Was Gorgias a Sophist

  • Upload
    abeona

  • View
    235

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    1/11

    Was Gorgias a Sophist?Author(s): E. L. HarrisonReviewed work(s):Source: Phoenix, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1964), pp. 183-192Published by: Classical Association of CanadaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1086795 .

    Accessed: 17/10/2012 00:44

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    .

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

    Phoenix.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cachttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1086795?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1086795?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cac
  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    2/11

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    3/11

    184 PHOENIXHe has learntthisfromCallias, "who has spentmoremoneyon sophiststhaneverybody lse put together."And Evenus chargesonlyfiveminaeforhis services.Now it is true,as Raeder pointsout,' that thispassage does notprovethatPlato regardedGorgiasas a sophist.But in conceding hispointweshouldnotgo too far n theoppositedirection. ndeed,untilconvincingevidenceto thecontrary resents tself, heprobable mplications fthepassage can scarcelybe denied:viz. thateveryonementionedhere apartfromCallias) is a sophist,withGorgias, a notoriously xpensiveone,8openingthe list, ust as Evenus, a remarkably heap one, closes it.(ii) In theHippias Major,whoseauthenticityhere re nogoodgroundsfor uspecting,9ocrates, n a passage again heavywith rony,10xploitsthe vanityof the gullibleHippias. He contrastsunfavourably he wisemen of old, such as Pittacus, Bias, and Thales, who abstained frompolitics" and money-making,with men like Hippias himself,Gorgias,Prodicus, and Protagoras,who have been so strikingly uccessful nbothspheres.And at thehead of the lattergrouphe places Fopylas bros6AeovTrvosorJLtrs (282B).Now accordingto Raeder"2this evidence can be discountedbecauseGorgias s hereput alongsidePittacus and therest,which ndicates that"sophist" is used, not in its fifth-century,rofessional ense, but withits original unspecializedmeaningof "wise man.""3But his views are,I believe,untenablefor hreereasons:(a) Gorgias is notput alongsidePittacus and the rest,but is in factonce moreplaced at the head of that verygroup fromwhichPlato issupposed to have specifically xcluded him.(b) He is emphaticallycontrastedwith Pittacus and the rest as aleading representative f the new type of wise man: and the term"sophist" is actuallyheld overquitepointedlybyPlato to introducehimin thisrole. How pointedly, ndeed, s clearfrom heawkwardperiphrasesPlato employsbeforehand o describethe earlysages-periphrases from

    7Platonund die Sophisten9.8Cf.Hippias Major 282B; Diod. Sic. 12.53.2; Suidas s.v.91Its a pitythat thestandard Englishedition ofthis ivelydialogue gives theoppositeimpression (D. Tarant, The Hippias Major [Cambridge 1928]). For its authenticity,see G. M. A. Grube, CQ 20 (1926) 134-138; CP 24 (1929) 369-375; M. Soreth,Zetemata6 (1953) 1-64; E. de Strycker,Pdntiquit/ Classique 23 (1954) 472-473; 0. Gigon,Gnomon 7 (1955) 14-20; A. Capelle, RhM 99 (1956) 178-190; Dodds, Gorgias7, n. 2.10281Bf."This statement s of course at variance with the tradition cf. E. Zeller, Die Philo-sophie der Griechen7Leipzig 1923] 1.1.62). But Socrates here is more concerned withironically eading Hippias on than withrecordinghistoricalfact.'2Platon unddie Sophisten9.13Onthe historyof the term see H. Sidgwick,7Ph 4 (1872) 288-307; G. B. Kerferd,CR 64 (1950) 8-10.

