ;(80), 308; (86), 308; ( 1 0 1 ) , 308 ; (108 A-F),307; ( n o ) , 3 0 8 ; ( 11 3 ) , 3 0 7 ; ( 1 2 2 - 4 4 ) ,305 n . ; (138 A-F), 306 ; (139) , 306 ; ( 1 4 5 -
95) , 3°5 ( ι 6 ° ) , 3 ° 9 η · 3A R C H Y TA S
fr- (3), 73 n- 2
ARISTOPHANES
Birds (684 ff.). 2 3 8 ; (692), 241 n. 3, 275 n.,2 7 7 ; (753 ff-), 104; (757 f-) , " 4 n. 2 ;(826), 1 9 1 ; (988), 228 n. 2; (1071 f . ) , 237η . 1 ; (1071 ff.), 237
Clouds ( 2 ) , 1 9 1 ; (98), 38 n. 3; ( 1 1 2 ff.), 182n. 1 ; (248), 56 n. 2; (331) , 3 3 ; (360), 33 ,
331
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 344/357
Index ofpassages quoted or referred toA R I S T O P H A N E S (cont.)
241 n. 3 ; (3 61) , 275 n.; (376 ff.), 100;(432), 38 n. 3; (670 ff.), 221 n. 2; (740 f.),204; (1039 f. ), 1 1 4 ; (1060 ff.), 1 1 4 ;( 1 0 7 5 ) , 100, 101 n. 1; (10 79) , 229; (1080),1 1 4 n . 4 ; ( " " ) , 3 3 ; ( 12 8 3) , 11 4 n . 4,228 n. 2; (1309), 33; (1400), 1 1 4 ; (140 5),1 1 4 ; (142 0), 1 14 n. 2; (142 7 ff.), 104 ;
(143 0), 1 14 n. 4Ecct. (330), 245 n.Frogs (36 6), 245 n.; ( 76 1 ff.), 27 n. 2 ; ( 892),
232 n. 3 ; (949), 15 8; (1009 f. ), 30 n. 1;( 1 0 5 3 - 5 ) , 3° 1; ( 1 1 8 1 ) , 205 n. 2;
( 1 4 7 5 ) , l 6 5 n- 2
Knights (1085), 228 n. 2; ( n i l ) , 87 n.Plut. ( 1 1 5 1 ) , 161 n. 3Thesm. (450 f.), 232Wasps (380), 228 n. 2fr. (198. 5 ff.), 294
ARI STO T LE
Anal. Post. 2 (ch. 10), 213Ath.pol. (2 1- 6) , 13 6; (27. 4), 35 n.; (32),
293; (57· 4)> 2< *3 η· 6 ;De anima (405 3 1 9 ) , 282 n. 2; (405 b 5), 303;
( 4 3 2 b 2 i ) , 2 1 3De caelo ( 2 9 ^ 1 3 ) , 2 1 3De interpr. (init.), 208 n.; (1 63 19 ), 208 n.;
( i ua 27 ), 208 n. ; ( i 6a 28 ), 208 n. j( i 6b 6) , 22 1 ; (20b 1 -2) , 221
EE (i 23 4b 22 ff.), 150 n. 1 ; (1 24 18 32 ff.),1 5 0 η . 1
EN (i o9 4b 25 ), 54 n. 1; (109 8326 ff.), 54n. 1; (11023 23) , 54 n. 1; (110382 4), 68;( n o 3 b 2 7 ) , 5 4 5 ( 11 0 4 3 3 ) , 54 n . 1 ; ( 11 3 4 b1 8 ff.), 123 n. 1; ( i i 3 4b 3 2 ) , 138 n. 1;
( " 4 5 b 2 7 ) 1 2 5 8 ; ( " 5 5 3 1 8 ) , 149 η · 2 ;( 1 1 5 5 a22 ff.), 150 n. 1; ( 11 64 33 0) ,3 7 η . I ; ( I I 6 7 3 22 ) , 1 5 0 η . i ; ( n 6 7 a 2 2 f f . ) ,1 5 0 n.
Metaph. (Γ 4 ), 218 n . ; ( i oo 6b 2o ) , 211n . 3 ; (1007 018) , 182 ; ( i oo 7b 2o ) , 182n. 3 ; (1 009 36) , 18 2; (10 09b 15 ff.), 171n. 3; (10 10a 10), 201 ; (10 24b I7 ff.), 190 η .,2 i o η . ι ; ( io 24b 32) , 182 n . 2 ; (102536) ,281 n. 1; (1026b 14) , 19 3; ( io 43 ai 4f f . ) ,
2 1 3 ; ( io 43b 23) , 21 2 , 214 n . 1 ; (1 043b2 3 f f . ) , 214 n. 1; ( i o4 3b 29 ), 212 n. 4;(1045t>9ff.), 21 6; (104714-^ 7), 185 n. 2;( 1 0 5 3 3 3 1 ) , 1 8 3 ; ( i o 6 2 b i 3 ) , 1 7 1 ; ( 1 07 8 a3 1 ) , 170 n.; (1091 a7 ), 21 2 n. 3
Phys. (185 314) , 292 n . 2 ; ( i 85 b2 5) ,2 1 6 n . 2 ; ( 1 9 1 3 2 3 - 3 3 ) , 2 0 0 η · 2 ! ( ' 93 a 9) >203η . 2 ; (2 i9 b2 ) , 292 n . 1 ; (220D14) ,292 n. 1; (220b 32), 292 n. 1; (2 21 b 22),292 n. 1; (22 332 1), 292 η . 1
Poet. ( i 4 0 7 b 7 ) , 2 21 n . 1 ; ( i 4 5 6 b i 5 ) , 2 20Pol. ( i2 53b 2o ) , 160 ; (1260825) , 54, 2 5 4 !
(1260 327) , 187 n. 3; ( i2 66a3 9ff . ) , 1 52 ;( i2 07b 9) , 152 n . 1 ; ( i 26 7b i5 ) , 152 n . 1 ;( i 2 6 7 b 3 7 f f . ) , 139 n. 3; (12 6932 0), 57;( 1 2 7 5 b7 ), 57 n. ; (1 280b 10) , 139; ( 1280b
1 1 ) , 313 n. 3; (1 284 a 1 5 ) , 308; (1305 b 26),3 0 0 ; ( i 3 2 7 b 2 9 ) , 161 n. 2
Rhet. (1. 10) , 124; (1. 1 3 - 1 4 ) , 124; (1 . 15) ,1 2 4 5 ( 3 . Μ ) , 295 n . 2 ; ( i 3 6 8 b 7 ) , 1 1 8 , 1 2 3 ;( i 3 6 8 b 7 f f . ) , 124 n . ; ( i3 73 b4 ) , 123 ;( i 3 7 3 b 4 f f . ) , 1 24 n . ; ( i 3 7 3 b 6 ) , 11 8 ;( 1 3 7 4 3 1 8 ) , 1 2 3 , 1 2 4η . ; (1374 326 ff .) , 129 ;( 1 3 7 5 3 3 2 ) , 11 8 ; ( i 3 7 7 a8 ff . ) , 109 n . 4 ;
(i393t>3)> 1 2 8 n - 2 ; ( i393b4) , 3 J 9 η · 35( i 3 9 7 3 i i ) , 3 1 2 η . 5; ( 1 3 9 8b ί ο ) , 3 1 2 η . 5 ;( i4 0o b i9 ), 97 n. 3, 102 n. 3, 297 n. 1;( 1 4 0 2 3 1 7 ) , 179 n. 1; (1402 323f t.), 182 ;( i 405 b2 4) , 38 n. 2; (1406 31) , 312 n. 5;( 1 40 63 8) , 3 1 2 η . 5 ; ( i 4 o 6 a i 8 f f . ) , 3 1 2 η . 5 ;(1406823) , 313 η . ι ; (1406b 1 1 ) , 312 n. 5,3 1 3 ; (14 073 10) , 311 n. 2; ( 1 4 1 1 3 2 4 ) ,306 n. 3; ( 1 4 1 3 3 7 ) , 297 n. 1; (14 15 b 12) ,2 7 5 ; ( 1 4 1 5 b 1 5), 42 n. 1; ( i 4i 6b 26 ), 300;(145889) , 221 η . 1
Soph. el. ( 1 6 5 8 2 1 ) , 3 7 n . 1 ; ( i 6 6 b i 2 ) ,
221 n . 1 ; ( i66b 28ff . ) , 218 ; (1 73 37 ) , 58;( i73b i9) , 221 n . 2 ; ( i73b28) , 221 n . 1 ;( i 8 3 b 3 i ) , 2 9 5 ; ( i 8 3 b 3 6 ) , 1 9 2 ; ( 1 8 3 b36 f . ) , 37 η . 1
Top. (104b 20), 182 η . 2 ; ( l I2 b2 2) , 222 η . 3fr. 29 n. 1; (9 1 ) , 153 n. 6
[ARISTOTLE]De mundo (395 b 23), 244 η . 1MXG (979 3 1 1 - 9 8 0 b 2 1 ) , 1 93 η . ! ; ( 9 7 9 b 3 6 ),
1 9 7 ; (98089) , 198 n. 1; (98o a9ff .), 198 ;(980310), 306 n. 2; (980312), 198 n. 1;(9 8o bi ) , 198 ; (98ob9ff . ) , 198
A R I S TO X E N U Sfr. (127a Wehrli), 236 n. 2
AT H E N A E U S(200b) , 30 n. 4; (216b), 306 n. 3; (218c),
263 n. 5; (220c!), 306 n. 2; (505c!), 269n. 2; (55 1ε ) , 245 n. ; (5 92c) , 313 ; (6o8f .) ,283 n. 3
C I C E R OBrut. (1 2. 46), 179 n. 1;De div. 1 (3. 5), 246 n.De inv. 2 (2. 6), 53 and η . 1N.D. 1 ( 1 . 2), 234 nn. 1, 3; (12. 29), 234 n.
