Classical Association of Canada

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

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

http://www.jstor.org

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

E. L. HARRISON
SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT WORK produced by modern scholars on the subject of the Greek sophists has been of a negative nature. Over a century ago Grote, in a now celebrated chapter of his History, got rid of the notion of a school of immoral sceptics;1 and some sixty years later H. Gomperz showed, with compelling logic, the unwisdom of taking sophistic pronouncements at their face value, and forgetting that to the sophist form meant everything, content comparatively little, perhaps even nothing at all.2 More recently H. Raeder, by seeking to exclude from the title of sophist no less a person that Gorgias, became a candidate for addition to this list of those who have thus disabused us.3 And he may well find his place on it, since his conclusions have been accepted by Professor Dodds in his edition of Plato's Gorgias.4 It is important, however, that before this happens the evidence should be closely scrutinized. For what is involved here is no mere verbal nicety: indeed, to exclude Gorgias from the number of those with whom he is generally associated will (other considerations apart) radically alter the significance of the dialogue which bears his name. For it will then of necessity become an attack on an individual and his methods, rather than on a leading representative of an influential profession; and the scope of its reference will be correspondingly reduced.5 Let us consider first evidence which seems to support the commonly accepted view, viz. that Plato represents Gorgias as a sophist not essentially different from Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus. (i) When Socrates, in the Apology,6 rejects the allegation that he undertakes to teach people for money, he ironically expresses admiration for Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias, who are so successful in this field. And he 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 of Professor Dodds on the point under discussion, it need scarcely be added how indebted the writer is to this work. 5Crucial here is Professor Dodds' antithesis, p. 367: "Plato may well have believed that in fact the 'neutral' education which derived from Gorgias had done more harm than all the teaching of the sophists." 619D-20C. 183 PHOENIX,Vol. 18 (1964) 3.

184

PHOENIX

He has learnt this from Callias, "who has spent more money on sophists than everybody else put together." And Evenus charges only five minae for his services. Now it is true, as Raeder points out,7 that this passage does not prove that Plato regarded Gorgias as a sophist. But in conceding this point we should not go too far in the opposite direction. Indeed, until convincing evidence to the contrary presents itself, the probable implications of the passage can scarcely be denied: viz. that everyone mentioned here (apart from Callias) is a sophist, with Gorgias, a notoriously expensive one,8 opening the list, just as Evenus, a remarkably cheap one, closes it. (ii) In the Hippias Major, whose authenticity there are no good grounds for suspecting,9 Socrates, in a passage again heavy with irony,'1 exploits the vanity of the gullible Hippias. He contrasts unfavourably the wise men of old, such as Pittacus, Bias, and Thales, who abstained from politics" and money-making, with men like Hippias himself, Gorgias, Prodicus, and Protagoras, who have been so strikingly successful in both spheres. And at the head of the latter group he places ropylas o'ros
6 Aeovrtvos aocLaTsr, (282B).

Now according to Raeder'2 this evidence can be discounted because Gorgias is here put alongside Pittacus and the rest, which indicates that "sophist" is used, not in its fifth-century, professional sense, but with its 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 fact once more placed at the head of that very group from which Plato is supposed to have specifically excluded him. (b) He is emphatically contrasted with Pittacus and the rest as a leading representative of the new type of wise man: and the term "sophist" is actually held over quite pointedly by Plato to introduce him in this role. How pointedly, indeed, is clear from the awkward periphrases Plato 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 opposite impression (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, Zetemata 6 (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 Philosophie der Griechen' [Leipzig 1923] 1.1.62). But Socrates here is more concerned with ironically leading Hippias on than with recording historical fact. 12Platon und die Sophisten 9. "3Onthe history of the term see H. Sidgwick, JPh 4 (1872) 288-307; G. B. Kerferd, CR 64 (1950) 8-10.