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    4/11

    WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST? 185whichtheterm sophist" in its widersense could easilyhave saved him.Thus theyareoi iraXatot EVOL, v 6V6aTa .Ey'yXaXeyraL~rtroc/4 (281C)and rCovapXaiwv ros 7repi 7r)Vao4tav (281D).14(c) The question of money-makings emphasized throughout hispassage as being of paramountimportance 281B, 282C, 282D, 282E,283A, 283B). And since "sophist" in the narrow sense and money-makingbelong together o inseparablyforPlato,"5 t is surely nconceiv-able that in such a contextas this the termcould have occurred o himin anyothersense.So far,then,we have on the positive side two passages, in each ofwhich Gorgias is groupedwith other sophists,with no indication ineitherthat he is in anyway to be distinguished rom hem.And in thesecond of thesepassages the term "sophist" (used in its narrow ense)seems withoutany reasonable doubt to be applied specifically o him.Let us turn now to evidence which has been regarded as excludingGorgias fromthe profession f sophist.(i) He is absent from hegathering f the leading sophistsdescribed nthe Protagoras,and his absence drawsno comment.'"But nothinghere,I think,needcarry ny mplications egarding isstatus.For,withregardto the firstpoint, chronological onsiderationsmay well have playedtheirpart;" or Plato may simplyhave felt that Protagoras,Hippias,and Prodicus,alongwiththeirnumerousdisciplesand hangers-on,wereas muchas Callias,18 r even he himself, ould be expectedto cope with

    '4Similarly, heyare laterreferredo as rcov aXaujv EKELVOVW282C), with an awkwardvagueness which the simple addition of ao'karWuvcould easily have removed.16Forfurther iscussion of thispoint,see below.'"Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 7. (The "drittes Motiv" mentioned thereproves subsequentlyto be the allegeddifferencen Gorgias' status). Cf.Dodds, Gorgias7.17Raederhimself oncedes thispoint, op. cit. see n. 16) 6. Gorgiasdid notvisitAthenstill427 B.C., ome sixyearsafter heprobable dramaticdate oftheProtagoras (on which,see A. E. Taylor, Plato, TheMan and his Work London 1926]236). It is truethat Platoadmits anachronismsinto the dialogues (cf. Dodds, Gorgias 17-18), and that such achronological rgument annot therefore e decisive. But Apol. 19D f.perhaps supportsits validityin the presentcase: forthereGorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias are mentionedas currently ctive, but not Protagoras-presumably because by 399 B.c. he had beendead for everal years.'8As we saw above, Callias was the man "who spent more money on sophists thaneveryoneelse put together" (Apol. 20A; cf. Crat. 391B-C). But on this occasion evenhis household seems to have felt the strain (Protag. 314C). In this latterpassage, inci-dentally,we are given an interesting idelighton the associations of the term"sophist."For servants it meant a vagrant who tended to stay over and make extra work foreveryone. Hence Socrates secures entryforhimself nd Hippocrates only after he hasmade it quite clear that they are not such persons,and have not come rap& KaXXiav(a sinister diom here!) but only to see Protagoras. For a vivid account of this wholescene, see the beginning fProfessorL. E. Woodbury's article,"Simonides on 'Ape7,"TAPA 84 (1953) 135 f.

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    5/11

    186 PHOENIXsuccessfully nder one roof.And,withregardto the secondpoint,evenif the chronological rgument s overlooked,the lack of any referenceto Gorgias'absence s stillonlywhatwemight xpect, ince silenceabouta rival-or indeedabout anyonebuthimself-isone ofthecharacteristicsof the Platonic sophist.'9(ii) In the dialoguewhich bears his name,Gorgiasdescribeshimself sa specialist n rhetoric 449A); and later in the same dialogue rhetoricis formally istinguished rom ophistic 465C).20We shallconsider gain thequestionoftheterminologyftheGorgias:but in the meantime t can, I think,be shown a) thatthedistinction nwhichRaeder hererestshiscase scarcelymerits urserious onsideration,and (b) that even if t did, it would still militate gainsthisview,ratherthan support it.(a) 1. Socrates' own attitude to thedistinction s it is herepresentedseemsanything ut serious.For even as he expounds t he concedesthatnoone s aware of ts existence. If "the menthemselves" i.e. thesophistsand therhetoricians]nd "the rest of men" are not clear about it [465E]thenwho is?) Moreover,when he refers ack to thepassage later 520A)he actuallydoesso,not nterms fthesupposeddifferenceetween ophistand rhetorician, ut in termsof their dentitynd closesimilarity. nlyas the argument roceeds, nd it helpshimto scorea pointoffCallicles,does he consciously resuscitate and employ once more the earlierdistinction520B).21