1 ; (13· 3 2 ) , 2 49 n- 1; (15· 3 8 ) , 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 ,240; (23 . 63), 2 34 nn . 1, 3, 235 n. 1 ; (3 7.1 1 8 ) , 238, 240; (42. 1 1 7 ) , 227, 234 n. 3;(42. H 7 f . ) , 236 n . 1; ( 42 . 118 ) , 236 η . 1
De or. 2 (86. 3 5 1 — 4 ), 283 n. 23 (32. 126-8), 46Tusc. ι (48. 1 16 ), 312 n. 5, 313 n. 2
C L E M E N TOF A L E X A N D R I AProtr. 6 (7 1. 1), 249 n. 1 ; 24 (1 . 18. 75 St. ),
236 η . 1Strom. 2 (403. 14 ), 304 n. 1 ; 5. 14 (1 08 . 4),
249 n. 1; 6. 15 (2 . 434 ), 282 n. 2 ,
283 n. 3C R I T I A S
fr. (1 ) 302; (2), 301 ; (6 -8) , 302; (9), 2 56;( t o ) , 303 n . i ; ( i 5 ) , 3035(16 . 9 ) , 232 η . 5 ;
3 3 2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 345/357
Index of passages quoted or referred toC R I T I A S (cont.)
(18) , 303; (19 ), 303; (2 1) , 304; (22),69 n. 2 bis, 304; (23), 304; (25), 69 andn. 1; (25. 1-8), 82; (25. 2), 80 n. 2;(25. 9ft".), 243; (25. 9 - 1 1 ) , 69; (31), 302;( 3 2 - 7 ) , 3 ° 2 ! (39), 303; (40), 202, 302;(44) . 3 ° 2 ; (45), 3 ° 2 n. 3; (52), 302 n. 3
DEMOCRITUS
(9)> 5*5 η · 4! ( 2 ° α ) > 2 0 5 Η · 2 J ( 2< S)>206 n. 2; (33), 256 n. 2; ( 1 1 7 ) , 8 n. 2, 201;(156) , 186 n. 3; ( 1 8 1 ) , 69,179 n. 2; (242),25 <S; ( 2 45 ), 140 n.; (247), 16 1 n. 3; (250),1 5 0 ; ( 2 55), 73 n- 2 i ( 2 7 5 - 7 ) , 287 n . 3 ;(278), 63 n. 3, 100
DEMOSTHENES
Aristocr. (6 1) , 118 n. 3, 122 n. 3 ; (65), 78 ;(70), 78, 1 1 8 n. 3, 122 n. 3; (76), 263 n. 6;(213) , 306 n. 3
Cor. (275 ), 11 8 ; (276), 32Meid. (46-8) , 156 η . 1Phil. 3 (3), 156 η . ι
[DEMOSTHENES]Aristog. ( n ) , 82 n. 2 ; (1 5) , 82 n. 4; (15 ff.),
7 5 - 6 ; (1 6) , 75 n. 2, 7 6 ; ( 1 6 - 1 7 ) , 140 n.Theocrin. (67), 301 n. 2
D 1 0 C H RY S O S T O MOr. (13 ) , 309 η . 1
D 1 0 OF HALICARNASSUS
Comp. verb. (1 2) , 272 n. 4DIODORUS
1 (8. 1 ) , 80 n. 2, 82 n. 4; (8. 1 - 7 ) , 811 2 (10), 264 n. 1; (10. 4), 264 n. 1; (39),
30 n. 4; (39 . 2), 228 n. 2; (5 3) , 179 n. 3;(53· J - 2 ) > 40 n. bis; (53. 2), 38 n. 2, 44 n. 4
1 3 (26. 3), 62 n. 2, 84
1 5 (48), 1 5 1 - 1 ; (76), 3°<5'ap. Cl em. 1. 365, 2. 6 6 D . ' : 293
DIOGENES LAERTIUS1 (12 ), 28 ; (24), 282 n. 2
2 ( 3 1 ) , 3 ° 6 η · 1; ( 6 4 ) , 3 "
3 (35) , ι » 2 η · 2 ; (37) , 26 4 η . 2 ; (57) , 264 η . 25 (42), 58 η .6 ( ι ) , 3 ° 6 a nd η η . ι , 2 , 3 1 1 ; (3), 2 Ι Ο >
(8), 2 ΐ 2 η . ι ; ( ί ο ) , 1 5 4 η · 2 > ( " ) > ι ΐ 7 η · 2 ;( ΐ 3 ) , 3°6 ; ( ι ό ) , 3 1 0 η · 2 ; ( ΐ 7 ) , 209 η . ι
7 (40), ι68 η . 2
8 (5 <S), 31 3; (59) , 44 η . 4 ί (ft), 4 2 η . y, (66),
42 η . 39 ( ι8 ) , 42 η . 3J (24), 234; (34), 263 η . ι ;
(39), 3°9 η · 35 (46), 253; (5° ) . 262 η . ι ,264 η . ι ; (5*0 , 5 1 η · ι » 2 η . ι ; ( 52 ),43 η · 4, 2 3 5 η · Ι> 263 η . 4; (53), ι 8 2 η . 2 ;( 5 3 ί · ) , 22θ η . 2 ; (54 ), 2 3 5 η · 2< ^3 η · 2 ;(55) , *53 η · 3, ' 8 2 η . ι , 205 η . 2 , 263 η . 2 ,264, 3 ! 9 η · Γ ; (5*5), 2 ^ 2 η · 2 ·
DIOGENES OF OENOANDA
fr. (12 c. 2. 1, p. 19 Wi l l i a m ) , 234 η . 1Dissoi logoi
( 1 ) , 31 6; (6) , 31 7, 319 n. 1; (7) , 31 9; (8) ,3 1 9 ; (9), 283 n. 2
DITTENBERGER, Sylloge
(704), 80 n. 2, 84
E M P E D O C L E Sfr. (22 . 5), 149 n. 2; (35. i 6 f. ), 1 15 n. 2 ;
(59) , 11 5 n. 2; (9 5), 56 n. 4; ( 10 5. 3),
303; ( '34) , 2 4 8 ; (135) , i 2 3 , I 2 5
EPIPHANIUSHaer. (3. 21), 241 η . 1
EUDOXUSap. S te ph . B y z . ( s. v. Ά β δ η ρ α ) , 18 2 n. 1
EUPOLIS
fr. (1 46 ^ Ko ck ), 46ap. D. L. (9. 50), 262 n. 1
EURIPIDES
Ale. ( i 92 ff . ) , 158 ; ( 2 io f . ) , 158 ; (512) , 1 9 1 ;(769 f . ) , 15 8
Andr. (89), 158; ( 1 7 3 - 6 ) , 16 ; 119 n. 2,(638), 15 4 n. 2
Bacch. (200), 28 n. 1; (202), 183 n. 1,264 n. 2; (274f f.) , 2 41 ; (395 ), 28 n. 1;
(895f-) , " 3 J (102 7), 158 n. 1El. (357ff-) , 154; (737), 2 44 n. 3; (743*'·),
243 nn. 3, 4Hec. (291 f . ) , 156 n. 1; (799 m ) , 23Hel. (7 30) , 15 8 ; (744ft".), 246 n. ; (757) ,
246 n.; ( 11 5 1 f t " . ) , 129; (1639), 158Heraclid. (993), 31Here. (727 f-) , 113 n. 1; ( i 34 if f . ) , 229Hippol. ( 88 ff ) , ! 5 8 ; (98), 7 7 ; (358),
2
5 9n
- 3; ( 38o ff. ), 258 n. 1; (91 5 ft".), 1 9 ;( 9 2 1 ) , 3 1 ; (986), 128 n. 1; (1249ft".), 158I.A. (749), 27; (1400), 156I.T. (1238), 27 n. 2; ( 1 4 7 1 ) , 56 n. 2Ion (440ft".), 1 2 1 ; (442), 7 7 ; (56 6), 158 n. 1;
(642), 1 1 3 ; (674), 158 n. 2; ( 725 -34) ,158 n. 1 ; (730ft".), 1 5 8 ; (85 4), 15 9
Med. (54) , 158 n. 1 ; (546 ), 1 27 n. 4;(1078ft".), 258
Or. ( 4 18 ) , 2 32 ; ( 48 5 ) , 1 5 3 η . i ; ( 4 9 i ) , i 2 7 n . 4
Phoen. (39 2), 15 8 n. 2 ; (499ft".), 1 6 5 ;(5 09 f.) , 105 n. ; (531ft".), 1 5 1 ; (J41 ff.),
1 5 1 η · ; ( 555 ), I 5 2 ; (599), " 8 n. 4Rhes. (924), 30 n. 2Suppl. (19), 120 n. 3, 121 n. 3, 122 n. 3, 127;
(195) , 127 n. 4; (201 f .) , 1 8; (2 01 -1 3) , 80;(244 f.), 6 3; (404), 1 5 1 ; (420), 41 1 ;(427f . ) , 43, 127 n. 4; (429ft".), 23, 70,1 2 6 ; (52 6), 12 n. 3; (526 f . ) , 1 2 7 ; ( 9 1 3 - 1 5 ) ,67 n.
Tro. (884), 232 n. 3; (886), 232 n. 3;( 9 1 4 - 6 5 ) , 19 2; (948), 229; (987), 230;(989 f . ) , 207 n. 2
fr. (1 9) , 16 , 165 n. 2; (2 2), 1 54 n. 1; (48),M 7 ; (49), M7 ; (50), 1 5 7 ; ( 5 1 ) , 1 5 7 ;( 5 2 ) ,1 5 4 , 159 , I < 5 3 n- 2 ; (53), 15 5 ; (57) ,1 5 7 n. 1; (70), 232 n. 6; (86), 157; (93),1 5 6 n. 4; (95 ), 15 4 n. 1; ( 1 4 1 ) , 15 4 n. 2;(168) , 15 4 n. 2 ; (18 9) , 127 n. 4, 316 n. 2;(232 ), 15 4 n. 1 ; (235 ), 15 4 n. 1; (245 ),1 5 7 , (248), 154 n. 1; (25 4), 230 n. 1;
333
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 346/357
Index of passages quoted or referred toEURIPEDES (cont.)
(286), 229; (292. 7) , 229; ( 3 1 3 ) , 158 n.2> 2 3 3 ; O 2 6 ), ' 54 n. 1; (336), 15 4;(336. 2), 15 9; (346) , n 9 n. 1; (372),27 n . 2; ( 377 ), 154 n. 2 ; (433), 101 n. 1,114 n. 1; (480), 232 and n. 4; (495. 41 ff.),1 58 n. 4; ( 5 1 1 ) , 158; (529), 158; (591. 4) ,2 3 2 η · 5; (59 3), 3° 4 1; (609), 2 5 ' i( 8 3 1 ) , 15 8; (840), 2 58; (841) , 258; (87 7),232 n. 3, 233; (902), 1 6 1 ; (910) , 136 n. 2,2 3 3 ; ( 9 " ) , 2 3 2 η · 6 ; (913), 2 3 3 ; ( 9 2 °) >11 3 , 258 n. 2; (941), 232 n. 3 bis, n. 4, 233;(973), 2 4 ° n- (976 ), 158 n. 4; (104 7) ,1 6 1 n. 3
EUSEBIUS
Chron. (Ol. 84), 263 n. 213 (13. 35), 249 η · 1
Γ 4 (3- 7), 235 η · 1
G A L E NDe virt. phys. 3 ( 1 9 5 ) , 277 n. 2Gloss. Hipp, prooem. (v ) , 204 η . 1
GELLIUS7 (21), 58 n.11 (20), 277 η . 1
Gnomologium Vindobonense(50, p. 14 Wachsm.), 246 n., 293 n.
