Κ. C .

G U T H R I E

CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY

I'KKSS

THE

SOPHISTS
BY W . K. C. G U T H R I E F.B.A.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE

PRESS

L O N D O N · NEW Y O R K · MELBOURNE

Published b y the S y n d i c s o f the C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press T h e Pitt B u i l d i n g , T r u m p i n g t o n Street, C a m b r i d g e C B I I B P B e n t l e y H o u s e , 200 E u s t o n R o a d , L o n d o n N W I 2DB 32 East 5 7 t h Street, N e w Y o r k , NY 10022, U S A 296 Beaconsfield Parade, Middle P a r k , Melbourne 3206, Australia © C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press 1 9 7 1
ISBN ο 52i 09666 9

First published as Part 1 o f A History of Greek Philosophy, V o l u m e i l l ( C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1969) Reprinted 1 9 7 7 Printed in Great Britain at the U n i v e r s i t y Press, C a m b r i d g e

CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations Preface
I II III INTRODUCTION T O P I C S OF THE D A Y W H A T IS A S O P H I S T ?

page ix ι
3 14 27

(1) The word 'sophist' (2) The Sophists (a) Professionalism (b) Inter-city status (c) Methods (d) Interests and general outlook (e) Decline or adolescence? ( / ) Rhetoric and scepticism (g) Fate of sophistic literature: Plato and Aristotle
IV T H E ' N O M O S ' - ' P H Y S I S ' A N T I T H E S I S IN AND POLITICS MORALS

27 35 35 40 41 44 49 50 51

55

(1) Introductory (2) The upholders o f nomos (a) Anthropological theories of progress (b) Protagoras on the original state o f man (c) Other equations of nomos with the just and right (Critias, examples from Hero­ dotus and Euripides, Socrates, the Anon. Iamblichi, pseudo-Lysias, the speech against Aristogeiton) Appendix: some passages descriptive o f human progress
ν

55 60 60 63

68 79

Contents
(3) T h e realists (a) Thucydides (b) Thrasymachus in the Republic (c) Glaucon and Adimantus (d) Nature and necessity page 84 84 88 97 99 101 101 101 107 113 117 131
135 148

(4) T h e upholders of physis (a) Selfish (i) Callicles: physis as the right of the stronger (ii) Antiphon: physis as enlightened self-interest (iii) Other witnesses (Euripides, Aristophanes, Plato) (b) Humanitarian: written and unwritten law Appendix: Pindar on nomos
V VI T H E SOCIAL COMPACT EQUALITY

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
VII

Political equality Equality o f wealth Social equality Slavery Racial equality

148 152 152 155 160

T H E RELATIVITY OF VALUES AND ITS EFFECTS ON ETHICAL THEORY 164

VIII

R H E T O R I C A N D P H I L O S O P H Y (Seeming and being,

*-

believing and knowing, persuading and proving) (1) General (2) Protagoras Appendix: Protagoras fr. 1 D K (3) Gorgias (4) Other views: scepticism extreme and moder­ ate (Xeniades, Cratylus, Antiphon) vi

176 176 181 188 192 200

Contents
(5) Language and its objects page 204 219 223 (6) Grammar Additional notes: (1) Prodicus and Thucy­ dides, (2) Synonymic and philosophy

IX

R A T I O N A L I S T T H E O R I E S OF R E L I G I O N : AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM 226

(1) Criticisms of traditional religion (2) Agnosticism: Protagoras (3) Atheism: Diagoras, Prodicus, Critias; Plato's two types of atheist (4) Monotheism: Antisthenes
X C A N V I R T U E BE T A U G H T ?

226 234 235 247
250

XI

THE MEN

261

Introduction (1) Protagoras (2) Gorgias (3) Prodicus (4) Hippias (5) Antiphon Additional note: the identity of Antiphon (6) Thrasymachus (7) Critias (8) Antisthenes (9) Alcidamas (10) Lycophron (11) Anonymous writers (a) T h e 'Anonymus Iamblichi' (i) T h e ' D o u b l e Arguments' vii

261 262 269 274 280 285 292 294 298 304 311 313 314 314 316

Contents Bibliography Index of passages quoted or referred to General Index Index of selected Greek words page 321 331 330 345 viii .

Classical Quarterly. OTHER WORKS CGF DK KR LSJ OCD OP RE TGF ZN Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Revue des Iitudes Grecques. G. A Greek-English Lexicon. Raven. ed. ix . ed. Wissowa. It may however be helpful to list the following: PERIODICALS AJ Ρ BICS CP CQ CR GGA HSCP J HI JHS PC PS REG ΤΑΡΑ American Journal of Philology. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Meineke. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Most works cited in abbreviated form in the text will be easily recogniz­ able under the author's or editor's name in the bibliography. Liddell-Scott-Jones. Gottingische Gelehrte An^eigen. Oxford Classical Dictionary. 9th ed. Transactions of the American Phifalogical Association. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Nauck. Kroll et al. The Presocratic Philosophers. S. Diels-Kranz. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (London). Zeller-Nestle (see bibliography). Classical Philology. Kirk and J. ed. Classical Review. Journal of the History of Ideas. E.

.

Aristophanes and the orators. with the minimum of alterations necessary to allow it to appear as a separate publication. and on which they attempted to impose their programme'. x i i . More than once it has proved an inspiration to Struggles for political freedom. This book reproduces the first part. the Press hopes to make them more easily and cheaply available to students. from which they noisily rebelled and quietly drew many o f their ideas. was closely bound up with problems o f practical living. for obvious reasons. 1 9 6 7 . B y issuing the two parts separately in paperback form. namely that 'while the Enlightenment was a family of philosophes. 11' in the text refer to the earlier volumes o f this work. Mentions o f ' v o l . while at the same time any tendency to allow the volume to develop into a history o f Greek literature had. One cannot isolate the Sophists from their contemporary world. sought to combat their revolutionary effect b y confining them to the harmless channel o f the textual exegesis of a few selected authors instead o f 1 Peter G a y .PREFACE The third volume o f m y History of Greek Philosophy (Cambridge University Press. C . to be resisted. an Interpretation. I . Euripides. and the biggest difficulty which it presented was that o f setting limits to the subject. 1' or ' v o l . p . from writers like Thucydides. Philosophy in the middle o f the fifth century B . so much so that the authorities o f Czarist Russia.it was something more as well: it was a cultural climate. 1 A recent writer has remarked on the powerful impact which has always been made b y fresh and immediate contact with the great minds of ancient Greece. unable to suppress classical studies entirely. a world in which the philosophes acted. T h e original title for the first part was chosen to mark the fact that it is impossible to understand the Sophists without taking into account a wider circle o f writers and indeed the general contemporary climate of thought. What an authority on the eighteenth century has said of thephihsophes of that epoch is equally true of the Sophists. L o n d o n . Tht Enlightenment. entitled respec­ tively ' T h e World of the Sophists' and 'Socrates'. with views on morals and politics and the origin and purpose of organized societies. 1969) was divided into t w o parts.

in the four fascicules of Untersteiner's / Sofistt. Those w h o prefer to consult the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (originally edited by Heiberg.. whereas Sophs. 1927) for the particular treatises which it includes will not. Leipzig. are designated 'fr. I97I H . and articles b y periodical and date only.Preface allowing them the more dangerous outlet o f education in ancient political theory. 2 . and other texts relating to them. 1 Books have most frequently been referred to in the text and notes b y short titles. stands for his book on the Sophists in its English translation b y K. Italian translation and commentary. This is referred to here as Sof. Without departing from the limited aims of a his­ torian. World. followed b y the number of the fascicule. ' T h e Classics in the S o v i e t U n i o n ' . from both ancient and modern authors.K. Freeman. and titles and page-references for articles. G r a h a m . are my o w n unless otherwise stated.G. The fragments o f the Sophists. purporting to be actual quotations from the philosopher in question.' (fragment). G . 1 0 7 . D O W N I N G MARCH 1 COLLEGE. and those in a ' B ' section. L I V ( 1 9 6 0 . followed uniformly by the volume and page in Littre's edition. T h e y are also to be found.C. Full particulars of books. T h e texts in an Ά ' section of D K (Tesamonid) have their number preceded by this letter. will be found in the bibliography. are included in the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker of Diels and Kranz (abbreviated D K ) . with certain additions. CAMBRIDGE W. Translations. I may be allowed to hope that the link uniting Greek political and social ideas to the reconciliation o f freedom with order in the modern world may never be broken.1 ) . Class. I hope. Treatises in the Hippocratic Corpus have been referred to by book (when in more than one book) and chapter. find the' passages difficult to locate.

S c h m i d . W e no longer debate whether the earth is round or flat. Whatever w e may think of the Sophistic movement. we must all agree that (as Alban Lesky puts it in his history of Greek literature) no intellectual movement can be compared with it in the permanence of its results. even b y pro­ fessional scholars. Nom. 1 L e s k y . Bas. This is obvious from many recent writings on the period. 1 5 ) : ' T h e theoretical foundation o f the general doctrine o f l a w in the twentieth century recapitulates the speculation o f fifth-century G r e e k S o p h i s t i c ' Its effect on the Enlightenment o f the eighteenth century is v i v i d l y portrayed lit Ernst Cassirer's Philosophy of the Enlightenment. and to possess now an interest which is purely historical. in tones not so much of dispassionate historical investigation as of vehement partisanship. 1 1 6 ) : ' T h e questions and controversies o f that time h a v e lost n o t h i n g o f their a c t u a l i t y ' . It is difficult to remain impartial in discussing questions which are of such vital importance to the preservation of civilized values in our own day. 285) that 'after more than t w o thousand years the eighteenth century establishes direct contact with the thinking o f a n t i q u i t y . . . and that the questions which the Sophists posed have never been allowed to lapse in the history of Western thought down to our own day. especially ch. we are plunged into a discussion of questions which are as relevant now as they were when first raised b y the Sophists. to select is to evaluate. 3 4 1 . With the change that came over philosophy in the fifth century. we are hardly likely to be helped b y the speculations o f Xenophanes or Anaxagoras. M a n y o f course h a v e made the same point. Gesch. and if we want to discover the origin and substance of the stars. w h e r e he justifies his state­ ment ( p . O n e m a y take at r a n d o m a G e r m a n ( W . 1 6 8 . 6. in which the conflict between the Sophistic and Platonic points of view is expounded. Enter Plato. 1 .' G o u l d n e r . 1 3 . The Presocratic philosophers dealt to a large extent with questions which might be said to have been settled long ago. or an Italian ( G i g a n t e . 3 .I INTRODUCTION 'To describe is to select. 1 . to evaluate is to criticize. T h e t w o fundamental theses represented in P l a t o ' s Htpuilic b y Socrates and T h r a s y m a c h u s o p p o s e each other again.' T h e y still stand opposed today.

Such rules or principles could remain valid only if instituted b y some divine power. and unaffected by. relativism and humanism. phenomenalism. It is remarkable how many arguments that might be thought to be ethical or political. as well as identity and equality and many others. from one moment to the next and between one individual and another. Appearances are constantly shifting. This outlook in its turn is opposed b y the attempt to restore. 4 . sensible phenomena and individual actions and events. The first view is typified b y the sayings o f Protagoras. that man is the measure o f all things and the existence of gods an undemonstrable assumption. and religious beliefs. along with many other hitherto unquestioned traditions. as independent and unvarying standards to which human perceptions and human actions can and must be referred. have an existence apart from the human mind. and they themselves constitute the only reality. earliest and greatest o f the Sophists. In morals this leads to a 'situational ethics'. and in one form or another consti­ tutes the fundamental difference between rival philosophies. and so to deal with purely practical matters. with philosophical justification. there are nevertheless essential connexions between the Pre­ socratic tradition and the new intellectual ferment generated b y the Sophists. positivism. an emphasis on the immediately practical and a distrust o f general and permanent rules and principles. idealism or transcendentalism. The Presocratics may fairly be said to have been pre­ occupied with the nature of reality and its relation to sensible phenomena. With this goes naturally a view of the world as the product of divine intelligence. are challenged on the grounds that they cannot be verified b y positive evidence. W e may call it (using similarly evocative but as yet undefined terms) absolutism.Introduction In spite of the shift of interest from natural phenomena to human affairs. a -* belief in absolute standards and permanent and unvarying truths existing above. but culminates later in Plato's ideal theory. according to which such concepts as justice and beauty. The second is rooted in the teaching of Socrates. individualism. O n the one hand we have a complex o f ideas whose basis may be loosely summed up in such terms as empiricism. This question of the relation between reality and appear­ ance remains at the root of things.

This is none the less true because the men of action who put them into practice may not always be aware of it. masters and servants. O n the surface we may have political differences about the relative merits of monarchy and republicanism. while still remaining on the human plane. and the general question of where sovereignty should lie. and intended that a similar pattern should be followed in human society. demanding immediate action. after him the angels. lay the ultimate sanction for absolute monarchy. or is it grounded in ineradicable natural differences? In studying the various answers that have been given to these questions. and often the connexion is in fact a fully conscious one. a select aristocracy or the whole people. Here. the supreme ruler. a cosmos whose members are all organic­ ally related as opposed to a collection of unrelated parts thrown together at random. Politics and morals. on the issues o f divine government versus chance. A t the head is God. They rest on assumptions about the nature of reality and the workings o f the universe. 5 . democracy and totalitarianism. metaphysics and epistemology cannot be separated. Below this is a level o f ideas which. still deeper level. On the surface it is a political struggle between two rival factions. determining man's position within it. are more abstract and theoretical. Beneath this was the question whether men are naturally. then man. W e have questions. general theories of human nature. as to which should govern. and those who believed that they were based this belief on the existence o f a hierarchical dispensation pre­ vailing throughout the whole of nature. of colonial rule. God himself has ordained that there should be higher and lower orders o f being. raising fundamental questions of human nature. King and Parliament. Christian principles. A r e all men naturally equal? Is the existence of rulers and subjects. or divinely. A n example is furnished b y the English civil war o f the seventeenth century. of slavery and its abolition. divided into higher and lower orders. beneath which come plants and lowest o f all the inanimate world. who in turn is lord over the animals. whether in the hands of one man. in divine ordinance. or race-relations.Morals and Metaphysics depend in fact on much deeper philosophical issues. merely a matter of practical convenience. the historian will often find that their explanation lies at a third.

involving the conception of the universe as a divinely constructed and close-knit organism. The relations between a ruler and his subjects are based on acceptance of this compact. In epistemology the one philosophy. the order of human society and the order of nature. Cassirer. as we shall see. The idea of law as no more than an agreement. is. is the supreme embodiment of law and order. It is no divine ordinance but a purely human agreement. so far as possible.' £ . For a later parallel one might cite Hugo Grotius. C f . 240. w h i c h . for whom justice and law exist in their own right. A . which for Plato is based on the essential identity of reason in man and God. and 1 2 F i l m e r t h o u g h t it ' a fault scarce pardonable in a C h r i s t i a n ' t o believe in a c o m m u n i t y o f g o o d s and equality o f persons (Greenleaf. What is invoked here is the analogy between microcosm and macrocosm. 84 ( D e c e m b e r 1848). basic to the humanism of the Greek Sophists. Parmenides rejected the senses entirely. T h e r e is t h r o u g h o u t it a m u r m u r i n g against the comforts o f the rich and against the privations o f the p o o r . for nature itself. wrongly. 92). Philosophy of the Enlightenment.b i o g r a p h y o f Jane E y r e is pre-eminently an anti-Christian c o m ­ position. in our relations with one another. as the product of rational design. as far as each individual is concerned. and is attacked b y Plato. and a people has the right to depose a ruler who breaks it just as he may punish his subjects if they disobey the laws in which it is embodied.Introduction which most o f us now believe to teach that all men are equal in God's sight. Stodart r e v i e w i n g Jane Eyre in the Quarterly Review. is a m u r m u r i n g against G o d ' s appointment. o n the w e a r i n g o f distinctive g o w n s b y n o b l e m e n ) . initiated b y Parmenides and elaborated b y Plato. Equally deeply rooted in Greek thought was the rival philosophy that found its political expression in the idea of a social compact upheld by Locke and others. and all that we can do is to try to reproduce them. Miss M . F o r P u s e y the mere recognition o f rank and station w a s still ' a fact in G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e ' ( R e p o r t o f the R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on the Universities 1 8 5 2 . were then invoked to prove precisely the opposite. 1 1 6 . in whose work 'the Platonism of modern natural law is most perfectly expressed In enacting his various positive laws the legislator follows an absolutely universally valid norm which is exemplary for his own as well as for every other will.' The Sophists had held up nature as the antithesis of law. Order. which goes back to Plato and beyond. said Plato. Empiricism and Politics. which lays obligations on both sides. 173—4: ' A l t o g e t h e r the a u t o . instituted by men and alterable b y consent. displays unbounded confidence in the powers of human reason.

If heeded too much. This account is drawn from contemporary English sources. Reliable sense-data were the first requirement of his inductive method. it analysed and resolved things into basic 'natures'. therefore. which guaranteed its compatibility with the reality of his creation. unreliable and misleading. and.Empiricism and Rationalism Plato would allow them no loftier role than as a starting-point which the mind must quickly leave behind. It was self-sufficient in the sense that its intuitions alone provided the clear and precise understanding characteristic of and basic to true knowledge. Empiricism and Politics (276 f. the rationalist tended to stress the unique significance of reason alone and to argue that the other faculties of memory and imagination. and to attain such knowledge it was necessary to transcend experience. shared many features of thought with the empirical tradition but basically their views were contrary to its tenets.) describing rationalism in seventeenthcentury England: The rationalist philosophers of the time . penetrating the veil of sense and rousing into consciousness truths that were latent in the mind because that immortal essence had already been vouchsafed a direct vision of them in its disembodied state. an inner light. these were not mere names (as they were to the empiricist). . and no doubt looked 7 . he nonetheless placed primary emphasis on the need to base the process of reasoning on a solid foundation of experience. This reason was an innate faculty. Like the empirical reason. H. Greenleaf's book Order. obscure. placed in every individual by God. Knowledge only deserved the name if it was absolute and universal. as the prototype of such notions. Information derived from the senses was. but real. although the author goes on to name Descartes. and it was only by transcending experience to the higher level of reason that indubitable conclusions could be reached. far from being of assistance in the comprehension of reality. with his vision of a 'universal mathematical science'. however. but its derivation will be obvious to any reader of Plato. presented obstacles to its achievement. . they could only be a hindrance to the comprehension of reality. absolute ideas. The reappearance of this outlook in later history can be strikingly illustrated b y a passage from D r W . On the other hand. the seven­ teenth-century rationalists knew their Plato too. While the empiricist acknowledged the importance of the rational faculty and had great faith in its ability to understand the reality of things.

for truth is in the depths'. including our own. denial of final causes. He wrote for instance in De Augmentis Scientiarum: 1 2 1 E . The empirical outlook holds a much more modest view of the human faculties. whether or not we could grasp it fully. The idea of mathematics as a model o f exact and rational science is certainly not absent from his works. For Democritus in his more pessimistic moments. g . ' w e know nothing. and humility before the magni­ tude o f cosmic problems in comparison with the feebleness of human perceptions cleared the way for every variety of free thought. whose religious agnosticism or disbelief. Doubts of the adequacy of our equipment to attain truth were first voiced in a religious context in contrast to the clarity of divine vision. Even this was abandoned b y some of the Sophists in favour of an out-and-out phenomenalism. F r . But he was not a complete sceptic. 8 . 398. It is the Platonic philosophy which Macaulay rightly singled out as dominant over men's minds up to the time when Francis Bacon turned them in a new direction. 11. A founder of experimental science like Francis Bacon knew well that the two competing schools of thought in his own day reflected a similar conflict of ideas in the ancient world. Here too they have their counterparts in other periods. I . Stimulus to empirical methods and the whole empirical way o f thought came from the revival of Greek learning as much as from contemporary advances in knowledge. Such radical scepticism as that of Protagoras and Gorgias was hardly helpful to the progress of scientific thought. A s to the upsurge of the scientific spirit at the Renaissance. and 'either truth does not exist or it is hidden from us'. b y A l c m a e o n . X e n o p h a n e s and Heraclitus. 461 f. but in Ionians like Anaxagoras and Democritus w e see rather the modesty of the scientific spirit. See v o l . no one can read far in the literature of the time without observing its openly acknowledged connexion with the Greek philosophers. but it owed much to the atti­ tude of contemporary Ionian scientists. The senses give a false picture o f reality. It was a violent reaction from the extreme rationalism of the Eleatics. 344. and for the mind to probe beneath their 'bastard knowledge' is not easy.Introduction on him as their first ancestor. See v o l . but at least for him there was a reality behind appearances. 1 1 7 and A 2 112.

of reconstructing the ideas of men whose own writings are for the most part no longer available. so far as physical causes are concerned. without admixture of final causes. T h e position o f Socrates. 1 3 January 1 9 5 5 . I h a v e translated the Latin. their philosophical opponent.3 but this immediately presents a problem for the study of Sophistic thought. 3. ( 1 ) A t a later stage it will be necessary to determine more precisely w h o the Sophists w e r e . De Augm. and the sheer charm of his literary productions (seldom if ever equalled by any other philosopher). because it is through the m o u t h o f Socrates that Plato delivers most o f his attacks on the Sophists in his dialogues. w h i c h will b e found in v o l . c h . who have attributed the construction of the universe to an infinity of attempts and experiments on the part of nature (which they called by the single name of chance or fate) and assigned the causes of particular things to necessity. 1 9 . even if not exclusively. and for the present it will be preferable to speak o f Plato alone as at the opposite pole from Sophistic thought. 4. T h e i r o w n translation is in v o l . the idealist and the empirical. on a much firmer basis. and w h a t is the meaning o f the w o r d . seems to me (so far as one may conjecture from the fragmentary remains of their philosophy) to be. than the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. and to have penetrated more deeply into nature. that they wasted no thought on final causes. is more complex. • T w o points should be noted here. A t present I am allowing myself to use it in a broad sense to stand for certain trends o f t h o u g h t w h i c h the men Culled Sophists certainly represented. i v . With the Sophists we are in the same situa­ tion as with the Presocratics. (2) It is usual to couple Socrates with Pluto in this connexion. Like most people since Bacon she is a partisan: ' O n the whole.' 2 The empiricism and scepticism of the Sophists can best be under­ stood in contrast to their most redoubtable opponent. one beginning with Plato and the other with Democritus. the idealism of Plato . b k . 1 Kathleen Nott was hardly fair to Bacon in giving Lord Russell the credit for pointing out that there are two main lines of develop­ ment through European thought in so far as it stems from the Greeks. and this solely for the one reason. The Listener. ' ' G e r m a n Influence o n M o d e r n F r e n c h T h o u g h t ' . the humane developments have sprung from the empirical approach. A t the same time the dramatic skill with which he presents their personalities and conversation. while those which are anti-human can be linked with various forms of philosophical idealism. 363 f. whereas Plato and Aristotle forced them in at every turn. and our richest source of information is Plato himself. h o w e v e r . Sc.Empiricism and Idealism For this reason the natural philosophy of Democritus and others who have removed God and mind from the fabric of the world. 569 f. I o f the Ellis and Spedding edition.

as described in its official programme. the real philosopher or lover of wisdom. 1966). It is true that a powerful impetus to this movement was given by the rise of totalitarian governments in Europe and the second world war. however. T h e fullest and most influential attack o n Plato and e u l o g y o f the empiricists is Sir Karl P o p p e r ' s The Open Society and its Enemies ( 1 9 4 5 . and at worst deliberate deceivers. 1 2 F o r an interesting critique o f H a v e l o c k ' s b o o k see L . which was overwhelmed b y the big battalions represented by Plato and Aristotle. and o f the alleged tolerance w h i c h ' t u r n s into violent hatred o f those w h o h a v e stated most clearly and m o s t forcibly that there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature o f man and the nature o f t h i n g s ' . Fite's The Platonic Legend ( 1 9 3 4 ) . and has g r o w n into a considerable literature. The present century has seen a particularly violent controversy over the fairness or otherwise of Plato's account and the relative merits of the two ways of looking at the world. Until comparatively recently the prevailing view. purveyors of sophistry in the modern sense of that term. and the Sophists were superficial. which saw Plato as a guilt-ridden homosexualist with an irresistible urge to dominate. that 'today friendship for Plato is to be found chiefly among those scholars (and their friends and disciples) whose vision of him antedated the rise of Nazism'. was that in his quarrel with the Sophists Plato was right. Another form of attack was the psychoanalytical. in w h i c h he speaks o f ' t h e danger that stems from the inspiration o f scholarship b y w h a t is called a p h i l o s o p h y ' . T o him they represent the spearhead of liberal and democratic thinking in Greece. Λ and it is they who are primarily referred to in the title of Professor Havelock's book The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics. Levinson could say. 1 9 5 9 . In 1953 the American scholar R. 3 1 IO . in J. and it was indeed disturbing to learn that the aim of the German Nazi party. Since the 1930s. and a revulsion from Plato as a bigoted reactionary and authoritarian who by blackening their reputation has ensured the suppression of their writings. sadly. we have seen a strong movement to reinstate the Sophists and their kin as champions of progress and enlightenment. B. Sir Karl Popper has christened them 'the Great Generation'. destructive. ' T h e Liberalism o f Classical Political P h i l o s o p h y ' . Strauss. the view in which a scholar of my own generation was brought up. T h e attack in its modern form began w i t h W . 1 w o u l d c o m m e n d in particular his final paragraph. was the production o f ' guardians in the highest Platonic sense'. He was what he claimed to be.Introduction make an almost indelible impression on our minds. of Metaph. 5th ed.