    19On herare occasions whentheydo mentionone another, t is witha view to belittle-ment (Protag. 318D f., H.Ma. 282D f.) They are cut-throatcompetitors,not fellow-practitioners. The partnershipbetween the brothersEuthydemus and Dionysodorusis in thisrespect, s in muchelse, exceptional.) There is no sophistic parallel forSocrates'recommendationof Damon to Nicias (Laches 180D), or forhis passing on of would-bepupils to Prodicus and others Theaet. 151B). Even under thesame rooftheykeep theirparties quite distinct: it is Socrates who brings Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicustogether n the house of Callias (Protag. 314E f.). Flashes of generosityare rare, andinvolve Socrates only, who is not a professionalrival: and even then they have anegocentricbasis. Hippias, e.g., praises Socrates' exposition of a poem-but only as aprelude to offeringn admirable account of his own (Protag. 347A). And Protagoras'praise of Socrates' wisdom is cited by the sophist, even as he utters t, as proofof hisown outstanding liberality and freedom fromenvy (Protag. 361E). All this of courseis Plato's picture; but that is what concernsus in this note.20Cf.Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten9-11. It is chiefly n these grounds that heconcludes (11): "Fiir uns . . . bleibt nicht anderes als . .. Gorgias aus der Zahl derSophisten zu streichen."21Thispassage, it seems to me, shows vividly how unscrupulous in argument theSocrates of theGorgiascan be. At 520A Callicles has expressedcontemptforthose whoclaim to impart arete; whereupon Socrates not only mischievouslyequates this withan attack on sophistryas a whole, and so, by a misleading nference, n Callicles' ownguest, Gorgias, but he also proceeds, quite casually and recklessly,to rate sophistryabove rhetoricsimply to score another quick point over his opponent. And even the

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    6/11

    WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST? 1872. The impression onveyed by this cavalier attitude on thepartofSocrates-viz. that thedistinctionn question s captiousand artificial