G O R G I A SHelen (passim), 50; (ink.), 19 5; (6), 99,
103 n. 2 ; (8), 44, 180; ( 1 1 ) , 27 3; (1 3),1 5 n. 2, 5 1, 202; (14), 168
Palamedesfr.(3), 193 η . 1; (5) , 270 n. 1; (5 0- 6) , 2 70;
(5<*-9), 42 n. 2; ($b), 44 n. 1, 162; (6),44 n. 4, 56 n. 1, 270; (6.6) , 1 96; ( 7- 80) ,2 7 ° ; (s), 43 η · 3; ( 8 α ) > ' 5 ° ; 0 ° ) , 2 7 ° ;( i l ) , 192 , 270; (1 1 . 9 ) , 181 n . 1 ; ( n o ) ,180, 192, 270; ( i i t z . 35) , 273 n. ;( i 2 ) , 194; (13) , 2 7 2 n. 4; (1 5) , 270; (16 ) ,270; (23), 181 η . i , 198 n. 1, 271 (26),1 9 9 n.
HE R A C L I D E S PO N T I C U S
fr. (46 We hr li ) , 15 n. 1; (150), 264 η . 1HE RA C LITUS
fr. (2), 1 8 5 , ( 6 1 ) , 166 n. i ; ( i i 2 ) , 253; ( 1 1 4 ) ,
55HE R M I AS
(p . 283 Cou vr eu r) , 222 n. 3HE R M O G E N E S
De ideis (B 401. 25 Rabe), 302HE R O D I C U S
ap. Ath en. (2 16 b) , 306 n. 3HE R O D O T U S
1 (29. 1) , 29 nn. 1, 2; (36. 1) , 19 1 ; (65) ,
77 n. 1, 135 ; (1 41· 1) , 190; ( ' ΰ 8 ) > 2 6 2 n - 1
2 (49. 1 ) , 29 nn. 1, 2; (64), 1043 (38), 16 n. 2, 13 2; (38. 3), 19 0; (80 -2) ,
148 n.; ( 106. 2), 252 ; (130. 5), 1 91 ;( 1 3 1 . 2), 38 n. 2
4 (8. 2), 56 n. 4; (3 9. i ) , 56 n. 4; (5 9. 1) ,
2 37 n- 2 5 (59· 2 )> 57 n. ; (95 . 2) , 29 nn.1 , 2
6 (43· 4), '9^7 (104), 698 (57), 35; 0 6 . 2), 191
HE S I O DErga (259), 82 n. 2; (276), 55; (287-92),
278 η . 1; (289), 254; (649), 28 η . 1;(758), 199 n-
fr. (15 3 Rz ac h) , 27HE S Y C H I U S
α ρ . Σ P la t. (Rep. 600 c ) , 263 n. 2HI P P I A S
fr. (2), 283 n. 1; (3), 283 n. 1; (4), 283 n. 3;(6), 163, 282 n. 2, 283 n. 3; (9), 283 n. 1;( 1 1 ) , 283 n. 1 5 ( 1 2 ) , 283 η . 1 5 ( 1 3 ) , 283 η . ι ;( 1 4 ) , 283 n. 1; (1 6) , 285 n. 1 ; ( 17 ),285 n. 1; (2 1) , 284 η . 1
HI P P O C R AT I C W R I T I N G SDeaereaqu.loc.(passim), 58; I2ff. ( 1 1 , 5 2 L . ) ,
1 6 1 n. 2; 16 ( 1 1 , 64 L. ) , 70 η . 1De arte (passim), 21952 (vi, 4 L.), 190, 204Law (3), 168 and n. 2, 256Med. off. ( x v m B, 656 K.), 202 n. 2Morb. sacr. 17 (vi, 392 L.), 56 n. 4Afar. horn. (5), 204 n. 3Vict. 1. 4 (vi, 476 L.), 56 n. 4; 11 (vi,
486 L ) , 120 n. 2V.M. 3 ( ' , 57 4- 8 L. ) , 62, 80 n. 2, 83,
1 6 7 n. 3, 1 69 ; 8 (1 , 586 L. ), 1 69; 14( 1 , 600 L . ) , 61 n.; 20 (1 , 620 L . ) , 31 , 169
HO M E R/ / . 1 (42 6), 240
9 (443), J 78 n. 41 1 (636), 3091 5 (412), 27 n. 220 ( 4 1 1 ) , 2522 1 : 26923 (276), 252; (374), 252Od. 17 (32 2f. ), 156 n. 423 (222), 230 η . 1
HO R A C EOd. 4 (4. 33), 250 n. 2
IS O C R AT E SAntid. (9), 36 η . 3; (i5 5 f.), 36 n. 4; (1 66) , 38
η · 2 J ( 2 3 5 ) , 2 9 n- 1, 35 « · ; ( 2 49) , 5° ; ( 2 5 4 ) ,80 n. 2 ; (26 8) , 3 1 , 36 n. 4 ; (268—9), 195
Areop. (21 ), 151 n.; (23), 319 n. 3 ; ( 3 1 - 2 ) ,73 n. 2
Busiris (25), 80 n. 2Helen ( 1) , 254, n. 1; (2) , xivNicocl. (44), 254 n. 1Panath. (169), 78Paneg. (1 ff.), 43 η . 1; (28), 80 n. 2, 239 η . 1;
(28ff.), 83; (32), 83; (39), 81 n. 2; (42),8t n. r ; (45), 43 η . 1
Soph. (1 9) , 44 n. 4
JU V E N A L7 (204), 295 η . 1
334
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 347/357
Index ofpassages quoted or referred toLACTANTIUS
De ira Dei ( n . 1 4 ) , 2 49 η . 1Div. inst. 1 ( 5 . 1 8 - 1 9 ) , 2 4 9 η · 1
LUCIANPeregrinus (1 4) , 34 n. 2Zeus trag. (41), 232 n. 4
LYSIASOr. (2) , 74; (2. 1 8 - 1 9 ) , 7 4 ; ( 2. ' 9 ) , " ι
(6 . ίο ) , 12 1 ; (21 . 19) , 259 n. 1; (25. 8),60 n. 2 ; ( 31 . 6), 161 n. 3
ap. A t h e n . ( 1 2 . 5 5 1 ε ) , 245 η .[LYSIAS]
Andoc. (17), 237
M ELISSUSfr. (8. 3), 201 η . 1
M ARCE LLUSV. Thuc. (36), 223
M I N U C I US F E L I XOctavius (1 9. 7 ), 249 n. 1; (2 1. 2), 238, 239
M O S C H I O Nfr. (6 Nauck), 81; (6. 2), 63 n. 3; (6. 23),
62 n. 2; (6. 29), 62 n. 2
O R I G E NCels. (4. 25), 286Oxyrhynchus Papyrivol. 11 (2 21) , 269 η . 1; xi (93), 1 52 n. 2; xv
( i i9 f . ) , n o n . 1; xx v i (2450), 132(1364), 108 and nn. 2, 3, n o n. 1, 11 2,
1 5 0 nn . 1, 2, 15 2 n. 2, 288 n. 1 ; ( 1 7 9 7 ) ,n o and n . 1, 1 12 , 203 n. 3; (225 6), 82 n. 2
PAR M E N I D E Sfr. (2. 7), 198; (2. 7-8), 218; (3), 198;
(6. 1), 198; (8. 6 f f . ) , 200; (8. 7 f f - ) , 19 7PAUSANIAS
5 ( 2 5· 4), 280 n. 36 ( ΐ 7 · 7 ) , 2 72 η . i ; ( i 7 . 8) , 192 η . ι ; ( ΐ 7 · 9 ),
269 n. 2P H E R E C Y D E S
fr- (3) , M 9 η · 2P H I L E M O N
fr. (95 Kock), 160Meineke, C.G.F. iv (54), 82 n. 3
P H I LO D E M U SDe piet. (7 ), 249 η . 1; (9. 7) , 238
P H I L O P O N U SPhys. (49. 17 ), 216 n. 2
PHILOSTRATUS
Ep- (73) , 3° ! η· ιV.S. 1 (1), 272 n. 4; (9. 4), 270; (9. 5), 42
n. 2, 44 η . 1; (10 . i ) , 263 η . 1 bis; (10. 2),234 n. 1; (10. 3), 263 n. 2; (10. 4), 263n. 4; ( 1 1 . 1) , 45 n. 4; (1 6) , 301 n. 3 bis
P H E Y N I C H U Sfr. (9 Kock), 228 n. 2
PINDARIsth. 5 (16), 134 n. 1; (28), 30 n. 2Ο ί. 1 (28 f . ) , 134 5(3 5), '3 4 n. 15 (5 2) , 1342 (86), 28 n. 1, 251
