harrison gorgias.pdf

7/29/2019 harrison gorgias.pdf

1/11

Classical Association of Canada

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

Accessed: 31/07/2009 11:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cac.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. 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/stable/1086795?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cachttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cachttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1086795?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/11

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?E. L. HARRISON

SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT WORK produced by modern scholarson the subject of the Greek sophists has been of a negative nature. Overa century ago Grote, in a now celebrated chapter of his History, got ridof the notion of a school of immoral sceptics;1 and some sixty years laterH. Gomperz showed, with compelling logic, the unwisdom of takingsophistic pronouncements at their face value, and forgetting that to thesophist form meant everything, content comparatively little, perhapseven nothing at all.2 More recently H. Raeder, by seeking to exclude fromthe title of sophist no less a person that Gorgias, became a candidate foraddition to this list of those who have thus disabused us.3 And he maywell find his place on it, since his conclusions have been accepted byProfessor Dodds in his edition of Plato's Gorgias.4It is important, how-ever, that before this happens the evidence should be closely scrutinized.For what is involved here is no mere verbal nicety: indeed, to excludeGorgias from the number of those with whom he is generally associatedwill (other considerations apart) radically alter the significance of thedialogue which bears his name. For it will then of necessity become anattack on an individual and his methods, rather than on a leading repre-sentative of an influential profession; and the scope of its reference willbe correspondingly reduced.5Let us consider first evidence which seems to support the commonlyaccepted view, viz. that Plato represents Gorgias as a sophist not essen-tially different from Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus.(i) When Socrates, in the Apology,6rejects the allegation that he under-takes to teach people for money, he ironically expresses admiration forGorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias, who are so successful in this field. Andhe adds that there is at the moment another ao6os at Athens, viz. Evenus.

1George Grote, History of Greece (London 1850) 8. 479 f.2Heinrich Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik (Leipzig 1912).3Hans Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten (Proc. Royal Danish Academy [Filos. Medd.Dan. Vid. Selsk.] 1939) 1-36; Platon und die Rhetoren (ibid. 1956) 1-21.4Plato, Gorgias, revised text with introduction and commentary, by E. R. Dodds(Oxford 1959) 6 f. Although the view put forward in this note differs from that ofProfessor Dodds on the point under discussion, it need scarcely be added how indebtedthe writer is to this work.5Crucial here is Professor Dodds' antithesis, p. 367: "Plato may well have believedthat in fact the 'neutral' education which derived from Gorgias had done more harmthan all the teaching of the sophists."619D-20C.

183PHOENIX,Vol. 18 (1964) 3.


3/11

PHOENIXHe has learnt this from Callias, "who has spent more money on sophiststhan everybody else put together." And Evenus charges only five minaefor his services.Now it is true, as Raeder points out,7 that this passage does not provethat Plato regarded Gorgias as a sophist. But in conceding this point weshould not go too far in the opposite direction. Indeed, until convincingevidence to the contrary presents itself, the probable implications of thepassage can scarcely be denied: viz. that everyone mentioned here (apartfrom Callias) is a sophist, with Gorgias, a notoriously expensive one,8opening the list, just as Evenus, a remarkably cheap one, closes it.(ii) In the Hippias Major, whose authenticity there are no good groundsfor suspecting,9 Socrates, in a passage again heavy with irony,'1 exploitsthe vanity of the gullible Hippias. He contrasts unfavourably the 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 successful inboth spheres. And at the head of the latter group he places ropylas o'ros6 Aeovrtvos aocLaTsr, (282B).Now according to Raeder'2 this evidence can be discounted becauseGorgias is here put alongside Pittacus and the rest, which indicates that"sophist" is used, not in its fifth-century, professional sense, but withits original unspecialized meaning of "wise man."'3 But his views are,I believe, untenable for three reasons:

(a) Gorgias is not put alongside Pittacus and the rest, but is in factonce more placed at the head of that very group from which Plato issupposed to have specifically excluded him.(b) He is emphatically contrasted with Pittacus and the rest as aleading representative of the new type of wise man: and the term"sophist" is actually held over quite pointedly by Plato to introduce himin this role. How pointedly, indeed, is clear from the awkward periphrasesPlato employs beforehand to describe the early sages-periphrases from