    -is strengthened y considerationof the form n which it makes itsappearance.For the classification n which t is based is poles apart fromthe type we meet in later dialogues,whereb&alp~au has achieved thestatus of a genuinedialectical "method.""22ndeed, the systemwe arepresentedwith here is so unnecessarily laborate that it is difficult oavoid thefeeling hat Socrates'performances designed s a counterblastto the earlierpretentiousnessf Polus (448C),"2 which he noted at once(448D) and did notsubsequentlyforget461D). And this mpression oois considerably trengthenedyconsideration f the termwith whichthesystem is introduced (aL6rtESco64B).243. Finally it is not irrelevantto note that Socrates' concern npresentingthe system is not the relationshipbetween sophistic andrhetoric, ut that between rhetoric nd justice. And as the subsequentargument nfolds t becomesfairly learthat the ntroductionfsophistic(like that of gymnastic) s in factpart of the unnecessaryelaborationwhose relevanceand implications eem not to have been fully houghtout.25(b) But even ifwe accept the distinction t its face value, Raeder'scase, it seems to me, still fallsdown. For the distinction oils down tothis: that rhetoric, s the sham counterpart f ustice, involvesforensiceloquence,whereas ophistic,mimickingheart of egislation,nvolves tsdeliberativeform.And Gorgiasearliertells us (452E) that the blessinghe confers n a man is "to be able to convinceby speechmembersofway in which this s done is itselfworthnoting: for what looks like a hurriedreferenceback to the earlier system (520B) is, in its essential, nothingof the sort. There wasnothing in that system to suggest any hierarchyamong the genuine r7Xvat such ashe now glibly takes forgranted in order to make his freshpoint. On Socrates' role inthe Gorgias,cf. ProfessorG. Rudberg, SymbolaeOsloenses30 (1953) 30 f.; and mynote,Eranos 61 (1963) 63-64 on Gorg.449D f. And for a vindication of Socrates' tactics cf.F. M. Cornford,Before nd After ocrates Cambridge 1962) 45.22Cf. ophist 227B, Politicus 266D.230n Polus' outburst cf. Professor H. L. Tracy's observation ("Plato as Satirist,"C_7 3 [1937-8] 160): "This is as beautifullyworded,as impressive, s any advertisement-and just as devoid of meaning." Socrates' reply, t seems to me, is not entirelyfreefromthe same defects.240n this term,see Dodds, Gorgias 189. Because the piece is such an unadulterated"display," Plato clearlyhad difficultyn fittingt intoa nominallydialectical framework:hence the extremely wkward opening,with Socrates puttingthe vital initial questioninto Polus' mouth (463D), and hence the conclusion,withhis rather ame apology forhaving indulged in uaKpoXoyLya465E). Later, when tLaLpEOa~as become a genuinedialectical process,there s no need for such manoeuvres.26In ffect, nlyhalf thesystemprovesstrictly elevant,with ustice, aped byrhetoric,promoting hegood ofthesoul as medicine,aped by cookery,promotesthat of the body(465D, 480A f. Cf. 500E f.,521E).

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    7/11

    188 PHOENIXjuries, theBoule, and the Ecclesia." In otherwords,his concern s withbothtypesofeloquence:whichwould makehim,not a rhetor s opposedto a sophist,but rhetor nd sophistat the same time."6(iii) There are twopassages in thedialogueswhich ndicate thatGorgiasrejectedthe claim to impartarete:27nd such a claim was a distinctivefeature f thesophisticprofession."8But again thereare, I believe,strong bjectionsto our concluding nthesegroundsthatGorgiaswas not a sophist.(a) In neitherpassage does the speakerconcerned mplyanything fthe sort.29ndeed, the language of the Meno passage (95B f.) seems topointto the oppositeconclusion:2M. ni i 6'1); l aovofiral oOL i'hot, otirep utovotrawyoXXorracBOKOLOCWL aKaXoLetvc aipei77js;

    MEN. Kal Fop'yLovuMXara, Wi2~KpaCLres, rC ra &YaaCpa, 6r7 obK ivroreaTorVTour o aKo VoC~tsv tLrXouVO, aXXa KIC 7riv &AXXwvKcrTayE, 6ravcKOuvT7 rtaLXovOV/.WV.Here the implications f the arrangementl cocpcrcalfollowed irst yPopylovnd thenbyrawvaXXovre surely learenough.30