5 (27) , 134 η · 1
8 (21), 82 n. 2
9 (100), 251
1 0 (20), 252Pyth. 2 (34 ), 134 n. 1 ; (86) , 13 4
3 (39), ! 34 η · 14 (219), 5° η · 25 ( " 5 ) , 27 η . 2ίο (23) , 252fr. (48 Bo wr a) , 13 3; (70), 133 quater;
( 1 5 2 ) , 1 3 1 ; (203), 56 n. 2, 132 , 133 bisPLATO
Alcibiades I ( 1 1 1 e - H 2 a ) , 165 n. 3; ( 1 1 8 c ) ,35 η · ί ( " 9 a ) > 38 n- 2;
Apology ( 1 9 ε ) , 40, 269 η . 2, 274, 280 η . 2;(2oa) , 41 ; (20b) , 45 ; (26d) , 46 η . , 232η . ι ; ( 32 c ) , 300
Axiochus (366 c), 41 and n. 3, 42 ; (j oo cf f. ),280
Charmides (1 63 d ) , 222 n. 2, 276 n.Clitophon (409 a- e) , 150 η . 1Cra iy /uJ (383 a ) , 208 ;( 384 b) , 42 n. 1,205 n. 1,
222 n. 2, 275; (3853- 3866), 1 91 ; (386a),1 7 1 ; (386d ), 186 n. 1; (39 1b ), 205 n. 1;(391 c ) , 205 nn. 1, 2 bis, 264 n. 2; (391 d),206; (3 96d -e ) , 207 n. 1; (3998-0 ) , 220;(400a), 207 n. 1 ; (4 02 b) , 182 n. 2, 282n. 2; (403e), 3 1 n - > (407d)> 207 n. 1;(40 9d- e) , 208; (41 6a) , 208; (4 i2 d) , 208;(424 c ) , 220 n. 3; (425 a ) , 220 and n. 4,
2 2 1 ; (425 ε ) , 2o8; (42 6b) , 207 n. 1;(429a), 206 n. 2; (42 9 b f f . ) , 2 1 5 ; ( 4 2 9 d ) ,201 and n. 2; (430a), 20 8; (430 c) , 208;(431 b - c ) , 220 n. 4; (433 d) , 21 5 ; (4 35d ),2 0 8 , 2 1 5 ; ( 4 3 6 b - c ) , 206n. 25(4383) , 206η .2; (438c), 208; (44od), 201; (fin.), 209
Critias ( n o e ) , 2 5 2Crito (49b) , 11 3 ; (49c) , 1 1 3 ; (50c) , 140 ;
(5 2d ), 14 0; (5 3d) , 301 n. 3Epist. 7 (324 c- d) , 299Eryxias ( 39 7 c) , 4 1 ; ( ^ d f f . ) , 280Euthydemus (27 7ε ) , 44 η . 4 , 205 η . ι , 222,
276; ( 2 8 3 0 - d ) , 3 1 7 η . ; ( 2 8 5 d ff . ) , 2 1 1η . 2; (2 86 b- c) , 1 82; (286c), 51 n. 2
Euthyphro (3 c) , 34; (7 c- d ) , 165 n. 3Gorgias (447c), 42; (452d), 45 n. 1;
( 45 2ε ) , i 8 i ; (45<5t>), 270 n. 1; ( 4 5 6 c - e ) ,39 n. 1 ; ( 4 5 6 0- 4 5 7 C ) , 181 n. 2; (460a ),39 n. 1, 272 n. 1 ; (465 c) , 177 n.; (4 7o d) ,1 0 3 ; (47 odf £) , 309 n. 1; (4 71 a) , 103;(48 3b) , 145 n. 4; ( 4 8 3 C - d ) , 103 n. 2 ;(48383), 104 n. 2; (484b) , 1 3 1 ; (485 b),1 9 1 ; (48 6a- b) , 106 n. 2; ( 4 8 6 d - 4 8 7 b ) ,106 n. 2; (488 b—d), 103 n. 2 ; (491 c ) , 1 0 5 ;
(4 9i d) , 259 n. 1; (492a), 105 ; (508a),1 4 9 n. 2, 151 n. ; ( 5i 2d ), 102; (513C2),106 n. 2 ; (515 a) , 102; (520a) , 37, 102 η . 2,1 7 7 η . ; ( 5 20 ε ) , 38 η . 3
Hipp. Maj. (281a) , 40 ; (281b) , 281 ;(282b), 40 n.; (282b 5), 36 n. 4; ( 2 8 2 D - C ) ,40; (282c), 41 n. 2, 223 n. 2, 275 n.,
335
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 348/357
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 349/357
Index of passages quoted or referred toPLUTARCH (com.)
De def. orac. (432 c ) , 246 n.De malign. Herod. (862), 43 n. 2De Pyth. orac. (399a), 246 n.De superst. ( 1 7 1 c ) , 236 n. 1, 243 n. 3V. Demosth. (5. 7), 312 n. 3V. Lycurg. (5) , 77 η . 1; (6) , 77 η . 1; (30) , 306
V. Nic. (23), 22SV. Pericl. (4 ), 35 n. ; ( 8), 65 n. 2 ; (32 ), 228 ;
(36), 263 n. 6V. Them. (2), 35
[PLUTARCH]
V. or. (832c) , 293 ; (832Ο , 286; (833) , 293;(83 3c ), 168 η . i , 290; (838a ), 280 n. 2;(844 c ) , 312 n. 3
PORPHYRY
De alst. (3. 25 ), 153 n. 3PROCLUS
Eucl. (p. 272 Frie dlan der) , 284 η . 1; (p. 356) ,
284 η . 1In Crat. (37 Pasqual i) , 210 n. 2
PRODICUS
fr. (1 ) , 278 n. 2 ; (2) , 278 n. 2 ; (4), 46,277 n. 2 ; (5) , 238 η . 1
P R O TA G O R A Sfr. ( i ) , 17 1 n. 1, 183 , 188 ff., 264 n. 2 ; (2) ,
47 n.; (3), 68, 256, 264 n. 2; (4), 65 n. 2,18 9 bis, 190, 234 η . ι , 235 n. 1; (10) , 256
QUINTILIAN
3 ( 1 . 8), 44 n. 4
S C H O L I AΣ Ael . Aris t id . (3 . 408. 19 Din do rf) , 132Σ A r. Rhet. (1373 b ), 159 n. 2Σ Ju v. 7 (203) , 295 η . 1Σ P in d. Nem. (9. 35), 132Σ P la t. Phaedr ( = Her mia s p . 283 Co uv -
reur), 222 n. 3SENECA
De const, sap. (18. 5) , 306 η . 1SEXTUS
Adv. math. 7 (5 3), 200 η . 1; (60), 183 nn. 1,3, 264 n. 2 ; (65 ff.), 193 n. 1; (84), 19 8;(388 ), 200 n. 1 ; (38 9), 18 6 n. 3
9 ( 1 7 ) , 240 η . 2 ; (18) , 238, 240 ; (34) , 240η . 2 ;( 3 9 - 4 1 ) , 238, 239; (5θ > 238, 2 4 ° sndη . 2 ; ( 5 i - 5 ) , 2 36 η . ι ; ( 5 2 ) , 2 4 0 ; ( 5 4 ),243 nn. 2, 3; (5 5 ) , 234 η . ι ; (56) , 234 η .1,263 η . 2
P.H. 1 (216) , 183 nn . 3, 4; (21 8) , 185 bis2 (63) , 1 8 5 ; (64), 198 n. 2; (7 6), 200 η . 13 (218), 236 n. 1, 243 n. 3
S lM P L I C I U SCad. (556, 557) , 194Cat. (208, 28) , 214 n. 2Phys. (54), 292 n. 2; (54ft".), 284 n. 2; (91),
216 and η . 1; (91 . 28) , 217 n. 2; (120 ) , 21 7 ;(786. 1 1 ) , 2 92 η . 1
S O L O Nfr. (1 Di eh l) , 126 n. 1 ; ( 1 . 52), 28 η . 1
S O P H O C L E SAjax (668ff . ) , 1 5 1 ; (13 43), 120 n. 3 ,
12 2 n. 3Antig. (332ff . ) , 18 ; ( 3 3 2 - 7 1 ) , 80; (355) ,
14 2 n. 2; (367 f .) , 12 7; (450ff . ) , 22, 120;(672), 289 n.; ( 1 1 1 3 ) , 56
El. (236), 189; (770), 32 n.