This view had been particularly strongly held in Germany. I I 1 . The German historians of philosophy. Plato. A . and mean­ while propagated immoral practical doctrines. and that the only way out was that of Socrates. Winspear and T . who sought to win back b y reason a deeper. who summarized the current opinion of the Sophists thus: 1 They were a set of charlatans who appeared in Greece in the fifth century. from w h i c h the following is a selection: R. in the Journal af Education for 1 9 4 5 .Modern Defenders of the Sophists However. S. M . and earned an ample livelihood by imposing on public credulity: professing to teach virtue. A . and was opposed by Grote in the powerful ch. Grossman. Ε . Gravitating to Athens as the Prytaneion of Greece. they really taught the art of fallacious discourse. From the middle of the nineteenth century the question was vigorously and ably debated. 'dress up a fiend called " D i e Sophistik". A . L a u w e r y s . at a period when. pp. they were there met and overthrown by Socrates. he was constrained to remark that ' democracy happens to be unpalatable to most modern readers'. and i v . b y T . written from a Marxist standpoint). Popper and Politics. Dumbrough ( 1 9 6 7 ) . F o r the p»ychoanalytical approach o f H . G r o t e . and turn philosophy from the search for truth into a means of satisfying the demands of selfishness and vanity. and the c o n t r o v e r s y which followed it (including contributions from G . C . essays ed. with a full bibliography up to its date o f publication ( 1 9 5 3 ) . in describing the rise of Athenian democracy. His vindication of the Sophists was hailed as a 'historical discovery o f the highest order' b y Henry Sidgwick in 1872. whom they assert to have poisoned and demoralised by corrupt teaching the Athenian moral character'. T h e best and fullest justification o f Plato against his attackers is L e v i n «οη'κ In Defense of Plato. lxvii of his History of Greece. and in fact disagreement over Plato's presentation of the Sophists is older than some of the dis­ putants on either side seem to remember. History (nth ed. T h o r s o n ( 1 9 6 3 ) . ed. Who Was Socrates? (1939. Totalitarian or Democrat?. Plato Today ( 1 9 3 7 . he complained. The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Neurath and J. E . 2 n d ed. Kelsen see L e v i n s o n . 1 9 5 9 ) . v u . 1439). iooff. such a dispute goes deeper than contemporary events or fashionable theories. surer foundation for both knowledge and morality (ZN. as I have tried to show. Silverberg. 106. H . O . T h e first edition o f this w o r k w a s almost exactly contemporary with Zeller's. Ffavelock. Joad). Field and C . Plato's Republic and German Education. Zeller's History in its first edition (1844-52) was probably the last to uphold unchallenged the view that the teaching of even the best of the Sophists was bound in the end to reduce everything to a matter of individual preference and prejudice. Plato. 52. Grote was a utilitarian and a democrat. L . 1888).

For Grote. G r a n t . The Ethics of Aristotle (4th ed. J o w e t t . and was b y no means an invention o f Plato. though grafted upon. Phil. in which he argued that the principal Sophists may well have been good and honourable men. he retorted: ' T h e y had in their lifetime more success than they deserved. but that even so they were not all either morally blameless or philosophic­ ally adequate. 0 12 . the vague sentiment o f dislike associated with it. but also connected it with express discreditable attributes. was necessary and right.' Sidgwick's main criticism was that in his anxiety to do justice to the Sophists Grote had exaggerated the partisanship of Plato.3 Reading these scholars of a past generation tempts one to linger 1 2 1 2 3 See S i d g w i c k ' s t w o articles in J. 1953). said Sidgwick. and triumphantly defended sound ethical principles against their pernicious sophistries. and that the ' subtle and discriminating pictures drawn by Plato' did not deserve the censure they received at his hands. i n . Yet he did not go all the way with Grote. 1 0 4 . Plato not only stole the name out o f general circulation in order to fasten it speci­ ally upon his opponents the paid teachers. A further appraisal came in a long and well-reasoned essay b y Sir Alexander Grant. who ' treat their author as if he were a short-hand reporter of actual dialogues'.Introduction w h o exposed the hollowness o f their rhetoric. made large fortunes. and many better men have been worse handled by posterity.5 5 . Jowett also published a judicious criticism of Grote in the introduction to his translation of Plato's Sophist (1871). T o Grote's statement that few characters in history have been so hardly dealt with as these so-called Sophists. Dialogues of Plato (4th ed. I . His conclusions were that Grote had succeeded in disposing of the former sweeping denunciations of the Sophists. and were altogether distinct from. 1 8 7 2 and 1 8 7 3 . but that their bad reputation at Athens was something already current for a variety of reasons (they were foreigners. turned their quibbles insideout. 1885). The reaction against commentators like Stallbaum. but nevertheless 'one always feels that the satirical humour of Plato was balanced by the astonishing versatility of his intellectual sympathy'. which formed no part of its primitive and recognised meaning. 325 η . excited youthful minds and so on).

and see it as arising out of its own crises and its own educational and social needs. 19) that in one at least of these writers 'exposition reads as if it were fervent apology'. the Sophists and the democrats. In Germany Theodor Gomperz (under Grote's influence). n. 1 O f G r o t e and Jowett it is unnecessary to speak. and G r a n t served for eight years in educa­ tional posts in India. There is some substance in Havelock's claim {Lib. so hotly debated today. 40. many o f whom were not only fine scholars but men of affairs with experience in political. are treated only as faint and futile voices protesting off-stage'. col.Modern Defenders of the Sophists and quote at length. Plato should now be suffering from the lavish praise that was bestowed on him by some English commentators of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Joel adds on the same side 'Hegelian intellectualism'. as far as possible in the light of contemporary evidence. Karl Joel in 1921 (fiesch. like those of their successors. see him in the image o f a Victorian liberal like themselves. O n the other hand. but at least it is important to show that Plato's portrayal of the Sophists. 1 . Temper. educational and other fields. Needless to say. In the following pages I hope to set forth the intellectual conflict of the fifth and fourth centuries B . 2 (on p . That would be disproportionate. Laas and Nietzsche in his positivist period did the same.) noted how the positivists rallied in support of the Sophists. history having taken the course it has. 2). 674 f. especially in v n . they could yet. and O u t of its philosophy of history understood all and pardoned all'. under the influence of what Havelock has called 'the Oxford school of neo-idealism'. were not unaffected by their personal political or philosophical beliefs. was well and truly put on trial by the great Victorians. 39. Staunchly liberal as they might be in their personal beliefs. C . their conclusions. A reaction was in­ evitable in the shocks and disillusion that overwhelmed Europe as our century advanced. H a v e l o c k ' s description o f the Sophists' methods as essentially those o f democratic processes is anticipated b y G r o t e . W e need not fear that either its intrinsic interest or its continuing relevance will thereby be diminished. and 'the naturalists and the materialists. especially in England from Grote and Lewes onwards. More surprisingly at first sight. it was inevitable that. which hailed them as 'masters in reflective reasoning'.

Life. and when a great many things are happening together it is not always easy to distinguish cause from effect. and the effect in several different fields of the substitution of natural for divine causation. vi) I briefly sketched the climate of thought in the fifth century.II T O P I C S OF THE D A Y In volume π (ch. as is that of Heraclitus on Protagoras. it is more likely to have been the other way round. i i . The cosmogonies themselves assisted in banishing divine agents from the world. on chronological grounds. including human life. T o determine the causes of an intellectual revolution is always a rash undertaking. before we g o on to consider the meaning of Sophistic and investigate each separate topic in detail. could all have been influential in moulding the thought of the Sophists. 1 3 5 . but a few things may be mentioned as more likely to belong to the former category. and Gorgias is said to have been a pupil and follower of Empedocles. One of the most powerful influences for humanism is to be found in the theories of the natural origins of life and society which were a feature o f Ionian thought from Anaximander onwards. the assumption that the ' P r e s o c r a t i c s a n d in particular the Ionians. W e are bound to dismiss. especially at Athens. and social and political groups were formed b y agreement as man's only effective form of defence against non-human nature. O n the other hand the influence of the Eleatics on Prota­ goras and Gorgias is undeniable. not because they were evolutionary rather than creative—the idea of divine creation was never prominent in Greek religion—but because they made more difficult the Greek habit of seeing divine or semi-divine beings every1 1 See v o l . If there is any causal connexion between the ideas of Democritus and those of Protagoras or Gorgias. Μ . The present chapter will attempt an outline of the main causes and features o f this changing outlook. was the product o f a kind of fermentation set up by the action of heat on damp or putrefying matter.

but what is is not. 46 W e h r l i ) . b u t he himself o b v i o u s l y attributes it to purely natural causes. even if they did not create the world. thunder or lightning. or rocks torn from the earth and put into orbit b y the cosmic vortex. or else the only real things were atoms which were expressly denied to have any sensible qualities at all. I I . can't I ? ' .2 and D i o d o r u s 1 5 . like orators. Besides their remoteness. It was a blow to religion when even the stars and the sun were asserted to be ignited clouds. and 'what i s ' an immovable plenum. had at least controlled it. 1 '5 . Either motion and change were illusion. See p. yet in their different ways philosophers as wide apart as Parmenides and D e m o critus denied its reality and undermined the evidence of the senses. fr. and nothing exists (pp. ' Corn.) the Achaean city o f Helike w a s o v e r w h e l m e d b y a combined earthquake and tidal w a v e . Moreover the speculative character o f their theories made them highly vulnerable. This is for most of us the 'real world'. For him they were simply. 51 b e l o w . the world of sensible experience and its impact on them with which men have to come to terms if they are to carry on a satisfying and happy life.4). In so far as the new spirit was a reaction from an interest in external nature to a concentration on human affairs. T h u c y d i d e s tells h o w . w h o ascribed the disaster to the wrath o f P o s e i d o n . 292). nor for Poseidon in the terror of earthquakes. T o the plain man's question: Ί can believe m y own eyes. opinion Wat still divided between ' t h e piously inclined' (including Heraclides o f P o n t u s ) . See Strabo 8.7. the Presocratics contri­ buted to it by what must have seemed in many eyes their failure. P o n t . but the theories of the natural philosophers left no part for Zeus to play in the produc­ tion of rain. and the rationalists w h o explained it solely b y natural causes. their answer was a definite ' N o ' . W h e n in P l a t o ' s lifetime (373 B. but were there any solid grounds for trusting one rather than another? Gorgias attacked on tilts front too. the Presocratics were discredited b y their mutual contradictions. m a n y sought aid from religious rites (2. 1 2 It should hardly b e necessary t o repeat the often-stated truth that the rationalism o f any •o-culled age o f enlightenment is b y n o means universal.47. after all. below). It is. 4 8 (Heracl. 193 ff. and the ingenuity o f a Gorgias was quite capable of using arguments of the Eleatic type to prove the direct contrary of the Eleatic conclusion: not 'what is.C. Each believed himself 4o be nearest to the truth. i s ' . d u r i n g the plague at A t h e n s . ' 3 ( D K . masters o f the art of verbal persuasion. T h e rejection o f divine a g e n c y is confined to a section o f the educated and intellectual. The Olympians.Effects of the Scientific Tradition where in nature.

Euripides too noted that incest is practised among non-Greek peoples. 9 7 . whereupon they cried aloud at the mere mention of such impiety. Persians. b e l o w ) . especially Greenleaf. a v e r y g o o d argument for moral relativity. might among the Egyptians or elsewhere be regarded as normal and even enjoined by religion. Empiricism and Politics.3 1 2 It is remarkable h o w persistently this k i n d o f thing reappears as responsible for a q u e s t i o n ­ i n g o f the moral c o d e .Law. 'and no law forbids it' (Andr. Egyptians and others and points out their divergence from Hellenic usage. he turned to the Indians (of a tribe who normally ate the bodies of their parents) and asked them if anything could persuade them to burn their fathers (as the Greeks did). 173-6). for its effects are d y s g e n i c . not. 68) mentions as a cause o f division and hesitation o v e r the issues o f sexual morality ' i n our o w n t i m e ' the free discussion o f it ' i n the light o f the discoveries o f a n t h r o p o l o g y and p s y c h o l o g y ' . A . Liberty and Morality. 3 . each would choose his o w n . for e n o u g h a n t h r o p o l o g y and p s y c h o l o g y to s h o w u p the relativity o f moral codes w a s k n o w n t o H e r o d o t u s . Socrates did not agree that a law w a s any the less universal and divine because some people b r o k e i t : incest. were in fact local and relative.4 ) notes a c u s t o m o f the O d r y s i a n s in T h r a c e w h i c h is the direct opposite o f one o b s e r v e d in Persia. in war. were asked to name the best laws and customs. Lydians. incidentally.Topics of the Day Often adduced as a cause of the new humanism is the widening of horizons through increasing contacts with other peoples. he says. When they replied that they would not do it for anything. that parents should be h o n o u r e d in death as in life: the dispute w a s o n l y about the means o f fulfilling it. 3 . and again to seventeenthcentury E u r o p e (cf. Order. T h e exceptional freedom o f discussion n o w tolerated must h a v e other roots. T h u c y d i d e s ( 2 . brings an unavoidable penalty. 3 8 . and shocked many b y making a character say (again with reference to incest) that no behaviour is shameful if it does not seem so to those w h o practise it (fr. 3 1 1 Ιό . who summoned some Greeks and Indians to his court and first asked the Greeks for what consideration they would consent to eat their dead fathers. H . If all men. like marriage between brother and sister. 1 1 9 f. 1 9 8 ) . for instance. L . 19). H d t . and he illustrates this b y the story of Darius. A s w e shall see ( p p . These made it increasingly obvious that customs and standards of behaviour which had earlier been accepted as absolute and universal. and o f divine institution. The history of Herodotus is typical of the mid fifth century in the enthusiasm with which he collects and describes the customs o f Scythians. Hart {. let alone to the V i c t o r i a n s . travel and the foundation of colonies. Habits that to the Greeks were wicked and disgusting. since it s h o w e d b o t h parties agreed o n the fundamental moral principle.

but it should be remembered that contact between Greeks and barbarians was no new thing. and. The same may be said about the effect of the codification of laws. yet they continued to attribute them to the instructions of Apollo. 29 f. 227ff. Ά code of laws drawn up by a human lawgiver whose name was k n o w n . noted some signs that the ' e n l i g h t e n m e n t ' o f the Sophists had its forerunners as early as the sixth century. was no longer possible in a time of legislative activity. T h e y had been the leaders o f Greek Sec v o l . Trade and colonization took them to the Black Sea and Mesopotamia. w h e r e the mention o f the eighth century must b e corrected. C o o k In JUS. 1 1 17 . 22. The Ionian Greeks of the Anatolian coastal strip had been in close contact with Orientals for centuries.3 1 2 Undoubtedly the successes of the Greeks against barbarians had given them enormous self-confidence and pride in their achievements. 106). particularly a m o n g l o g o g r a p h e r s like Hecataeus o f Mllrtua. R . Sec o n this DUmmlcr.6 1 0 . especially among the Athenians. we are told. whose activity can hardly be held responsible for the emergence o f new theories denying the religious sanction of law in the period following the Persian Wars. and are perfectly credible.. it may remain difficult to see w h y the spark was applied to it just when it was. 184—9.Effect of Foreign Contacts Such examples could be multiplied. Charondas and Solon. to P. and. concludes that Naucratis w a s founded about 6 1 5 . . The causes of the reasoned rejection of tradition which marked the middle of the fifth century were exceedingly complex. advising the legislator through his oracle at Delphi. But the names which Burnet mentions are Zaleucus. although popular opinion was still ready to lend an ear to stories of the personal intervention of gods or heroes at Marathon and else­ where. ' F o r details see m y Greeks and their Gods. 250. the feeling that they had stood alone and overcome was strong.' So Burnet (T. M . The unquestioning acceptance of law and custom. and their intellectual progress owed much to foreign sources. The Greeks had seen laws in the making long before that. Sojourns among Egyptians and Chaldaeans are recorded of early philosophers and sages like Solon. and the work of Protagoras in drawing up the laws for Thurii in 443 is sometimes quoted as a relevant example.. . D i c l s in Hermes. 1937. Akad. and the Milesian colony Naucratis was founded in Egypt in the seventh century. even if the inflammable mix­ ture can be analysed. could not be accepted in the old way as part of the everlasting order of things. I .

patron saint of technology. shipbuilding and naviga­ tion. and there is some justice in recent claims that this generalization results from the academic habit of relying too heavily on Plato and Aristotle as representative of the Greek mind. the domestication o f animals and their use in transport. cookery. if so. but. If asked b y what right they did this. It is too easily assumed that the Greeks as a whole believed in an ideal of knowledge for its own sake. building. The stages of man's material progress were celebrated. or an unknown god as in Euripides's Supplices (201 f. below). mining and metalwork. spinning and weaving. The technical triumphs extolled by these writers include speech and writing. and the rest follows from that. hunting and fishing. as well as b y philosophers like Anaxagoras and Democritus and the Sophist Protagoras. divorced from practical aims. It is a list entirely in the spirit of Macaulay's catalogue of the fruits of Baconian science. they would reply as Thucydides shows them doing in the Melian Dialogue that it is a 'law of nature' that the stronger should do what is in their power and the weak give way (pp. In the fifth century the practical achievements o f the human race were admired as much as their understanding of the universe. calculation. This consciousness of power was being fostered from another direction b y a new emphasis on the triumphs o f human invention and technique.Topics of the Day resistance and borne the brunt o f the Persian attack. astronomy and the mantic arts.). agri­ culture. pharmacy and medicine. besides omitting the art of prophecy. by all the three great tragedians. and despised the useful arts. Perhaps the Greek also showed his wisdom b y adding at the end of the list of technical achievements that they may be used for evil ends as well as good. 85 f. includes new weapons of war among the blessings of progress. for instance. A difference is that the Englishman. T h e y might be associated with the name of Prometheus. 18 . In the famous chorus of Sophocles's Antigone (332 ff. and their con­ sciousness of strength developed into an urge to dominate the rest and turn their former allies into subjects. his first gift to men is sagacity or ingenuity. So too Theseus in the Hippolytus (Eur. in which his express purpose was to show up b y contrast the practical barrenness of Greek thought.) there is no mention of higher beings: 'man with his skills' (περιφραδής άνήρ) is the most dread and wonderful thing in the world.

It was already far advanced b y the time o f the Persian Wars. although in matters considered technical no one would be consulted unless he could give proof of his training and competence. declared war and concluded treaties. This was a gradual process. and of course any citizen could speak and vote in the Assembly. not the least being fickleness. 915 fF. where the art of government was concerned the Athenians would listen to anyone—smith or shoemaker. and after a second debate reversed the decision by a tiny majority and despatched a second trireme post-haste to cancel the order. After putting down a revolt there in 428. which passed laws. for. as Socrates complained. boule and people's courts. the Assembly under the influence o f Cleon sent a trireme with orders to kill every man in the city and enslave the women and children. when their science does not tell them how to put sense into the head of a man who has not got it. By eating at their oars and taking it in turns to sleep the rowers managed to arrive before it was put into effect. Social and political changes played their part. In this case the weakness of the democracy in the face of mob-oratory was just counterbalanced by its readiness to 19 . This situation naturally encouraged the belief that one man's opinion was as good as another's. Next day they repented of this atrocious cruelty. These opened the archonship to the lowest classes and introduced pay for the archons. The treat­ ment of Mytilene by the Athenian democracy illustrates its dangers. that is. especially the growth of democracy at Athens. 91). without preliminary election of candidates. thereby making it not only legal but practically possible for the poorer citizens to give up their time to public affairs. These anti-democratic sentiments were not lost on his critics {Socrates. rich or poor. begun by Solon (who first introduced the principle of appointing public officials by a combination of election and lot) and continued by Cleisthenes after the Peisistratid tyranny.) asks to what purpose it is that men teach ten thousand arts and discover every ingenious device. and completed by the reforms of Pericles and Ephialtes about 458. A t the same time they introduced the lot in its pure form for appointment to many offices. and perhaps its virtues also.Technology and Democracy Hipp. but the faults of the system (very different from a modern democracy) were glaring. p.

w i t h the Sophists. For this purpose the prime necessity was to master the art of persuasive speaking. the arete which Protagoras claimed to impart consisted of more than that. The road to political success was open to anyone.) I have spoken as if the political circumstances and public actions of the Greek states gave rise to the irreligious and utilitarian moral 2 1 T h u c . however. b e l o w . and also of the State's affairs. (On this. Gorgias. was all that he taught and all that any am­ bitious young man need learn. I imagine that this is the first and last time that w e can expect t o see the life o f tile Sophists described as ombratile e appartataX 2 1 20 . ) T h e size o f modern states w o u l d forbid a complete. in a period o f unscrupulous imperialism and war of Greek with Greek. But one o f them. were encouraging cor­ responding theories of the right of the powerful to do as they pleased— the kind of theories that are commonly associated with the names of some of the Sophists—the spread of democracy was creating the demand which the Sophists claimed to supply in their capacity of professional educators. so that he may best manage his own household. Their crime was to prefer neutrality to inclu­ sion within the Athenian empire. provided he had the wit and the training to outdo his competitors. and p r o b a b l y the o n l y places w h e r e it can be o b s e r v e d t o d a y are the U n i ­ versities o f O x f o r d and C a m b r i d g e . for the man with the gift of persuasion had all the other experts in his power. as opposed to a representative. w h o led the 'sheltered and segregated lives o f paid educators o f the p u b l i c ' .Topics of the Day reconsider and give both sides a fair hearing. In the absence of universities or colleges of adult education the gap was filled. w h e r e similar instances o f vacillation are not u n k n o w n . b y men like Protagoras. While the harsh realities of history. 271 f. both as speaker and man of action'. ' l i v i n g amid the harsh realities o f polities'. so as to become a real power in the city. The art of clever speaking. below. e v e n if one w e r e desired. 32) contrasted the orators. That is a considerable exaggeration. and it has even been argued (by Heinrich Gomperz) that the whole teach­ ing o f the Sophists is summed up in the art o f rhetoric. The little island of Melos was less fortunate. 3.36ft". A t the other extreme B i g n o n e (Studi. ( T h e speeches o n this occasion are referred t o on p p . 86f. to their profit. democracy. It was the master-art. and its inhabitants suffered the fate originally intended for Mytilene. who gloried in the title of Sophist and proudly advertised his ability to teach a young man 'the proper care of his personal affairs. he said. see pp. did indeed laugh at the professed teachers of civic virtue.

including some restraint on selfish appetites and consideration for others. 1 Whether Plato was right we can only say. customs and conventions were not part of the immutable order of things. n. in what he represents as a set debate with the Melian assembly. and when Gorgias appeared before the Athenians in 427 the novel flowers of oratory with which he pleaded the cause of his Sicilian fatherland aroused their astonished admiration (p. at a much later Itage of our study. If the Sophists were a product o f their age. they also assisted in their turn in crystallizing its ideas. were necessary for the preservation of society. In Plato's opinion it was not they who should be blamed for infecting the young with pernicious thoughts. Turning (so far as the two can be distinguished) from causes to features of the change. the most fundamental is the antithesis between fhysis and nomos which was developed at this time among natural and humanistic philosophers alike. it was possible to adopt very different attitudes towards them. But at least their teaching fell on wellprepared ground. whom the people call Sophists and regard as their rivals in the art of education. but it is more likely that practice and theory acted and reacted mutually on one another. A t the other extreme 1 /?<</>. if at all. although not an original and essential part of human nature. and life in societies was necessary for actual survival. in fact teaches nothing but the beliefs of the people expressed by themselves in their Msemblies. for they were doing no more than mirror the lusts and passions of the existing democracy: Every one of these individual professional teachers. O n the one hand Protagoras could argue that accepted canons of good behaviour. 179. Pericles was a friend of Protagoras. T h e w h o l e passage 492 a . This is what he claims as his wisdom.4 9 3 d is illuminating. bear unmistakable marks of Sophistic teaching. Doubtless the Athenians did not need a Thrasymachus or a Callicles to teach them how to deal with a recalcitrant island. 21 . below). but the speeches which Thucydides puts into the mouths of the Athenian spokesmen. 493 a.The Sophists in their Setting theories of the thinkers and teachers. 3. Once the view had gained currency that laws.

a pupil of Gorgias.' Later we shall look at other references to these divine laws which have existed for all time.). and the relation between the two illustrates well the transitional nature of this period of thought. 'covenants made b y the citizens' as Hippias called them (p. the latter necessary and of natural origin. Besides laws in the ordinary sense. 138 below). who main­ tained that ideas of law and justice were merely a device of the majority of weaklings to keep the strong man. as a theory of the origin of law. the phrase denoted certain eternal moral principles. This conception is best known from the splendid lines of Sophocles in the Antigone (4506°. and their superiority to the faulty and changeable decrees of men. like Plato's Callicles. A n unequivocal statement of the contractual theory of law is ascribed by Aristotle to Lycophron. Not only 22 . In the idea that laws are a matter of human agreement. nor did I deem your proclamation so mighty that y o u . Nomos and physis were enemies. The Sophist Antiphon drew an elaborate contrast between the works of nomos and those of physis. For some. represented the invention of law as an important step on the road from men's originally 'disorderly and brutish' life to civilization. contemporary opinion recog­ nized the existence of 'unwritten laws'. uni­ versally valid and overruling the positive laws of men because their origin was from the gods. instead o f divinely sanctioned. and in its historical form. we have the essence of the theory of the social compact or contract which was developed especially in Europe o f the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. However. The codification of law came to be seen as a necessary protection for the people. In the eyes of Callicles it condemned them. from his rightful place. it is clearly stated by Glaucon in the Republic as a current view which he would like to see refuted. and right was on the side of physis. where Antigone defends the burial of her dead brother contrary to the edict of Creon by declaring: 'It was not Zeus or Justice w h o decreed these nomoi among men. whereas Critias.Topics of the Day is the rampant individualism of those. the former being unnecessary and artificial curbs imposed on nature b y human agree­ ment. unwritten laws of the gods. a mortal. through the mouth of Sisyphus in his play o f that name. could overthrow the sure. with the spread o f democratic ideas the phrase took on a new and more sinister meaning. who is nature's just man.