    (b) A closer ook at Gorgias' disclaimer trongly uggeststhat it wasa calculatedmanoeuvre based on the ambiguity f the term rete,3 ndaimed at conferringn him a distinction evoid of any real substance.For when thesophistsclaimed to impart rete, heymeantprimarily y*6For imilar misgivingsabout the practical value of the distinction n question cf.H. Sidgwick, op. cit. see n. 13) 295-296; H. Gomperz,SophistikundRhetorik 4. Raederbelieves such misgivingsare groundless,and that "die Unterscheidung st in der Tatdeutlich genug" (op. cit. [see n. 2] 11, n. 2); but he does not show us how."Meno 95B f.,Gorg.519E f.*sProtag. 49A, Meno 91B, 95B f.,Hippias Major 283C, Sophist223A. Oddly enoughRaeder makes no referenceto this argument: but it clearly needs to be taken intoaccount, and can be convenientlydealt with here. On the basis of the Meno passageGrote concluded (HistoryofGreece . 521): "If the line could be clearlydrawn betweenrhetorsand sophists, Gorgias oughtratherto be ranked withthe former";and Pohlenzreached a similar conclusionwithoutanysuchreservations: Er fiihlt ich als Redelehrerund sondertsich deshalb von Sophistik ab" (Max Pohlenz, Aus Platos WerdezeitBerlin1913] 200). Cf. Dodds, Gorgias7.'9AsJ. S. Morrison (Phoenix 15 [1961] 238) and R. S. Bluck (CR n.s. 11 [1961] 29)point out, Callicles' expressionofdisgustat thosewho claim to educate men Et' &pE7rlY(Gorg.519E f.) does nothingmore than confirm hathis honouredguest,Gorgias,madeno such claim. It is importantto note,one mightadd, that it is an eristicSocrates whoequates thisdisapproval with an attack on sophistry s a whole (cf. n. 21)."oCf.R. S. Bluck, Plato's Meno (Cambridge 1961) 206: "At 95C Meno seems to implythat Gorgias was an (exceptional) sophist."31For n account of thisterm'sdevelopment ee A. W. H. Adkins,Meritand Responsi-bility Oxford 1960) passim.

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    8/11

    WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST? 189that termpolitical abilitybased on oratory:32nd thereis nothingtoset Gorgias'claims n this field part from hose of othermembers fthesophisticprofession."33t can therefore nly have been as a result oftransvaluing he term arete o that it meant "moral goodness" that hewas able to make a showofrejecting hesophistic logan34n thewaythathe did. And thathe in fact did so transvalue t in this context s impliedbyGorg. 56C f.,whereGorgiasdisclaims nyresponsibilityor ubsequentmisconduct n thepart of the youngmenwho pass throughhis hands.Doubtless it was important, n the highlycompetitiveprofessionofsophistry, o cultivatespecial characteristicsf this sort: henceGorgias'use of such comparable "gimmicks"as his distinctivepurplerobe, andhis actingas a one-man"brains-trust."35ut presumablybecause it wassuch a "gimmick,"and nothingmore,Gorgias' professionnotto teacharete eems to have lacked any real substance.For in theMeno,priortothepassage alreadycited,Meno informs s thatGorgiasdid nothesitateto use theterm rete odenote thekind ofabilityhe did claimto impart.36Moreover,whenpressed by Socrates,Gorgias s depictedas yieldinghisgroundon the issue of responsibilitywith a casualness that belies anydeeply held conviction.37 Small wonder is it, then,that the survivingrelativewho erecteda statue in Gorgias' memorypassed over the dis-82Cf.WernerJaeger,Paideia, translatedbyGilbertHighet (Oxford1939) 1. 287-288.Pohlenz (dus Platos Werdezeit195) equates it with 5LKrtLOaTvfon the basis ofGorg.519C. But in this passage-already noted (n. 21) for ts captious argument-Socrates(who knew well enough what sophists meant by arete,cf. e.g., Protag.319A f.) hasobviously transvalued it to make a neat but scarcely valid point against them."Compare Gorg.452D f. with Protag. 318E f.,Euthyd.272A, H. Ma. 304A f. (whichdoubtless clarifiesforus Hippias' earlierclaim to impartarete,283C) and Rep. 600C f."It is worthnoting, think,that Euthydemus also seems to have had his own wayof using thearete abel. But whereasGorgiasmade a show ofremovingit ltogether romhis wares, Euthydemus simplyshifted t from ne set to another. For althoughhe andhis brother, ike sophists generally, claim to impart political competence of a sort(Euthyd. 272A), arete s used by them to describe instead theirmajor concern-skillin eristic 273D f.,cf. 283B, 285D)."On these,see Dodds, Gorgias9 and 190. Protagoras' version of themodern"money-back" guaranteeperhaps belongsto thesame category Protag.328B f.); andon occasionsone gets the impressionthat the sophist's attitude towards the various reXvaLdegene-rates to thesame level,withHippias posing as thesuprememasterof themall (HippiasMajor 285B f.,Hippias Minor368B f.),Protagorasat pains to disclaimanysuch interest(Protag. 318D f.), and Gorgias goingone betterand saying that rhetoricmakes all theotherssuperfluousGorg.459B f.; cf.456A f.).Na71E, 3C. There can be no doubt thatGorgiasis meantto be associated withMeno'sreplies,foralthoughSocrates begins in the usual way, by excludinghimfrom the dis-cussionbecause he is absent (71D cf.Protag.347E, Gorg. 71E, Hippias Minor 365C f.),this n factproves to be an emptygesture,and Gorgias' name is all themorepointedlyincluded by Socrates in the cross-examinationwhich immediatelyfollows 71D, 73C).37Gorg.60A. Polus' indignationat 461C is also instructive:Socrates is perverseforfailingto see that ofcourseGorgias' position on this issue is not unshakable.