O.C. ( 9 i 2 f f . ) , 1 2 7O.T. (384) , 132 n. 3; (484), 27 n. 2 ;
(863 ff.), 77, 121Phil. ( 4 3 9 ^ ) , 2 7 η . 2 ; ( 1 2 4 6) , 28 η . ι ; (1265) ,
1 9 1Trach. (9 ) , 241 ; ( 1 1 3 6 ) , 1 9 1 ; (fin.), 232 n. 6fr. (83. 3 Nauck), 56 n. 4; (97), 33; (399),
1 5 1 n.; (532 ), 154 n. 4STESIMBROTUS
ap. P lu t . V. Pericl. (8), 65 n. 2STOBAEUS
2 (33· 15 ) , 287 η . 1
3 (38- 32), 2S5 n. 1; (42. 10), 285 η . 15 (82), 165 n. 2
STRABO8 (7. 2) , 1; η . 1
T E L E C L I D E Sfr. (6 Kock), 228 n. 2
THEMISTIONOr. (23 p. 350 Di nd or f) , 205 n. 2; (30
p. 422), 239Phys. paraphr. (7. 2), 216 n. 3
THEODORETUS
Graec. aff. cur. (1 . 75) , 249 η . 1THEOGNIS
( 1 9 ) , 28 n. 1; (27ff . ) , 2 5 1 ; ( 11 9 f t " . ) , 27THEOPHRASTUS
De sens. (7) , 198THRASYMACHUS
fr. ( 1 ) , 295 bis; (2), 294; (8), 97, 298T H U C Y D IDES
1 (2. 4) , 252 ; (21 . 1) , 43 n. 2; (22 . 1) , 85 ;(22. 4), 43 n- 2; (23. 6), 224; (36. 1),224 n. ; (42 . 1 ), 88; (69. 6), 224; (7 6. 2),86; (76. 3), 99 n.; (84. 3), 224 n.; ( 1 2 1 . 4),251 n. 3
2 ( 3 7 ) , 7 0 ; (3 7 . 1 ) , 1 5 0 ; ( 37 - 3 ) , " I ; ( 38 ) ,57 n.; (39. 4), 69 η · 2 ; (43· 2), 735 (43· 3 ),1 6 1 n. 3; (47. 4), 15 n. 1; (62. 4), 224;(63. 2), 86; (97. 3- 4) , 16 n. 2
3 (4 ) , 280 η . 3 ; (9 · ι ) , 87 ; ( 1 0 . 1 ) , 88; ( 1 1 . 2 ) ,88; (36ff.), 20 n. 1; (37. 2), 87 n.;(38· 4), 43 n. 1; (38. 7) , 4 ' , 259 n. 1;(39. 2), 224; (39. 3), 87, 92; (29. 5), 87,99 n.; (40. 2), 87; (40. 4), 87; (44. 4), 87;
(45· 3), 99 (45· 4) , «7" (45· 7 ) , 87,99 n.; (4 7. 5), 87 ; (53. 1-2 ), 224 n. ;(56. 3), 88; (62. 3), 150 n. 2 ; (82), 84;(82. 2), 296 n. 1; (82. 4), 72, 90 n. 2,105 n. ; (82. 6), 56 η . 1; (83. 1) , 90 n. 2 ;(86. 3), 40 n.; (91), 306
4 (60. 1 ) , 86; (61. 5), 86, 99 n.; (86. 6), 92;(98. 6), 224
337
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 350/357
Index of passages quoted or referred to
338
i H U C Y D I D E S (cont.)5 ( 8 5 - 1 1 1 ) , 8 5 ; ( 9 0 ) , 8 5 ; ( 9 8 ) , 8 6 ; ( 1 0 3 ) ,
1 2 8 ; ( 1 0 4 ) , 8 6 ; ( 1 0 5 ) , 8 6 n ., 9 2 ; ( 1 0 5 . 2 ) ,1 0 0 , 2 9 7
6 ( 1 1 . 6 ) , 2 2 4 ; ( 3 8 . 5 ) , 1 4 8 bis8 ( 6 8 ) , 2 9 3 bis; ( 6 8 . 1 ) , 3 2 ; ( 8 9 ) , 2 9 3 ; ( 9 0 ) ,
2 9 3 ; ( 9 0 . 1 ) , 2 9 4TYRTAEUS
fr. ( 3 D i e h l ) , 7 7 n . 1 , 1 3 5
XENOPHANES
fr . ( 1 8 ) , 6 2 , 6 3 n . 2 ; ( 2 3 ) , 2 4 8 ; ( 3 4 ) , 2 3 4XENOPHON
Anab. 2 ( 6 . 16 ff. ), 1 8 1Cyneg. ( 1 3 ) , 3 7Cyrop. 3 (1 . 1 4 ) , 3 1 ; ( 1 . 3 8 ff.), 3 1Hier. ( 2 . 2 ) , 2 5 2 ; ( 6 . 1 6 ) , 2 5 2Mem. 1 ( 1 . n ) , 3 1 ; ( 2 . 6 ) , 3 9 ; ( 2 . 9 ) , 1 2 8 n . 2 ,
3 1 9 n . 3 ; ( 2 . I 2 f f . ) , 3 0 0 ; ( 2 . 2 4 ) , 3 0 1 n . 3 ;( 2 . 3 1 ) , 1 7 8 n . 2; (2. 4 6 ) , 2 8 n . 1 ; ( 4 . 1 0 ) ,
* 3 > ;
( 4 . 1 3 ) , 6 5 n . 2 ; ( 6 ) , 2 9 3 bis; ( 6 . 3 ) , 2 3 0n- 3 ; ( 6 · 5 ) , 3 9 ! ( 6 · 1 0 ) , 2 3 0 n . 3 ; ( 6 . 1 3 ) ,
3 6 ; ( 7 . 1 ) , 7 1 ; ( 1 6 . 1 3 ) ,4 02 ( 1 . 2 1 ) , 6 3 n . 3 ; ( 1 . 2 1 - 3 4 ) , 2 7 8 n . 23 ( 3 . 1 1 ) , 1 7 8 ; ( 8 . 7 ) , J 6 6 n . 2 ;4 ( 2 . 1 ) , 3 0 ; ( 3 . 1 4 ) , 65 r> . 2 ; ( 3 . 1 6 ) , 2 2 7 n . j ;
( 4 . 8 ) , 1 6 5 ; ( 4 . 1 2 ) , 1 3 8 ; ( 4 . 1 2 - 1 3 ) , m ;( 4 . I 2 f f . ) , 7 0 n . 2 ; ( 4 . 1 4 f f . ) , 1 1 9 ; ( 4 - 1 6 ) ,
1 4 9 ; ( 4 . 21) , 1 1 9 n . 3 ; ( 5 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) , 2 0 4 n .3 ; ( 6 . 1 ) , J 1 7 8 ; ( 6 . 6 ) , 7 0 n . 2; ( 6 . 8 ) ,1 6 6 n . 2 ;
Oec. ( 1 . 7 - 8 ) , 1 9 1 ; ( 4 . 2 - 3 ) , 1 2 8 n. 2i ?ep . Z a c . ( 2 . 4 ) , 5 7 n . ; ( 8 . 5 ) , 1 3 5Symp. ( 3 . 5 . ) , 3 0 9 ; ( 4 . 6 ) , 3 1 0 ; ( 4 . 3 8 ) , 3 0 7 ;
( 4 · 3 9 ) , 3 ° 7 ; ( 4 · 4 3 ) , M i η ·! ( 4 · 02), ι82Π .
2 , 2 8 2 η . ι , 2 8 3 η . 2 , 3 0 6 ; ( 5 ) , 1 7 0[XENOPHON]
Const. Ath. (1 . ί ο ) , 1 5 6 ; ( 3 5 ff-)> ^ 9 9
ZENO
fr . (1) , 1 9 7 ; ( 1 1 ) , 1 9 7
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 351/357
G E N E R A L INDEX
Bold figures denote a main or more important entry. The entries for modern scholars are often
selective, and as a rule no entry is made where the text has not more than a reference
Adimantus, 94 n. 3, 99, 103Aeschines of Sphettus, 30A e s c h y l u s , 28, 49, 50, 121, 158 n. 3Agathon, 273agnosticism, 23, 234 f.agr icul ture (see also medicine), as origin of law
and ci vi li za ti on , 61 f., 239aidos, 66a i r , divinity of, 232, 233, 247
aither, divinity of, 232, 233, 247A l c i h i a d e s , 237, 274, 301, 308; relations with
Socra tes , 300A l c i d a m a s , 48 n. 1, 15 7, 220, 27 4, 3 1 1 - 1 3 ;
on slavery, 24, 159 f.Alc mae on, 31, 195ananke, 100Anaxagoras , 18 , 30, 154 n. 4, 203, 226, 232,
248Anaximander, 14, 136 n. 2, 194Anaximenes, 194A n d r o n , 10 2
a n i m a l s , as model s of huma n beh avi our , 104,1 1 4 n. 4
'A no ny mu s Ia mbl ich i', 71 ff., 253 n. 1, 256,280 j authorship and date, 314 f.
Ant igo ne , 22, 120, 127Antimoerus, 37Ant iphon , 52, 122 n. 4, 125 n. 1, 128 n. 3, 143,
145, 208, 285-94; upholds physis againstnomos, 22 , 100, 1 0 7 - 1 3 , 1 1 9, 130, 146, 203,2 9 1 ; on birt h and rac e, 24, 152 f., 156, 1 6 1 ;On Truth, 107 ff., 2 91 ; equ ate s justic e wit h
conformity to law, 108, i n , 138;On
Con-cord, 150 n. 1, 286 ff.; as men ta l the rap ist ,1 6 8 , 290 f.; on edu cat ion , 16 8; ho w far asceptic, 202 f.; on lan gua ge , 20 2- 4; stud yof natu re, 203; on God and provi denc e,230, 23 1, 245, 288; on sophrosyne, 259;ide nt ity of, 285 f., 29 2- 4; date , 286 wi thn. 2; on time, 292
Ant is thenes , 117, 1 6 5 , 1 8 2 n. 2, 208, 274, 304-1 1 ; on impo ssi bil ity of cont rad icti on, 209 ff.;on def ini tio n, 21 0 f., 21 2 f.; re tor t to Plato,2 1 4 ; monoth eism of, 247 - 9; date a n ^ setting,304 ff.; relation to Socrates, 305 ff.; toC y n i c s , 306 f., 307 η . 1 ; pupil of Gorgias,306; character, 307; doctrine of virtue, 308;anti-egali tarian, 308; reply to Parmenides,309; as Home ric crit ic, 309 f.; att ack edPl ato , 31 0; theor ies of his influen ce, 310 f.;works , 3 1 1
A n y t u s , 38 n. 1, 39; attacks Sophists, 36, 37,2 5 i
Aphrodite, 229, 230
Apol lo (see also Delphic oracle ), as legislator,
1 7 , 77, 135Archel aus (philosoph er), 58 wi th n. 1, 11 6, 165Arc hel aus of Macedo n, 294, 309 η . 1Archy ta s , 151Areopagus , 78arete, how acquired, 2;, 250 ff., 317 f. ( ' D o u b l e
Arguments ') ; poli t ical , 64 ff . ; according toPr ot ag or as , 65 ff., to A ris tot le, 68, to'An on. Iambli chi ' , 7 1 ; as practical s k i l l ,66 n. 1, 25 2; as fitness for f unc tio n, 90 n. 1,25 2 f.; aris tocr atic asso cia tion s, 250 ff. Seealso Socrates
Arg inusae , affair of, 143 η . 1Aristippus 1, 277Ari sto gei ton , spee ch aga ins t, 75 ff., 138, 145Aristo phane s, 49, 15 8; on function of poets ,
29 f.; on so phist s, 3 3; critic of the ne wmor alit y, 100, 11 4Ari stot le, rela tion to Sop his tic , 53 f.; on
acquiring virtue, 68; his classification ofl a w s , 123 f., 12 6; on l aw and m or al it y, 139,1 4 0 ; on friendship, 149 f.; on eq ua li ty , 1 5 2 ;on slavery, 160; on metron, 183 f.; cr it ic ismof Antiphon, 203; criticism of A ntist hene s,2 1 0 ; criticism of Alcid ama s, 312 wit h n. 5;on nam es , 208 n. 1; on def initi on, 210 n. 4,2 1 3 ; on gr am ma r, 220 f.; on C ri ti as , 299 f.
Aspasia, 228
atheism, 23, 1 1 5 , 235-47Athena, 80 n. 2Athena goras , 148, 151Athenians, suspicious of intellectuals, 32;
att itu de to Soph ist s, 38 f., 40Athe ns, constitutional devel opme nts at, 1 9;
originator of agriculture and civil isation,83 f.; sl av er y at, 155 f.; her p hi lo so ph y ofpo we r, 85 f., 297
Ay e r , A. J . , 165
Bacon, Francis, 8 f.
B a l d r y , H. C , 153 n. 5barbaroi, 153 nn. 1 and 4Barke r, E., 13 1, 137, 141 wi th n. 2beauty competit ion, 170Bentham, J . , 72 η . 1Bignone, E., 20 n. 2, 94 n. 1, 109 n. 3, 150
n. 1, 292 f.