7Platon und die Sophisten 9.8Cf. Hippias Major 282B; Diod. Sic. 12.53.2; Suidas s.v.9It is a pity that the standard English edition of this lively dialogue gives the oppositeimpression (D. Tarant, The Hippias Major [Cambridge 1928]). For its authenticity,see G. M. A. Grube, C 20 (1926) 134-138; CP 24 (1929) 369-375; M. Soreth, Zetemata6 (1953) 1-64; E. de Strycker, l'dntiquite Classique 23 (1954) 472-473; 0. Gigon,Gnomon 27 (1955) 14-20; A. Capelle, RhM 99 (1956) 178-190; Dodds, Gorgias 7, n. 2.10281B f.

"This statement is of course at variance with the tradition (cf. E. Zeller, Die Philo-sophie der Griechen' [Leipzig 1923] 1.1.62). But Socrates here is more concerned withironically leading Hippias on than with recording historical fact.12Platon und die Sophisten 9."3On the history of the term see H. Sidgwick, JPh 4 (1872) 288-307; G. B. Kerferd,CR 64 (1950) 8-10.

184


4/11

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?which the term "sophist" in its wider sense could easily have saved him.Thus they are ol 7raXatoi KEVOL, 'V ovo6ara i'yaXa Xec,raL irt ofoitq (281C)and rwiv apXalwcvrois 7replTrjv raoqiav (281D).14(c) The question of money-making is emphasized throughout thispassage as being of paramount importance (281B, 282C, 282D, 282E,283A, 283B). And since "sophist" in the narrow sense and money-making belong together so inseparably for Plato,15it is surely inconceiv-able that in such a context as this the term could have occurred to himin any other sense.So far, then, we have on the positive side two passages, in each ofwhich Gorgias is grouped with other sophists, with no indication ineither that he is in any way to be distinguished from them. And in thesecond of these passages the term "sophist" (used in its narrow sense)seems without any reasonable doubt to be applied specifically to him.Let us turn now to evidence which has been regarded as excludingGorgias from the profession of sophist.(i) He is absent from the gathering of the leading sophists described inthe Protagoras, and his absence draws no comment.16 But nothing here,I think, need carry any implications regarding his status. For, with regardto the first point, chronological considerations may well have playedtheir part;17 or Plato may simply have felt that Protagoras, Hippias,and Prodicus, along with their numerous disciples and hangers-on, wereas much as Callias,18or even he himself, could be expected to cope with

14Similarly, they are later referred to as TWvTraXaLwv EKElvCW282C), with an awkwardvagueness which the simple addition of urofoarrCvcould easily have removed."5For further discussion of this point, see below.'6Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 7. (The "drittes Motiv" mentioned thereproves subsequently to be the alleged difference in Gorgias' status). Cf. Dodds, Gorgias 7.

17Raeder himself concedes this point, op. cit. (see n. 16) 6. Gorgias did not visit Athenstill 427 B.C., some six years after the probable dramatic date of the Protagoras (on which,see A. E. Taylor, Plato, The Man and his Work [London 1926] 236). It is true that Platoadmits anachronisms into the dialogues (cf. Dodds, Gorgias 17-18), and that such achronological argument cannot therefore be decisive. But Apol. 19D f. perhaps supportsits validity in the present case: for there Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias are mentionedas currently active, but not Protagoras-presumably because by 399 B.c. he had beendead for several years.'8As we saw above, Callias was the man "who spent more money on sophists thaneveryone else put together" (Apol. 20A; cf. Crat. 391B-C). But on this occasion evenhis household seems to have felt the strain (Protag. 314C). In this latter passage, inci-dentally, we are given an interesting sidelight on 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 entry for himself and Hippocrates only after he hasmade it quite clear that they are not such persons, and have not come lrapa KaXXLav(a sinister idiom here!) but only to see Protagoras. For a vivid account of this wholescene, see the beginning of Professor L. E. Woodbury's article, "Simonides on 'Aper?7,TAPA 84 (1953) 135 f.