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    9/11

    190 PHOENIXclaimer,with ts subtle transvaluation farete, ndputtherecord traightonce and for ll with the inscription:

    Fop-yiov cLaK?)7oL 1IVXVX'PEvApc V7COVo0V'Es rW vvr-jqvaXXL0ov'pV vA8(iv) Finally, Raeder points out that whereasProtagoras, nthedialoguenamedafter im, allshimself sophist,ntheGorgias he case is different.There,when Socrates nquires bout hisprofession, orgiasanswers hatrhetorics his art,and he should be called a rhetor. Den Unterschiedzwischen Protagoras und Gorgias hat Platon also deutlich gekenn-zeichnet."39

    It is important o note,however, hat the statements n question aremade in differentialogues: for t seems to me that the change in ter-minologycan be explained quite naturally in terms of a change ofemphasis or perspectiveon Plato's part when he came to write theGorgias.We are concernedhere ofcourse,oncemore,with thedistinctionbetweensophistand rhetor: nd I have triedalreadyto showthat thereare a numberof reasons forrejecting s a serious statement f the casetheformal olution fferedntheGorgias,with tswholly rtificialttemptto divideorators nto twoseparategroups.But to show what I mean bya change of emphasison Plato's part the distinctionnow needs to beconsideredfurther.The Platonic sophist s a complexfigure; ut beneath the complexitythere re two basic features ommon o them ll. (a) Theyteachrhetoric,40and (b) theyexactpaymentfor heir ervices.To take (a) first: hatthisis fundamental eems clear enough.In a democratic ity-state hat hadbecome the powerful nd thriving entre of a commercial mpire,theability to influencepublic assemblies and law-courtswould naturallyprove the royal road to success in public and private life.And in factthere s convincing vidence n the dialogues to show,on the one hand,that rhetoricwas the subject of primary nterest o the sophist'spros-pectivepupil,41nd,ontheother, hat tinvariably igurednthesophist's

    380n the interpretationof these lines, cf. H. Gomperz, Sophistikund Rhetorik 7;-~4xvYere is rhetoric, he Apes-7 ,'-ycveSthose verbal contests in the assemblies andlaw-courtsthat inevitably awaited any ambitious young man. (Cf. Gorg. 485D, whereCallicles, a product of Gorgias' training,follows Homer in regardingthe agora as theplace where men become d&prper6ts.)39Platonund die Sophisten9. Cf. Platon und die Rhetoren .40H. Gomperz' thesis that rhetoric s fundamental (Sophistik und Rhetorik, assim)has never, I believe, been upset. In particular,the profession o impart arete,regardedas morecrucial, e.g., by Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit 95) and Jaeger Paideia 1.290),seems to be a secondaryfeature, henatural, though as we have seen in Gorgias' case)not inevitable corollaryof the teachingof rhetoric.41Hippocrates,the prospective pupil of Protagoras, defines a sophist as "one whoknowshow to make a mancleverat speaking" (Protag. 312D): evidence that s especially