339
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 352/357
General indexblood, as vehicle of t h o u g h t , 303Burnet, J . , 17 , 48 n. 2Butler, Bishop , 217 n. 2
C a i z z i , F., 21 0 n. 2, 21 1 n. 1, 215C a l l i a s , 41, 306C a l l i c l e s , 22, 37, 41, 72, 97, I 0 I - 7 , 130, 132,
1 4 0 f., 145 , 245Calogero , G., 271 η . 1Camb ridg e Universi ty, 20 η . 1C am pb el l, Α . Η ., 11 7Cassirer, E., 3 η . 1C h a r i c l e s , 300Charondas, 17C h i a p e l l i , Α . , 199Chr ist ian ity , 5 f., 242 η . 1C i n e s i a s , 245Classen, C. J . , 205 n. 2Clei sthe nes, 19, 38 n. 1, 136Cle on, 19 , 41 , 43 n. 1, 87climate, effect on character, 161Cole , A. T. , 175 n. 1, 315 η . 1concord. See homonoia.Confucius, 276'con sola tion -lit erat ure' , 290 n. 2contradiction, imposs ibilit y of, 182, i t o ff.Co ra x, 178 f., 270Cornford , F. M ., 50 n. 1, 17 2 n. 1, 17 5 , 184 f.cosm olog y, effect on moral theory , 100, 1 1 4 -
1 6Cosmopoli tanism. See Unity of Mankind.Crates, 308
C r a t y l u s , 20 1; (in Pl at o) , 206 ff., 2 1 ;Crete, l a w s of, 136C r i t i a s , 22, 48, 145 n. 2, 236, 274, 298-304;
on or ig in of rel igi on, 23, 243 f.; on ori gin ofsoci ety, 82, 14 2; on l aw , 68 f., 13 8; rela tion swi th Socra tes , 178 , 300; on sensation andt hough t , 202, 302 f.; on nature and training,2 5 6 , 302; l ife and character, 298 ff.; interestin tec hno log y, 30 1; wo rk s, 302 ff.; on time,303 f.
Cri tobulus, 170Cros s, R. C , and Woo zl ey , A. D., 89 n. 2,
91 nn . 1 and 3, 92 n. 1, 96 n. 1, 142 , 143C y n i c s , 305, 306 ff.C y n o s a rg e s , gymnasium of, 306 with n. 3
Damon , 35 η . 1Darius, 104, 132definitions (see also Socra tes) , Antisthe nes on,
2 1 2 ff.; of arete (Socrates and Gorg ias) ,253 f.; m us t in clu de functi on, 213
deification, of inanimate substances, 238 fl.; ofhuman benefactors, 238 ff.
deinos, demotes, 32 f., 34Delph ic oracle, 13 5, 227 η . 1Dema rat us, 69, 122 n. 2Demete r, 61, 83, 241democ racy , 38 η . 1, 87 η . ι , 126, 130, 148, 15 0;
gr ow th of at Ath ens , 19 f.; and rhet oric,1 7 9 ; Socrates 's view s on, 128
De mo cr it us , 9, 18 , 52, 56, 61 , 73 n. 2, 100, 197η . i , 208, 25 3; on limita tions of hum ankno wle dge , 8; on law, 69; on concord, 15 0;on sensat ions and r eal ity , 186, 201, 203; oncorrect la ng ua ge , 205 f.; la ng ua ge andr e a l i t y, 225; on belief in gods, 216, 232, 238;on nature and training, 256; compa red toAntiphon, 291
Demos, 102Demosthenes, 118Descartes, R., 7de Strycker , \V., 143 η . 1Devereux, G., 230 n. 1Dev lin , Lor d, 1 1 7 n. 1, 122 n. 4, 140Diagoras of Melos, 236 f.dike, 66Diodotus, of Athens, 87 η . 1Diogenes of Apollonia, 31, 185 n. 1, 232, 233Di og en es of Sin op e, 306 f., 30S
Diopeithes, 227, 228 n. 2Diotima, 31Disraeli, B., 272division, method of (in Plato), 204Dodds , E. R. , 102 nn. 1 and 4, 106, 107, 133,
1 3 4 n. 2, 242' D o u b l e Ar gu me nt s' , the, 171 n. 2, 257,
316-19
earth, as god tamed by man, 80; men bornfrom, 15 4 f., 163
education, compared to agriculture, 168 f.Ehrenberg , V., 38 n. 1, 85 n. 2, 129 n. 1, 133Eleatics, 202 η . 1, 203; influence on Sop his ts,
8, 1 4 f., 1 9 2 f., 273Eleusin ian myste rie s, profanation of, 237, 24 ;Empedo cles, 29, 31 , 42, 56, 62, 1 16 , 149 n. 2,
1 5 9 n. 2, 1 79 , 194, 241 , 303; relation toGorgi as, 198, 269, 270 η . 1
empiricism, 8, 47Enlig htenm ent, the, xiv, 48Ephialtes, 19Epicurus, 291epideixeis, 41 f.epos, 205e q u a l i t y, c h . VI ; geometrical and arithmetical,
equity, 123Eretrian school, 217e r i s t i c , 178 η . 1eras (Platonic) , 40etymology, 207 with n. 2.Euclides of Megara, 217Euenus, 45Euhemerus, 236, 240Euri pid es, 28, 49, 136, 205 n. 2 ; on s lav ery , 24,
1 5 7 - 9 ; and So ph is tic , 43, 48, 127 f.; onnomos—physis antit hesis , 1 13 f.; on di vi nel a w s , 1 2 1 ; on writ ten and unw rit ten law,1 2 6 - 9 ; o n equal i ty ( g e n e r a l ) , 149, 15 1, (ofhig h and lo w bir th ) 154 f.; on re lat ivi ty ofv a l u e s , 1 65 ; on the go ds , 228 ff.; inf luenc edby Antiphon?, 230 n. 3 (b); on natural
340
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 353/357
General indexEuripides (com.)
phi los oph y, 2 33; on prop hec y, 246 I.; onweakness of w i l l (against Socrates) , 258
Eu th yd em us , 30, 186 n. 1, 206E u t h y p h r o , 207 η . 1
falseho od, im pos sib ili ty of, 182 n. 2, 207, 21 of.Fehling, D., 205, 206 n. 2Filmer, Robert , 6 η . 1Four Hundred , the, 102, 301Fr itz , K. vo n, 17 4 n. 1, 266fundamentalis m, w h y unk no wn in Greece,
230 n. 2
genetic definitions, 143 f.Gigante, M., 75 n. 2, 133Gla uco n, 22, 95 n. 2, 97, 99, 101 n. 2, 1 12 , 1 41 ,
1 4 2 , 146god, gods (see also names of separate gods,
atheism, religion, providence, deification),or ig in of belief in, 23 f., 238 ff. (Pr od ic us );moral f a i l i n g s of, 13 4; crit icism of, on moralgr ou nd s, 228 ff.; as personif ication s ofpas si ons , 230; self-s ufficienc y of, 230 f.;replaced by natural forces, 237 n. 2
G o m m e , A . W. , 12 1 n. 3Gomperz , H., 20, 16 7 n. 1, 17 4, 189Gomperz , T., 13 , 49Gorgia s, 8, 14, 56 η . i, 99, 103 n. 2, 125, 211,
269-74; attacked Presoc ratic philo sophy ,1 5 , 51, 186; denied tha t he taught arete, 20,3 9 , 44 f., 102 n. 2 , 1 81 , 271 f.; refused todefine arete, 254 ; mission to A the ns, 21 , 40,1 7 9 n. 3, 192 n. 1, 27 0; on th e pow er ofrhet oric , 25, 44, 168, 180 f., 2 7 1 ; moralneu tral ity of, 25, 2 7 1 ; ear nin gs of, 36;public speeches, 42, 44; Helen, 42, 50, 192,2 5 4 ; Palamedes, 42, 181 n. 1, 192; On Non-Being, 47, 180, 192 ff.; pan-Hellenism of,44, 150, 16 2; on tr age dy, 1 81 ; date and l ife,269; relation to Empedocles, 269; works,270 f.; epi tap h on, 27 2 η . 1; pu pi ls of, 273 f.
grammar, 219 ff.Grant , Α ., 12 , 13 n. 1, 49, 164, 265Greene, W . C ., 73, 108 η . 1Greenleaf, W . H., 7, 59Gro te , G., 11 ff., 33, 18 8, 199 f., 214 n. 1, 265 ,
2 7 7 f., 284Grotius, H., 6Gy ge s, ri ng of, 98, 99, m
Hack for th, R., 167, 205 n. 2Harri son, E. L., 96 η . 1Harrison, Freder ic, 242 η . 1Har t , H . L. Α . , ι 6 η . ι , 57Have lock , Ε . Α ., ί ο , 13 , 34 n. 1, 51 f., 64 n. 1,
287, 296Hecata eus, 17 n. 3hedonic calculus, 259hedonism (see also pleasur e) ; of C a l l i c l e s , 1 0 ; ;
of Ant iphon , 11 3, 290
He in ima nn , F., 56 n. 3, 57 n. 1, 58, 13 2 n. 4 ,1 3 4 , 138 n. 2
Helen, 192, 229, 230Helike, disaster at, 15 η . 1Hep hae stu s, 80 n. 2Hera, 228, 229 η . 1Heracles, 132, 133, 308; see also ProdicusHeracli des of Pont us, 15 η . 1Her acli tus , 55 , 125 , 129 , 200, 203, 248, 253;
and Pr ota gor as, 14 , 166, 182 n. 2, 18 5;attack on religious cults, 22(5
Her mae , muti lati on of, 2 37, 245, 301Hermes, 66, 228Hermocrates, 86, 93He rmo ge nes (in Pl at o) , 206 ff., 215Herodo tus , 16 , 28, 132 , 133 , 148 η . 1Hesiod , 29, 55, 62, 125 , 254, 278 η . 1Hippias, 136, 146, 165, 280-5; o n l a w s as
huma n compacts, 24, 70, 138, 143, 14 5; asdip lom at, 40; pub lic spee ches , 42 f.; bre adthof interests, 45, 46, 282 f.; on un wr itt enl a w s , i n , 118-20; and the unity of mankin d, 11 9 n. 2, 162, 16 3; date and character,280 ff.; dis cov ere d qu ad ra tr ix , 283 f.; eth ica lv i e w s summarized, 284 f.