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

185

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 7repl Trjv raoqiav (281D).14

(c) The question of money-making is emphasized throughout this passage as being of paramount importance (281B, 282C, 282D, 282E, 283A, 283B). And since "sophist" in the narrow sense and moneymaking belong together so inseparably for Plato,15 it is surely inconceivable that in such a context as this the term could have occurred to him in any other sense. So far, then, we have on the positive side two passages, in each of which Gorgias is grouped with other sophists, with no indication in either that he is in any way to be distinguished from them. And in the second 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 excluding Gorgias from the profession of sophist. (i) He is absent from the gathering of the leading sophists described in the Protagoras, and his absence draws no comment.16 But nothing here, I think, need carry any implications regarding his status. For, with regard to the first point, chronological considerations may well have played their part;17 or Plato may simply have felt that Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus, along with their numerous disciples and hangers-on, were as much as Callias,18or even he himself, could be expected to cope with
14Similarly, they are later referred to as TWv TraXaLwv EKElvCW (282C), with an awkward vagueness which the simple addition of urofoarrCv could easily have removed. "5Forfurther discussion of this point, see below. '6Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 7. (The "drittes Motiv" mentioned there proves 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 Athens till 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 Plato admits anachronisms into the dialogues (cf. Dodds, Gorgias 17-18), and that such a chronological argument cannot therefore be decisive. But Apol. 19D f. perhaps supports its validity in the present case: for there Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias are mentioned as currently active, but not Protagoras-presumably because by 399 B.c. he had been dead for several years. '8As we saw above, Callias was the man "who spent more money on sophists than everyone else put together" (Apol. 20A; cf. Crat. 391B-C). But on this occasion even his household seems to have felt the strain (Protag. 314C). In this latter passage, incidentally, we are given an interesting sidelight on the associations of the term "sophist." For servants it meant a vagrant who tended to stay over and make extra work for everyone. Hence Socrates secures entry for himself and Hippocrates only after he has made 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 whole scene, see the beginning of Professor L. E. Woodbury's article, "Simonides on 'Aper?7, TAPA 84 (1953) 135 f.

186

PHOENIX

successfully under one roof. And, with regard to the second point, even if the chronological argument is overlooked, the lack of any reference to Gorgias' absence is still only what we might expect, since silence about a rival-or indeed about anyone but himself-is one of the characteristics of the Platonic sophist.'9 (ii) In the dialogue which bears his name, Gorgias describes himself as a specialist in rhetoric (449A); and later in the same dialogue rhetoric is formally distinguished from sophistic (465C).20 We 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 on which Raeder here rests his case scarcely merits our serious consideration, and (b) that even if it did, it would still militate against his view, rather than support it. (a) 1. Socrates' own attitude to the distinction as it is here presented seems anything but serious. For even as he expounds it he concedes that no one is aware of its existence. (If "the men themselves" [i.e. the sophists and 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 sophist and rhetorician, but in terms of their identity and close similarity. Only as the argument proceeds, and it helps him to score a point off Callicles, does he consciously resuscitate and employ once more the earlier distinction (520B).21
"1Onthe rare occasions when they do mention one another, it is with a view to belittlement (Protag. 318D f., H.Ma. 282D f.) They are cut-throat competitors, not fellowpractitioners. (The partnership between the brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus is in this respect, as in much else, exceptional.) There is no sophistic parallel for Socrates' recommendation of Damon to Nicias (Laches 180D), or for his passing on of would-be pupils to Prodicus and others (Theaet. 151B). Even under the same roof they keep their parties quite distinct: it is Socrates who brings Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus together in the house of Callias (Protag. 314E f.). Flashes of generosity are rare, and involve Socrates only, who is not a professional rival: and even then they have an egocentric basis. Hippias, e.g., praises Socrates' exposition of a poem-but only as a prelude 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 his own outstanding liberality and freedom from envy (Protag. 361E). All this of course is Plato's picture; but that is what concerns us in this note. 20Cf. Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten 9-11. It is chiefly on these grounds that he concludes (11): "Fiir uns . . . bleibt nicht anderes als . . . Gorgias aus der Zahl der Sophisten zu streichen." 2"This passage, it seems to me, shows vividly how unscrupulous in argument the Socrates of the Gorgias can be. At 520A Callicles has expressed contempt for those who claim to impart arete; whereupon Socrates not only mischievously equates this with an attack on sophistry as a whole, and so, by a misleading inference, on Callicles' own guest, Gorgias, but he also proceeds, quite casually and recklessly, to rate sophistry above rhetoric simply to score another quick point over his opponent. And even the