Beside the classic utterance of Protagoras. but also in practice the restored democracy at the end of the Peloponnesian War expressly forbade a magistrate to make use of unwritten law (p. and. Second Treatise on Civil Governmtni. hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries or to punish delinquents. ed. and so has nomos. she says. and that in his own case. civil. and so it serves not as it ought. (Both passages may conveniently be found in the W o r l d ' s Classics v o l u m e Social Contract. first the Kuusscau. through passion or interest. ) 1 . 1 4 (trans. 126 below). 1 3 6 . It is the true foundation on which the State is built. especially where every­ one is judge. 1 The growth o f atheism and agnosticism at this time was also_ connected with the idea of nomos. to determine the rights and fence the properties of those that live under it. have seen the early stages of religion as two. L o c k e . and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men. 799if. have power. opinion. 429ft*. Prodicus may. 2 . Europe of the seventeenth and eigh­ teenth centuries A . D . 2 . I refer to manners. customs. O n the one hand we have Rousseau writing: To these three kinds of law [political.Nature and Law: Religious Scepticism Euripides (Suppl. and he that has right on his side. . which is master of the gods because it is b y nomos that we believe in them and live according to (standards'. and grows daily in import­ ance . Here is another discussion which finds its reflection in the second great period of enlightenment. . having ordinarily but his own single strength. shall miscite or mis­ apply it cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge. of right and wrong. interpreter. one may set the curious and thought-provoking words of Euripides's Hecuba in her plea for mercy (Hec. and it is the most important of them all.): the gods. It is to be found not graven on pillars of marble or plates of bronze but in the heart of the citizens.)saw it as a guarantee of equal rights and a bulwark against tyranny. above all. they who. that he could not say whether gods existed or not. criminal] a fourth should be added. Social Contract. Darker. For Critias the gods were the invention o f an ingenious legislator to prevent men from breaking the laws when not under nupervision. H o p k i n s ) . and executioner of it too. 313 and 1 1 5 . Then for a different point of view we can turn to/Locke: The law of nature being unwritten. like some nineteenth-century anthro­ pologists.

Topics of the Day deification o f useful natural objects like the sun and rivers. corn and the grape. Antiphon went further (as Hippias may also have done). whose characters utter such sentiments as ' Only the name brings shame to a slave: in all else slave is no worse than free. The only witness in the fifth century to the existence of a belief that slavery is unnatural is Euripides. however. b e l o w . This is not necessarily the dramatist's own opinion. and after censuring distinctions based on high or low birth proceeded to declare that there is no difference in nature between barbarians and Greeks. Here nomos plays the part of die Mode in Schiller's hymn. In fact it was being imparted. which divides those who are naturally brothers. one would have expected him to include a condemna­ tion of slavery. 238 ff. and the useful arts in general. and yet be alive to the dangers of such doctrine unless it is kept in very scrupulous hands. With this disapproval of distinctions basecfon birth and race.s t a g e theory to P r o d i c u s is not absolutely conclusive. It is discussed on p p .) One of the most important lessons taught in the lectures and hand­ books o f the Sophists was the art of speaking with equal cogency on both sides o f a question. for others in his plays will damn all slaves alike as a worthless and greedy lot. and he may well have done s o . A n attractive aspect of the nomos-physis antithesis is that it sponsored the first steps towards cosmopolitanism and the idea of the unity of mankind. That is how Hippias sees it irxPlato's Protagoras. 1 24 . W e may recognize the virtues of seeing both sides of a question. Protagoras started from the axiom that ^there are two arguments o n ^ v e r y subject'. and by Aristotle's time there were certainly some who maintained that slavery was unnatural. to headstrong and ambi1 T h e evidence for ascribing the t w o . for high fees. speaking of those who come from differ­ ent Greek states. v i (4) below. Alcidamas is quoted as having written that God set all men free and nature has made no man a slave. shelter. This has been called an ancient example of the theory of the advance from fetishism to anthropomorphism. if he be a good man'. but there is no mention of it in the fragments. (The subject is treated in ch. and the democratic quality of a willingness to give them both a hearing. Not many years after him. and later of human discoverers or inventors of such essen­ tials as bread and wine.

by the experience o f living with and following the example of his father and elder relations. cultivated. offering schematic instruction in return for payment. or what?' rtEMtf The above is a foretaste of some of the topics of burning interest in the lifetime of Socrates which we shall be examining in detail in later chapters: the status of laws and moral principles. They were definitely a matter of physis. which because it was taken up b y Socrates continued to be discussed b y Plato and even Aristotle. one of the most hotly debated questions of the day. as a boy grew up. both morally and epistemologically. Thus they were handed on naturally and scarcely consciously. one is not inclined to accuse Plato of unfairness when he makes him disclaim any responsibility for the use to which his teaching may be put by others. was anathema to fathers of the old school. They claimed to teach arete. subjective jj . the theory of man's progri-ss from savagery to civilization replacing that of degeneration from a past golden age. whether arete can be taught? Or is it a matter of practice. Socrates. or natural aptitude. Hence the urgency to a young man like Meno—high-born and wealthy yet a pupil and admirer of Gorgias—of the question which he springs on Socrates at the beginning of the dialogue that bears his name: ' C a n you tell me. a pre­ rogative of the class that was born to rule. sprang directly from the Sophists' appearance in the new role of paid educators. It was subversive stuff. the idea of the social compact. In the eyes of Gorgias 'the w o r d ' was a despot who could do anything. and the thought that they Could be implanted by an outsider. Finally.The Power of the Word: Can ' Virtue* be Taught? tious youth. for the conviction that men could be persuaded of anything went naturally with the relativity of Protagoras's ' man the measure' doctrine and the nihilism of Gorgias's treatise On Nature or the Non-existent. but like a slave of the Tamp it would be at the ser­ vice o f those who took his courses. Reading the remains of Gorgias's writings. but was this something that could be instilled by teaching? Arete when used without qualification denoted those qualities of human excellence which made a man a natural leader in his community. and hitherto it had been believed to depend on certain natural or even divine gifts which were the mark of good birth and breeding.

hedonism and utilitarianism. the nature of arete.Topics of the Day theories of knowledge. What was a Sophist. atheism and agnosticism. But first something about the class of men who are usually named as the chief propagators of the new humanism and rationalism. slavery and equality. and what do we know of the individuals who posed these questions that have exercised thoughtful minds ever since? 26 . the unity of mankind. the importance o f rhetoric and the study of language.

Pind. fr. 1 1 27 . Grant. 439 f. A ihipwright in Homer is 'skilled in all sophia'. Eur. Wise Men or Sages.T. v n . standing as they do for an intellectual or spiritual quality.A.. A e s c h .Ill W H A T IS A SOPHIST? (i) THE WORD 'SOPHIST' 1 The Greek words sophos. This sense merges easily into that of generally knowing or prudent.. Jowett. I. sophia.'/'. 4 1 2 . Ethics.J. A r i s t o p h .. 326ft". a sculptor are sophoi each in his occupation. 7 7 0 and Sept. In this way it was used o f the seven Sophoi. 5 . usually translated ' w i s e ' and 'wisdom'. 153 Rzach). Z N . as 'versed in all kinds of sophia' (fr. an augur. Morrison in Durham U. 5 5 . 1 2 3 8 . S o p h . 1 . Frogs 761 ff. 3 7 2 and /. Here tophos might still mean an expert (there are experts in testing coinage. Pyth. naturally acquired lome delicate shades o f meaning which can only be crudely illustrated here. η . 749). B . but much more difficult to unmask a man of spurious character. io6ff. the mythical linger and musician. 484. Apollo is tophos with the lyre. S o p h . in addition to primary sources I h a v e made especial use o f the f o l l o w i n g . Kerferd in CR. and.. b y way of a line like that of Theognis (119 ff. In which α reader may be referred for further information and v i e w s : G r o t e .1 0 .) that it is easy for a sophos to detect counterfeit coinage. 1949. History. or of anyone o f good sense (Eur. Suppl. a charioteer. a steersman. O. 2 In w h a t follows. In a similar doubtful position is Hesiod's description of Linus. 1 1 5 . though more probably it is going over to the meaning of knowledgeable in general. Thersites a contemptible character but sophos with his tongue. 1335. 1 5 . there is a law in Hades (for comic purposes) that whoever excels his fellow-craftsmen in ' one of the great and clever arts' shall have special privileges until someone else comes along who is 'more sophos in his art'. Dialogues of Plato. 382. 32ft". but alas none in testing humanity).6 3 . whose wisdom consisted chiefly of practical statesmanship and was enshrined in brief gnomic sayings. / / . were in common use from the earliest times. Ph. 1. i l l . A t first they connoted primarily skill in a particular craft. 1 9 5 0 .

The word sophistes. implying positive approval. So we get the oxymoron of a chorus in Euripides: when men set themselves up against the gods.What is a Sophist ? Along with generalization. 'sophist'. 3 9 5 . sophos and sophistes were once synonymous. which he equates with his conception of philosophy: 1 2 References for this p a r a g r a p h : Pind. their sophia is not sophon. Ph. Solon and the founders of the Dionysiac cult. W i t h T h e o g n i s cf. Taxed b y the wily Odysseus (whom he has earlier described as a sophos wrestler) with acting in a way that is not sophon. 4 6 ) . 5 2 . Eur. 1950. o f the earlier uses o f the word. The verb sophi^esthai. 200. That the Seven Sages were called sophists we know from a fragment o f Aristotle and from Isocrates. A s Diogenes Laertius remarked (1. A t the same time there creeps in an ironic note. B . said Aeschylus. W h e n Pericles finds the y o u n g Alcibiades's questions are getting a w k w a r d . 8. who applies the name 'sophist' to Pythagoras. 3 9 0 . Mem. with references. The sophia of charioteer. S o l o n 1 . for σοφί^εσβαι Hes. Op. S o p h . but Pindar no doubt pleased his royal patron when he wrote that he who knows much b y nature is wise (sophos). inevitably suffers division into a 'true' and a 'false' meaning according to the user's point of view. they are clever but not wise. 1 9 6 7 . the use o f σόφισμα and σοφί3εσθαι at 14 and 7 7 ) . or to be over-subtle. and says that all the sophists of Greece visited Croesus's Lydian capital. Not the man who knows many things is sophos. A e s c h . he closes the dis­ cussion w i t h ' a t y o u r age w e t o o τοιαϋτα έσοφ^όμεθα' ( X e n . Bacch. shipwright or musician must have been to a large extent acquired by learning. * Kerferd in CR. including Solon. Neoptolemus replies that what is right and just is better than what is sophon. 1 28 . T h e o g n i s 1 9 . 8 6 . is a noun of the agent derived from the verb. which Hesiod used of acquiring skill in seamanship and Theognis of himself as a poet. fr. G l a d i g o w in Hermes. in contrast to the chattering crows who have gained their knowledge b y learning. a hint that the sophos is too clever and may overreach himself. to practise sophia. g i v e s a classified list. 649.12) long after it had acquired an uncomplimentary sense. 1 . Isocrates dwells on the change which has come over the word. who says that they were given this name ' which is now held in dishonour among y o u ' . 2 . but he whose knowledge is useful. Bacch. 2 . Eur. 01. This appears especially in Herodotus. a term of value like this. has collected examples o f the invidious sense o f σοφός in Euripides. suffered a parallel development until it meant to trick or deceive. 1246 ( a n d c f . w h e r e σοφία is used o f poetry.

i . loc. 2 9 . some of general import and some in support of the threatened supremacy of the upper class. This accords with the fact that the name was often applied to poets. also 2 . 5 R o s e . m . 9 5 . They admired those who were called sophists and envied their associates. 1 . Solon himself was a poet. 59.J. 2 . 2 3 5 . Isocr. Aristotle fr. as the accuser who puts philosophy in the dock. although the story o f Phaedra's guilty love as Euripides told it might be true. certainly regarded themselves as having an educational mission. S. 9 5 . Nestle w a s more correct w h e n he called llietti liclrn o f the Ionian philosophers as well (VM^uL. the first Athenian citizen who bore that title. Ethics 1. Euripides himself. 1 . 4 . 2 9 . so poets are teachers o f men'. and the great dramatists of the fifth century. cf. 2 . N o t that this w a s their sole inheritance. a. Nmdcra the w o r d each time b y 'teacher'. R o s s p . replies: ' F o r his wit and good advice. jrt. 1 .poet should conceal such wickedness rather than present it on the stage. til. Theognis is full of ethical maxims.' So much is common ground between the disputants.. Parmenides and Empedocles were poets. to rule the state. 2 . challenged to state the grounds on which a poet deserves admiration. 252).. F o r Isocrates's use o f the w o r d see also Grant. among you of all people who pride yourself on your wisdom (sophia)} It was not so in our forefathers' time. 1 and 4 . and in the course of it Aeschylus expressly declares that. The best evidence of this is that they chose Solon.The Meaning of Sophistes' It offends me to see chicanery more highly regarded than philosophy. Who of the men of old time would have expected this. Hdt. ' In Hdt. Morrison has suggested that it was in this capacity that he first attracted attention and came to be entrusted with the preservation of political harmony. 7 9 . the translator in the P e n g u i n series. M r de Selincourt. His article contains m u c h o f the evidence that (as Jaeger also maintained in PaiJeia 1. Antict. 293) the Sophists were the heirs o f the educational tradition uf (lie poets. 1 Probably it was assumed that a sophistes would be a teacher. for in Greek eyes practical instruction and moral advice constituted the main function of the poet. Morrison in Durham U. 1 1 2 29 . 1 9 4 9 . w h i c h besides sounding v e r y natural in its E n g l i s h contexts is probably as accurate as an English equivalent can be. 4 9 . because 'as schoolboys have teachers to show them the way. and because he makes men better citizens.3 Before him Hesiod had written his Works and Days both as a manual of instruction for farmers and as a vehicle for ethical precept. 4 9 . both tragic and comic. S o also in effect Morrison.1 3 . and J. 1 . The contest which Aristophanes stages in Hades between Aeschylus and Euripides is fought on moral rather than •esthetic ground.

3 Xenophon (Mem. Some of the Seven Sages. T h i s w o u l d be g o o d contemporary evidence for the appellation. 30 . 1 . 2 0 0 b . Here however the Muse is speaking of him with hatred and disgust. in an ode of Pindar. he would indeed be a wondrous sophistes.e. It runs as follows (Ath. as the didactic function came to be more and more fulfilled through this medium. fr. 4 . 1 ) . Pind.g. A m o n g the latter would be a man like Anaxagoras. 1 3 3 5 . the word sophistes clearly means poet. If anyone could make the products of every separate craft. 59 A 1 7 ) . and in addition all the things in the natural world. 3 . and whom Aeschines of Sphettus may have bracketed as a sophistes with Prodicus. Lit. 5 . 1009 f. uttered in prose the kind of maxims which Theognis or Simonides uttered in verse. Z N . 1 ) says that Euthydemus collected 'many of the written works of the most celebrated poets and sophists'. So we find that at its earliest known occurrence.* It looks however as if in the fifth century the word was beginning to be used of prose-writers in contrast to poets. gr. 2 . and a similar phrase. Athenaeus quotes a line of Aeschylus about a sophistes playing the lyre to illustrate his statement that 'all who practise the art of mousike used to be called sophists'. whose book w e know to have been on general sale. in their capacity as sophistai or teachers. b y Zeller. and the reference to the singer and musician Thamyris as sophistes in Euripides's Rhesus is quoted as another example. D K .What is a Sophist? and it is exactly what the professed Sophist Protagoras claimed to do. F o r A n a x a g o r a s ' s b o o k sec v o l . . 5 . whether in the fields of conduct and politics or in the technical arts. 3 1 4 . for the lyric poet was his own accompanist. 1 4 . says Glaucon in the Republic (596c!). A e s c h . 'a marvellous 1 A r i s t o p h . 2 8 . but the passage in question does not guarantee m o r e than that it w a s used o f the t w o men b y Athenaeus. 1 . and this may have sown the seeds of the distinction. T h a t Aeschines did this is generally taken as fact (e. Isth. Rhes. S c h m i d . Frogs 1 0 5 3 . Gesch. n. fr. and the word probably carries something of the unfavourable tone which it acquired early in the fifth century.5 . 3 3 4 1 269. Eur. A n a x a g o r a s was also called sophistes b y D i o d o r u s ( 1 2 . His sophia is practical. 3 9 . .ΠροδΙκου Koci Ά ν α ξ α γ ο ρ ο υ των σοφιστών διαμώκησιν. Aeschines's dialogue Ca//ias) ΤΓΕρΙεχΕί τ ή ν τοϋ Κ α λ λ ί ο υ . 11.4 A sophistes writes or teaches because he has a special skill or knowledge to impart. A e s c h . 34 D i t t m a r ) : 6 Se ΚαλλΙας σύτοϋ (i. With poetry went music. 924. one o f the recognized 'Sophists '.

having b y means of diagrams got Meno's slave to recognize the diagonal of a square. is uttered in the same tone of incredulity b y Hippolytus in Euripides (Hipp. and Xenophon (Mem. 1 ' /'/mo. because he had acted out of ignorance. T h e same phrase. j . 363). In the same vein Socrates says of the wise Diotima. but so noble was his character that before his execution he sent for Tigranes and told him not to hold it against his father. the compliment to his gifts as a teacher is genuine. 1 1 . perhaps with the Pythagoreans chiefly in mind) speaks o f ' what is called the kosmos by the sophistai'. 921) of a man who could make fools wise. when the Hippocratic treatise On Ancient Medicine (ch.The Meaning of'Sophistes' (demos) sophistes'. Eur. 1 . but a very competent sophistes'. When Socrates in the Lysis (204 a) says of a certain Miccus that he is 'no common man. though lengthy. τέλεο. A n even more striking use of the word in a complimentary sense is in Xenophon (Cyrop. That such a term should be applied to the natural philosophers is only to be expected. So the noun occurs with an objective genitive meaning a deviser or contriver ( Ί became a sophistes of many calamities'. . In the other few instances recorded one seems to detect a hint of that disparaging note of which we shall have to speak next. Ion of Chios. 993).): the Armenian prince Tigranes tells Cyrus of a teacher with whom he was associating. and. His father put the man to death. 1 . σοφιστή. is used j o k i n g l y o f Hades in the Criitylits.14 and 38if. 108 c. and whom Xenophon calls sophistes. with a touch of humour. 20) speaks of ' certain doctors and sophistai' who claim that one cannot be versed in medicine without understanding the whole nature of man. Diogenes of Apollonia called his predecessors sophistai in the course of writing against them (vol. in the belief that he was corrupting Tigranes. pundit. Hence the sense of expert. and Ieocrates includes Alcmaeon. Here the translation of Michael Joyce. Socrates in the Meno (85 b). for instance in mathematics. strikes the right note: ' with an air of authority that was almost pro­ fessorial'. 1. Empedocles. Symp. Heracl. with reference to his powers o f persuasion. that she answered his question ' like a real sophistes'. Parmenides and Melissus along with Gorgias among 'the sophistai of past days' (Antid. 268).. 11. tells him ' the name the sophistai give it is " d i a g o n a l " ' . it is strongly attacking their position. 4031·.

a good driver is deinos at his art. T h e degeneration resembles that o f the English ' t e r r i b l y ' or ' a w f u l l y ' . w h e r e Socrates tells h o w the purist Prodicus rebukes h i m for using deinos as a term o f praise. It is amusingly illustrated in P l a t o .b . pundits. and is mocked A e s c h . calling Protagoras 'deinos and sophos'. who have sinned against the gods'. sorcerer. and. properly applies to evils like disease. lines of Greek tragedy. professors and the like. Deinos. meant clever in speech or argument. as for instance in Homer weapons. and can have the claim ironically flung back at him. the bringer of fire to men. 276) that Aeschines has called him 'deinos. the idea of the sophistes as a man who claims superior knowledge. p o v e r t y . 341 a . Hephaestus cannot bring himself to chain Prometheus to the rock because 'kinship is something deinon'. His Prometheus. yet when she hears of his death cannot feel the expected joy and relief because 'to give birth is deinon—the fact of mother­ hood has a strange power. Prometheus is deinos at wriggling out of difficulties. Here we have deinos expressly coupled with sophistes as an insult to be resented. the sophist. 59. as Antiphon the orator. war. the glare of a foe. and particularly. T h e expression SEIVOS λέγειν is frequent. and may have conveyed an idea more like 'the fear of the Lord'. uncanny. lions. 373 and P.68. P. 1 3 2 . 7 7 0 . it became coupled with sophos to mean clever or skilful: the Egyptians are deinoi (terrible fellows) for devising stratagems. says Thucydides (8. is roughly addressed b y Hermes as ' y o u . incomprehensible. Clytemnestra hates and fears her son. often with a suggestion of the strange. 3 9 . it is coupled with 'reverend'. 1 Anyone who had this quality was a natural object of suspicion to his less clever fellows. S o p h . sophist and the like'.V. Derived from a noun meaning 'fear'. who taught them all crafts and raised them from savagery to civilization. though Demosthenes is a fourth-century figure. tended to be suspicious o f intel­ lectuals. fr. i ) . in popular use. Their qualities were summed up in a word difficult to translate: demotes. and later Demosthenes alleges (De cor. like other people. it stands for anything terrible or dreadful. said Prodicus. ' a w f u l l y c l e v e r ' . with the adjective deinos. A e s c h . as words do. the whirlpool Charybdis. was to the Athenian public ' o n account of his reputation for demotes'. and untranslatable. This sense o f ' a w f u l ' persists. Degenerating. Prot. thunder. O f a goddess.V. It also. occurs as early as Aeschylus. El. and so used the word contributes to some of the most moving.What is a Sophist? The Athenians.

W e cannot therefore agree with Grote in blaming Plato 2 1 Ι'. (Compare the judgment o f Socrates on the professional Miccus. 1 33 . you mean'. that a sophist is not so clever as he thinks he is. and that his cleverness is used for wrong purposes. T h e w o r d is for h i m s y n o n y m o u s wllli μηχάνημα. are hinted at again in a fragment of Sophocles (97 Nauck): Ά well-disposed mind. From early in the fifth century it could be pronounced with a depreciatory inflexion. A t 360 Socrates and Prodicus are mentioned together as ' meteorosophists' or experts in celestial phenomena. A t 1111 Socrates promises that his teaching will turn young Pheidippides into a clever sophist.it lie has tio σόφισμα to get him o u t o f his present plight. in which it could include (for those who disapproved of him) Socrates. but still used the word in a more general sense. and laments lll. in allusion to his cheating of his creditors. V. and at 1309 the word as applied to Strepsiades b y the chorus means nothing but 'trickster'. though still by no means confined to the class of professional Sophists. with righteous thoughts.' Sophocles was an exact contemporary of Protagoras.) If we remember the educational vocation of Greek poets. In the hands of the conservative Aristo­ phanes it became definitely a term of abuse implying charlatanry and deceit. H e boasts o f his σοφίσματα. and in him the word could have been coloured b y the appearance on the scene of Sophists as a professional class. as may the words pundit or intellectual today. lazy long-haired and beringed dandies. we may say that the word which comes nearest to it in English is teacher or professor. The two criticisms. Aristophanes too was well aware of their existence when he satirized sophists in the Clouds. on which his unwilling pupil comments Ά poor pale-faced devil. is a better inventor than any sophistes. At v. * 1 uin reserving the capital initial for the members o f this profession. Hut already it can be thrown back at him w i t h irony. quack doctors. who are itemized as soothsayers from Thurii. The word 'sophist' then had a general sense as well as the special one of which we have yet to speak. τίχνη and πόρος.' Demotes' and the Sophists by Kratos as a duller sophistes than Zeus. 331 the Clouds are said to be the foster-mothers of a crowd of 'sophists'. Promc-tlieus w o u l d not deny the title. f)2. although he took no fees and is constantly represented b y Plato as the Sophists' inveterate opponent. and in neither sense was it neces­ sarily a term of opprobrium. dithyrambic poets and bogus astronomers—a pretty comprehensive list.