185


5/11

PHOENIXsuccessfully under one roof. And, with regard to the second point, evenif the chronological argument is overlooked, the lack of any referenceto Gorgias' absence is still only what we might expect, since silence abouta rival-or indeed about anyone but himself-is one of the characteristicsof the Platonic sophist.'9(ii) In the dialogue which bears his name, Gorgias describes himself asa specialist in rhetoric (449A); and later in the same dialogue rhetoricis formally distinguished from sophistic (465C).20We shall consider again the question of the terminology of the Gorgias:but in the meantime it can, I think, be shown (a) that the distinction onwhich Raeder here rests his case scarcely merits our serious consideration,and (b) that even if it did, it would still militate against his view, ratherthan support it.(a) 1. Socrates' own attitude to the distinction as it is here presentedseems anything but serious. For even as he expounds it he concedes thatno one is aware of its existence. (If "the men themselves" [i.e. the sophistsand the rhetoricians] and "the rest of men" are not clear about it [465E]then who is?) Moreover, when he refers back to the passage later (520A)he actually does so, not in terms of the supposed differencebetween sophistand rhetorician, but in terms of their identity and close similarity. Onlyas the argument proceeds, and it helps him to score a point off Callicles,does he consciously resuscitate and employ once more the earlierdistinction (520B).21

"1On he rare occasions when they do mention one another, it is with a view to belittle-ment (Protag. 318D f., H.Ma. 282D f.) They are cut-throat competitors, not fellow-practitioners. (The partnership between the brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorusis in this respect, as in much else, exceptional.) There is no sophistic parallel for Socrates'recommendation of Damon to Nicias (Laches 180D), or for his passing on of would-bepupils to Prodicus and others (Theaet. 151B). Even under the same roof they keep theirparties quite distinct: it is Socrates who brings Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicustogether in the house of Callias (Protag. 314E f.). Flashes of generosity are rare, andinvolve Socrates only, who is not a professional rival: and even then they have anegocentric basis. Hippias, e.g., praises Socrates' exposition of a poem-but only as aprelude to offering an admirable account of his own (Protag. 347A). And Protagoras'praise of Socrates' wisdom is cited by the sophist, even as he utters it, as proof of hisown outstanding liberality and freedom from envy (Protag. 361E). All this of courseis Plato's picture; but that is what concerns us in this note.

20Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 9-11. It is chiefly on these grounds that heconcludes (11): "Fiir uns . . . bleibt nicht anderes als . . . Gorgias aus der Zahl derSophisten zu streichen."2"This passage, it seems to me, shows vividly how unscrupulous in argument theSocrates of the Gorgias can be. At 520A Callicles has expressed contempt for those whoclaim to impart arete; whereupon Socrates not only mischievously equates this withan attack on sophistry as a whole, and so, by a misleading inference, on Callicles' ownguest, Gorgias, but he also proceeds, quite casually and recklessly, to rate sophistryabove rhetoric simply to score another quick point over his opponent. And even the

186


6/11

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?2. The impression conveyed by this cavalier attitude on the partof Socrates-viz. that the distinction in question is captious and artificial

-is strengthened by consideration of the form in which it makes itsappearance. For the classification on which it is based is poles apart fromthe type we meet in later dialogues, where 8LatpeaLs has achieved thestatus of a genuine dialectical "method."22 Indeed, the system we arepresented with here is so unnecessarily elaborate that it is difficult toavoid the feeling that Socrates' performance is designed as a counterblastto the earlier pretentiousness of Polus (448C),23which he noted at once(448D) and did not subsequently forget (461D). And this impression toois considerably strengthened by consideration of the term with which thesystem is introduced (erLELtcod64B).243. Finally it is not irrelevant to note that Socrates' concern inpresenting the system is not the relationship between sophistic andrhetoric, but that between rhetoric and justice. And as the subsequentargument unfolds it becomes fairly clear that the introduction of sophistic(like that of gymnastic) is in fact part of the unnecessary elaborationwhose relevance and implications seem not to have been fully thoughtout.25

(b) But even if we accept the distinction at its face value, Raeder'scase, it seems to me, still falls down. For the distinction boils down tothis: that rhetoric, as the sham counterpart of justice, involves forensiceloquence, whereas sophistic, mimicking the art of legislation, involves itsdeliberative form. And Gorgias earlier tells us (452E) that the blessinghe confers on a man is "to be able to convince by speech members ofway in which this is done is itself worth noting: for what looks like a hurried referenceback to the earlier system (520B) is, in its essential, nothing of the sort. There wasnothing in that system to suggest any hierarchy among the genuine reXvat such ashe now glibly takes for granted in order to make his fresh point. On Socrates' role inthe Gorgias, cf. Professor G. Rudberg, Symbolae Osloenses 30 (1953) 30 f.; and my note,Eranos 61 (1963) 63-64 on Gorg. 449D f. And for a vindication of Socrates' tactics cf.F. M. Cornford, Before and After Socrates (Cambridge 1962) 45.22Cf.Sophist 227B, Politicus 266D.