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

187

2. The impression conveyed by this cavalier attitude on the part of Socrates-viz. that the distinction in question is captious and artificial -is strengthened by consideration of the form in which it makes its appearance. For the classification on which it is based is poles apart from
the type we meet in later dialogues, where 8LatpeaLs has achieved the

status of a genuine dialectical "method."22 Indeed, the system we are presented with here is so unnecessarily elaborate that it is difficult to avoid the feeling that Socrates' performance is designed as a counterblast to the earlier pretentiousness of Polus (448C),23 which he noted at once (448D) and did not subsequently forget (461D). And this impression too is considerably strengthened by consideration of the term with which the
system is introduced (erLELtcod 464B).24

3. Finally it is not irrelevant to note that Socrates' concern in presenting the system is not the relationship between sophistic and rhetoric, but that between rhetoric and justice. And as the subsequent argument unfolds it becomes fairly clear that the introduction of sophistic (like that of gymnastic) is in fact part of the unnecessary elaboration whose relevance and implications seem not to have been fully thought
out.25

(b) But even if we accept the distinction at its face value, Raeder's case, it seems to me, still falls down. For the distinction boils down to this: that rhetoric, as the sham counterpart of justice, involves forensic eloquence, whereas sophistic, mimicking the art of legislation, involves its deliberative form. And Gorgias earlier tells us (452E) that the blessing he confers on a man is "to be able to convince by speech members of
way in which this is done is itself worth noting: for what looks like a hurried reference back to the earlier system (520B) is, in its essential, nothing of the sort. There was nothing in that system to suggest any hierarchy among the genuine reXvat such as he now glibly takes for granted in order to make his fresh point. On Socrates' role in the 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 free from the same defects. 24On this 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 question into Polus' mouth (463D), and hence the conclusion, with his rather lame apology for having indulged in /uaKpoXoyia (465E). Later, when Staipecas has become a genuine dialectical 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).

188

PHOENIX

juries, the Boule, and the Ecclesia." In other words, his concern is with both types of eloquence: which would make him, not a rhetor as opposed to a sophist, but rhetor and sophist at the same time.26 (iii) There are two passages in the dialogues which indicate that Gorgias rejected the claim to impart arete:27 and such a claim was a distinctive feature of the sophistic profession.28 But again there are, I believe, strong objections to our concluding on these grounds that Gorgias was not a sophist. (a) In neither passage does the speaker concerned imply anything of the sort.29 Indeed, the language of the Meno passage (95B f.) seems to point to the opposite conclusion: LO. ri 5b 567; ol aocrnaraL aol ovrot, o'Irep 6uovo.L ;ra'yyeXXovratL, OKOvLa etvat apert7s; b5biaKcaXot
MEN.
airoV T aKovap

Kal ropytov .&XtiTa,

aKovacas

r TOTO

X 2W)Kpares, raVTa &aZaLaa, 6rTL OVKav 7roTe aXXa Ka rcv a&XXWv orav KaratyeXa, VirLaXvovuUEVOV,

rLaXvoU.evcv.

Here the implications of the arrangement ol acoctarat followed first by are surely clear enough.30 ropyiov and then by rTv aiXXwv (b) A closer look at Gorgias' disclaimer strongly suggests that it was a calculated manoeuvre based on the ambiguity of the term arete,3' and aimed 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. Raeder believes such misgivings are groundless, and that "die Unterscheidung ist in der Tat deutlich genug" (op. cit. [see n. 2] 11, n. 2); but he does not show us how. "2Meno 95B f., Gorg. 519E f. 28Protag. 349A, Meno 91B, 95B f., Hippias Major 283C, Sophist 223A. Oddly enough Raeder makes no reference to this argument: but it clearly needs to be taken into account, and can be conveniently dealt with here. On the basis of the Meno passage Grote concluded (History of Greece 8. 521): "If the line could be clearly drawn between rhetors and sophists, Gorgias ought rather to be ranked with the former"; and Pohlenz reached a similar conclusion without any such reservations: "Er fiihlt sich als Redelehrer und sondert sich deshalb von Sophistik ab" (Max Pohlenz, Aus Platos Werdezeit [Berlin 1913] 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, made no such claim. It is important to note, one might add, that it is an eristic Socrates who equates 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 imply that Gorgias was an (exceptional) sophist." 31For an account of this term's development see A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (Oxford 1960) passim.