' ) and dismissing any less complimentary remarks as due solely to illiberal prejudice. and fastened upon the eminent paid teachers of the Sokratic a g e ' . What existed already was more than a 'vague sentiment of dislike'. 12 above). indeed he shared their reputation. and w h e n Plato uses the w o r d sophistes it has lost its dignity. but if he starts imparting his superior cleverness to others by teaching they get angry. It w a s in the same speech that Aeschines called D e m o s t h e n e s a sophist. 263. if they indeed did not create it. Temper. 52) in saying that Plato is ' t h e man w h o b y his attacks o n the " S o p h i s t s " created the bad associations connected w i t h the w o r d ' . it would have been quite impossible for Plato to have referred. perhaps.What is a Sophist ? as solely responsible for casting discredit on the word (p. Equally true to the character of the Athenians is the remark of Socrates in the Euthyphro (3 c) that it does not matter if they think somebody deinos provided he keeps it to himself. . i. in the manner and the contexts in which he does so refer.8): ' T h e p l a y ­ w r i g h t s o f O l d C o m e d y played u p o n the prejudice [against intellectualism]. whether from jealousy or some other cause. there is no reason to doubt the reality of the state of affairs which he describes. ( M y italics. Apart from the evidence of Xenophon. 1 7 3 .' In Timarch. H e cannot forget. an odium which he explains as due to the fact that they enter the great cities of Greece as foreigners and attract their most promising young men away from their relations and friends by claiming that their own teaching is better. nor is it true that ' what was new was the peculiar use of an old word which Plato took out of its usual meaning. History. the burlesques staged in his y o u t h w h i c h he had either read or seen. . but plainly the observation applies to the professional Sophists t o o . N o r shall w e follow P o p p e r (OS. Here Socrates has his own plight in mind. it is interesting that Lucian could refer to C h r i s t as 'that crucified sophist' (Peregrinus 13). v i l .) A fairer statement is H a v e l o c k ' s {Lib. to the paid teachers as Sophists if that had not been their recognized title. T h o u g h the lapse o f centuries makes it o f doubtful relevance to the present discussion. His boast has an element of bravado: it needs courage to declare oneself a Sophist. In the next century Aeschines the orator could refer to him casually as 'Socrates the sophist\* 1 G r o t e . n. as the Clouds makes plain. When Protagoras in Plato's Protagoras avows himself a Sophist and an educator in spite of the odium which attaches to the term. a 1 34 . A view like Grote's can only be upheld by the uncritical practice (which will not be followed here) of accepting as fact all references to the Sophists in Plato which are either neutral or sympathetic ('Even Plato is forced to a d m i t . 35 and 37.

says Plutarch. 1958.) In the Meno (91 e-92a) Plato speaks of 'many others' besides Protagoras who have practised the Sophists' profession. S. and indeed Socrates in the Protagoras (349 a) addresses him as the first to take pay­ ment for his teaching. t h o u g h a leading Sophist and in fact the mentor o f Pericles in politics. In the Republic (400b. indeed Protagoras. he used his musical reputation to hide his δεινότη.). of a particular class. H . 235). 1 . 37. O f professionals before Protagoras we have no record. it was in fact applied to the poets. though not solely. John. for needless to say no professional stigma attached to the name in earlier days. ' l e x i s are in D K . see also his b o o k Ethos and Educa­ tion in Greek Music and its review b y B o r t h w i c k in CR. a Sophist w h o w a s a pupil o f I'rodicus and friend o f Socrates ( P l a t o . Homer. D . 19Λ2). They recognized their descent from the earlier tradition of education by the poets. H i s association w i t h Pericles is confirmed b y Plato {Ale. namely professional educators who gave instruction to young men. w h o is mentioned by Herodotus (8. S h o r e y ) .. 1. Laches I97d). H e w a s chiefly k n o w n as an authority on music but. as we have seen. and public displays of eloquence. n o . 204-6. through fear o f the odium attached to the name descriptive of their real character. 2): 1 T i l e same w a s said b y Plutarch {Pericles 4) o f D a m o n . ch. and in any case. 1 9 5 8 ) . Lasserre. Pint. H e g o e s so far as t o say that in D a m o n ' s v i e w ' t h e modes o f music are n e v e r dlnturbed without unsettling the most fundamental political and social c o n v e n t i o n s ' (trans. Pol. 4 2 4 c ) Plato makes it clear that his interest in musical modes w a s b o u n d up w i t h w i d e r questions o f their moral and nocial effects. and modern studies include W . for fees. ' T h e I m p o r t a n c e o f tlir D a m o n i a n T h e o r y in Plato's T h o u g h t ' {ΤΑΡΑ. 1955 . 6 o f F.Sophists as a Professional Class (2) THE S O P H I S T S (a) Professionalism In the lifetime o f Socrates the word came to be used.4) b y the d i s c o v e r y o f an ostracon bearing his name ( D K . A n d e r s o n . J. and his ostracism (already in A r i s t . I 1 1 8 c ) and lnocrates {Anted. 1. If more were k n o w n o f him he might o c c u p y an important place in the history o f the •nphistic m o v e m e n t . which was that of Sophists like himself. but in our comparative ignorance he can o n l y appear as a footnote to it.' some before his time and others still alive ' .57) as an ad­ viser of Themistocles and of whom Plutarch writes in a passage of some interest for the development of the sophistic profession (Them. de hi miiui/ue. 3i6d). Ath. ' D a s musikerziehende W i r k e n l'yiliugorutt' und D a m o n s ' {Das Altertum. Morrison in CO. 27. Hesiod and Simonides of using their poetry as a disguise. (The anachronistic confusion is in keeping with the light-hearted tone which Plato adopts in the dramatic parts of this dialogue. Plato may have been thinking o f a man like the Athenian Mnesiphilus. 382 n. accuses Orpheus and Musaeus. in the somewhat self-satisfied speech which Plato puts into his mouth (Prot. T h i s h o w e v e r did n o t avail h i m ttnd he was ostracized.

2 1 6 . tries to explain a w a y this passage. F o r the Protagorean standpoint o f Isocrates see Morrison's comparison o f Platonic and Isocratean philosophia in CQ. Admittedly there are some bad Sophists. Maj. His successors combined it with the art of forensic eloquence. he says. 1 9 5 8 .J. 2 3 4 1 36 . E .1 8 . 2 8 2 b 5 and Isocr. 1964. 9f. and Gorgias and Prodicus more than the practitioners of any other art (Hipp. but they remained professionals from Protagoras to the time of Isocrates at least. L . Antid. which he equated with his own philosophical ideal. Durham U. 1 9 5 0 . 1 3 ) . and Socrates who is their somewhat ironic defender. Isocrates in his old age3 defended the profession. Antid. he says.What is a Sophist ? He was neither an orator nor one of those called philosophers of nature. see § 9 . were called Sophists. a typical well-bred member of the governing class. but those who make a right use of philosophy ought not to be blamed for the few black sheep. 1949. transferring their training from action to speech. 262S. In the Meno (91c if. not even Gorgias who earned more than any other and was a bachelor with no family ties.4 Plato on the other hand emphasizes their wealth. ' Those who sell their wisdom for money to anyone who wants it are called Sophists'. as well as Plato. made a great fortune or lived other than modestly. Harrison in Phoenix. W h a t is k n o w n about the practice o f individuals will be noted b e l o w in the sections devoted to them (pp. 6 .) it is Anytus. n. an ideal much closer to Protagoras than to Plato. saying for instance that Protagoras earned more from his sophia than Phidias and ten other sculptors put together (Meno 91 d). says Socrates in Xenophon (Mem. The best and greatest reward o f a Sophist. and. 59. 1 9 1 . 1 References to the Sophists as paid for their work are frequent in Plato. and so perpetuated what one might call a school which had come down in succession from Solon.). Hipp. has collected thirty-one Platonic references to the Sophists' earnings. 268. Isocrates and Aristotle. CR. and Kerferd. 1 5 5 f . H e w a s 82 w h e n he w r o t e the Antidosis. Aristotle describes a Sophist as one who makes money out of an apparent but unreal 2 O n Mnesiphilus see further Morrison. 282 d). 44. is to see some of his pupils become wise and respected citizens. The character of the Sophists may have changed. 1 . Maj. 7 ) . in his argument that G o r g i a s w a s not a Sophist. D o d d s (Gorg. In conformity with this he defends them from the charge of profiteering. None of them. who violently abuses them. and adds a comment more caustic than anything in Plato. and occur also in Xenophon. Rather he made a practice of what was called sophia but was in reality political shrewdness (demotes) and practical sagacity.

F o r Sophistic as a τέχνη cf. In the Gorgias (520a) Socrates's most violent opponent. Ethics 1. 3 1 5 a . If the Cynegetica is b y X e n o p h o n . and suggests reasons w h y a young man should hesitate before entrusting himself to such a o n e : like retailers o f bodily foods. g . though he disagreed with the Sophists. in a moral epilogue to his treatise on hunting (ch. Xenophon. Rep. G o r g i a s . Lit. blushes for shame at the thought of becoming one himself (Prot. (where μισβαρνούντων recalls the μισβαρνοϋντες Ιδιώται 4 9 3 a ) and EN 1164330. ' Prot. El. Mistrust of the Soph­ ists was not confined to Plato. an Athenian). for fear of being called Sophists. llippias and Prodicus w h o are still l o r Plato the representative Sophists. o n e m a y presume. in connexion with Prodicus. By the time Plato wrote the Sophist (where Socrates takes no part in the main argument) they had simply become (along with other undesirable characteristics) 'paid hunters of rich young men'. not Socrates (Laches 179 d). son o f a 'great and prosper­ ous house'. 13).Sophists as a Professional Class wisdom. castigates them as masters of fraud. 6 1 1 f. to become a Sophist himself'. this and other passages are evidence that paid Sophists still existed in his time. i 8 3 b 3 6 f f . their products enter the mind directly. dismisses them as 'worthless fellows'. 312a). who was studying 'for professional pur­ poses (επί τέχνη). unlike foods. was much gentler in his handling of the best of them like Protagoras. S o . 1 1 1 ) and have pointed o u t that both were written after the brilliant first generation o f Sophists were dead. and those. and cannot be kept in jars until we find out which to consume and how and in what quantities. Callicles. that is. they praise their wares indiscriminately without a dietitian's knowledge of their wholesomeness. like a certain Antimoerus of Mende (not. The outburst of Anytus must be true to life. Gorgias and Prodicus. O t h e r s have maintained that the passage is influenced b y Plato's Sophist (Grant. cf. y e t it is Protagoras. o f P l a t o . Plato himself. The professionalism of the Sophists is emphasized b y the fact that Protagoras had two classes of pupil: young men of good family who wished to enter politics. Hist. τ η ν σοφιστική ν τέχνην 3 i 6 d . In the Protagoras (313c) Socrates describes a Sophist as ' a seller o f the goods b y which a soul [or mind] is nourished'. as it is also when young Hippocrates. e . setting aside the jibe. and. 1 37 .3 1 2 1 Soph. See L e s k y . is put into the mouth of Laches. and in the Phaedrus (2j7d) Phaedrus asserts that the most powerful and respected poli­ ticians are afraid to write speeches and leave works o f their own to posterity. Meno 9 1 ε . A disparaging remark about Sophists. and P r o t a g o r a s 40 years tv τ ή τέχνη. w h i c h s o m e have doubted. were the Protagoras and Meno. 1 6 5 a 2 i . Gr.

but (unpopular as he was in many quarters) this was never held against him. 318ε): ' T h e proper care of his personal affairs. reflecting the transitional situation of Athenian social and intellectual life. T h e division b e t w e e n democrat and anti-democrat cut across that between h i g h . Power in the Anc. especially arete. 2 ) . The trouble seems to have lain first of all in the kind of subjects the Sophists professed to teach. to their professionalism. also M . The Soph­ ists had no difficulty in finding pupils to pay their high fees. L e v i . Zeller dismisses it as h i g h l y exaggerated ( Z N . w h o completed the democratic revolution. Prot. so that he may best manage his own household. Protagoras. Poets had been paid for their work. or audi­ ences for their public lectures and displays. 5 2 0 ε Socrates suggests a reason w h y teaching this kind o f thing is generally frowned on. Yet some among the older and more conservative strongly disapproved of them. World. Pericles. and there was no pre­ judice in Greece against earning a living as such. in Gr. Pol. as Plato shows. I 4 0 5 b 2 4 ( p o e t s ) . Y e t Z e n o does n o t seem to h a v e shared the name or the blame o f the Sophists. A . 2 5 9 . w a s an A l c m a e o n i d like Cleisthenes w h o started it. in democratic Athens. A n y t u s w a s a leading democrat. 98 άργύριον f\v TIS SISCO). D r E h r e n b e r g has called h i m ' t h e aristocratic d e m o c r a t ' . assures Strepsiades that t h r o u g h his instruction έν τ φ δήμω γνώμα$ ούδεΙ$ νικήσει ττλείοναί ή σύ. A r . Z e n o the philosopher is said b y Plato to h a v e exacted the impressive fee o f 100 minas for a course (Ale. VMiuL. 1299. and the key to this. A t Gorg. 65. 2). P l a t o . replies (Prot.g. W h y should this be? W e are accustomed to thinking o f teaching as a per­ fectly respectable way of earning a livelihood. n. and Rome: ' T h e old aristocratic education w a s o u t o f t o u c h w i t h the realities o f contemporary life.b o r n and plebeian. Antid. artists and doctors were expected to charge fees both for the practice of their art and for teaching it to others. Meno 9 i d ( s c u l p t o r s ) . so as to become a real power in the city both as speaker and as man of action. w h e n late authorities say the same o f P r o t a g o r a s (as indeed they d o o f G o r g i a s . / 1 1 9 a). Socrates was the son of a stonemason and probably followed the same trade. 36. Isocr. 432) Socrates. 3 1 1 38 . was the power of persuasive speech. Further references are in Nestle. and Protagoras em­ phatically agrees. 3 . 1 3 1 . his remarks on p . Similarly in the Clouds ( v .3 1 2 T h i s does n o t necessarily mean aristocratic o r oligarchic as o p p o s e d to democratic. Prot. Rhet. 5 3 . and Civ. the art of citizenship. says Socrates. See e. 2 (doctors). 1 6 6 . 90. and also of the State's affairs. when asked what Hippocrates will learn from him. b u t it w a s largely the same leading class w h i c h g o v e r n e d the democratic state. n. t h o u g h . D i o d . 65 o f his Soc. This dis­ approval was linked. 1 2 .' In short.What is a Sophist ? The attitude of the Athenian public was ambivalent. C f . w h o is there caricatured as a m o n g other things a professional Sophist (cf. 3 1 1 c . 3 1 1 b and H d t . Though some of them taught many other things as well. all included political advancement in their curriculum.' C f .

and be prepared to pass it on to his sons. G o r g i a s I'vt'ii admits that his pupils will learn from h i m the principles o f right and w r o n g ' i f t h e y don't happen to k n o w them a l r e a d y ' (460a). b e l o w . in his opinion. L . a young man should turn for such training. 6 .e . 2 . 366).Criticism of Sophists as Fee-takers Gorgias indeed concentrated solely on rhetoric and refused to be included among the teachers of arete. He held (we have this not from Plato but Xenophon) that by accepting money they deprived them­ selves of their freedom: they were bound to converse with any who could pay their fees. 1 . In the Meno passage already referred to Socrates innocently suggests to Anytus. Gorgias. 4 5 6 c . H a r r i s o n in Phoenix. When Anytus reviles them as a menace to society. whereas he was free to enjoy the society of anyone he chose (Mem. A n y upper-class Athenian should understand the proper conduct of affairs by a sort of instinct inherited from his ancestors. όστισοΰν τ ω ν δημιουργών εν ττλήθει. govern a city. 1 . 319 a) was just what at Athens was considered the especial province of the amateur and gentleman. άρετήξ διδάσκαλοι w a s P l a t o ' s regular w a y o f referring to the Sophists ( D o d d s . 27iff. that the Sophists are the proper people to instil into a young man the sophia which will fit him to manage an estate. Gorg. F o r G o r g i a s see Meno 95 c. N o w 'to teach the art of politics and undertake to make men good citizens' (Prot. and typical of the man. 6 . selling one's mind being no better than selling one's body. w h i l e at the same time maintaining that the Iruclicr is not responsible for the use made o f his teaching. and Socrates asks to whom then. and in general show the savoir-faire proper to a gentleman. he replies that there is no need to men­ tion particular individuals. 39 1 . for he held that rhetoric was the master-art to which all others must defer. 1964 (against R a e d e r and DoiliU). ' 1 d o not understand h o w a n y o n e can read the brilliant and sympathetic speech o f P r o t a ­ goras in the Protagoras from 323 c to 328 c and still hold that Plato in his representations o f the licit o f die Sophists was setting o u t to blacken their memory. Even Protagoras admitted this. F o r the correctness o f including (•orgias a m o n g the Sophists see n o w E . 5 ) . while claiming that it still left room for his pedagogic art as a supplement. He went so far as to call it prostitution. The grounds on which Socrates criticized their fee-taking were rather different. for ' any decent Athenian gentleman whom he happens to meet will make him a better man than the Sophists would'. a prominent democratic leader who became his chief accuser. Wisdom was something that should be freely shared between friends and 1 2 P p . especially οϋ γ ά ρ εστίν περί ότου ούκ άν πιθανώτερον εΐττοι ό ρητορικός ή ά λ λ ο .

1 3 ) . of advancing their own interests b y giving classes and demonstrations which brought in considerable sums (Hipp. The odium which they incurred in the eyes of the establishment was not only due to the subjects they professed. were disliked for different reasons both by philo­ sophers like Socrates and Plato and by leading citizens like Anytus. It was no wonder that. D i o d . while presenting their cities' case before the Council. Not only did they claim to give instruction in what at Athens was thought to be for the right people a kind of second nature. too. they could flourish. 2 8 2 b .86. T h u c y d i d e s also tells o f the embassy Leontini (3. Both he and Prodicus of Ceos took the opportunity. boasted of the number of diplomatic missions on which his city em­ ployed him (ibid.3). in the Apology (19 ε) and in the Timaeus where Socrates says (19 ε) that the Sophists are very good speechmakers in general. A t Athens. Maj.53. provincials whose genius had outgrown the confines of their own minor cities. 1 from 40 . Leontini. Maj. the position of such men could easily become pre­ carious. 282 b . especially in the Pythagorean school. as Gorgias to Athens to plead the cause of Leontini against Syracuse in 427. The complex Socratic-Platonic concept of eros. as Protagoras said. but there they had no chance o f becoming political figures themselves. 12.What is a Sophist? loved ones ( 1 . but t h a t ' their habit of wandering from city to city and having no settled home of their o w n ' is a disadvantage when it comes to matters of active statesmanship in 1 Plato. This was how philosophy had been regarded hitherto.1—2. Some o f them first went abroad on official missions. Plato refers to it again more than once. and Socrates probably. Hipp. but they themselves were not Athenian leaders or even citizens. was an admirer. 6 . then. but w i t h o u t mentioning G o r g i a s . Ceos or Elis afforded inadequate outlet for their talents. their own status was against them. 281a). They were foreigners. will also have been at work.c ) . (&) Inter-city status The Sophists. the centre o f Hellenic culture at the height of its fame and power. of which Plato certainly. 337d). Hippias. a sublimated homosexual love. 'the very headquarters of Greek wisdom' as Plato's Hippias calls it (Prot. so they used their talents to teach others.

that if Themistocles had been a Seriphian he w o u l d have become a Sophist! A t Rep. When hosts were so com­ plaisant. Gesch. Prices 1 2 T h e point about the alien status o f the Sophists is made b y Joel. lidupting a w e l l . but is only a statement of evident fact. He too has his own circle of listeners round his bed. His home is the scene of the gathering in Plato's Protagoras. like a Pied Piper. 646f. Protagoras paces the forecourt attended b y a considerable crowd. including both Athenians and the foreigners whom he draws. In the opposite portico Hippias is holding forth to another circle. Maj. Sometimes the displays would be in a gymnasium or other place of resort. Callicles assures them that Gorgias is staying with him and will put on another performance at home for their benefit. w h i c h is also a fair description. Eryxias 397 c). 286 b. 493 a the Sophists are μισθαρνοϋντες Ιδιώται. ' T h e t w o methods are mentioned together in connexion w i t h Prodicus at Hipp. Apol. from every city that he passes through. the author probably k n e w that such occurrences did take place.3 and when Socrates and Chaerephon have missed a display by Gorgias. 3. who was said to have spent more money on the Sophists than anyone else (Plato.. Callias's hall porter is under­ standably sick o f the sight of Sophists. This has been cited as an example of Plato's disparagement of the Sophists. even public displays could take place in private houses. Cleon accuses the Athenian assembly of behaving 'more like the audience at Sophists' displays than a serious delibera­ tive b o d y ' (Thuc. evidently in some public place. and his hospitality to the Sophists and their admirers seems to have turned it into a rather unhomelike place. the richest man in Athens. 1 1 4> . and Prodicus did the same in the Lyceum (Hipp. (c) Methods The Sophists gave their instruction either to small circles or seminars or in public lectures or 'displays' (epideixeis).38.k n o w n s t o r y o f P l a t o ' s . The former might be conducted in the house of a patron like Callias. K v r n if our authority is o f doubtful reliability for the actual fact.Sophists as Foreigners: their Methods war or negotiation. 20a). 282 c : πι6ιΙξιις ποιούμενος καΐ τοις νέοις συνών. W e hear o f Prodicus giving one at Callias's (Axioch.7). 366c). Maj. w h o remarks. Hippias tells Socrates that in two days' time he will be giving a recital 'in the School of Pheidostratus'. and Prodicus is occupying a former store-room which Callias has had to convert into a bedroom owing to the large number staying in the house.

introduced their own work to the public by recitation either in person or through a rhapsode. 1949. 1 4 1 5 b 15. w o u l d h a v e been rather little for a w h o l e course.S. 82 A 1 ) and G o r g i a s frr. 9 . 335 a). 82 A 9). n. D . 363 c-d). long and elaborate speeches and the technique of question and answer (Prot. one. his poems recited there b y a rhapsode. Protagoras also claimed to excel in both genres.What is a Sophist? of admission are mentioned more than once. in particular a purple robe. the most unpromising case could be defended. X e n o p h a n e s αυτός έρραψώδει τά έαυτοΰ. the last a funeral oration for the dead in battle. and Hippias made his own finery (Hipp. 5 a . n j .4 minae as the price for w h i c h Sophists are prepared to impart their secrets. Meno 70 c). 329b. described by its author as 'splendidly composed'). 45 b e l o w ) charged 5 minae. Socrates laments that his knowledge of correct diction is inadequate because he had only been able to afford the 1 dr. 58. Durham U. it is further evidence that they considered themselves to be in the tradition of the poets and rhapsodes. Min. 368 c). Alternatively the Sophist gave a display of continuous eloquence on a prepared theme and from a written text. and the speeches of Gorgias at Olympia. Eucriu-. Maj. The display might take the form of inviting questions from the audience. and Hippias was bold enough to do the same before the great pan-Hellenic concourse at Olympia (Hipp. like other poets. 1 . L . See Philostr. A r . 2 1 . Besides Gorgias and Hippias. Rhet. ( p . C f . 447c. Xenophanes and Empedocles had. as J . must h a v e been for a course. Such were the Trojan dialogue of Hippias (Hipp. 286a. idem 9 . and Isocrates about the year 390 mentions 3 . This is mentioned as a practice of Gorgias (Gorg.9 . 3 1 1 42 . These declama­ tions might be simply rhetorical exercises on mythical themes. with skill and effrontery. and 1 2 M a n y think that the 50 dr. 50 dr.1 8 . Min. t h o u g h the expression is ττεντηκουτάδραχμοξ έπίδειξις (Crat. Poets and rhapsodes wore special clothes. F o r the poets' garb see M o r r i s o n . 3 8 4 b ) . 8. O f such w e still possess two specimens in the Helena and Palamedes of Gorgias. J u d g i n g b y w h a t w e k n o w o f the Sophists' standards.3 Hippias and Gorgias did the same ( D K . V.J. 5 ( D K . First. 2 and 4 drachmas for a performance by Prodicus (Axioch.66. designed to show how. The appearance of the Sophists at the great festivals of Olympia and elsewhere had a threefold significance. ibid. 366c). E m p e d o c l e s at O l y m p i a . It has to be remembered that we are still in an age when it was much more usual to hear a literary work read than to read it to oneself. Delphi and Athens. lecture of Prodicus and not the 50 dr.

Formerly the subjects had been poems. the elaborate epideictic rhetoric of the Sophists. . I d o not k n o w (they g i v e n o note on the passage).'4 Thirdly. The contest. .) G o r g i a s fr. where Protagoras says πολλοΐξ ήδη εΙ$ αγώνα λ ό γ ω ν άφικώμην άνΟρώποίξ. . (Nestle. λ ό γ ω ν αγώνας ίποιήσατο. άγωνοθετοΟντε.Competitors at the Festivals recitation at a pan-Hellenic festival. the festivals were occasions for 2 1 ' Isocrates comments on the fact that the first founders o f the great festivals instituted athletic contests o n l y . said Gorgias. D . for it is you who have proposed a battle of words. a i . or they intended t o impute the mention o f the λόγος to Clement. especially epic poems. 8 D K . speaks o f Herodotus reading his w o r k to the Athenians. 5 2 o f Protagoras και π ρ ώ τ ο . iff. 4 compares the effect o f hearing the w o r k o f logographers and hearing his o w n . competing for prizes in set contests as did the poets. C l e o n ' s criticism o f the Athenians in T h u c y d i d e s (3. VMiuL. for w h i c h prizes o f great value arc a w a r d e d ' (Paneg. D K translate as if ό γ ά ρ τοι λόγοζ καθάττερ τ4 κήρυγμα w e r e simply τό γ ά ρ κήρυγμα.): 'Since you yourself have started this competition. and. T h u c . 862. although b y the fifth century the public reading of prose authors was also common. This competitiveness came to be a general characteristic of the Sophists.. needs both boldness and wit. but crowns only those who can succeed. Hippias speaks of 'entering the lists' (άγωνί^εσθαι) at Olympia and being unbeaten (Hipp. like the herald at Olympia.38. 1 . 335 a. b u t cf. 364a). . . for the argument. Min.3 Thucydides is contrasting himself with the Sophists when he says that his own work is not intended as a ' competition-piece for a single occasion' but a possession for all time. For Protagoras any discussion is a 'verbal battle'. or in one of the cities. s o m e half-dozen years after the death o f Plato. and praises A t h e n s as a city where one can see 'contests not o n l y o f speed and itrength but also o f speech and w i t and other accomplishments. in which one must be victor and the other vanquished (Prot.As often. . Isocrates made this speech at the a g e o f 92. one helping the other that both may come nearer the truth. when performed at the Olympian or Pythian games. Euripides makes his characters speak in true contemporary sophistic style when Creon's herald sings the praises of monarchy as opposed to democracy and Theseus replies (Suppl. and Plato. and I sec n o reason to suppose that the simile is an importation o f his o w n . . Hdt. 45). Prot. in contrast to Socrates's expressed ideal o f the 'common search'. 1 and 2 2 . 3 4 43 . 427f. Mai. listen to me. 9 . ' Plutarch. W i t h αγώνισμα and άμίλλας in these lines cf. θεαταΐ τ ώ ν λ ό γ ω ν ) . W h e t h e r this is due to inadvertence. was a way of making a new work known. 335 a). b u t the elaborate balance o f the clauses s h o w s that C l e m e n t is g i v i n g a verbatim extract from the rhetorician. 260 w i t h n. 41. summons whoever will come. L . musicians and athletes. It was (and this is the second point) agonistic.4. aimed at something further.