23On Polus' outburst cf. Professor H. L. Tracy's observation ("Plato as Satirist,"C733 [1937-8] 160): "This is as beautifully worded, as impressive, as any advertisement-and just as devoid of meaning." Socrates' reply, it seems to me, is not entirely freefrom the same defects.24Onthis term, see Dodds, Gorgias 189. Because the piece is such an unadulterated"display," Plato clearly had difficulty in fitting it into a nominally dialectical framework:

hence the extremely awkward opening, with Socrates putting the vital initial questioninto Polus' mouth (463D), and hence the conclusion, with his rather lame apology forhaving indulged in /uaKpoXoyia (465E). Later, when Staipecas has become a genuinedialectical process, there is no need for such manoeuvres.26Ineffect, only half the system proves strictly relevant, with justice, aped by rhetoric,promoting the good of the soul as medicine, aped by cookery, promotes that of the body(465D, 480A f. Cf. 500E f., 521E).

187


7/11

PHOENIX

juries, the Boule, and the Ecclesia." In other words, his concern is withboth types of eloquence: which would make him, not a rhetor as opposedto a sophist, but rhetor and sophist at the same time.26(iii) There are two passages in the dialogues which indicate that Gorgiasrejected the claim to impart arete:27 and such a claim was a distinctivefeature of the sophistic profession.28But again there are, I believe, strong objections to our concluding onthese grounds that Gorgias was not a sophist.

(a) In neither passage does the speaker concerned imply anything ofthe sort.29 Indeed, the language of the Meno passage (95B f.) seems topoint to the opposite conclusion:LO. ri 5b 567;ol aocrnaraLaol ovrot, o'Irep 6uovo.Lra'yyeXXovratL, OKOvLab5biaKcaXottvat apert7s;

MEN. Kal ropytov .&XtiTa, X 2W)Kpares, raVTa &aZaLaa, 6rTLOVKav 7roTeairoV rOTO aKovacas VirLaXvovuUEVOV, aXXa Ka rcv a&XXWv aratyeXa, oravaKovap rLaXvoU.evcv.

Here the implications of the arrangement ol acoctarat followed first byropyiov and then by rTv aiXXwv re surely clear enough.30(b) A closer look at Gorgias' disclaimer strongly suggests that it wasa calculated manoeuvre based on the ambiguity of the term arete,3' andaimed at conferring on him a distinction devoid of any real substance.For when the sophists claimed to impart arete, they meant primarily by

26For similar misgivings about the practical value of the distinction in question cf.H. Sidgwick, op. cit. (see n. 13) 295-296; H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik 44. Raederbelieves such misgivings are groundless, and that "die Unterscheidung ist in der Tatdeutlich genug" (op. cit. [see n. 2] 11, n. 2); but he does not show us how."2Meno95B f., Gorg. 519E f.28Protag. 349A, Meno 91B, 95B f., Hippias Major 283C, Sophist 223A. Oddly enoughRaeder makes no reference to this argument: but it clearly needs to be taken intoaccount, and can be conveniently dealt with here. On the basis of the Meno passageGrote concluded (History of Greece 8. 521): "If the line could be clearly drawn betweenrhetors and sophists, Gorgias ought rather to be ranked with the former"; and Pohlenzreached a similar conclusion without any such reservations: "Er fiihlt sich als Redelehrerund sondert sich deshalb von Sophistik ab" (Max Pohlenz, Aus Platos Werdezeit [Berlin1913] 200). Cf. Dodds, Gorgias 7.29As J. S. Morrison (Phoenix 15 [1961] 238) and R. S. Bluck (CR n.s. 11 [1961] 29)point out, Callicles' expression of disgust at those who claim to educate men els aperrIv(Gorg. 519E f.) does nothing more than confirm that his honoured guest, Gorgias, madeno such claim. It is important to note, one might add, that it is an eristic Socrates whoequates this disapproval with an attack on sophistry as a whole (cf. n. 21).3"Cf.R. S. Bluck, Plato's Meno (Cambridge 1961) 206: "At 95C Meno seems to implythat Gorgias was an (exceptional) sophist."31Foran account of this term's development see A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsi-bility (Oxford 1960) passim.