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

189

that term political ability based on oratory:32 and there is nothing to set Gorgias' claims in this field apart from those of other members of the sophistic profession.33 It can therefore only have been as a result of transvaluing the term arete so that it meant "moral goodness" that he was able to make a show of rejecting the sophistic slogan34in the way that he did. And that he in fact did so transvalue it in this context is implied byGorg. 456C f., where Gorgias disclaims any responsibility for subsequent misconduct on the part of the young men who pass through his hands. Doubtless it was important, in the highly competitive profession of sophistry, to cultivate special characteristics of this sort: hence Gorgias' use of such comparable "gimmicks" as his distinctive purple robe, and his acting as a one-man "brains-trust."35 But presumably because it was such a "gimmick," and nothing more, Gorgias' profession not to teach arete seems to have lacked any real substance. For in the Meno, prior to the passage already cited, Meno informs us that Gorgias did not hesitate to use the term arete to denote the kind of ability he did claim to impart.36 Moreover, when pressed by Socrates, Gorgias is depicted as yielding his ground on the issue of responsibility with a casualness that belies any deeply held conviction.37 Small wonder is it, then, that the surviving relative who erected a statue in Gorgias' memory passed over the dis82Cf. Werner Jaeger, Paideia, translated by Gilbert Highet (Oxford 1939) 1. 287-288. Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit 195) equates it with 6LKatoaovV7l on 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.) has obviously transvalued it to make a neat but scarcely valid point against them. "Compare Gorg. 452D f. with Protag. 318E f., Euthyd. 272A, H. Ma. 304A f. (which doubtless 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 way of using the arete label. But whereas Gorgias made a show of removingit altogether from his wares, Euthydemus simply shifted it from one set to another. For although he and his brother, like sophists generally, claim to impart political competence of a sort (Euthyd. 272A), arete is used by them to describe instead their major concern-skill in eristic (273D f., cf. 283B, 285D). 3On these, see Dodds, Gorgias 9 and 190. Protagoras' version of the modern "moneyback" guarantee perhaps belongs to the same category (Protag. 328B f.); and on occasions one gets the impression that the sophist's attitude towards the various reXvaL degenerates to the same level, with Hippias posing as the supreme master of them all (Hippias Major 285B f., Hippias Minor 368B f.), Protagoras at pains to disclaim any such interest (Protag. 318D f.), and Gorgias going one better and saying that rhetoric makes all the others superfluous (Gorg. 459B f.; cf. 456A f.). i71E, 73C. There can be no doubt that Gorgias is meant to be associated with Meno's replies, for although Socrates begins in the usual way, by excluding him from the discussion because he is absent (71D cf. Protag. 347E, Gorg. 471E, Hippias Minor 365C f.), this in fact proves to be an empty gesture, and Gorgias' name is all the more pointedly included by Socrates in the cross-examination which immediately follows (71D, 73C).

460A. Polus' indignation at 461C is also instructive: Socrates is perverse for 37Gorg. failing to see that of courseGorgias' position on this issue is not unshakable.

190

PHOENIX

claimer, with its subtle transvaluation of arete, and put the record straight once and for all with the inscription:
rop'ylov aaKc'aiaL 'vXrdv aperj7s es dlycvas KaXXLov' cO-vrTWv oVSeLs Trw Vpe TreXVI.38

(iv) Finally, Raeder points out that whereas Protagoras, in the dialogue named after him, calls himself a sophist, in the Gorgias the case is different. There, when Socrates inquires about his profession, Gorgias answers that rhetoric is his art, and he should be called a rhetor. "Den Unterschied zwischen Protagoras und Gorgias hat Platon also deutlich gekennzeichnet."39