41 and 42. 1 9 . Hipp. n. 290). sophistic morality. 2 7 1 c ol νΟν γράφοντες. u. A c c o r d i n g . Th. 39. 2 6 6 d . 2. i f n o t absurd. E . . no common ground in the subjects that they taught or the mentality which these produced. 283 b . L . P r o t a g o r a s ' s όρθοέπεια is mentioned in the same context b y Plato (2671. as Gorgias said in one of his surviving declamations (Hel. that the Sophists had nothing in common save the fact that they were professional teachers. Phoenix. G o m p e r z . When young Hippocrates is asked what he thinks a Sophist is. concord.·. Soph. 5 6 f . n. gr. 4 1 5 : ' I t is illegitimate. 1 (d) Interests and general outlook It is an exaggeration to say. and Hippias (even more remarkably) in Athens as in Sparta. Gr. 9 . and fr. 5 ) . 3 . as has often been said. 2 3 2 d ) he published sets o f arguments to enable a man to hold his o w n against 2 3 4 1 44 . W e have already seen Hippias upholding the brotherhood of all Greeks. 5 b . i 9 o f £ . Rh. includes τέχνη εριστικών. S c h m i d ' s contention (Gesch. τέχνας λ ό γ ω ν and cf. 205. was that Greek states should turn their arms against the barbarians. P l a t o . 1964. 1 .) F o r a similar point o f v i e w see H . Meno 7 0 b . Gorgias was as welcome in Larissa as in Athens. and the public appearance there of the Sophists was symbolic of a pan-Hellenic outlook that went naturally with their habit of staying in different cities in turn. F o r the written technai see P l a t o . See the evidence collected b y E . not against each other. 8. Isocrates. One subject at least they all practised and taught in common: rhetoric or the art of the logosJi In Athens in the mid fifth century to be an effective speaker was the key to power. he replies: Ά master of the art o f making clever speakers' (Prot. ' T h e word is a mighty despot'. Maj. D K . ) that rhetoric w a s u n k n o w n a m o n g the early Sophists and introduced b y G o r g i a s in the last third o f the century is not b o r n e o u t b y the evidence. g . and the list o f his w o r k s in D . The speaker's art they practised themselves. 1 . 1. The subject of Gorgias's Olympic oration was homonoia. sophistic scepticism and so forth. Lit. G o m p e r z .What is a Sophist? members of all the Greek city-states to meet together and forget their differences. Harrison. L . In Soph. taught personally. nn. Phaedr. 1 .* All save Gorgias would admit 2 G o r g i a s Α ι (Philostr. and with the art of logos would g o all that was necessary for a successful political career. and his advice.' ( E v e n the bare fact o f b e i n g p r o ­ fessional teachers can h a v e an effect: some at least w o u l d be prepared to maintain that there is such a thing as a schoolmasterly or donnish mind. . to Plato {Soph. b e l o w ) . to speak o f a sophistic mind. 3i2d). see p. speaks o f ' t h o s e o f an earlier g e n e r a t i o n ' w h o w r o t e τας καλούμενος τέχνας. T . which he repeated in his Athenian funeral oration. and expounded in written handbooks (technai) covering both rhetorical argument and the correct use o f language in general.

1 . Philostr. 267 a. W. 3 6 8 b . b e l o w . also lectured on poetry. L . e. 3 . 222 f. 2 7 7 ε (περί ονομάτων όρθότητο.59 speaks o f him as υπερέχοντα tv ρητορική καΐ τέχνην άπολελοιπότα. the Sophists included in their art of logoi the exposition and criticism of poetry. A 4). Laches νρΑ (ονόματα διαιρείν). and will be found in Dlrlil. below). Η'ψρ. Aristotle quotes him a number o f times. 20b). 86 A 2). I'roi. A I ) w h i c h •ccms to have been k n o w n as the Μεγάλη Τέχνη ( Β 3). based on his general theories o f k n o w l e d g e and reality. b e l o w ) : his teaching of rhetoric was aimed at securing for his pupils the same kind of success in life that Protagoras promised as a teacher oipolitike arete. Phaedr.2 ( D K . 1 . ' Sec Phaedr. 485^ I'lato. F o r G o r g i a s see P l a t o . 1 ( D K . n. VS. έξεϋρε.The Subjects Taught to being teachers of arete (of which. who was especially interested in knowing w h y Socrates should have taken to writing poetry in prison (Phaedo 60 d). 269. Pi. 266 dff. 3 i 8 d . π ρ ώ τ ο . 1 1 . claims to impart t h r o u g h the art o f persuasion. »6lb-c. S o m e fragments o f his e k g i a c s h a v e survived. i . C f . i88f. 282. γεγραμμένα {Phaedr. 1 2 . Min. and Hippias's expertise in the minutiae o f •peech at Hipp. in the Gorgias ( 4 5 2 d ) . H e τέχναξ ρητορικά. Hippias prided himself on his polymathy and versa­ tility. 167 c w i t h D K . F o r something o f its content see Phaedr. Schmid has claimed for Protagoras a debt to Heraclitus. 11. Sec also p. 5 3 . and one may suspect that Gorgias's disclaimer was a little disingenuous (pp. Euenus of Paros ('fee 5 minae'. L .e . 1 8 1 . D . T h r a s y m a c h u s w r o t e a rhetorical τέχνη (Suda. Anaxa­ goras. Β 6. Anth. 8 ( A 14) puts him a m o n g the artium scriptores. 7 8 f f . E .). 271 f. P r o d i c u s ' s passion for distinguishing between apparent s y n o n y m s 1· often referred to b y Plato. Lyr. 1964. 3 3 7 c . but claimed mastery over many handicrafts as well. It is also recorded of Hippias and Antisthenes (pp. Apol. M o r e o n this b e l o w . B l u c k has pointed o u t (on Meno 7 3 d ) that arete" according to G o r g i a s is there said to be ' t h e capacity to g o v e r n m e n ' . and gives him the credit for making the paradoxical conclusions of Heraclitus and 1 2 4 experts in divers arts and crafts. This is well attested for Protagoras (pp. many of them had their own specialities. I'Or a more definite reason for Protagoras's quarrel with mathematics. the art of persuasive speech was a prerequisite). H e also w r o t e o n grammar. and another Sophist. Min. see v o l . Euthyd. 2. 368 d. p p . 8. w h i c h is precisely what G o r g i a s himself. music and astronomy (which Protagoras derided as useless for practical life)3 and had perfected his own system of memory-training. as understood by them. 309 below). In accordance with their claim to be the educational successors of the poets. as well as writing it himself. Apart from this one overriding interest. 1 4 1 45 . and Quintil.). 205. D i o d . It has been said of the Sophists that they were as much the heirs of the Presocratic philosophers as of the poets. the Milesian physicists and Xenophanes.d . Prodicus and Hippias are also mentioned in Plato's r e v i e w o f the βιβλία τά ττερί λ ό γ ω ν τέχνη. Harrison in Phoenix.g. He not only taught mathematics. Prot.

earth and sea. for A n a x a g o r a s as the h i g h priest o f μετεωρολογία. with its rationalism. after the trial o f A n a x a g o r a s μετεωρολόγος b e c a m e a general term o f abuse. making allowance for this. 1 46 . But there is little positive evidence of a serious interest in cosmology or physical questions generally. His acquaintance with each must have been extremely superficial. and. 270 a. A t the gathering in the house of Callias (ibid. there was also a meeting ground in their common interest in anthropology. but he 1 A s Schmid notes (Gesch.36. 315 c). O n e m a y compare also P l a t o . rejection of divine causation. Cicero speaks (De or. (Sec Cesch. and there is no suggestion that. 3). In Plato's Protagoras (318 ε.w ηαι is a oopnisi r Parmcnides generally current in educated circles. This is slender. 4) On the Nature of Man which repeats the title of a Hippocratic work and shows an interest in physiology. astronomy. but his pride was in the astonishing breadth and variety of the topics on which he could discourse. and tendency to scepticism. 3.) On the other hand it has been said that they had no interest in natural philosophy at all. i . owed much to them. except possibly in mathematics. in which you are such an expert'. Galen reports a work of Prodicus (fr.126-8) of Prodicus. and in the Hippias Major (285b) Socrates speaks to him of 'the stars and other cekstial ρηεηοπιεΜ. 3. Protagoras disclaims an interest in all such unpractical studies. Apol. Lit. he had any original contribution to offer. 1 . the evolution of man as a product of nature and the development o f human society and civilization. a better source). There can be no doubt that they were familiar with the writings of the philosophers and that their general outlook. n. Thrasymachus and Protagoras as having spoken and written etiam de natura rerum. who ridiculed him for 'pretending an interest in the heavens but eating what came out of the ground'. though this has sometimes been claimed for Protagoras on the basis of a quotation in Eustathius from the comic poet Eupolis ( D K A I I ) .32. Some fragments of Antiphon (betwεen 22 and 43 in D K ) seem to reveal an interest of Presocratic type in questions o f cosmology. 26 d. Hippias is shown answering questions about 'natural science and astronomy'. i. and. and probably comic slander like Aristophanes's jibe against Socrates and Prodicus together as 'meteorosophists'. gr. 1 6 and 38. Phaedr.1. 3 . This is not incon­ sistent with a fundamental difference of aim.

took time off from teaching political arete to write a work on Being which was directed against 'those who uphold the unity of Being'. S o m e h a v e tried to identify it w i t h other k n o w n w o r k s o f P r o t a g o r a s . Nestle and others. One branch of Presocratic philosophy had a profound influence on sophistic as on all other Greek thought: the extreme monism of Parmenides and his followers. inspired a violent reaction in the empirical and practical minds of the Sophists. reality and appearance. XL. w h i l e v o n Fritz (RE. o n the other hand (Sophs. G o m p e r z . The aim was to be a good talker and to make debating points. would no doubt be the cosmologists and astronomers. One cannot therefore speak of them as a school. w h i c h is h o w e v e r defective. 1 2 1 ) . which forced a choice between being and becoming. H a l b b . T h e title does n o t occur in D . and rejection of the whole sensible world as unreal. relativism and subjectivism. Its challenge to the evidence of the senses. stability and flux. 9 i 9 f . Abh. said it w a s o n l y another name for the Καταβάλλοντες or "Αλήθεια. Protagoras. T h e informant is P o r p h y r y . ' s list o f Protagoras's w o r k s .Sophists and 1'resocratics: I'armemaes puts this in the right perspective when he connects it with the Sophists' claim to hold forth on any subject whatsoever and answer any question that can be put to them. fr. indeed rivals. Bernays (Ges. They shared the general philosophical outlook described in the introduction under the name of empiricism. with whom Protagoras undertook to enable a pupil to argue on their own ground. w h o mentions that ' b y a c c i d e n t ' he has c o m e across this b o o k himself. Since it was no longer possible to have both. brush aside the Eleatic dilemma. 1 47 . the Sophists abandoned the idea of a permanent reality behind appearances. in favour of an extreme phenomenalism. F o r Untersteiner. Among the 'practitioners of every art'. and Gorgias in his On Non-Being showed his mastery of Eleatic argument b y turning it against its inventors. followed b y T . w e are told. L . this is incorrect. on the grounds both of the inade­ quacy and fallibility of our faculties and of the absence of a stable 1 P r o t a g . 2. who opposed it in the name of common sense. competing with each other for public favour. not to acquire a scientific interest in a subject for its own sake. any more than other pretenders to serious thought. and with this went a common scepticism about the possibility of certain knowledge. Y e t the Sophists could not. and it b e l o n g s to the second part o f the Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ι . ) t h o u g h t it might be an independent w o r k . 1 1 ) . On the other hand to claim that philosophically they had nothing in common is to g o too far. I. The Sophists were certainly individualists.

with their formal instruction backed b y writing and public speaking. G o r g i a s . 1. T h e relationship o f the philosophes and their contemporaries to their predecessors in the ancient w o r l d . the sophistic A g e o f Enlightenment means not o n l y Protagoras but P r o d i c u s . All alike believed in the antithesis between nature and convention. T h e y might differ in their estimate of the relative value o f each. 109) complains o f the influence w h i c h this 'superficial a n a l o g y ' has had o v e r G e r m a n writers. and claims that if there is a n y parallel it occurs m u c h earlier. Euripides the tragic poet. 2 1 T h i s is expressly attested for Protagoras. 288). but the resem­ blances between the Enlightenment and the age o f the Sophists are certainly m a n y and striking.1 2 6 (chapter entitled ' T h e First E n l i g h t e n m e n t ' ) . 600 c . customs and religious beliefs were unshakeable because rooted in an unchanging natural order. This term. G o r g i a s . b o t h G r e e k and R o m a n . Critias. A n t i p h o n . These beliefs—or lack of beliefs—were shared by others who were not professional Sophists but came under their influence: Thucydides the historian. and this in itself would make them repay study even if they were not (as some of them are) important figures in their own right. is a strange one t o make o f the man w h o declared that he did n o t k n o w whether there were g o d s or not. B u t X e n o p h a n e s w a s rather the first s w a l l o w that d o e s n o t make a s u m m e r . 1432): ']ust as we Germans could hardly have had a Kant without the A g e of Enlightenment. borrowed from the German. It is traceable in later Sophists like A l c i d a m a s and L y c o p h r o n . In this wider application it is perfectly justifiable to speak of a sophistic mentality or a sophistic movement in thought.d ) . is discussed b y Peter G a y in The Enlightenment (1967). Rep. Hippias. so the Greeks would hardly have had a Socrates and a Socratic philosophy without Sophistic. Burnet's next remark.What is a Sophist ? reality to be known. were prime movers in what has come to be known as the A g e of Enlightenment in Greece. 7 2 .' That Socrates and Plato could never have existed without the Sophists is repeated b y Jaeger {Paid. 2 1 48 . C . The Sophists. Critias the aristocrat who also wrote dramas but was one o f the most violent of the Thirty Tyrants of 404 B . Hippias and A n t i p h o n . Thus Zeller wrote ( Z N . that ' i t is n o t to religion b u t to science that P r o t a g o r a s and G o r g i a s take u p a negative attitude'. and X e n o phanes n o t Protagoras is its aposde. Burnet (Th. A s a general rule such warnings against facile analogies are salutary. Euripides and many others. to P. may be used without too much misgiving to stand for a necessary transitional stage in the thought of any nation that produces philosophers and philosophies of its own. and can b e c o n fidendy asserted o f P r o d i c u s . but none of them would hold that human laws. w h o shared Protagoras's v i e w o f the practical aims o f his instruc­ tion (Plato. and it w o u l d be difficult t o p r o d u c e a clear counter-instance.

the con­ scious or philosophic era'. First. not decline but the 'Rausch der Jugend'. thought Aristophanes. in order to obtain personal convictions.480) perceived in the rhetoric of Gorgias ' the streaming and unbridled vitality of an age in which the young blood leaps with a wayward pulse. then. 1.) worked out a division of morality into three eras: 'first. Instead we have Euripides with his plays of adultery.) He noted a parallel development in the individual: The simplicity and trust of childhood is succeeded by the unsettled and undirected force of youth. we believe because others do so. in the intellectual ferment of which they were the leaders. and the mind's activity is in excess of the matter at its disposal'. came of follow­ ing the new atheistical science and the new morality of the Sophists. the three stages will exist contemporaneously among people of different education and intellectual powers. or. sceptical or sophistic era. Now. when men were men. The young generation are luxury-loving. effeminate. second. simplicity of life. all standards are being abandoned and no one can distinguish right from wrong. high moral standards were all attributed to this immediately preceding generation. Th. his endless quibbling talk. Grant {Ethics 1. Look at the drama: no longer do playwrights choose high and noble themes as Aeschylus did. he lamented. then we believe the more deeply but in a somewhat different way from what we did at the outset. if they do. On the other hand Karl Joel in the 1920s (Gesch. 674^) was already seeing. immoral and cowardly. incest and deceit. the transitional. we pass through a stage of doubt. third. The great days of Greece were those of the Persian Wars. breaking out in all directions. All this. In the same strain T . 49 . of course. Like the young they were ambitious. and the wisdom of matured life. (In the third era. contentious. sophistic ideas were a symptom of decline. 76f. they blatantly uphold the wrong and despise the right. his flaunting of the mean and sordid. Gomperz (Gr. This view—that Greece had already passed the peak o f her greatness and that the Sophists were a sign of the times and by their own teach­ ing hastened her decline—has tended to reappear in modern histories. Courage and hardiness.The Sophistic Mentality (e) Decline or adolescence? T o a hostile contemporary like Aristophanes. the era of popular or unconscious morals.

Epicureans and other philosophers of the Hellenistic age—there can be no doubt that. 164 b e l o w . Pindar speaks o f the 'lash o f P e r s u a s i o n ' (Pyth. and only secondarily that of politics. In A e s c h y l u s on the other hand it is Paris w h o s e hand is forced b y Persuasion. 1 (_/*) Rhetoric and scepticism There was. so the Greeks had their teachers of politics and rhetoric: the Sophists.What is a Sophist ? N o w if one thinks of the great things that lay ahead—the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. the art of persuasion.). Aeschylus called her (Suppl. 3 It was part of rhetorical instruction to teach the pupil to argue with T h e comparison o f the stages o f G r e e k t h o u g h t to the stages o f an individual life is also made b y C o m f o r d in Before and after Socrates. Gorgias in his Encomium of Helen—a school exercise in rhetoric. In Greece the success that counted was first political and secondly forensic. often b y dubious means. 4 . The two were more directly con­ nected than one might think. however it may be with Greek history in general.' Thus Helen is absolved from blame and depicted as a helpless victim. Peitho. Persuasion. but she who was persuaded acted under the compulsion of the word and it is vain to upbraid her. namely a scepticism according to which knowledge could only be relative to the perceiving subject. as we have our business schools and schools of advertising. Nowadays the words 'success' or 'a successful man' suggest most immediately the world of business. F o r further c o m m e n t on Grant's division see p.). deserving pity. 38 ff. with the Sophists Greek thought entered not on its decline but on its early manhood. 1 1 9 ) . J 1 · 5° . one might assign to rhetoric the place now occupied b y advertising. to be followed b y the Stoics. and Isocrates a century later reminded his Athenian audience that it was their custom to offer her an annual sacrifice {Amid. was no less powerful then. we have seen. 1039f. one art which all the Sophists taught. Certainly the art o f persuasion. ' the charmer to whom nothing is denied'. sophistic in every sense—names speech and persuasion as the two irresistible forces. 'He who persuaded did wrong by compelling. not hatred or condemnation. 385 f. and one epistemological standpoint which all shared. and its weapon was rhetoric. was for them a powerful goddess. 249). 'the in­ sufferable child o f D o o m ' {/4g. and. Following the analogy. Rhetoric does not play the part in our lives that it did in ancient Greece. namely rhetoric.

9. The theories of the natural scientists. and in particular to bolster up the weaker argument so that it appeared the stronger. ' O n every topic there are two arguments contrary to each other'. resumed in cli. and that no man can be in a position to contradict another. and what appears to you is for y o u ' . for the truth for any man was simply what he could be persuaded of. 2. A s Protagoras said. Theaet. 3. The disputes of philosophers. 286c. each one thinking that he has the secret of the universe. Rhetorical teaching was not confined to form and style. Euthyd. but dealt also with the substance of what was said. where a single speech can delight and convince the crowd just because it is artistically and cleverly con­ trived. There can be belief. ' l o r such opinions in Protagoras see Plato. 1 2 (g) Fate of sophistic literature: Plato and Aristotle Finally. v m below. How could it fail to inculcate the belief that all truth was relative and no one knew anything for certain? Truth was individual and temporary. He aimed at training his pupils to praise and blame the same things. which roughly corresponds to what Sec D . Havelock has written of Greek liberalism. a word about the loss of the Sophists' writings. Gorgias adduced three considerations. The inevitable contests and debates of practical life [as in the law courts or the Assembly]. T o prove his point that' persuasion allied to words can mould men's minds as it wishes'. not universal and lasting. and it was possible to persuade anyone that black was white. L .51 and Protagoras Λ 2 Ι and C 2 in D K . but never knowledge. not because it contains the truth.Rhetoric and Scepticism equal success on both sides of a question. but in fact only pitting one opinion against another and setting up the incredible and the invisible in the eye of the imagination. 1 1 5 2 a . which only g o to show the rapidity with which thought can demonstrate the mutability of opinions and beliefs. In such an atmosphere it is not surprising that an epistemology should gain favour according to which ' what appears to me is for me. which illustrate the way in which the Sophists' teaching grew out of the life and philosophy of their times {Hel. T h e subject is 51 . 13): 1.

but other reasons. I. Hitherto historians had assumed that this. his followers duly sup­ pressed it. of the extensive writings which they produced. namely the authority of Plato and Aristotle. Plato's idealism carried the day. It has been pointed out that in general the Sophists were not scholars writing philosophical and scientific treatises for the future. and.T. in the passage o f upwards of 2. His suggestion that these are the only two contributors to the school of thought in the classical age who are documented by their own utterances is happily belied b y what he says elsewhere. Th. G o r g i a s and Protagoras. or at least. nay his very identity. and since on the same page he has to warn us that 'the chronology of Antiphon's life. 1 Here again. Gorgias. but that they probably overstate their case. was accidental: many other works of classical Greece have perished.What is a Sophist ? is here called the sophistic outlook. since moreover the liberal temper is represented for him not only b y these two but b y Archelaus. suggest themselves for the loss. impossible but for the twin guide-posts supplied by the ipsissima verba of these two men' (L. is in doubt'. Prodicus. as contrary philosophies became entrenched.T. not surprisingly. Prota­ goras. What they allege may have been partcause. Hippias. no less plausible. as also o f Greek politics. nobody saw reason to preserve what were generally considered un­ orthodox and objectionable views. Thrasymachus. since he himself would have liked to suppress the teaching of his opponents. has been written in modern times exactly as Plato and Aristotle would have wished it to be written'. 18). But their modern champions see a more specific reason determin­ ing the fate of the Sophists. though unfortunate. So it has come about. 1 5 7 he speaks in the same terms o f ipsissima verba o f T h r a s y m a c h u s . Gr. or more or less hostile paraphrases. to quote Havelock (L. O n p . 490. The two in question are Democritus and Antiphon. this is a somewhat pessimistic view.400 years. one may say that these critics have a real point which others have neglected. G o m p e r z . that 'to chart its course with precision is a difficult task. 255). Nevertheless it is true that the fifth-century empiricists are represented for us in the main b y meagre fragments. like Sidgwick with Grote. Lycophron and others. that 'the history o f Greek political theory. ' t h e sole s u r v i v i n g literary monument o f the m o v e m e n t k n o w n as sophistry' w a s the Hippocratic treatise On the Art [of medicine]!) 1 52 . ( F o r T .

though he gave up the transcendence of the Platonic Forms. lecturers and public speakers. 18. it would naturally get incorporated in the handbooks of later teachers. of which Cicero wrote that he not only lucidly explained the precepts of each teacher but so exceeded the originals in brevity and attrac­ tiveness of style that no one any longer consulted them.Aristotle and the Sophists They were rather teachers. he drew an explicit distinction between the aims. See however Miss Ansconibe in Anscombe and Geach. In general this may be true. he shared Plato's teleological view of the world. as an additional reason for the loss. of the handbook type. and it cannot be asserted without qualification when we turn from his metaphysics to his treatment of human action both individual and collective. Sophists. Aristotle. 1 7 . 31 f. e. De inv. as if their opposition to sophistic empiricism were equal and identical. See J a e g e r . In the former. 1 9 . his ethical. 1 1 1 . A s Havelock r e g u l a r l y does. Untersteiner does recognize. the different turn taken b y the prevailing philosophies in succeeding generations. compiled a summary of the earlier 'Arts'. including Aristotle. the most exacting standards o f accuracy must be demanded. True. from their originator Tisias onwards. 32. 302 and Untersteiner. he continued to believe in the existence of permanent substances or essences corresponding to universal terms—universalia in rebus if not ante res. social and political theory. whose aim was to influence their own age rather than to be read by posterity. Paideia 1. but these would be inappropriate to the study of 1 2 C i c . and in consequence the methods. Moreover. That is to say.g. on pp. 34 (five times) in his Liberal Temper. For one thing. 2 . O n the subjects in which the Sophists were primarily interested. While on the subject o f Aristotle it may be as well to issue a caveat against speaking of 'Plato and Aristotle' in one breath. preferring to read Aristotle as a much more convenient exponent of their teaching.3 but his position is complex. since much of their work was educational. and on the question of realism versus nominalism he is usually supposed to have been a Platonist. besides writing his own Art of Rhetoric. 2 . that is. of scientific investigation on the one hand and inquiry into the problems of human behaviour and character on the other. Aristotle's standpoint was in many ways closer to theirs than to Plato's. Three Philosophers. which would be regarded as superseding it. 9. 6 . 1 2 .