188


8/11

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?that term political ability based on oratory:32 and there is nothing toset Gorgias' claims in this field apart from those of other members of thesophistic profession.33 It can therefore only have been as a result oftransvaluing the term arete so that it meant "moral goodness" that hewas able to make a show of rejecting the sophistic slogan34 n the way thathe did. And that he in fact did so transvalue it in this context is impliedbyGorg.456C f., where Gorgias disclaims any responsibility for subsequentmisconduct on the part of the young men who pass through his hands.Doubtless it was important, in the highly competitive profession ofsophistry, to cultivate special characteristics of this sort: hence Gorgias'use of such comparable "gimmicks" as his distinctive purple robe, andhis acting as a one-man "brains-trust."35But presumably because it wassuch a "gimmick," and nothing more, Gorgias' profession not to teacharete seems to have lacked any real substance. For in the Meno, prior tothe passage already cited, Meno informs us that Gorgias did not hesitateto use the term arete to denote the kind of ability he did claim to impart.36Moreover, when pressed by Socrates, Gorgias is depicted as yielding hisground on the issue of responsibility with a casualness that belies anydeeply held conviction.37 Small wonder is it, then, that the survivingrelative who erected a statue in Gorgias' memory passed over the dis-82Cf. Werner Jaeger, Paideia, translated by Gilbert Highet (Oxford 1939) 1. 287-288.Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit 195) equates it with 6LKatoaovV7ln the basis of Gorg.519C. But in this passage-already noted (n. 21) for its 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 clarifies for us Hippias' earlier claim to impart arete, 283C) and Rep. 600C f.3It is worth noting, I think, that Euthydemus also seems to have had his own wayof using the arete label. But whereas Gorgias made a show of removingit altogether fromhis wares, Euthydemus simply shifted it from one set to another. For although he andhis brother, like sophists generally, claim to impart political competence of a sort(Euthyd. 272A), arete is used by them to describe instead their major concern-skillin eristic (273D f., cf. 283B, 285D).3On these, see Dodds, Gorgias 9 and 190. Protagoras' version of the modern "money-back" guarantee perhaps belongs to the same category (Protag. 328B f.); and on occasionsone gets the impression that the sophist's attitude towards the various reXvaL degene-rates to the same level, with Hippias posing as the supreme master of them all (HippiasMajor 285B f., Hippias Minor 368B f.), Protagoras at pains to disclaim any such interest(Protag. 318D f.), and Gorgias going one better and saying that rhetoric makes all theothers superfluous (Gorg. 459B f.; cf. 456A f.).i71E, 73C. There can be no doubt that Gorgias is meant to be associated with Meno'sreplies, for although Socrates begins in the usual way, by excluding him from the dis-cussion because he is absent (71D cf. Protag. 347E, Gorg. 471E, Hippias Minor 365C f.),this in fact proves to be an empty gesture, and Gorgias' name is all the more pointedlyincluded by Socrates in the cross-examination which immediately follows (71D, 73C).37Gorg.60A. Polus' indignation at 461C is also instructive: Socrates is perverse forfailing to see that of courseGorgias'position on this issue is not unshakable.

189


9/11

PHOENIXclaimer, with its subtle transvaluation of arete, and put the record straightonce and for all with the inscription:

rop'ylov aaKc'aiaLvXrdv aperj7s es dlycvasoVSeLsrwO-vrTWv KaXXLov'VpeTreXVI.38(iv) Finally, Raeder points out that whereas Protagoras, in the dialoguenamed after him, calls himself a sophist, in the Gorgiasthe case is different.There, when Socrates inquires about his profession, Gorgias answers thatrhetoric is his art, and he should be called a rhetor. "Den Unterschiedzwischen Protagoras und Gorgias hat Platon also deutlich gekenn-zeichnet."39