Hi ppo da mus , 139 f., 1 47Hippon , 245Hirzel, R., 125 η . 1Hobbes , Th om as , 96, 98 n. 1, 137 n. 1, 14 1,
1 4 2 n. 1, 144, 215 η . 1Homer, la ng ua ge of, cr iti ciz ed, 205 f., 221 n. 2homonoia, 149 f.Hu man is m, rise of in Greece, 14 ff.Hume, D., 1 2 8 , 1 3 ; n. 1 , 1 6 4 ; on the Crito, 143
η . 1
Ideas, Platonic. See Formsincest, 16, 11 9 wit h n. 2, 1 23, 166Iolanthe, 60 n. 2Ion of Chios, 195Isocrates, 28, 36, 43 n. 1, 78, 83, 151, T 9 5 , 2 7 3 ,
tsonomla, 12 6, 150 n. 2
J a e g e r , W., 106 n. 2J e s u s , 34 n. 2, 113J o e l , K., 1 3, 49, 310Joseph, H. W. B., 89 n. 1, 96Jowett , B. , 12j u s t i c e , relat ion to interest (Thucydides) ,
85 ff.; as interest o f stro nger (T hr as y-machus), 88 ff.; as obedience to the l a w s ,88 ff., 98, 108, i n (A nt iph on ), 146 ;' n a t u r e ' s ' ( C a l l i c l e s ) , 1 0 3 - 5 ; other definit ions of (Antiphon), 1 1 1 - 1 3 ; natural ( A r i st o t l e ) , 123 η . 1
Kaerst , J . , 66 n. 2, 72 n. 1, 135 η . ιKahn, C. H., 190kairos, 272 with n. 4, 312kalos, 170
34'
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 354/357
General indexKant, I., 48Kerferd, G. B., on Thr asy mac hu s in Republic,
91 n. 3, 92 n. 1, 95 n. 2, 96; on Ant iphon ,108 nn . 1 and 4, 109 nn. 1 an d 3, 294 η . 1 ;on Gorgias On Non-Being, 194 η . 1
Knigh t, A . H. J. , 107 η . 1
l a n g u a g e , origin of (in Diodorus), 81, 20(5
n. 2; theories of (Antiphon), 204, (Plato'sCratylus), 206 ff.; conn exio n w it h kn owl edge and being, 208 f.; Greek acquaintancewi th foreign l an gu ag es , 208, 283 wi th n. 3
Laslett, P., 135 η . 1l a w (see also just ice, unwrit ten law, nomos,
social compact) , rel igious and secular viewsof, 17 , 76 f., 135 n. 1, 13 6; con nex ion wi thagr icu l ture , 61 f., 2 39 ; Gr ee k pr id e in , 69 ff.;criticized as unnat ural (A nti pho n), 108 f.;natural and divine law (see also Zeus,A p o l l o ) , 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 123 f., 125 f., 1 3 1 , 1 36 ;
divin e orig in of, 17 , 13 5; relation tomo ra li ty , 11 7 wi th n. 1, 139 f., 17 3 f.L e s k y , Α . , i 8 9
L e v i , Ad ., 11 9 f.Le vi ns on , R. B ., 10, 106, 159 n. 2, 160l i fe , or igi n of, 14, 163, 203 η . 1L i n u s , 27, 145 n. 2Locke, John, 6, 23, 120 n. 2, 129 n. 1, 135 n. 1,
1 4 2 n. 1, 145logoi, art of, 177 f.logos, meaning of, 210 f.Lorenz , K. (and Mittels trass, J . ) , 215 n. 3lot, appointment by, 319Lur ia , S., 294Lyc oph ro n, 48 n. 1, 31 3 f.; his contra ctual
theory of law, 22, 139, 142, 143, 145; onnoble birth, 1 5 3 ! " . , 1 5 5; on omission ofcopula, 216 f.
L y c u r g u s , 76, 78, 135, 136Ly s i a s , 60
M a c a u l a y , Τ . B., 8, 18Macrocephali, 287M a g u i r e , J . P. , 97 η . 1Mamercus, 282, 284mathematics (see also quadratrix), 15 1, 267medicine, 62; analogies with agriculture,
rhetoric and education, 1 6 7 - 9 , l 8 7 η · 3Megarian school, 185, 217Meletus, 23 2M e l i a n dialogue, 21, 85, 92, 104, 128M e l i s s u s , 31 , 194, 195, 197, 201 η . 1Melos (see also Melian Dialogue), 20Menedemus, 217Meno, 2 ;, 181 , 274metron, 183M i c c u s , 31, 33microcos m-macroc osm ana log y, 6, 151M i l l , J . S., 140Mittelstrass, J . , see Lorenz, K.mnemonics, Hippias's technique of, 283
Mnesiphilus, 35 f.M o m i g l i a n o , Α ., 224 , 288Mo or e, G. E., 2 17 n. 2Moral i ty (see also re la t iv i ty, Pro tagoras , l a w) ,
three eras of, 49, 164Mo rr is on , J . S. , 29, 202, 203 n. 3, 204, 294Mo sc hi on , 81 f., 145 n. 2M i i l l e r , C. W., 23; n. 3
Mu rr ay , G. G. R., 205 n. 2, 220 η . 1Musaeus, 35, 283M y t i l e n e , 19, 87
names (see also onoma), 206 ff., 212 f., 21 5natural philosophers, 142 ; relation to So phist s,
4, 14, 100; short coming s of, 1 5 ; immoraiuse of, 100, 1 1 4 - 1 6 ; religious conceptionsof, 226, 231
nature, contrasted with nomos, ch. iv passim;and ne ces si ty, 99 ff., 1 1 4 , 25 8; la w of, 104 ;relation to divi nit y, 120 wit h n. 2
nature, human, 99, 100 n. 2Naucratis, 17Nazi party, 10necessi ty, 169 f.; natu ral, 86, 100, 104, 1 1 4 ;
hypothet ical, 96 η . 1; of nomos, 101 n. 2; seealso nature
Nestle, W., 160, 261New man, W . L., 159Nietzs che, F., 13 , 107nobil i ty, disparaged, 15 2 -5nominalism, 214 f.
nomos (see also la w) , meaning of word ,
5 5 *nomos-physis antithesis, 21, ch. iv passim,
201 f.; in la ng ua ge , 204 ff.; in re li gi on , 227Not t , K., 9
O'Brien, D., 313ol igarchy, 148Olympia, Sophists compete at, 42 f.onoma, 205Orpheus , 35, 145 n. 2, 283Orph i sm, 246, 304orthoepeia, 205Oxford University, 20 n. t
pan- Hell enic festiv als, 42 f., 162pan-Hellenism, 44, 161 f.Par meni des , 6, 29, 31, 47, 1 93, 200, 2 1 7 ; and
Gorgias, 180, 194 if.Peitho, 50P e r i c l e s , 19, 28 n. 1, 35 n. 1, 38 n. 1 , 65 n. 2,
7 0 , 86, 274; relations with Protagoras, 21,7 8 , 263; on unwritten l a w s , 121 wi th n. 3;on Athenian democracy, 150 f.
Persaeus ( S t o i c ) , 238, 239personifications, 120pers uasio n, G org ias o n, 50 f., 181, 271 ff.Phaleas , 152Ph ere cyd es, 149 n. 2, 304Phile mon, 157, 160
3 4 2
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 355/357
General indexphilia, 149 n. 2phrontisterion, 361physis (see also nomos-physis antithesis),
aris tocr atic ass ocia tion s of, 102 n. 4, 25 1Pindar, 28, 131-4, 228, 251 f.Plato (see also Forms), 4 , 6, 164, 165, 257; on
the S op hi st s, 9 ff., 2 1 , 34, 35 ff., 39 n. 2, 19 3,265 f. (P ro tag ora s) , 273, 274 (Pr odi cus ),278 , 281 f. ( Hip pi as ); moral v ie ws of, 106;Protagoras, tone of, 10 7; his su mm ar y ofatheistic philosop hy, 11 5 f.; on unwritt enl a w s , 122 f.; ge ne ra l attit ud e to l aw , 130 f.,1 4 1 ; on philia, 149 n. 2; on eq ual ity , 1 51 withn. 1; on s la ve ry , 157 n. 2, 160 f., 161 n. 1;on Gr eek s and bar bar ian s, 1 62 f.; on sophi s t i c and rhetoric , 176 f.; co nve rsa tio n wi thAntisthenes, 21 4; visit to Megar a, 21 7; ongra mma r, 220 f.; rel igi ous vi ew s of, 230;his two types of atheist, 246
pleasure (see also hedonic calculus), Antiphon
on, 109poets, didactic function of, 29; called sophistai,
30Pohlenz, M., 75, 76 f.Polus, 103Popper, K. R., 10, 34 n. 1, 97 n. 1, 137, 141 ,
1 42 n. 1, 299Poseidon, 15positivism, 164pred icat ion, imp oss ibi lit y of, 209, 213 f.,
2 1 6 - 1 8Priam, 154probability, argument from 178 f.Prodicus, 33, 36, 182 n. 2, 236, 27 4- 80 ; on
or ig in of relig ion , 23 f., 2 38 -4 2; on theaccurate use of words, 32 n. 1, 205, 222,275 f., 278 n. 2; mission to Athens, 40;On the Nature of Man, 46, 277; relationswi th So cra tes , 222 f., 275 f.; phil osop hicalimplic ations of his s yn on ym ic , 224 f.;Choice of Heracles, 225 , 27 7 f.; l i fe an dcharacter, 274; fees of, 42, 275; as naturalphilosopher, 277 ; wor ks, 279
pro gr ess , theo ries of, 60 ff., 24 2; Pro tag or ason, 65 ff.; pass ages ill ust rat ing , 79 ff.