In the Ethics he puts the point many times. we find a defence of the relativity and multiplicity of goods which might almost have been written b y Protagoras. self-existent moral norms or patterns had far-reaching effects. T h i s and related points are well brought out in L l o y d ' s article on Aristotle's biological analogies in Phronesis. In the ethical field the abandonment of Plato's absolute. See also I098a26flf. and he w a s Socratic enough to combine it with a belief in a single function of man as such. resulting from our common human nature and overriding the different subordinate functions of individuals or classes. 1968. it w a s only in the first of the two senses enumerated on p. but to become good men'. 1 1 0 4 3 3 . of knowledge from action. 1 a n ( m 2 1 1 0 9 4 D 2 5 . which he calls self-deception (Pol.What is a Sophist ? human material. in which however one is conscious all the time of an influential figure standing in the background though never mentioned: Protagoras. 166 below. the J T h e brevity of the above remarks m a y l a y them open to a charge of over-simplification. which for Plato had been unthinkable. Aris­ totle can write (1103b27): ' T h e object of our inquiry is not to know what virtue is. whereas on the SocraticPlatonic view 'to know what virtue is' was an essential prerequisite of becoming good. 1260325). He openly prefers Gorgias's method of enumerat­ ing separate virtues to the Socratic demand for a general definition of virtue. (the carpenter is not looking for the same straightness as geometer). which contains one of his most sustained and effective attacks on the Platonic theory of Forms. which is undertaken not for theoretical but for practical ends. In so far as Aristotle believed in the relativity of goodness. for it made possible a divorce of theory from practice. 54 . perhaps most forcibly in the statement that to demand strict logical proof from an orator is no more sensible than allowing a mathematician to use the arts of persuasion. ^ the first book of the Ethics. 1102323.

Prot. 1. Schr. and for Hesiod (Erga 276. i See Pulilenz in l'liilul. vol. it presupposes an acting sub­ ject—believer. 322 d) Zeus has laid d o w n ' a law for all men'. The meaning of physis emerges from a study of the Presocratics. but in the intellectual climate of the fifth century they came to be commonly regarded as opposed and mutually exclusive: what existed ' b y nomos' was not 'byphysis' and vice versa. In earlier writers they do not necessarily appear in­ compatible or antithetical. Nomos for the men of classical times is something that nomiietai. that unlike the beasts they should possess justice. so long as religion remained an effective force. 425). 82 f. 1. 1. and so there could be nomoi that were applic­ able to all mankind. ιτ. It is with this use of the terms that we shall now be chiefly concerned. is believed in. 3 5 1 . 1 1 4 . n. See vol. practised or held to be right. Plato. something that nemetai. Naturally therefore different people had different nomoi. 1. AVt hisiilfe. is apportioned. 11.3 and 353.-j — Kl. It can safely be translated 'nature'. and I I . n. echoed in the myth of Protagoras. i 3 55 O S I" ..IV THE ' N O M O S ' . vol. 82 f. dis­ tributed or dispensed. but. and the references in Ehrenberg. 11. 114.3 That is to say.' P H Y S I S ' ANTITHESIS IN MORALS A N D P O L I T I C S (i) INTRODUCTORY The two terms nomos (pi. though when it occurs in con­ junction with nomos the word 'reality' will sometimes make the contrast more immediately clear. 335. ηοτηοϊ) and physis are key-words—in the fifth and fourth centuries one might rather say catch-words—of Greek thought. originally. This conception persisted in the Sophistic age. 3 5 1 .3 . 1. 'Human laws (nomoi) are sustained b y the one divine law' said Heraclitus (fr. practitioner or apportioner—a mind from which the nomos emanates. the devising mind could be the god's. Even the rationalist Thucydides can speak of the self-seeking party politicians of his day as partners in crime rather than observers of the divine 1 3 • See vol. 1948.

another spokesman of the new thought) the antithesis was more commonly invoked in the moral and political spheres. ' d i a p h r a g m ' .However. but used in ordinary Greek to mean mind or sense) have a name w h i c h is owed to chance and nomos and does not correspond to reality. y a p Tfj φύσει περί τ ο ύ τ ω ν έναντίοξ.8. 9 (vol. ί ρ γ ω Si. which codify ' right usage' and elevate it into an 2 1 T h u c . De victu 1 . 132 b e l o w ) . The latter sense of nomos we have met in philosophical contemporaries of the Sophists: Empedocles denying birth and destruction but confessing that he conforms to nomos by using the terms. (ii) laws formally drawn up and passed. E. Rechtsidee.T. Cf. 8 2 . I. Reminiscent of Empedocles is Hippocr. In this sense the pair νόμω-έτέη or νόμοξ-έόν (or αλήθεια. A n d even Gorgias. but has been told more than once. fr. fr. 1 λ ό γ ω could replace νόμω without detriment to sense or idiom.3 N . which are divine and everlasting and which no mortal can successfully defy. historians and orators of the day (and in the tragedian Euripides. as Creon learns too late (v. reprinted 1965. 440). below). also Mori. Pohlenz's article w i t h the same tide in Hermes. . (Cf. 476 L . In a notice of the reprint in L'Ant. n ff. but for the other see Aesch. Pind. 3 9 . 1 4 7 1 . It appears also in the 'unwritten laws' of Sophocles's Antigone.. on 'unwritten laws' see pp. w h o believed in suiting h i s rhetoric to the occasion (καιρό.3 W e have now reached the point where a new generation has divorced nomos from physis. for 1965. des Places mentions some w o r k s that h a v e appeared on the subject in the interval. n8ff. treats briefly the e t y m o l o g y and semantic development of the w o r d . 11. 3 . 1 5 6 ) . is a v o w e d l y a critique of Heinimann's w o r k .) 2 3 4 4 1 56 .'. Democr. the φρένε? (lit. cf. Emped.2. Clouds 248. 1953. fr. T h e fullest treatment is F. and they are no longer 'current coin' (nomismd). The earlier history of the terms nomos and physis is interesting.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis law. Eur.). ) comes close in sense to the common expression λ ό γ ω μέν . ) ό νόμο. 4 ( v i . Sept. appropriate to the political realism of the age. . where τ ο ύ τ ω ν refers to the identity of becoming and perishing w i t h mingling and separation. 1 1 1 3 . 269. ' C o i n a g e ' is the commonest. sacr. and Democritus declaring that sensible qualities exist only in nomos. 6 . 83. 392 L . Then the phrase 'unwritten law' takes on a new and more sinister meaning. Heinimann's Nomos und Physis of 1 9 4 . could speak of war-heroes as observing the θειότατον KCCI κοινόν νόμον (fr. In Hdt. 4 . 95 (vol. 6 ) . 203 B o w r a (p. as what is artificially contrived from what is natural. 17 ( v i . On nomos see also Ehrenberg. 11. But when belief in gods is undermined. 4. this universal authority for nomos no longer exists. and sometimes what is false (though commonly believed) from what is true. Here its more important uses are t w o : (i) usage or custom based on traditional or conventional beliefs as to what is right or true. His article Nomos in Philol. ) : the seat of thought and feeling is the b r a i n . Aristoph. 1948. Soph. Class. . p l a y i n g on the t w o senses of the w o r d . fr. in the Sophists.

1 It will be convenient to deal under separate headings with topics which are normally regarded as distinct. 1 2 7 5 ° 7 · 1 57 3-2 . T h a t in the indictment of Socrates 0«ou5 ού νομίμων indicates actual disbelief is shown below. Liberty and Morality. in origin. so that for the Greeks law. t h o u g h the sense of l a w . 'has no power to compel obedience beside the force of custom.m a k i n g is rarer and that of believing much the commonest. wrote Aristotle (Pol. As H. 2 . and no English word has the same cover­ age. 1269320).' In primitive society there is little if any difference between the two. 'the distinction between what is legally enforceable and what is morally right was much less clear-cut among the Greeks than it is with u s ' . 2 . It means ' t o make a practice o f in Hdt. u. Pol.Law and Custom obligatory norm backed by the authority of the state. but was never lost sight of. n. 4 . T h e derivative verb νομΐ3ειν has a similar range. . Hart has written (Law. because it will be found to enter into most of the questions of the day. In the same chapter it occurs in the sense ' believe i n ' ( g o d s ) and ' believe t h a t ' (Ge is the wife of Zeus). T h e sense ' t o set up. it will be best to retain the Greek. they are already separated for us. by natural necessity or b y nomos. Arist. and cf. ού νομί^ουσι ττοιεϊν — it is not their nomos. T h e original coincidence of custom and law (noted b y Pohlenz in Hermes. Heinimann (N. Codification only becomes neces­ sary at a fairly advanced stage of civilization. since the same word nomos expressed both ideas. custom and l a w . however. . institute' appears in T i m e . remained dependent on custom or habit. however much it might be formulated in writing and enforced b y authority.' T o some extent this remains true in any society. A . 2 : the Scythians νηού. 426) has an obvious bearing on the question of ' u n w r i t t e n l a w s ' . of cosmopolitan­ ism. Lac. Gorgias. ί μ ι ι ν ο ν Sv παρεσκευάσθαι. 266. L. 3 8 . vouijeov ο ύ τ ω . 4 : L y c u r g u s ένόμ^εν ένΙ Ιματίω δι' ITOUS προσε8ί2εσβαι. 5 9 . but an examination of the nomos-physis antithesis (the effects of which have been outlined in an introductory way in the previous chapter) must come first. 1 9 5 3 . 5 1 ) : 'It is of course clear (and one of the oldest insights of political theory) that society could not exist without a morality which mirrored and supplemented the law's proscription of conduct injurious to others. for custom itself has binding force. the oscillation of the word between the two ideas. o f political organization. . to show that there w a s no sharp distinction in his time between the two senses. T h e t w o occur together in Xen. Since. ' T h e law'. It will serve to remind us that. Hence. on whether states arose b y divine ordinance. 2. 2 3 7 . The first was the earlier use. Discus­ sion of religion turned on whether gods existed by physis—in reality— or only by nomos. p. Ph. Rep. 78) quotes passages from Hdt. on whether divisions within the human race are natural or only a D o d d s .

but it is impossible to assign priority between them. Heinimann dates De aere.A. and we cannot tell in what words Archelaus expressed the thought. 1 58 . Heinimann m . This chapter will explain the antithesis itself in more detail. and so on. 7 . but it may legitimately remind us of the historic connexion between evolu­ tionary physical theories and theories of the conventional origin of morality and law. but the statement of it attributed to Archelaus ( A I and 2 D K ) is probably earlier. 339f. 2 1 (RE v m . Ph. and from the w a y the distinction is introduced draught it must have been a l r e a d y familiar. Archelaus was a contemporary of Democritus.L. Aristotle called it a widespread topos recognized b y 'all the men of old' as a means of trapping an opponent into paradox (Soph. but a little may even be desirable.1 4 . 1 Heinimann. in spite of tlie rather loose statement of A u l u s Gellius. He w a s an Athenian of the Periclean a g e . to s h o r d y before the Peloponnesian W a r . and that justice and baseness exist not naturally but by convention') is doubtless due to the naivety of the compiler. 11. Pohlenz ( w h o thought it w a s b y Hippocrates himself) after 428. u. on whether the rule of one man over another (slavery) or one nation over another (empire) is natural and inevitable. T h e combination of an interest in the origin of life with that of human society and laws recalls Protagoras. or only b y nomos.The 'Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis matter of nomos. and at least un­ answerable on the evidence we have. to show how the various questions were interlocked in contemporary thought. 4 2 ) . Heinimann cites a passage in the Hippocratic De aere aqids locis as the earliest occurrence. xliii). He inclined to Archelaus as the originator. The slightly comic juxtaposition of physical and ethical in the version of Diogenes Laertius (' He said that living creatures first arose from slime. N. but is probably unreal. N. A s to date. which must be kept in check. El. and in any case is the first known mention of it in an ethical context. etc. T h e testimony to the v i e w s of Archelaus pretty certainly goes back to Theophrastus's special s t u d y of h i m mentioned b y D. b e y o n d saying w i d i some confidence that Protagoras w a s the older man. ( 5 . The plan involves a risk of overlapping. it led to very different estimates o f the relative value of physis and nomos in the moral and political field. vol. 1953. I3ff. for Archelaus in general. and Hippocrates w a s probably a few y e a r s y o u n g e r . J o n e s in Loeb Hippocr. Archelaus must have been older than Socrates. The question who was responsible for the distinction in the first place has often been discussed. 17337). o f equality. T h e context in the medical writer is anthropological and ethically neutral: he will describe the differences between different races whether these are due to νόμος or φύσις. 1. contemporary w i t h the first generation of Sophists. 1803. and.. See his article in Hermes. once established. and the ways in which.

right and wrong. to this extent on the wane. ' Urcenlraf. Thcaet. in which the first place was given to intellect and con­ scious design. then. were seized upon b y upholders of the relativity of ethical conceptions and became part of the basis of their case. exist merely in belief. we need only look ahead to the time when Plato took the field against them: to combat their distasteful moral theories he felt compelled to construct a whole cosmogony. and it became pari passu more credible to regard moral rules as merely customary and relative. The idea of a universal moral law was.. This passage. 1 9 7 . .9 . 'interest' was what seemed to underlie ethical standards. which so well describes the changing climate o f thought in fifth-century Athens.. . are not god-given as was formerly believed. or at best created by agreement to set a limit on the freedom of each individual. Doubts about the order and stability of the physical world as a whole.Physical Theories and Morality W e are entering a world in which not only sweet and bitter. 59 . the idea that the cosmos has come about by chance that has made possible the denial of absolute standards of right and wrong (pp. therefore. an attitude which readily lent itself to some sort of hedonistic or utilitarian interpretation. None of the rules was absolutely rigid or invariable: they had always to be adapted to changing conditions . not of traditional moral goodness or badness but simply of success or failure. I 7 i c . I'-mpiricUm and Politics. was in fact written about seventeenthcentury England. and could be applied with almost equal propriety 2 ' T h i s juxtaposition of physical and moral as e q u a l l y subjective is made in connexion w i t h Protagoras by Plato. It is.I 7 2 a . hot and cold. and the dethronement of divinity in favour of chance and natural necessity as causes. On this view. so infinite in matter and diversity. expediency or inexpediency. and moral standards enforced by public opinion. but also justice and injustice. or b y convention. In this way 1 the use of history and experience helped to evolve a rather different set of standards. extracts from pp. Order. as having grown up to meet the needs of particular people in given places and times. 115 f. They are something imposed by man on his fellows. below). . revealed numerous different systems of morality T o none of these customs. he says. Law. could 'permanent authoritie' be attributed. The voyages of discovery . T o see that this was so. .

In the political sphere Untersteiner quotes a pleasing example from Lysias: ' T h e first thing to keep in mind is that no man is by nature either an oligarch or a demo­ crat. and men who agreed on that could nevertheless draw different practical conclusions from it. For convenience.The 'Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis to the 'situational ethic' of today. Sof. or any place for them in the permanent nature of things. 1936. some remarkably consistent theories of human progress began to replace the mythical idea of Cf. 25). is able to maintain a biological status.ysias. In the fifth century. support of physis against nomos. in Greece at least. 8 (Untersteiner. Apol. 2 1 60 . three main positions may be distinguished: support of nomos against physis. and an attitude of hard-headed realism or fact-facing which without passing judgment declares that the more powerful will always take advantage of the weaker. but admission of the contrast does not of itself decide the outcome. 2 1 (2) THE UPHOLDERS OF 'NOMOS' (a) Anthropological theories of progress ' What is this pact but the means by which man. It will retain the name for as long as they keep their power. and will give the name of law and justice to whatever they lay down in their own interests. by no means determined by the initial admission that they are artificial. ' P s y c h o l o g i c a l Origins of D i v i n e K i n g s h i p ' . Folklore. i v . as a natural corollary of physical theories of the evolution of life from inanimate matter. but must be judged in context on the spur of the moment. as a relatively weak and defenceless creature. (or. 7 4 ) . the stage is set for a controversy between the two. B a y n e s . with whose faith in nature as the arbiter of party-political allegiance the orator w a s not in agreement. G.' With this denial of the absolute status of law and moral values. T h e quotation is from I. 9 1 . A s we proceed we shall find plenty of reference to expediency or interest (τό συμφέρον) as a standard. The place to be accorded to law and tradition was. which otherwise he could never achieve?' H.' Pleasing in its reminder of Private W i l l i s in Iolanthe. especially in Thucydides. Time Magazine (22 April 1 9 6 6 ) : ' T h e traditional values are g i v i n g w a y to " s i t u a t i o n e t h i c s " — m e a n i n g that nothing is inherently right or w r o n g . but each strives to set up the kind of constitution which would be to his own advantage.

They had no idea of combining together. and in Sophocles it is man himself who by his own achievements has become the marvel of the world. and appear in the most diverse authors. 1 4 . reflects an indifference already evident in the fifth century when he writes that the author of the process was time itself. or left out. They can be traced in Democritus. 600 L . In Aeschylus he is there. ) s a y s that although medicine is a purely h u m a n art.C. recognition of the rights o f others and the rudiments of law and order. who would be so absurd as to take the trouble of cultivating ' Possibly third century B. medicina (cli. This marked the begin­ ning of civilized life in communities. the Sophist Protagoras. whether aided by Prometheus or necessity or simply by the promptings of experience and nature. Law-bringer. 54. without clothes or houses. 345. and some­ what later in the tragic poet Moschion.Fifth-century Anthropology degeneration from a primeval perfection like that o f Hesiod's Golden Race. They also proceeded. Moschion. A t length their hard­ ships impressed on them the necessity of combining for survival. Demeter giver of grain was also Thesmophoros. T h e author of the H i p p o ­ cratic De vet. After all. his presence seems to matter little. n. as indeed it commonly is ( ώ . and from the attacks of wild beasts. in the Hippocratic Corpus. ' Forethought' or ' The Forethinker'. through a stage of storing wild produce for the winter. the first men lived like animals. καΐ νομίζεται). Edelstein's Idea of Progress. x x x i . developed b y rational investigation. Though Sophocles does not picture the original savage state. in Aeschylus as well as Euripides. its inventors thought it w o r t h y of being attributed to 11 n°cl. I . from diseases caused by the crudity of their diet. is o p e n to correction on this point. See Diehl in RE. but scattered over the countryside feeding on whatever offered itself. as Rousseau pertinently remarked. from cold. his praise of man's technical progress in the Antigone presupposes the same order of events. to cultivation of the soil and the growing of corn and vines. in caves and holes. and with the need for rational communication they gradually learned to turn their inarticulate cries into speech. may be brought in as the teacher. but only as bestower of intelligence. though later. They died in great numbers. who taught men to use their own minds. 7 1 . In Euripides the benefactor is unknown ('whichever of the gods it was who first gave us wits'). Prometheus. 6l . Halbb. Even cannibalism was resorted to. and the aristocrat Critias. 1 According to these accounts.

T h e connexion w a s helped b y the associations of the w o r d ήμερος. Houses and cities were built. if the state o f society was such that it might be stripped of its crop b y anyone who took a liking to it? This comes out particularly in the claim of the Athenians to have been the originators both of corn-growing and of laws and constitutional government. These soberly rationalistic accounts of human development are in strong contrast to the older religious conceptions of degeneration from an age of perfection. Cf. when the goodness of man was matched by the kindly abundance o f nature. 576-8 L. a process which in his opinion covered a lengthy period of time. ch. and disease was held in check. 1. 79ff. p. D i o d o r u s ( 1 3 . A t least the lines (fr. and for the fifth-century author of On Ancient Medicine (ch. with notes d r a w i n g attention to sonic uf the repeated k e y . and was brought about [not by Asclepius but] b y 'necessity'. esp. the 'golden race' of Hesiod or the 'age of L o v e ' in Empedocles. the long-lived poet and philosopher who probably survived until about 470 (vol. 8. the use of fire made cookery possible and led to the extraction and working of metals. Side b y side with these advances we read of the domestication of animals and the acquisition o f technical skills. Greek doctors saw the maintenance of health as very largely a matter of correct diet. the quotation from Grotius about Ceres Legislatrix on p. Agriculture does of course i m p l y the change from a nomadic to a settled form ol life. 6 . Moschion fr. o f thought and also of vocabulary. See the translations on pp. 2 3 1 1 62 . 2 6 . ήμερου with other Greeks and b r o u g h t them εις ήμερον και δικαίαν σνμρΜωσιν. below. together w i t h some interesting attempts to combine the two.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis a field. See especially the passages of Moschion. will be found in m y In r/η· Beginning. 3. A more detailed description than can be given here. 362f. 2 1 7 . (b) gentle or civilized as opposed to savage.) the healing art began when cultivated foodstuffs. like that of Dicaearchus in the fourth century. csp. and Diod. Cf. ships were launched and overseas trade developed. 1. On the relationship between θεσμό. a combination w h i c h no English word provides.^ The coincidences. 1 3 . cooked meals and a balanced diet replaced the 'animal-like' regime of primitive man. which may possibly have been Xenophanes. 123. and νόμος see Ehrenberg. meaning (a) cultivated as opposed to wild crops. 83. between the various authors'* strongly suggest a common source. 4 and 5. 3. but in course of time. ήμερου τ ρ ο φ ή . 3 : the Athenians shared dieir τ ρ ο φ ή .w o r d s or -phrases. 18) in which he says that 'the gods did not reveal all things to men from the beginning. 3 ) and Isocrates on 82. E v e r y m a n ed. though this is not expressly mentioned in our sources.) below. 188. with 29 ήμερον βίον. Rechtsidcc. 2 3 N a u c k κ α ρ π ό .). 2 6 . chs. 1 2 Origin of Inequality.

the ideal is the man of middle status who 'preserves the kosmos which the state ordains' (yv. that the idea of progress as a human achievement m a y be traced back to the early sixth century. 9· 55· T h e title would be unsuited to a c o s m o g o n y . not degeneration. See O'Brien. 59 f. Critias. In any case his moral is the same: avoid pride (TO yocupov). Wherever it came from. though from indications elsewhere one may doubt whether Euripides himself did. τίνος άρχαΙηξ. . 80. however. ltd/. but it could have come in one of his iambic or mixed poems. 1. Unlike the characters in Critias and Moschion. ( p . It should be added. 2. The adherents of these historical theories were obviously on the side of nomos.) The words of Democritus fr. is θ η ρ ι ώ δ η . έν άρχη κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω . Euripides's Theseus is pious: he attributes man's progress from brutality to civilization to an unnamed god. Whether or not he expanded his statement on these lines.). Socr.L. 278 are sometimes c o m p a r e d : to have children is Ικ-lievcd I t ) be a necessity for men ά π ο φύσιος και κ σ τ α σ τ ά α ι ό . ' One word which must h a v e stood in the original. 244f. I socrates and Moschion all name nomoi as the means of raising human life above the level of the beasts.. -πιρ\ τ ή . while at the same time rejecting any idea of it as innate in human nature from the beginning or divinely ordained. the first and greatest of the Sophists. n.3 and it will be assumed here that when Plato ^ For a full (perhaps too full) commentary on these lines see Edelstein. The essential is that he observe nomoi and follow justice. 1 2 (b) Protagoras on the original state of man Λ holder of the progress theory who can claim to be a philosopher in his own right is Protagoras. and seem to foreshadow the detailed expositions of the advancement of civilization which we find in the younger writers. In the list of his works appears a title which may be translated ' O n the Original State of Man'. ( L e s k y also translates it as referring to man. 345. which fitted well with his tirades against the religious outlook of Homer and Hesiod. he certainly passed on the idea. Paradoxes. below). The climax of the Antigone chorus is the declaration that technical achievements in themselves are neutral: they may bring man to evil as well as to good.. it gained wide currency in the secular atmosphere of the fifth century. which i s purely licxamctric. 1 1 . 1 8 . Idea of Progress. even If we did not know that Protagoras's main interest was in humanity. if there w a s one. D. on the stories of Phoroneus and Palamedes. T h i s tells against the expansion occurring in the context of fr.'Nomos' and Human Progress by searching. they find out better' show him to have been a believer in progress. cli.

the Athenians will only accept the advice of experts. The passage in question is Prot. 4 0 7 . 64 . 1 . It i s possible to think better of philosophers than that. For s u m m a r y of opinions see Untersteiner. have had in foisting on him v i e w s which w o u l d have distorted and falsified our picture of h i m ? ' 1 T h e question has been exhaustively discussed. n. T h e b o o k s in the excellent Pelican series of historical studies of individual philosophers of the past are written b y active philosophers w h o w o u l d certainly not subscribe to all the v i e w s of their subjects. Plato knew well that Protagoras was a religious 1 More to the point is Moschion's announcement (fr. as examination of the content will show. 1 .T. but on general policy they allow anyone to give advice. Sophs. like architecture or naval design. It is not explained h o w one can properly criticize v i e w s without taking the trouble to report them accurately first. w h i c h w o u l d h a v e included even the mythical form. and there is little point in reopening it. 2 1 ) π λ ε ί σ τ ο ι . 3 1 9 below. most probably as given in the work so named. ) . 24. like Prodicus's ' C h o i c e of Heracles' of which X e n o p h o n says (Mem. 282) that the original w a s a public lecture ( έ τ ί δ ε ι ξ ι . 1 . evidently because they do not think of this as a technical subject calling for training. . u. Gesch. X L V . ( i i ) the contention that it is a parody or distortion designed to discredit the Sophist. there are none of a n y seriousness. W h a t he does is to make a 'critical e x a m i n a t i o n ' of them. n. also v o n Fritz in RE. 10. even their own sons. 9 1 7 . 62L T o those in favour m a y be added Heinimann. 1 3 6 ) : ' W h a t interest could Plato. Socr. 2 ) that he w i l l explain αρχήν βροτείον καΐ κ α τ ά σ τ α σ ι ν βίου. Protagora. . for an open-minded reading of the m y t h and the logos which follows it leaves one o n l y w i t h feelings of deep respect for their author. also O'Brien. L. A rhetorical question can usually be countered b y another. w h o speaks w i t h no little respect of Protagoras. and. This warns us plainly that the introduction of the gods is not to be taken seriously. 6 . (b) that good and wise statesmen prove unable to impart their political gifts to others. Protagoras has made his claim to teach political arete" (pp. when his audience leave it to him. 23. (Prot. Protagoras offers to give his views either as a reasoned argument or in the form of a story or parable. 3 . 259. Hum. Socr. and Havelock. T w o arguments used against authenticity m a y be dismissed at o n c e : ( i ) internal inconsistencies. Capizzi. 328 d ) . and Bignone. Studiiz. Cf.9 . 2 . 7 2 . iV.The ' Nemos'— Physis' Antithesis puts into his mouth a speech on that topic he is substantially reproduc­ ing Protagoras's own views. which in turn rests on his general belief that ' n o philosopher in his senses will take the trouble to report w i t h historical fidelity v i e w s w h i c h intellectually he cannot a c c e p t ' ( p . έπιδείκνυται. Salomon's (Savigny-Stift. Schmid. Halbb. 165). Paradoxes. 32ocff. Note that Plato's Socrates too speaks of P r o t a g o r a s as τ ο σ α ϋ τ α ί π ι δ ε ι ξ ά μενο. See also p . 88): ' W h y . w h o does n o t . but can be stripped away as adorn­ ment to the tale. He objects (a) that on subjects which are taught and learned. w h i c h seems to b e an echo of Protagoras. PA. should a genius take the trouble to advertise in his o w n w r i t i n g s a system already in circulation and put out b y a representative of a school of thought w h i c h he distrusted?'. 1 9 1 1 .gr. and Socrates has expressed doubts whether it can be taught.T. 381*. V e r s e n y i . Lit. to those against. T h i s is the opinion of a large majority of scholars. w h o agrees w i t h it. T h e opposition of Havelock is to some extent based on the rhetorical question (L. Nestle plausibly suggested (VM^uL. above). in this case M. 1 1 5 . for. 1 7 . n. 2 . chooses the story as likely to give more pleasure.