It is important to note, however, that the statements in question aremade in different dialogues: for it seems to me that the change in ter-minology can be explained quite naturally in terms of a change ofemphasis or perspective on Plato's part when he came to write theGorgias. We are concerned here of course, once more, with the distinctionbetween sophist and rhetor: and I have tried already to show that thereare a number of reasons for rejecting as a serious statement of the casethe formal solution offered in the Gorgias,with its wholly artificial attemptto divide orators into two separate groups. But to show what I mean bya change of emphasis on Plato's part the distinction now needs to beconsidered further.The Platonic sophist is a complex figure; but beneath the complexitythere are two basic features common to them all. (a) They teach rhetoric,40and (b) they exact payment for their services. To take (a) first: that thisis fundamental seems clear enough. In a democratic city-state that hadbecome the powerful and thriving centre of a commercial empire, theability to influence public assemblies and law-courts would naturallyprove the royal road to success in public and private life. And in factthere is convincing evidence in the dialogues to show, on the one hand,that rhetoric was the subject of primary interest to the sophist's pros-pective pupil,41and, on the other, that it invariably figured in the sophist's

38On the interpretation of these lines, cf. H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik 37;reXvrl here is rhetoric, the aperis ayWYveshose verbal contests in the assemblies andlaw-courts that inevitably awaited any ambitious young man. (Cf. Gorg. 485D, whereCallicles, a product of Gorgias' training, follows Homer in regarding the agora as theplace where men become apLTrpETrets.)39Platon und die Sophisten 9. Cf. Platon und die Rhetoren 4.40H. Gomperz' thesis that rhetoric is fundamental (Sophistik und Rhetorik, passim)has never, I believe, been upset. In particular, the profession to impart arete, regardedas more crucial, e.g., by Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit 195) and Jaeger (Paideia 1.290),seems to be a secondary feature, the natural, though (as we have seen in Gorgias' case)not inevitable corollary of the teaching of rhetoric.

4'Hippocrates, the prospective pupil of Protagoras, defines a sophist as "one whoknows how to make a man clever at speaking" (Protag. 312D): evidence that is especially

190


10/11

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?curriculum, whatever other skills he may or may not have claimed toimpart.42 When we turn to consider (b) we must be careful to avoid theerror of regarding the question of payment as merely secondary.43 For,however we may tend to view such matters ourselves, nothing emergesmore clearly from the dialogues than the fact that, for Plato, this featureof sophistry was crucial.44 Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that he isalmost incapable of using the term sophist without at the same timemaking some explicit reference to this professionalism.45 And it comes asno surprise when this same professionalism looms larger than any otherelement in each of the definitions of the sophist which appear in thedialogue of that name.46

How next can we define the rhetor? Essentially, he is a man skilledvaluable, since it is naturally free from the "gimmicks"which tend to obscurethe pro-nouncements of the sophists themselves. Pohlenz discards this definition as worthless,on the groundsthat it fails to stand up to Socrates'probing(Aus Platos Werdezeit 99).But this failure stems of course not from the inadequacy of Hippocrates' definition,but from the nature of sophistic. Cf. also Theaet.178E f., where Socrates stresses thatnobody would have paid high fees to converse with Protagorashad he not been able toforesee argumentswhich would succeed in a court of law. Even sophists of the eristicalsort (cf. below,n. 46) would have had no customershad they not promisedinstructionin legal and political argument (Sophist232D).42Cf.Protag.318E f., Gorg.452D f., Euthyd.272A, Meno95C, 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,Platonunddie Sophisten6); and that is the naturalway for us to look at it.But for Plato it clearly was an essential property: cf. below.44Forreferences to the sophist's pay, cf. Laches186C; 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; Sophist222D, 223A, 223B, 225E, 226A, 231D, 234A. This almost compulsiveassociationno doubt explains the dramatic flaw at Rep. 337D, whereThrasymachus sdepicted as asking for a fee before continuing the conversation. "Incredible,even fora sophist," as D. J. Allan observes (Plato, Republic1 [London1940]adloc.). However,we surely ought not to make matters worse there by having Glaucon actually take acollection, as H. Gauss does (PhilosophischerHandkommentaru den DialogenPlatons[Bern 1954]1.2.124).45Thiss clear from the majority of the passages cited above, n. 44. Cf. also Protag.311E: cWs oqStcrrj tpa 'pX6ojuea TEXOVVTES&aplauara; - taXLo-Tra.46Sophist 223B (notice ptoLaapvLKJs, vojuLo.saTvo7rcoXtLKs, and vewv 7rXovriwv) and226A (Xp7ITarttrLKobv,KT77TLK'tS). hese definitions refer of course to the eristical typeof sophist, whose precise origins have been much discussed. But it makes little differencewhether he is a genuine successor of Protagoras or merely a degenerate Socratic: he isstill a true sophist in the Platonic sense, i.e., he teaches rhetoric and makes money outof it (cf. Euthyd. 272A, Sophist 232D etc.). (For an earlier parallel to the XP?l/iarTLo-TrLcyevos of Sophist 226A, cf. Protag. 313C f., where the sophist is described by Socratesas "a merchant or dealer in goods from which the soul is nourished."