It is important to note, however, that the statements in question are made in different dialogues: for it seems to me that the change in terminology can be explained quite naturally in terms of a change of emphasis or perspective on Plato's part when he came to write the Gorgias. We are concerned here of course, once more, with the distinction between sophist and rhetor: and I have tried already to show that there are a number of reasons for rejecting as a serious statement of the case the formal solution offered in the Gorgias, with its wholly artificial attempt to divide orators into two separate groups. But to show what I mean by a change of emphasis on Plato's part the distinction now needs to be considered further. The Platonic sophist is a complex figure; but beneath the complexity there are two basic features common to them all. (a) They teach rhetoric,40 and (b) they exact payment for their services. To take (a) first: that this is fundamental seems clear enough. In a democratic city-state that had become the powerful and thriving centre of a commercial empire, the ability to influence public assemblies and law-courts would naturally prove the royal road to success in public and private life. And in fact there is convincing evidence in the dialogues to show, on the one hand, that rhetoric was the subject of primary interest to the sophist's prospective 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; those verbal contests in the assemblies and ayWYves law-courts that inevitably awaited any ambitious young man. (Cf. Gorg. 485D, where Callicles, a product of Gorgias' training, follows Homer in regarding the agora as the place where men become 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, regarded as more crucial, e.g., by Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit 195) and Jaeger (Paideia 1.290), seems to be a secondary feature, the natural, though (as we have seen in Gorgias' case) not inevitable corollary of the teaching of rhetoric. 4'Hippocrates, the prospective pupil of Protagoras, defines a sophist as "one who knows how to make a man clever at speaking" (Protag. 312D): evidence that is especially
reXvrl here is rhetoric, the aperis

WAS GORGIAS A SOPHIST?

191

curriculum, whatever other skills he may or may not have claimed to impart.42 When we turn to consider (b) we must be careful to avoid the error of regarding the question of payment as merely secondary.43 For, however we may tend to view such matters ourselves, nothing emerges more clearly from the dialogues than the fact that, for Plato, this feature of sophistry was crucial.44 Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that he is almost incapable of using the term sophist without at the same time making some explicit reference to this professionalism.45 And it comes as no surprise when this same professionalism looms larger than any other element in each of the definitions of the sophist which appear in the dialogue of that name.46 How next can we define the rhetor? Essentially, he is a man skilled valuable, since it is naturally free from the "gimmicks"which tend to obscure the pronouncements of the sophists themselves. Pohlenz discards this definition as worthless, on the grounds that it fails to stand up to Socrates' probing (Aus Platos Werdezeit 199). But this failure stems of course not from the inadequacy of Hippocrates' definition, but from the nature of sophistic. Cf. also Theaet.178E f., where Socrates stresses that nobody would have paid high fees to converse with Protagoras had he not been able to foresee arguments which would succeed in a court of law. Even sophists of the eristical sort (cf. below, n. 46) would have had no customers had they not promisedinstruction in legal and political argument (Sophist 232D). 42Cf.Protag. 318E f., Gorg.452D f., Euthyd.272A, Meno 95C, Theaet.178E. Hippias may have professed to impart a variety of skills besides rhetoric (cf. Protag. 318E, H. Mi. 368B f.): but his speech at H. Major 304A f. would make nonsense if rhetoric had not been his main concern. 43Sidgwick(op.cit. [see n. 13] 294) calls it an accident rather than a property (cf. also Raeder, Platon und die Sophisten6); and that is the natural way for us to look at it. But for Plato it clearly was an essential property: cf. below. 44Forreferences to the sophist's pay, cf. Laches 186C; Protag. 310D, 311B, 311D, 313B, 313D, 328B f., 349A, 357E; Euthyd.272A, 304A, 304C; Crat.384B, 391B; Hippias Major 281B, 282C, 282D, 283B, 283D, 284A, 285B; Gorg. 519C; Rep. 439A; Theaet. 167C; Sophist 222D, 223A, 223B, 225E, 226A, 231D, 234A. This almost compulsive association no doubt explains the dramatic flaw at Rep. 337D, where Thrasymachusis depicted as asking for a fee before continuing the conversation. "Incredible, even for a sophist," as D. J. Allan observes (Plato, Republic1 [London 1940]adloc.). However, we surely ought not to make matters worse there by having Glaucon actually take a zu den Dialogen Platons collection, as H. Gauss does (PhilosophischerHandkommentar [Bern 1954] 1.2.124). 45Thisis clear from the majority of the passages cited above, n. 44. Cf. also Protag.