It is only another expression for the practical intelligence (σύνεσις in Euripides) which is the first divine gift in Euripides and Aeschylus. for training in virtue is what he has just claimed as his metier. 4 and Plato. for in the myth it is bestowed by Prometheus at the moment when the first men see the light. Menu 1 . Technical sagacity (έντεχνος σοφία) is innate in man from the beginning. and had no wish to deceive. If he admitted that virtue (to use the common English translation of arete) is a natural endowment of the whole human race. 1 4 (the soul of man τοΰ θείου μετέχει). See further below. ed. Theaet. Original also was the instinct for worship.e ) . His friend Pericles •aid that our belief in g o d s rests on the honours that are paid to them as well as the benefits they confer (Stesimbrotus ap. Using their native ingenuity. Similar l a n g u a g e occurs in Xcnophon. of Prot. and learned to speak. that questions of public policy are in no sense technical. from which divine agents are wholly absent. 85 ff. So Nestle. as the myth puts it. and he does it with astonishing skill. 162 d). which seems to imply that the necessary virtues are innate in every man rather than imparted b y instruction. Protagoras probably thought this evidence hardly niillicient. i 6 2 d . pp. Plut. because although they had the 'craftsman's 1 2 W h a t follows is based on the fullet account in m y In the Beginning. 4 . without committing himself on the existence of its object. On the other hand he has undertaken to justify the principle underlying Athenian democracy. and because the possession of reason was thought to be a mark o f kinship with the gods. In fact the myth is followed by a rational explanation of the main points.Protagoras on Human Progress agnostic (cf. to man. Tkeaet. houses and clothing. a divine being. Protagoras himself probably recognized worship as something peculiar. Protagoras has a difficult position to defend. because. he would argue himself out of his job. without cities. Per. so that the advice of 'smith or shoemaker' may be as good as any other's. Both positions are maintained in the myth and the explanation which follows it. 234 f. This they would do both in the sense that reason was the gift of Prometheus. men soon provided themselves with food. 1 3 (man is the only race that worships g o d s ) and 4 . 19 f. men 'share in the divine'. pp. 8). 1 65 . but refused to discuss the question on the grounds that certainty w a s impossible (fr. and perhaps necessary. 3 . but they still lived 'scattered'. rather than something acquired b y training. ' Protagoras did not deny the existence of the g o d s .

w h i c h even n o w escapes most scholars. Dike is a sense of right or justice. Comparison with αρετή. Everyone in fact believes that these virtues are shared b y all. Pol. therefore. if anyone prove in­ capable o f acquiring them. Zeus (in the story) sent Hermes to bring men two moral virtues. 3 2 2 b . he must be put to death as a cancerous growth in the body politic. so he adds the rider that. In the explanation following the myth he takes up both these points. for they were no part of the original nature of man. aidds a more complicated quality combining roughly a sense of shame. aidos and dike. All must share them. The first one justifies the Athenians in demanding expertise in the technical arts but not in the art of politics. . These gifts are not to be restricted to selected individuals. Socratic Paradoxes. 67 if. δημιουργικής at 322c! affords a striking demonstration of the practical associations of areti and explains the (to an English reader) rather illogical w a y in which the account seems to treat technical skills and moral qualities as much the same sort of thing. Even Zeus. w a s made long a g o b y Kaerst in the Zeitschr. for which the prime requisites are justice and moderation. modesty. 323 c) b y everybody. Cf. but (b) they were not innate in men from the beginning. that the whole race would be wiped out. On statesmanship as τέχνη in the fifth century some interesting material is collected in O'Brien. . where one can be a doctor. It is not far from 'conscience'. and necessity.f. 322b ήδίκουν αλλήλους άτε οϋκ έχοντες τ ή ν π ο λ ι τ ι κ ή ν τέχνην.' 2 1 66 . .und Schamgefuhtr fur das Bestehen des Staates veranschaulichen. T h e craftsman's art calls for technical aretai and the political man's for political aretai. and respect for others. however.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis art' they lacked the 'political art'. dass i m M y t h o s des Protagoras erst durch Hermes die δίκη und αΙδώ. cannot ensure that they are universal. 1909. Zeus's decree stands for what in the non-mythical anthropologies (and in Protagoras's mind) was the work of time. as with the arts. because ' there could never be cities if only a few shared in these virtues as in the arts'. an die Menschen verteilt werden. Fearing.* The story teaches two things about the 'political virtues': (a) in the civilized world they are possessed to some degree (άμώς γέ TTCOS. Consequently many were killed by wild beasts. Since w r i t i n g the above I find that this point. another a musician and so on. 5 1 3 . 1 : ' D e r Umstand. A man entirely ' δημιουργική τέχνη. soli natiirlich nur die unbedingte Notwendigkeit der Allgemeinheit der R e c h t s . n. bitter experience. which happen to be moral virtues. against which the only defence for the physically weaker human species lay in combined action. 'to make political order possible and create a bond of friendship and union' (322c). and life be conducted on a principle of division of labour.

with its enlightened rejection of the motive of vengeance or retribution. No. and anyone who declared that this was his own case would be thought mad (322a-c). 9 1 3 .1 5 : λίγαν ή · δ ε ύ α ι . Secondly. but this is no more proof that it cannot be taught than the lack of instructors in our native tongue would prove the same about speech. without education.δ (α Ρ δ ι δ α κ τ ο ί . and in adult life by the state. no one concentrates on the fact that a man has done wrong in the past. though the Athenians like everyone else believe that all have some share o f the political virtues. to prevent either the same man or. 1 It is in this connexion that Protagoras produces his justly celebrated theory of punishment. laws or any other of the restraints of civilized life—he would regard the most hardened criminals o f Athens as virtuous b y comparison. with mother.Protagoras on the Development of Morality without an artistic gift—say music—is a commonplace. Moreover the citizens prompt each other. courts o f justice. punishment is not inflicted by a rational man for the sake of the crime that has been committed (after all one cannot undo what is past). Protagoras's view o f arete. by die spectacle of his punishment. for it is in our interests that our neighbours should understand the rules o f organized social life faja-b). Su/>/>/. unless taking blind vengeance like a beast. But to hold such a view amounts to holding that virtue can be instilled by education. which provides in its laws a pattern o f how to live. nurse and father. from doing wrong again. or punishes him on that account. however. they do not think of them as innate or automatic. The education starts in infancy. T h e passage is worth quoting in full (32 a-c): 4 In punishing wrongdoers. at all events the punishment is inflicted as a deterrent. Είπερ καΐ β ρ έ φ ο ς διδάσκεται άκούιιν 0' ώ ν μάΟησιν ούκ £χΕΐ. 6 7 . dike and nomos does certainly imply I hat raw human nature contains the possibility o f moral advance. but for the sake of the future. If Socrates ever met such a one—who ex hypothesi would be living in isolation. In this continuous process it is difficult to single out a class of teachers of virtue. but a man entirely without moral qualities could not lead a human life. but as acquired b y teaching and effort (323 c : these therefore correspond in reality to the decree o f Zeus in the myth). and is continued b y schoolmasters. someone else. ' l i t l i u w l in Eur.

that some good statesmen seem unable to impart their virtue even to their own sons.The Nomos '—Physis' Antithesis though its realization is a matter of experience and education. E. trained b y their fathers. be content if we can find someone rather better than the rest at advancing us along the road. but we achieve them only b y practice (εθος)' {EN. 6η{. educative processes. T u r n e r in BICS. the case might be different. 12 (1965). varying between individuals. then. though even there the sons of many artists. which he invokes against Socrates's other argument. self-restraint and a sense of justice are virtues necessary to society. 1103324). sometimes unnoticed. we must.' It is this antecedent capability. (c) Other equations of nomos' with the just and right For Protagoras. given that virtue can be taught. A s Aristotle said later. and if persisted in would have led to the destruction o f the race. with every man against his neighbour. 3. and is continually being instilled in an infinite variety of ways simply by the experience of being brought up in a well-governed state. if we may take the quotations from his plays as 1 i A t 326c) Protagoras compares them to the lines ruled in children's copy-books when they are being taught to write. in the pupil). the advantages of contact with an outstanding father cannot have so much effect as the natural capabili­ ties of the son. he modestly concludes.). As to his own claims as a Sophist. with one practitioner to many laymen. cannot hold a candle to them (328 c). which may be very inferior. But as it is. Neither nomos nor the political virtues are ' b y nature'.. but a 'return to nature' is the last thing that is wanted. is probably right in referring tile w o r d s to parallel lines and not to a tracing of the letters themselves. and nomoi are the guidelines laid down b y the state to teach its citizens the limits within which they may move without outraging them. D K ) : ' Teaching needs both nature and practice (άσκησις: i. In this situation. Protagoras himself said (fr. G. ' we are equipped b y nature to acquire the virtues. everyone has some talent for virtue and everyone is continually having it developed by various. 1 68 . Critias was on the same side. and that is all I claim to be. The state of nature was un­ comfortable and savage. If virtue were distributed on the same principle as the other arts (326ε fT.e. which in its turn is necessary for human survival.

the deposed king of Sparta. or even mention of the fact that the relevant puMugcs are in the mouths of dramatis personae. could prevent open but not secret misdemeanours (fr. 7 . 1 6 9 . of which he offered an even more exalted conception. and by obeying it we become aware of its excellence (areti).' In the Sisyphus too he pointed out that laws. delivered b y the impious S i s y p h u s . to replace 'brutish disorder' with justice. the motive w a s probably that which Aetius attributes to the author ( w h o ha thinks is Euripides). T h e same contrast between νόμος and τ ρ ό π ο . as opposed to the will of a king or tyrant. But w h e n all is said. because of their vastly inferior numbers and because they had no overlord who could compel them to face such odds. ΙΟίλομιν κινουνιύίΐν). relying on compulsion. a weakness which is also remarked on b y Democritus (fr. 11. This is illustrated b y the well-known story in Herodotus (7. 1 1 6 ) that doubtless he received later in the p l a y (which is lost) the traditional punishment. 9 . (See A e t .Upholders of Nomos' reflecting his own views.' replied Demaratus. but compels them to stand firm. namely to be able to disclaim responsibility for v i e w s which are really hit o w n . Before invading Greece. 495 f.1 1 ) . and his command is always the same. to Xerxes who had given him asylum. the law of selfrespect or shame which makes wrongdoing impossible even in secret. This is plainly stated in the Sisyphus (fr. 2 5 . 2 1 ' They are free.) Greek recognition of the supremacy of law. against whatever odds.' T h i s is usually done without question. 1 . and that master is Law. do so only on account of its comparative weakness. for they have u master. 88 Β 2 5 : Euripides made Sisyphus the champion of his v i e w s for fcur of the Areopagus. 25). 181).39. T h e v i e w of l a w s as man-made. DK. which belittle law in favour of character as a guarantee of right conduct. occurs in the funeral omiion of Pericles ( T h u c . 2. He does not permit them to flee in battle. One should establish 'the nomos in the soul'. Democritus was another upholder of nomos. 2 . 'but not entirely free. Law exists for the benefit of human life. 2» τ ρ ό π ο . is the prelude to an atheistical account of the g o d s as another human invention. giving it as his own opinion that they would not.4 μή μετά νόμων τ ό π λ έ ο ν ή τ ρ ό π ω ν dvSpila. (See further vol. ' The upright character no orator can pervert.104) of the reply made by Demaratus. δέ χρησ-ros ασφαλέστερο* νόμου. yes. and the interesting lines from the Peirithous. O n l y W i l a m o w i t z remarks (Glaule II.) * !•>. was something of which Greeks were proud. whom they fear even much more than your subjects do you. Whatever this master commands they do. to conquer or die. but the law he often turns upside-down and dishonours with his talk. Xerxes asked him if the Greeks would fight.

16 (11. it is first agreed between them that laws are covenants made by the citizens themselves concerning what must be done and what not. 4. beginning: 1 A city has no greater enemy than a tyrant. ' D o you think a state can exist and not be overthrown. i 2 f f . but Xerxes applies his answer to the Greeks. yet Socrates argues strongly that the essence of justice consists in keeping them. but one man rules. without which a city cannot prosper. he claims only to speak for his own city.. 2 1 70 . while individually the law-abiding man is the most trusted. 4 . Socrates was another who felt that the laws must in all circum­ stances be upheld. T h a t Greeks fight better than Asiatics because they are not despotically ruled is also argued in Hippocr. 429 if.The '' Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis As a loyal Spartan. Norn. under whom in the first place there are no common laws. They are not therefore ' b y nature'. and the lesser man prevails against the greater if his cause is just. and that a state whose members obey the laws is both happiest and strongest. Mem. Pericles utters a similar encomium of law in the Funeral Speech (Thuc.).6. 4 . w h e r e Socrates a r g u e s that those w h o k n o w and do what is lawful in human affairs are just. For an Athenian expression of pride in nomos one can quote the words of Theseus in Euripides. the weaker if slandered may speak on equal terms with the prosperous. But under written laws justice is meted out impartially to the feeble and the wealthy. Bus. and the story is told with a truly Hellenic pride. but are disregarded and nullified by private individuals?' Here again his duty to the laws rests on nothing more fundamental than agreement—there is no hint of divine ordinance or 2 A more lyrical appreciation of the D e m a r a t u s episode can be found in Gigante. There is no fairness in this. Law-abidingness begets concord. a w o r k possibly of the late fifth century.37). 64L.6. 2. De aere etc. Suppl. in which the law's decisions are of no force. Cf. In a conversation which Xenophon reports him as having had with the Sophist Hippias. Even more striking is the scene in Plato's Crito where Socrates bases his refusal to evade execution on the ground that it has been decreed by the laws o f Athens. having taken the law into his own possession. respected and sought as a friend. 115—17. and that they can at any time be amended or rejected.

1 . Like Protagoras he sees both nature and practice as necessary. 1). 66. 'always said that the best way to acquire a good name was to become what y o u wished to be thought to b e ' . acquired skill) and arete interchange­ ably (see p. 400. n y CUDS (I ) K . Arete on the other hand is a matter of long nurture. of growing up in avoidance of evil in speech and action and pursuing and achieving good b y protracted effort. cleverness and physical strength which can be put to these I ' D i i l f . 140.libncss. and in lint it is not αρετή but |/. says Xenophon {Mem. which can be quickly mastered. 4 2 5 ) : ' T h a t αρετή still has absolutely no moral sense is clear from the very fact that all these capacities m a y be put to the service either of the right and good or of the w r o n g and evil. 3 71 . for in contrast to 'the art of speaking'. is to be born with natural gifts. and may be summed up as 'virtue is the best policy' and 'be what you would seem'. These capacities have been distinguished from άριτή at the b e g i n ­ ning ul the extract (iiid. Socrates however would hardly have included 'a ready tongue' among worth-while ambitions. and his dismissal of the art of speaking as some­ thing in which 'the pupil can in a short time rival the master' is an almost Platonic hit at Sophists who made rhetoric the staple o f their curriculum. cleverness. 11. . law and order. His advice is aimed frankly at worldly success. Arete is here given the moral content which Socrates and Plato gave it.' His following sentence weakens this one considerably. is the so-called 'Anonymus lamblichi'. Pace Nestle. Another champion o f nomos and eunomia. | u i . arete demands long time and effort. The first necessity for success. 143 below. nor made fame the end and virtue only a means to attain it. and to break it now would show base ingratitude. but he is no aristocratic advocate of birth and breeding. for he immediately adds that this is a matter of chance. a writer apparently of the late fifth or early fourth century. if they are put to a contrary use. bodily strength—in the interests of law and justice. below.Socrates and the ' Anonymus lamblichi' bond of nature—but Socrates has had the benefit o f the agreement all his life. n. w h o . and to devote the time and labour necessary to acquiring it.3 It consists in using one's other gifts—ready speech. says the writer. 7 . but he would evidently not have followed Protagoras in using techne (art. it would be better 1 2 ' T h i s magnificent passage i s cited again in connexion w i t h the social compact on pp. 1 ) . i n ) . * On these extracts and their author see pp.3 4). 3 i 4 f . What is in a man's own power is to show that he really desires the good. w h o says (VM^uL. He has taken a hint from Socrates.

power and life itself. 2 3 .) The reason for this is Protagorean: necessity forced men to combine for survival. Nature gave men only the intelligence which enabled them. or confer benefit upon. f. 3 c a 1 72 . and the picture of the g o o d man as self-controlled ( έ γ κ ρ α τ έ σ τ α τ ο ν ) . But the reconciliation could only be accepted by a superficial mind.). about 'unertragliche Tautologie und Selbstverstandlichkeit'. like other evolutionary theorists more conscious of the ages of suffer­ ing and experience endured in the gradual and painful advance towards civilization. and this is best done. Protagoras. 402. the characterization of other ' g o o d s ' as indifferent and capable of serving bad ends ( D K . I can hardly express s t r o n g l y enough m y disagreement with what H. as a tardy 1 2 6 π λ ε ί σ τ ο ς ωφέλιμος ώ ν . but he recognized it as a general and legitimate human aim (Plato. DK. Socrates w o u l d h a v e put ευδοξία a m o n g the indifferents. 1 2 . but by assisting the laws and justice. etc. 208 c ) . u. Gomperz says on p. T h e sentence at DK. could not see law itself as a provision of nature.The 'Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis not to have them. T h e equation of virtue and goodness w i t h τό ωφέλιμοι". 84 of Soph. 5 1 6 . 5) compares the Benthamite principle of the greatest g o o d of the greatest number. In general he seems to have developed an unreasonable prejudice against this unfortunate author. has a Socratic ring. On the surface this seems to resolve the nomos-physis antithesis b y identifying the two on the basis of the same facts which Protagoras had adduced: men's nature (physical weakness) would have brought them to destruction without political organization.82. n. 3. and is equally exemplified by the assertion of Thucydides.29f. Hence law and justice must be supreme: ' their strength is established by nature' ( D K . ι ι . and his death m a y have strengthened the opinion that it w o u l d accrue a n y w a y from a life of virtue. 4 0 1 . indifferent to wealth. it is true. and communal life is impossible without submission to law. Rhet. (This attacks the kind of view represented by Plato's Callicles. the largest possible number of people. Pol. T o achieve perfect arete is to be useful to.2 3 > ^ P' to> Meno 8 7 ε ) . For himself. 4 0 2 . make it difficult to resist the i m ­ pression that the author w a s an admirer of Socrates and writing after his death. but it was all too common in the late fifth century. 4 0 1 . Kaerst (Ztschr. 11. that in the general transmutation of values reckless aggression was reckoned courage. T o achieve this calls for indifference to wealth. T h e reward will be an unfailing good name. 1 9 0 9 .4. p o w e r and even life (on the g r o u n d s that no man can l i v e for e v e r ) . therefore laws are an ordinance o f 'nature'. δστις δέ έστιν άνήρ αληθώς αγαθός. οΰτος ούκ ά λ λ ο τ ρ ί ω κόσμω ττερικειμέν<£ τ η ν δόξαν θηραται ά λ λ α τ η α ύ τ ο ϋ άρετη. 11. Symp. not by such crude and in their outcome dubious methods as indiscriminate charity. 1 6 . and moderation a screen for cowardice. T o think (he continues) of power-seeking as virtue and obedience to the laws as cowardice is pernicious. for it is they which create and preserve the union of human lives in political organizations.

the rich can enjoy their wealth in tranquillity and the poor are helped by the more fortunate. untroubled by war or internal dissension and protected from tyranny. 3 1 . Law. 1 73 . and even those stout opponents of nomos Hippias and Antiphon. 'benefits the whole people'. Suppose. Critias. 2 1 2 ) that. of which C y r i l Bailey w r o t e {Gk. Even such a one could not continue to tyrannize with impunity. Many of the supposed resemblances are commonplaces (e. Grant him 'a body and soul of steel'.2 . andE. It is not. Atom. Mutual trust (which Socrates also saw as the fruit of obedience to law) encourages commerce and the free circulation of money. as Plato effected it. 25 i f . says this democratic sympathizer.g. but the folly of the citizens them­ selves. 'considering the Kcncral state of class feeling in most of the Greek cities. and a total lack of human feeling. On the other hand it looks as if such a protest against class hostility wus becoming common. the strength and violence of the tyrant that bring him to power. goes on the Anonymus. 1.43. to organize themselves in this way. 11. 3 3 6 ) and Isocrates. and through their allegiance to law would overcome him by combined force or skill. C . for only a city that has already lost its respect for law and order can fall into his clutches. Most scholars would probably agree with the verdict of W . by seeing in nature not a series of accidents but the product of a supreme designing mind. b e l o w ) . this is perhaps the most remarkable of nil Democritus's s a y i n g s ' . as many believe. ' T h e idea of the rich helping the poor in a state of u n i t y and trust recurs in Democritus fr. ) .The ' Anonymus lamblichi' alternative to destruction. The extract concludes with a eulogy of the blessings of good government. for it is repeated also in Archytas fr. Antisthenes. Echoes have been detected not only of Protagoras. exemption from the ills of the flesh. Greene (Moira. There is no disagreement of substance between the two accounts. 1 5 5 (vol. 2. Socrates and Democritus but also of Prodicus. men enjoy peace of mind and freedom to follow their private pursuits. repeated in Thuc. that a superman could exist. that the chief value of this composition lies in showing ' how far the stock ideas and arguments of the age penetrated into rather ordinary minds'. Thucydides. H3f. for all men would be his enemies. and a genuine reconciliation between nomos and physis could only be effected. Anvp. the idea that to hazard one's life for one's country wins fame.2—but how often elsewhere?). 495). 3 ( v o l . 1 2 T h e reconciliation also seems to be attempted in an interesting and difficult passage of the Bacchae (pp.