191


11/11

PHOENIXin the art of rhetoric: and as such he may impart this skill to others, orexercise it in the Assembly or in the law-courts.47 It is of course the firstof these alternatives that interests us here: for, as is clear from what hasbeen said already, the sophist qualifies for the title of rhetor in this senseshould one choose to describe him in purely functional terms.48Now inthe Protagoras Plato did not so choose. His concern there was to portraythe sophist as an over-confident professional matched in a dialecticalstruggle with the unassuming amateur, Socrates, and found wanting: andthe term "sophist" was therefore entirely appropriate for his purpose,just as it was appropriate to make several explicit references to the pro-fessionalism this term implies,49 to satirize the vanity and bombast ofthe person it denoted,50and to leave the shadowy figure of his prospectivepupil, Hippocrates, neglected and forgotten in the wings. In the Gorgias,on the other hand, Plato's standpoint has clearly changed.51Now it isindeed the role of the sophist as teacher of rhetoric that is important,rather than the man himself. Thus the dominant figure in the dialogue isnot in fact Gorgias at all, but the finished product of his teaching,Callicles. So too, there is little attempt at satirizing sophistic vanity andbombast, since considerations of this sort are now comparatively irrele-vant.52 And above all Plato, usually so obsessed with a resentment ofsophistic money-making, now carefully avoids obscuring the real issue byyielding to this obsession.53Hence, just as throughout the dialogue thereis no explicit reference to Gorgias' (undoubted) professionalism, so alsohe is described in it, not as a sophist, which would inevitably carry withit the implication of that professionalism, but as a rhetor, which does not.54

47Cf.Dodds, Gorgias194.48Henceno doubt Gorg.465C: &rTe 'eyybs 6vrwv ckfpovrat ev rT aivr4 Kal 7repteratr aoroaTral Kal "Iropes. 520A: ravTr6v, c tuaKapLt, Earil ao0LoTv7 Kal frjwop,i 'yybsTLKal 7rapaTrX7atov.he real truth is to be gleanedfrom the unguardedasidesrather than from the carefullydevised system.49Protag. 10D, 311B, 311D, 313B, 313D, 328B f., 349A, 357E.50Cf.Protag.317C (end), 328B, 335A, 337A f., 337C f.51Onhe relative dating, cf. Dodds, Gorgias18 f.62Inparticular,the form of the Gorgias,with its returnto direct dramaticrepresenta-tion, puts out of the question any of the burlesquewhich marks the opening scene ofthe Protagoras.Cf. Paul Friedlander,Platon 2 (Berlin 1957) 227: "Damit verzichteter auf allenHintergrund,alle Raumsymbolik,und lisst alleindie Menschen n h6chsterKlarheitsich selbst und ihre sachlichen Gegensatzeaussprechen.""Anyone who thinks that the sudden absenceof any referenceto pay in dealing withsuch a notoriousmoney-makeras Gorgias s not the result of consciouseffort on Plato'spart should compareProtag.311B f. with Gorg.448B f. These two passages, as is oftenpointed out, areremarkablyparallel:but in the first there are no less than eight succes-sive referencesto pay, in the latter, none."Plato's actual choice of Gorgias to bear the brunt of his attack on the sophist asteacher could similarly be explained in terms of concentratingon essentials, since forGorgiasrhetoricwas not merelythe principalsubject on his curriculum: t was the onlyone (cf. Gorg.459C, Philebus58A f.).

192

harrison gorgias.pdf

Documents

Transcript of harrison gorgias.pdf