311E: cWs ooqStcrrj tpa 'pX6ojuea TEXOVVTES r&a taXLo-Tra. Xplauara; 46Sophist 223B (notice ptoLaapvLKJs, vojuLo.saTvo7rcoXtLKs, and vewv 7rXovriwv) and 226A (Xp7ITarttrLKobv, These definitions refer of course to the eristical type KT77TLK'tS). of sophist, whose precise origins have been much discussed. But it makes little difference whether he is a genuine successor of Protagoras or merely a degenerate Socratic: he is still a true sophist in the Platonic sense, i.e., he teaches rhetoric and makes money out of it (cf. Euthyd. 272A, Sophist 232D etc.). (For an earlier parallel to the XP?l/iarTLo-TrLc yevos of Sophist 226A, cf. Protag. 313C f., where the sophist is described by Socrates as "a merchant or dealer in goods from which the soul is nourished."

192

PHOENIX

in the art of rhetoric: and as such he may impart this skill to others, or exercise it in the Assembly or in the law-courts.47 It is of course the first of these alternatives that interests us here: for, as is clear from what has been said already, the sophist qualifies for the title of rhetor in this sense should one choose to describe him in purely functional terms.48 Now in the Protagoras Plato did not so choose. His concern there was to portray the sophist as an over-confident professional matched in a dialectical struggle with the unassuming amateur, Socrates, and found wanting: and the term "sophist" was therefore entirely appropriate for his purpose, just as it was appropriate to make several explicit references to the professionalism this term implies,49 to satirize the vanity and bombast of the person it denoted,50 and to leave the shadowy figure of his prospective pupil, Hippocrates, neglected and forgotten in the wings. In the Gorgias, on the other hand, Plato's standpoint has clearly changed.51 Now it is indeed the role of the sophist as teacher of rhetoric that is important, rather than the man himself. Thus the dominant figure in the dialogue is not in fact Gorgias at all, but the finished product of his teaching, Callicles. So too, there is little attempt at satirizing sophistic vanity and bombast, since considerations of this sort are now comparatively irrelevant.52 And above all Plato, usually so obsessed with a resentment of sophistic money-making, now carefully avoids obscuring the real issue by yielding to this obsession.53Hence, just as throughout the dialogue there is no explicit reference to Gorgias' (undoubted) professionalism, so also he is described in it, not as a sophist, which would inevitably carry with it the implication of that professionalism, but as a rhetor, which does not.54
47Cf.Dodds, Gorgias194. 48Henceno doubt Gorg.465C: &rTe 6'eyybs 6vrwv ckfpovrat ev rT aivr4 Kal 7rept eratr aoroaTral Kal "Iropes. 520A: ravTr6v, c tuaKapLt, Earil ao0LoTv7 Kal frjwop, i 'yybs TLKal 7rapaTrX7atov. The real truth is to be gleaned from the unguarded asides rather than from the carefully devised system. 49Protag. 310D, 311B, 311D, 313B, 313D, 328B f., 349A, 357E. 50Cf.Protag. 317C (end), 328B, 335A, 337A f., 337C f. the relative dating, cf. Dodds, Gorgias18 f. 51On 62Inparticular, the form of the Gorgias,with its return to direct dramatic representation, puts out of the question any of the burlesque which marks the opening scene of the Protagoras.Cf. Paul Friedlander, Platon 2 (Berlin 1957) 227: "Damit verzichtet er auf allen Hintergrund,alle Raumsymbolik,und lisst allein die Menschenin h6chster Klarheit sich selbst und ihre sachlichen Gegensatze aussprechen." "Anyone who thinks that the sudden absence of any referenceto pay in dealing with such a notorious money-makeras Gorgiasis not the result of conscious effort on Plato's part should compare Protag. 311B f. with Gorg.448B f. These two passages, as is often pointed out, are remarkablyparallel: but in the first there are no less than eight successive referencesto pay, in the latter, none. "Plato's actual choice of Gorgias to bear the brunt of his attack on the sophist as teacher could similarly be explained in terms of concentrating on essentials, since for Gorgiasrhetoric was not merely the principalsubject on his curriculum:it was the only one (cf. Gorg.459C, Philebus 58A f.).