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    10/11

    WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST? 191curriculum,whateverother skillshe may or may not have claimed toimpart.42Whenwe turnto consider b) we must be carefulto avoid theerrorof regarding he questionof paymentas merely econdary.43or,howeverwe may tend to view such mattersourselves,nothing mergesmoreclearlyfrom hedialoguesthanthe factthat,forPlato, thisfeatureofsophistrywas crucial.44ndeed, it is no exaggeration o say that he isalmost incapable of using the termsophistwithout at the same timemaking omeexplicitreferenceo thisprofessionalism.45nd it comes asno surprisewhenthis same professionalismooms largerthan any otherelement in each of the definitions f the sophistwhich appear in thedialogueof thatname.46

    How nextcan we define he rhetor?Essentially,he is a man skilledvaluable, since it is naturallyfreefrom he "gimmicks"which tend to obscure the pro-nouncements of the sophists themselves.Pohlenz discards this definition s worthless,on thegroundsthat it fails to stand up to Socrates' probing Aus Platos Werdezeit 99).But this failurestems of course not fromthe inadequacy of Hippocrates' definition,but from the nature of sophistic.Cf. also Theaet. 178E f.,whereSocrates stressesthatnobody would have paid highfees to converse withProtagoras had he not been able toforeseeargumentswhichwould succeed in a courtof law. Even sophistsof the eristicalsort (cf. below, n. 46) would have had no customershad theynot promised nstructionin legal and political argument (Sophist 232D).42Cf.Protag.318E f.,Gorg.452D f.,Euthyd.272A, Meno 95C, Theaet.178E. Hippiasmay have professed to impart a variety of skills besides rhetoric cf. Protag. 318E,H. Mi. 368B f.): but his speech at H. Major 304A f. would make nonsense if rhetorichad not been his main concern.43Sidgwick op.cit. [see n. 13] 294) calls it an accident rather than a property cf.also Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten6); and that s thenaturalway forus to look at it.But forPlato it clearlywas an essential property:cf. below.44Forreferences o the sophist's pay, cf. Laches 186C; Protag. 310D, 311B, 311D,313B, 313D, 328B f., 349A, 357E; Euthyd.272A, 304A, 304C; Crat.384B, 391B; HippiasMajor 281B, 282C, 282D, 283B, 283D, 284A, 285B; Gorg. 519C; Rep. 439A; Theaet.167C; Sophist 222D, 223A, 223B, 225E, 226A, 231D, 234A. This almost compulsiveassociation no doubt explains the dramatic flawat Rep. 337D, whereThrasymachus isdepicted as asking for a fee beforecontinuingthe conversation. "Incredible, even fora sophist," as D. J. Allan observes (Plato, Republic 1 [London 1940]ad loc.). However,we surelyought not to make mattersworse there by having Glaucon actually take acollection, as H. Gauss does (PhilosophischerHandkommentaru den Dialogen Platons[Bern 1954] 1.2.124).45This s clear fromthe majorityof the passages cited above, n. 44. Cf. also Protag.311E: cOsao''LcTT-7)pa ipX6.Oea TEXOVTES c XppLt-ara;CLXLT,'ra.46Sophist 23B (notice ptoaapVLK, VO/tLaRTOTrwXLKfs, and v&ov wXovaiwv) and226A (XprWlarTLurLK6v,TrTLK)T). These definitions efer f course to the eristicaltypeofsophist,whosepreciseoriginshave beenmuchdiscussed. But it makes littledifferencewhether he is a genuinesuccessorof Protagoras or merelya degenerateSocratic: he isstill a truesophist in the Platonic sense, i.e., he teaches rhetoric nd makes moneyoutof t (cf. Euthyd.272A, Sophist232D etc.). (For an earlierparallel to the XP-q/la7LTLKobhyevosf Sophist 226A, cf. Protag. 313C f.,where the sophist is described by Socratesas "a merchant r dealer in goods fromwhich the soul is nourished."