Promethe us, 32, 61 , 79prophecy (see also Delphic oracle), 246 f.Pro tag ora s, 4, 8, 14, 21 , i n n. 1, 149, 202,
262 -9 ; called himself Sophist, 20, 34; relations with Per icles, 2 1 ; agno stic ism of, 23,65 n. 2, 234 f., 268 f.; on a rg u in g both sides,24, 44 n. 4, 50 f., 18 2, 2 1 1 f., 267, 3 1 6 ; 'manthe measure' , 2 5 , 1 7 1 ff., 183 ff.; earnings of,3 6 ; as teacher of political arete, 38, 255 f.;on verbal contests, 43 with n. 4; rhetoricalw r i t i n g s , 44 n. 4; as critic of poetry, 45, 205,269 ; and natura l phi los oph y, 46 f.; reactionagainst Eleatics, 47; On the Original Staleof Man, 63 with n. 3, 64 n. 1, 264 n. 2; onorigins of society and morality, 63 ff., 142,266; theory of punishment , 67; drew Lip
constitution for Thurii, 78, 263; social compact in, 1 3 6 - 8 , 14 5; on re lation of law tojus t i ce , 146 , 172 ff.; on re lat ivi ty of va lue s,1 66 ff., 254 n. 2, 267 f.; and m ed ic in e, 167 ,1 69 η . 1; on langu age, 205; on gramm ar,220 f.; date and l i fe , 262 f.; works, 264; onmathematicians, 267
providence, 227 n. 1, 231
Proxenus, 274punishment , Protagoras's theory of, 67Pusey, Ε . B. , 6 η . 1P y r i l a m p e s , 102Pyth agor as, called 'so phi st ' , 28
quadratrix, 284
Rationalism, in 17th-century England, 7r e l a t i v i t y, 47 ; of customs and moral standa rds,
1 6 , 59 f.; of truth, 51 , 272 f. ( Go rg ia s) ; ofv a l u e s , ch . vn
r e l i g i o n (see also god, fundamentalism), 14 f.;and the state, 227; as political device, 244
Rensi, G., 106retributio n, as typ ical ly Greek idea, 1 13 n. 1;
rejected by Protagoras, 67; divine, 125 f.rhapsodes, 42, 310Rhetoric (see also Sop hi st s) , 50 f., 1 2 5 ; in
Aris tot le , 1 2 4 ^ ; ' inve nt ion ' of, 17 8; twosch ool s of, 17 9 f.
Rousseau, J . - J . , 23, 61 , 135 n. 1, 137 n. 1,1 42 η . 1, 144
R u s s e l l , Bertrand, 9, 272 n. 3
Sa lo mo n, M., 64 n. 1, 94 f., 96 n. 1, 261scepticism, 47,50 f., 1 6 4 , 1 8 0 , 200 ff.; religious,
1 4 f., 227 ff.S c h l a i f e r , R., 157Schmid, Wilh elm, 202 η . 1S c i a p o d s , 287self-interest, 99; identified with justice, 88 ff.Seltman, C. T., 170S e v e n S a g e s , 28, 30Shakespeare, 151S i c k i n g , C. M. J . , 180 n. 3
S i d g w i c k , H., 11 f.Simonds, Lord, 140situational ethic, 60Ske mp , J . B. , 125 n. 1, 161 η . 1s l a v e r y, 24, 155—60
S n e l l , 13., 126 n. 1, 227 n . 2s o c i a l compact, 6, 70 f., ch . v ; 'hi sto ric ist '
theory of, 1 4 1 - 3 ; takes vari ous forms,1 42 n. t; gen eti c exp lan ati on of, 144 f.
S o c i e t y, or ig in s of, 60 ff., 14 2Socrates (see also table of contents'), 4, 43, 113
with n. 1; called 'sophist', 33, 34; attitudeto teaching for fees, 39; respect for law,70f.; argument with Thrasymachus, 88 ff.;on unwritten l a w s , 119 , 147 ; poli t ical v ie ws1 2 8 ; identifies just with lawful, 138, 1 4 6 ! ' . ,140; on the social compa ct, I. j o, 143. 145;
3 4 3
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 356/357
General indexSocrates (com.)
b e l i e f in a future l i fe , 14 7; on relat ivity ofv a l u e s , 165 , 187 n. 3; util itar ian ism of, 166n. 2; tel eol ogy of, 166 n. 2; as maste r ofthe art of logoi, 177 f.; r elati on to Sop hist s,1 8 7 n. 3; to Prodicus, 222 f., 275 f.; toC r i t i a s , 300; his concept ion of arete, 253;'vi r tu e is kno wle dg e' , 257 f.; wro ngd oing
i s involuntary, 258, 271 n. 1; as intellectualmidwife, 275
Sol on, 1 7, 19 , 28, 29, 125 f., 299Soma (in Vedic hymns), 241 n. 2sophia, sophos, 27 f.sophist, meaning of word, 27 ff.Sophists (see also table of contents), 35 ff.;
perma nent r eleva nce of, 3; conn exio ns wi thPresocratic t hough t , 4, 45 ff.; modern a sses sme nts of, 10 ff.; an d rhe to ri c, 20, 44 f.,1 7 9 f.; relati on to poet s, 29 ; as teach ers ofarete, 38 f., 2 55 ; sca les of fees, 38 n. 2, 42
wi th n. 1, 45, 27 5; compe tito rs at festiv als,42 f.; as lite rar y criti cs, 45 ; reactio n agai nstEleatics, 47; common philosophy of, 47 f.;loss of writings, 51 ff.
Sophoc les, on huma n ach ievemen ts, 18, 142n. 2; on unwri tten la w, 22, 120 f., 12 7; ons l a v e r y, 158 n. 3
Spartans, 86, 302Stenzel , J . , 109 η . 1S t i l p o , 217S to da rt , Μ . Α . , 6 η . ιS t o i c s , 308
Strauss, L., 10 η . 1sun, god or stone?, 231 f.superstition, condemned by Plato, 246
Tar n, W . W. , 153 n. 5Tate , J . , 116 η . 1Taylor, A. E., 96technai, 44, 125, 128techne, meanin g of word, 115 n. 3technology, Greek attitude to, 18; develop
ment of, 62, 79 ff.teleology, in Aristotle, 213
Thales, 282Thamyris, 30Thargelia of Miletus, 283Themistocl es, 35, 41 η . 1T h e o d o r u s of Cyrene, 236
Theognis, 27, 28, 29, 250 f.Theo phr ast us, 149 n. 2Theramenes, 298, 300Thersites, 27Theseus, 80, 126-8Thirty, tyranny of the, 298, 300T h o m s o n , G., 121 n. 2, 122Thrasymachus, 46, 85, 101 n. 3, 103, 104 n. 1,
294-8; wrote techne, 44 n. 4; in the Republic,88-97, 296-8
Thucydides, 48, 55, 85 ff.; debt to Prodicus,223 f.
Thurii, 33, 78, 139, 264Tigranes, 31time, 292 with η . 1 (Antiphon and Aristot le ) ,
303 f. (Critias)T i s i a s , 178 f., 180, 1 92 , 270Troglodytes, 287tyranny, results from breakdown of law
( ' A n o n . Iambi. ' ) , 73
uni ty of manki nd, 24, 119 n. 2, 153 (An tiphon), 160-3
Unters teiner, M., 1 33, 138, 189, 197 n. 2,239
unwrit ten l a w s , 22 f., 55 , 77 , 1 1 8 - 3 1utilitarianism (see also Socrates), 72, 169
v a l u e s , inv ers ion of, 84 f.; re la ti vi ty of,c h . v i i ; take s two for ms, 16 6; aesth etic, 170
Versenyi , L., 167
Vlastos, G., 149 n. 1, 150 n. 2, 263 n. 3 , 265
w i l l , weakness of, 258
Wo od bu ry , L., 236 n. 2,237 nn. 1 and 2,24 5 n. 1Woozley, A. D. See Cross, R. C.
Xeniades, 200Xenophanes, 42, 48 n. 2,62; attack on religion,
226, 22 8; concep tio n of de it y, 230, 234, 248Xe rx es , 69 f., 104
Zaleucus, 17Zeller, E., 1 1 , 48, 159 n. 2Zeno of Citium, 308, 309Zeno of Elea , fees of, 38 n. 2Zeus , 1 5 , 66, 100, 133 f.; as la wg iv er , 55, 77 ,
1 25 f.; mor al fai lin gs of, 228, 229 ; inA e s c h y l u s , 232 n. 6
344
8/3/2019 Guthrie the Sophists OCR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guthrie-the-sophists-ocr 357/357
I N D E X O F S E L E C T E D G R E EK W O R D S
Greek words transliterated in the
α γ α θ ό ν , 1 70 η . ια γ ώ ν ε ς λ ό γ ω ν , 4 3 η . 4ά β ε ο ς , 2 3 7 η . 2α ν ά γ κ η ( s e e a ls o g e n er a l i n d e x ), 1 0 1 n . 2ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ι κ ο ί , 1 7 7ά π ε ι ρ ο ς , 23 0 n . 3(d )α ρ ε τ ή ( s e e a ls o g e n e ra l i n d e x ) , 90 n . 1ά τ α κ τ ο ς , 82 n . 4
β ε λ τ ί ω ν( C a l l i c l e s ' sinterpretat ion of ) , 103 n. 2
δ υ ν α μ ις , 185 n. 2
ε π ιε ι κ έ ς , 1 23ε ύ έ π ε ι α , 1 79
ή μ ε ρ ο ς , 6 2 n . 2
θ ε σ μ ό ς , 62 n . 2θ η ρ ι ώ δ η ς , 63 n . 2 , 80 n. 2
Ι σ ο ν ο μ ία , 1 50 n . 2
κ α λ ό ν ( s e e a l so g e n er a l i n d e x ) , 1 7 0 n .1κ α τ α β ά λ λ ο ν τ ε ς , 1 83 n .1
μ ε τ ε ω ρ ο λ ό γ ο ς , 4 6 n. 1
/ will he found in the general index
μ ε τ ε ω ρ ο σ ο φ ισ τ ή ς , 2 7 7μ ύ δ ρ ο ς ,2 4 4 n . 1
ν ο μ ί τ ε ι ν , 5 7 n . 1 , 2 3 7 n . 2ν ό μ ιμ α , 1 22 n . 3
ό ρ θ ο έ ι τ ε ια , i 8 o, 205ό ρ θ ό τ η ςο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν , 1 80 , 204 , 205
σ ο φ ί^ ε σ θ α ι , 28 n . Iσ ό φ ι σ μ α , z 8 n . 1 , 3 3 n. 1σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν , 8 5, 1 4 0 n . 1 , 1 69σ ύ ν ε σ ί ς ,65σ υ ν θ ή κ η , 7 5 n . 2 , 1 3 6 w i t h n. 3σ υ ν ο υ σ ί α ,2 t 6 , 2 1 7 n . 1
τ έ χ ν α ι ( s e e a l s o g e n e r a l i n d e x ) , 4 4 n . 4τ έ χ ν η ( an d α ρ ε τ ή ) , 66 n . 1τ έ χ ν η ά λ υ τ τ ία ς , 290τ ρ ό π ο ς ,69 n. 2τ ύ χ η , ι ι5
n - a
χ ρ ή μ α ,190 f .χ ρ ή σ ιμ ο ν , 86, 1 69
ώ ς ,189 f.ώ φ έ λ ι μ ο ν , 72 n. 2 , 166 n. 2 , 1 69
345