  • 7/28/2019 Was Gorgias a Sophist

    11/11

    192 PHOENIXin the artofrhetoric: nd as such he may impartthisskill to others,orexercise t in theAssemblyor in the law-courts.47t is ofcoursethefirstofthesealternatives hatinterests s here: for, s is clear fromwhathasbeen said already,thesophistqualifiesfor hetitleofrhetor n thissenseshould one choose to describehim in purelyfunctional erms.48 ow inthe Protagoras lato did notso choose.His concern herewas to portraythe sophist as an over-confidentrofessionalmatched in a dialecticalstrugglewiththeunassuming mateur,Socrates, nd foundwanting: ndthe term"sophist" was thereforentirely ppropriateforhis purpose,just as it was appropriate o make severalexplicitreferenceso thepro-fessionalism his termimplies,"49o satirize the vanityand bombast oftheperson tdenoted,50nd to leave theshadowyfigurefhisprospectivepupil, Hippocrates,neglected nd forgottenn thewings. n theGorgias,on the otherhand, Plato's standpointhas clearlychanged.51 ow it isindeed the role of the sophist as teacherof rhetoric hat is important,rather hanthemanhimself. hus the dominantfiguren thedialogue snot in fact Gorgias at all, but the finishedproduct of his teaching,Callicles. So too, there s littleattemptat satirizing ophisticvanityandbombast,since considerations f thissort are now comparativelyrrele-vant.52And above all Plato, usually so obsessed with a resentment fsophisticmoney-making,owcarefullyvoids obscuring he real ssuebyyielding o thisobsession.53 ence, ust as throughouthedialoguethereis no explicitreference o Gorgias' (undoubted) professionalism,o alsohe is described n it,not as a sophist,whichwouldinevitably arrywithit the mplication fthatprofessionalism,utas a rhetor,whichdoesnot.54

    47Cf. odds,Gorgias 94.48Hence o doubtGorg. 65C: &re6 4yyibs v7rw'vpovraL &vr7 abr4 Kal 7replracrbr&aowral Kal ''ropes. 520A: rairbv,,I ?aKPLe, TitoLS7)at j~rwp,i yhyb rLKal lrapa'rX~Lov.The realtruths tobegleaned rom heunguardedsidesrather hanfrom hecarefullyevised ystem.49Protag.10D, 311B,311D,313B, 313D, 328Bf.,349A,357E.S6Cf. rotag. 17C (end),328B,335A,337Af.,337C f.510ntherelative ating, f.Dodds,Gorgias 8f.52In articular,heform ftheGorgias, ithtsreturn odirect ramatic epresenta-tion,putsoutof thequestion nyoftheburlesquewhichmarks heopening ceneoftheProtagoras. f. Paul Friedlinder, laton2 (Berlin1957)227: "Damit verzichteteraufallenHintergrund,lleRaumsymbolik,nd isstallein ieMenschennh6chsterKlarheit ich elbstund hre achlichen egensitze ussprechen."65Anyonehothinks hatthe udden bsence fanyreferenceopay ndealingwithsucha notoriousmoney-makers Gorgiass nottheresult fconscious ffortnPlato'spart hould ompare rotag. 11Bf.withGorg. 48B f.Thesetwopassages, s is oftenpointed ut,areremarkablyarallel:but nthefirsthere reno ess than ight ucces-sivereferencesopay, n the atter, one."Plato's actual choice fGorgias o bear thebrunt fhis attackon thesophist steacher ouldsimilarly e explainedn terms fconcentratingn essentials,inceforGorgias hetoric asnotmerelyheprincipalubject nhiscurriculum:twas theonlyone (cf.Gorg. 59C,Philebus 8Af.).