There is a certain confusion (which Gomperz should h a v e mentioned). put his speech after 387. written probably as a mere rhetorical exercise and unlikely to be b y Lysias. not of flesh). 3 {not even a man of steel could overthrow the l a w s ) and 404. the rule of law as something firmly entrenched in the Greek. m . which however do not (at least in my opinion) seriously affect their value for our purpose. of Arist.27ΓΓ. ' Dobson. Gk. it should be mentioned that Grote thought it 'a v e r y fine composition' and C o p e agreed w i t h him. Rhet.4 . 9 2 . between DK. and the combination of democratic ideals with a horror o f mob-rule as the breeding-ground of tyranny. although in this case I agree. Certain coincidences with the Panegyricus of Isocrates suggest that one imitated the other. eulogizing the early Athenians.1 9 the writer. A t the same time the passage offers some interesting points which are not matched in other sources: the attempted reconciliation of nomos and physis. T w o passages which make these points. which purports to be a funeral speech for Athenians who fell in the Corinthian war. x x v i . See Plobst in RE. but it is not so easy to say which was the imitator. by law honouring the good and punishing the wicked. Blass. n. is an inept pro­ duction. though Protagoras and Socrates certainly seem to have been among the models.3 In § § 1 8 . (to do it would need a man of steel. and perhaps especially the Athenian. but tile argument can be used the other w a y . have been left to the last owing to certain doubts about their authorship and date. 86. Laws were n o t ' by nature' to Protagoras or Socrates. Orators. and. 120. If the latter. the idea of the 'man of steel' and his fate. for they thought it the action of beasts But see H. 2537. thinking psendo-Lysias the imitator. 1. says: 1 2 They conducted the city's affairs in the spirit of free men.The ''Nomos'—''Physis' Antithesis and one can say little more than that ideas are here reflected which were widely current. irrespective of whether laws were regarded as a product of nature or strongly contrasted with it. at least as w e h a v e the passage in Iamblichus. and pride in. 4 0 3 . Rhet. they were hailed as a triumph of reason over nature. (i) The second oration o f Lysias. and Herodotus was fully aware of the variety and inconsistencies between the nomoi of different societies. See C o p e ' s ed. S u c h judgments are admittedly subjective. Halbb. Soph. and afford further evidence of their wide currency. the symbol of man's ability to raise himself by his own efforts out of a 'natural' state o f mutual conflict and destruction. The foregoing passages illustrate a respect for. n. 1 8 7 . Gomperz. u. mind. 3 1 74 .

His first thesis is con­ vincing. not that Plato inserted it g r a t u i t o u s l y nnH falsely in the Crito. It does not appear that L y c o p h r o n himself did. Bas. 25) which.' ought probably to be dismissed as a phantom. subjecting themselves in action to these two powers.. and Gigante is apt to r e l y too much on single w o r d s or phrases. Aristotle and even Stoicism. both here and elsewhere. 1924. mention of σωφροσύνη causes h i m to exclaim (p. until in 1956 M. W h e n Socrates is portrayed b y both Xenophon and Plato as holding that law w a s 11 συνθήκη the o n l y sensible conclusion is that he did so. nature is disorderly [άτακτος like the ' Its authenticity w a s contested in antiquity. O f these two. Nom. h e s a y s that > ihc sections could not have been written b y a Sophist because the definition of l a w as a συνθήκη is not held to condemn it as a plot of the w e a k to defend themselves against the strong or the strong to oppress the w e a k . F o r the chief names on both sides see Gigante. and the 'Anon. betrays an acquaintance with Plato. ' It is not obvious. His conclusions won general acceptance. of unknown authorship. 75 . 269. as their source. a single lost discourse. In protesting that the distinction between v o l u n t a r y and i n v o l u n t a r y faults betrays Stoic influence.. with law for their king and reason their teacher. is generally thought to be spurious. noted b y Pohlenz. and secondly that the speaker. does not even mention the strong possibility. but the second is much less securely based. be their city great or small. 276 fully relevant to the theory of a g l o s s upheld by Mass and Pohlenz. His postponement of this point until four pugcN later is hardly fair. νόμων' was freely cited. and cannot be dated earlier than 300. nor are his arguments on p. as when . and in fact the definition itself presupposes ' t h e w h o l e of the Crito' unci Lycophron! In the preceding pages w e have seen sufficiently plainly b o t h that the definition of law as a compact w a s current in the fifth century and that not all the Sophists rejected it on that account. Gottingen. On the negative side m a y be added those of Untersteiner and Gigante himself. though some in the past have defended its authenticity. human beings should make law the touchstone of what is right and reasoned speech the means of persua­ sion. 268-92) first that the passages in question cannot be isolated from the rest of the speech (which is indiscriminately eclectic) and assigned to a single model.Upholders of'Nomos' to prevail over one another by violence. I hut the correct text of llic speech does not contain it. is governed by nature and by laws. Bas. nor in a n earlier generation did Protagoras. hereafter NGG) claimed to have discovered. remarking in particular that there was no trace of Platonic or Aristotelian doctrines. ττ. This he dated to the end o f the fifth century. 2 8 1 ) : ' S o c r a t e — P l a t o n e ! ' A g a i n . Gesellschaft. Gigante argued {Nom. (ii) A m o n g Demosthenes's speeches is included one against Aristogeiton (no. G. and Ά η ο η . Behind certain sec­ tions of this speech Pohlenz (in Nachrichten. w h y inconsistent definitions of nomoi in § 1 6 should neces­ sarily imply late date. for instance.* The following passage from the speech is pertinent to the present theme: 1 (15) The whole life of men. enjoining obedience to the laws on theoretical grounds.

which I do not find so grammatically incredible as Pohlenz did. and the general obedience to them. It is unfortunate that Pohlenz should mention Lycurgus as his example o f the second stage.The 'Nomos''—Physis' Antithesis primitive state of nature in Critias and Diodorus] and varies with the individual. and often has base desires. and the same for all. agreed. So Pohlenz took the alternative text τ ω ν ε|. αμφότερα. he received his constitution for Sparta from Or 'faults of commission or omission'. has naturally attracted considerable attention. These are enumerated by Pohlenz as ' the age-old belief in the divine origin of the nomoi. Further consideration of these views will give us a better insight into the Hellenic mind. what mans the law-courts. . . whereas the laws are common. A n alternative rendering is 'offences against both g o d s and m e n ' . decided on by men of wisdom. So there are many reasons why it should be obeyed by all. good and beneficial. (See NGG 29 = Kl. 324. as Pohlenz and others do. 1 The threefold character of legal sanction. applying equally and impartially to all. the corrector of faults both voluntary and involuntary. and in especial because it is a discovery and gift of the gods. 11. but what you all know as well as I do. though a human being himself.) 1 76 . for every Greek knew that. Schr. and finally the latest and most widely accepted. what brings the whole people to the Assembly. This they seek. causes last year's magistrates to make way voluntarily for their successors and everything to take place so as to ensure the good government and safety of the city? It is the laws. as described in § 1 6 . for in themselves the w o r d s w o u l d naturally appear a m b i g u o u s and puzzling (as they still d o ) . the more modern one according to which individual legislators instituted them by virtue o f their practical insight. and not only is the con­ stitution abolished but life itself is reduced to the level of the beasts. according to which all nomoi owe their existence to a collective agreement of the community'. 'mutually exclusive' is to import our own viewpoint rather than enter into that of a Greek. Remove them. and may reveal that to call them. and men with such a nature will be found doing wrong. and is universally criticized as an unintelligent juxtaposition of three mutually exclusive and contradictory accounts of 'the origin of law'. T h e idea that εκουσίων καΐ ακουσίων αμαρτημάτων is a gloss on ε!$ αμφότερα is attractive. give every man licence to do what he will. (20) What I shall say is nothing new or clever or original. and when it is found it is published as a common injunction. From what cause does the Council meet. (16) but the laws aim at what is just. and established by common agreement of the city as that by which every citizen should regulate his life . Nature may be corrupt.

Euripides. in spite of the metaphorical language about the gods 'writing' such laws. he continues: 'And do you hope to 1 l o r further discussion of this point. and see how far they indicate a general belief in the divine origin of laws as such. 3. to which J c b b pertinently calls attention in the note in his edition of the Oedipus. When Hippolytus agrees. what is in question is a moral principle rather than positive law. belongs rather to the 'unwritten ordinances' which were indeed believed to come from heaven. Virtue should go with power. Ion 442. Euripides. Here the chorus are speaking solely of nomoi governing religious purity (άγνείαν . and their Gods. the texts. Laws 624a and l'lut. 98. Sophocles. It recalls the conversation between Hippias and Socrates in which positive law as a human compact is distinguished from the unwritten laws which Hippias believes to be divinely sanctioned (pp. i84f. not did any mortal human nature bring them to birth'. For the belief in the divine origin of laws (which he calls 'uralt').The Origin of Law Apollo. the gods punish him. is shocked to learn that his lord has betrayed a mortal woman.1Ι0. Pohlenz gives references in a footnote {NGG 28. . . yourselves to be guilty of lawlessness?' This comes nearer to supporting the generaliza­ tion about' a divine origin for nomoi'. of which Plato says that they ought not really to be called nomoi? 2. 3 Diehl. of which they very reasonably say that' Olympus is their sole begetter. apart from the requirements of the dramatic situation. see m y Gks. ' How is it right for you. 5 and 6. with references to T y r t a e u s fr. The Cretan who at the opening of Plato's Laws says that the laws of Crete and Sparta were owed to Zeus and Apollo respectively was not denying the work of Lycurgus. Schr. Kl. ΙΊ. who have written the nomoi for men. Hipp. courteous nature preferable to a proud and haughty one. but. ών νόμοι ττρόκεινται). ' Laws 793a. If a man sins. Hdt. Lye. Ion. Let us take a look at them. 1 77 . 6 5 . Hippolytus's servant asks him if he does not think an affable. This too. 118 if. 1 . 1. still less discussing. What have these to do with the constitution o f a ρο/is? They belong to the socalled unwritten ordinances (άγραφα νόμιμα). the idealistic young servant o f Apollo. Ο Τ 863 fT. 313. 2) to five passages of the literature of the fifth and fourth centuries. below). but without quoting. n.

Demosthenes 23 (against Aristocrates). whoever they were. 5. could be regarded as the work o f a man inspired by heaven and so of divine as well as human origin. and the passage ends with the distinction between 'written nomoi' and 'unwritten nomima . This is the very sin which Sophocles's Antigone described as transgressing 'the sure unwritten ordinances (nomima) of the gods'. This is vague enough. Positive law itself. 117 fT. Isocrates. which admittedly was under heavy fire in the age o f enlightenment. 78 . This was an old belief. as the traditions about Lycurgus and other lawgivers show. W e need not suppose that when Pericles invited Protagoras to draw up a constitution for his new colony of Thurii either of them genuinely believed that he would be acting under divine guidance. speaks o f ' those w h o from the beginning fixed these usages [the word is not even nomoi but nomima]. for instance that the gods themselves once settled their quarrels there. Panath. in which the orator has begun by mentioning 'many mythical tradi­ tions' about it (§65). 'for we mortals adopt the nomoi of the gods. but. Nevertheless the combination o f ' g i f t of the g o d s ' and 'decision o f wise men' would by no means 1 1 1 T h e y are fully discussed on pp. and has no bearing on the origin o f law. the reference is by no means general. below. and contrasted with the law that Creon as a mere human ruler had laid down! The lesson o f these passages is not that 'laws are of divine origin' but that there are certain divinely appointed ordinances (more often designated by the vaguer term nomima thanas nomoi) covering religious observance or moral principle. Great emphasis is laid on the religious character of this ancient and revered institution. as in the dispute between Orestes and the Furies. 70.' This is simply an instance of the wide coverage of the word nomos. or acted as judges. whether heroes or gods'. which are distinct from the great body of positive law in a city like Athens. 4. 169. for it clearly means ways or manners rather than laws.The Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis find the same in the g o d s ? ' ' Y e s . however. In this section leaving the dead unburied is condemned as 'spurning the ancient custom (Ιθος) and ancestral nomos which all men observe as not laid down by men but ordained by divine power'. apart from that. ' replies Hippolytus. It occurs in a high-flown eulogy of the court of the Areopagus.

it must inevitably have originated from the proposal of a single man? The author of the speech against Aristogeiton may have his faults. but for want of medicines they pined away until I taught them to mix soothing remedies to drive away all diseases. A s for the third of Pohlenz's ' mutually exclusive' stages. At first they had eyes but saw to no purpose. Like dream-shapes they lived their long lives in utter confusion. They knew no houses of brick to face die sun. there was no healing food. obedient to the reins. I explained clearly the flight of crook-clawed birds. those on die right and on the left. what colour of gall-bladder is most pleasing to the gods.. If one fell ill. to be the glory of wealth and luxury. 478-506. what inconsistency is there in stating the truth that. and the Prometheus was probably his latest play. the subtle formation of the liver. but the concentrated attack of scholars on this particular target is astonishing. good law was a gift of providence. APPENDIX Some passages descriptive of human progress Aeschylus. unguent or draught. T o a fifthcentury Athenian who still respected the traditions of his race. how aforetime they were witless but I gave them sense and made them masters of their minds.) But hear the sufferings of mortals.. and writing which is the universal memory and mother of culture.C. The speaker is Prometheus. that supreme device. conveyed through the decisions of wise statesmen.The Origin of Law appear inconsistent to a Greek as it does to us. I first brought beasts under the yoke. and burning 79 . the habits of each and their mutual hates. and brought horses to the chariot. canvas-winged craft of sailors. and in the mouth of an orator would seem only proper. I devised many systems of prophecy. that with bodies bowed to the collar they might relieve mortals of their greatest toil. (Aeschylus died in 456 B. the smoothness of entrails also. They had no sure sign of winter or flowery spring or fruitful summer. I discovered for them also number. but acted all without judgment until I showed them the risings and obscure settings of the stars. nor working of timber. but lived like crawling ants deep in the sunless recesses of caverns. and ratified b y the consent of the whole city. I first judged which dreams were true visions and made known to them the secrets of omens and chance-met portents. None but I invented the sea­ borne. loves and gatherings. although in a democracy like that of Athens a law could only come into force by the consent of the whole demos. Prometheus Vinctus 442-68. heard but took no heed.

Death alone can he not flee. He has learned speech and soaring thoughts and law-abiding ways in cities. crossing in the teeth of the roaring billows. In the Homeric H y m n to Hephaestus (20. silver and gold. and made plain the dim tokens of fire. Diod. The speaker is Theseus. (Paneg. 4 θηρσΙν έμφερεΤς. 450). copper and iron. 254. The carefree race of birds he hunts and catches. then giving us a tongue to be the messenger of speech. Inventive always. implanting in us first of all intelligence. 704 (vol. 2 5 . Antigone 332-71. S . and sea voyages 2 3 T h e w o r d is deina. and he advances—now to evil. 32 above. 25) and Ditt. θηριώδους. and refuge from the tempestuous arrows of inhospitable frosts in the open air. that words might be distinguished. By his devices he tames the beasts of the fields and hills. Sophocles.) I bless the god who brought our life to order out of beastlike confusion. he brings the horse and the tireless mountain bull to bend their necks beneath the yoke. ίφυρον είκη π ά ν τ α in the Aeschylus passage (v. unless in vain talk. and the hosts of wild beasts. eldest of the gods. I well know. who could claim to have discovered them before myself? None. I brought men to a difficult art. 576 L . Syll. have θηριωδώς. turning up the soil with the progeny of horses. 2 . defences too against winter's cold. ) . who represents Athenian humanity. and again to good when he carries out the laws of the land and the just decrees of heaven to which he is sworn. Isocr. So much for that. Skilful beyond expectation are the contrivances of his art. Supplices 201—13. democracy and rule of law against the claims of tyranny in the person of Creon's herald. (Produced about 421. Prometheus in Aeschylus s a y s έννους εθηκα καΙ φρενών έ π η β ό λ ο υ ς {ν. and crops to feed us and for the crops rain from heaven. 444)· 2 1 8ο . to raise the fruits of earth and give us drink. Antid. 6 . But an outlaw is the man whose reckless spirit leads him to consort with wickedness. But as for those buried aids to human life. Earth. Hippocr. VM 3 (1. In one short word you may know all at once: all arts men owe to Prometheus. (Produced about 440. 1 Euripides. indestructible and inexhaustible. 28. on which see p. he harries as the ploughs year after year go to and fro. to ward off the chill of the sky. 324). but for dire diseases he has contrived the remedies. W i t h πεφυρμένου cf. never does he meet the future unprepared. and the tribes of the salt sea in the coils of woven nets—this cunning creature man. 3 σύνεσιν. but nothing more wonderful than man. Bus.) There are many wonders.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis the limbs wrapped in fat.4) men lived in caves ήΰτε θήρες until Hephaestus and Athena taught them better. The lines are from a chorus. Also in Critias fr. 1. n . i . This creature ventures over the grey sea when the stormy south wind blows. proud of his citizenship. and Mosch. and the long loins.

11. and 389.Passages on Human Progress to exchange with others what our own land lacks. 1 8l . Iambi. 1. instructing appropriately in every branch of learning a creature well endowed by nature. Paneg.σττοράδην as in Pinto. 39. Now the earliest men. bare of clothing. and being herded together by fear they gradually became aware of each other's characters. and from the flight of birds.ίσθαι in Plato.8. 42 (p. άθροΙ. so that many of them died in the winter from cold and famine. 73 a b o v e ) .) So much for what our predecessors have said about the first beginnings of all things. and possessing. and a shrewd intellect. In general. 6 Nauck. From meaningless and confused cries by slow degrees they articulated forms of speech. led a painful existence. 210.1-7. that we discern not clearly. 1. they made no store of fruits against times of want. since nothing useful for life had been discovered. and the first groups to be formed became the archetypes of all nations. (For the date of Diodorus's material see vol. Warred on by wild animals.1 8 . So we have φ ω ν ή ν καΐ ονόματα διηθρώσατο in Plato. 1 3 4 1 Moschion. Prot... n. unused to house or fire. created a comprehensible mode of communication about everything. the reference to trade in Isocr. men's teacher in everything was sheer need. prophets declare by looking into fire and the folds of entrails. rational speech. but this passage is certainly in the spirit C f . hands. • . (1 ttepoijoyivous. Once fire and other useful things were discovered they gradually invented techniques and whatever else was conducive to life in common. and the connexion between lawful government and trade in Anon. 322 a. p . 1 6 . ( D K 11. p. (Moschion's date is uncertain. 1. 84 b e l o w ) . Hence all sorts of languages exist. Not knowing how to harvest the wild food. He is now thought to belong to the third century B. * οιαρθροΰν. 4 0 3 .C. for each group composed its words as they chanced to come. n. to assist him in everything. expedience taught them to help each other. Isocr. 69. and alto­ gether ignorant of cultivated food. scattering out into the fields and gathering the most appetizing plants and the wild fruits from the trees. they say that they lived in an unorganized and beastlike way. Diodorus. and by agreeing among them­ selves on expressions for every object. 1. Prot. Prot. little by little they learned from experience to retire to caves in the winter and to lay by such fruits as would keep. 322a. Paneg. And the hidden things. bk. From this state. 1. fr. Similar groups of men collected all over the inhabited world. As for the first generations of men. n. 322b. so that all did not have a language that sounded the same. This passage follows an account of cos­ mogony and the origin of life from the action of heat on damp and putrefy­ ing matter.

T h e reading Δι! is n o t absolutely certain ( L l o y d . Pind. . leaving no visible reminder of their former impious feasts. (See pp. 361 and lived to be a centen) όσαι τέχναι y8yovaai. 82 . for as yet there was no roofed house nor broad city fortified with stone towers. (Critias was killed in 403. 75 a b o v e ) . men built sheltering homes and turned their lives from savage ways to civilized.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis of the late fifth or fourth century. 24). and Sisyphus is the speaker.) First I will go back and unfold in speech how human life began and was established. .J o n e s . nor the busy iron tend the fruitful rows of bacchic vines. But when time. [ D e m . P h i l e m o n (Meineke. men laid down laws to chastise. 9 ( Α ) . 4 Sisyphus continues by expounding the theory o f religion as the invention of an early legislator to prevent secret wrongdoing by instilling a fear of all-seeing gods. 1956. C f . The name of the play and the speaker are unknown. offering nature itself as teacher—then was discovered holy Demeter's gift.) There was a time when the life of men was disorderly and beastlike. 25. the title o f P r o t a g o r a s ' s w o r k Π. nurse of the grain. and violence shared the throne of Zeus. towered cities arose. n. 5 4 . began to be ploughed by yoked oxen. Iv άρχη καταστάσεως. the nourishment of cultivated grain.1-8 DK. 1 2 3 Critias. 2256 fr. Law was of small account. Nor did the curved ploughs cleave the black clod. πάσας ίδίδαξεν ό χρόνος. as I believe. T h e difference between the primitive and civilized eras is emphasized b y the unspoken contrast here w i t h the traditional belief that it is L a w or Justice w h i c h sits enthroned w i t h Z e u s : H e s . that justice might be ruler and make insolence its slave. P h i l e m o n w a s born c. CGF i v . Ol. fr. 59^·)· 3 3 C f . The extract is from the play Sisyphus. Οχγ. T h e same pair o f G r e e k w o r d s as in D i o d . ούχ δ διδάσκαλος. ] In Aristog. 8. but earth was barren. ί ο ( L l o y d . ώ Λάχης. παρά τον τ ο ϋ Διός θρόνον καδημένην.J o n e s in JHS. or by long experience. 1 . άτακτος o f φύσις in [ D c m . There was once a time when the life of men resembled that of beasts. The earth. Op. 57. when the good had no reward and the bad no punishment. 2 5 9 . τ η . and the sweet fount of Bacchus. or from necessity. Ραρ. M o s c h i o n begins his story w i t h the w o r d s ήν y a p ΤΓΟΤ' αιών and Protagoras his story in Plato w i t h ήν y a p ποτε χρόνος (320c). t h o u g h in m y opinion extremely probable. ] In Aristog. 15 : a r ' a n 4 (p.21 Διός ϊενίου πάρεδρος Θέμις. below. once barren. I I (citing O r p h i c literature) Δίκην . and whoever sinned was punished.) ' αρχήν βροτείου κ«1 κατάστασιν βίου. 8 . ν. he. begetter and nurturer of all things. the slave of brute force. From this time they made it a law to bury the dead or give unburied bodies their portion of dust. wrought a change in mortal life—whether by the solicitude of Prometheus. 1 . ταύτας. They dwelt in mountain caves and dark ravines. cit. 243 f. In mutual slaughter they dined on food of flesh. Then.

.Passages on Human Progress On Ancient Medicine 3 (i. and took thought for llie rest. I believe that in the beginning men used the same sort of nourishment [sc. but reached it gradually by their own joint efforts . and he goes on ( § 3 2 ) : If we leave all this aside and look at things from the beginning. others perishing for lack of leadership. kneading. is unconnected with our city. So from wheat. (39) She took over the Greeks living In scattered groups. and rid them of these evils. and it is reasonable to suppose that the majority were of too weak a consti­ tution and died. without laws. granted to the city her two gifts of the cultivation of corn and celebration of the mysteries. to find for those in want the kind of sustenance which'men must have if they are going to live a well-ordered life in other respects. I think. taking some under her protection and acting as an example to others. for Demeter. His conclusion is on p. for she was the first to lay down laws and establish a constitution. For she believed that life that was mere subsistence was not worth living.. The first ensured that we should not live 'like the beasts'. (This treatise probably belongs to the late fifth or early fourth century. (38) This was the beginning of our city's benefactions. some groaning under tyranny. . they boiled. winnowing. has been evolved by discoveries and inventions over a long period of time. . . Lloyd in Phronesis. . so that none of the benefits which men now enjoy. and of most of them she is the direct cause. (40) As for arts and techniques. R. Many and terrible were the sufferings of men from their strong and brutish diet when they lived on raw and uncompounded foods of strong qualities . Panegyricus 28 ff. as the beasts]. .) Sheer necessity caused men to seek and dis­ cover the art of medicine . and which we owe to each other and not to the gods. cake. . combining die strong and uncompounded with weaker components. after steeping. and from barley. which then 83 . while the stronger put up a longer resistance . they produced bread. E.). with their hope of a future life. . grinding and sifting. See G. some were invented and others tested by our city. adapting everyiliing to the constitution and power of man. Isocrates. both those useful for life's necessities and those devised for enjoyment. Isocrates (436-338) here puts the theories of progress to a patriotic use: the Greek world owes its civilization to Athens. 1963. 574-8 L. and baking. Our present way of life. 125. baked and mixed. . in gratitude for the kindness she received there when searching for her daughter. Experimenting with many other foods in this way. we shall find that the first men to appear on the earth did not lead straight away the kind of life that we now enjoy.

26. Ditt. (42) Moreover not every land is self-sufficient. so abundantly provided that everything can be obtained here which in any other single place it would be difficult to buy. (3) THE REALISTS (a) Thucydides T o understand the temper of the age in which the Sophists lived.C. . and it is a problem for them. a prudent delay specious cowardice. an inscription of the second century B. The customary values of words were changed as men claimed the right to use them as they pleased to justify their actions: an unreasoning daring was called courage and loyalty to party. destroying the ease of everyday life. and divided not only city from city but factions within each one. (h) to indicate the persistence of this idea. In his own words (3. He is writing o f the great inter-state war which was the background of Greek life for the last thirty years of the fifth century. p. It states that the Athenian people brought men from a ' beastlike' state to civilization. Syll. In this difficulty too Athens came to their aid by establishing the Peiraeus as the emporium of Greece.C. admitted them to the mysteries. . 13. which they had received from the gods for themselves and offered for the common use. in the one case to dispose of their surplus and in the other to find imports. . 704 (vol.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis handed them over to the rest of mankind to u s e . With the above passage of Isocrates compare (a) Diod. 84 .82): War. through which our common life was transformed from a savage and wicked existence into a civilized and just society.). Some are poor. . and assimilates most men's tempers to the conditions around t h e m .3 (speech of Nicolaus the Syracusan recommending mercy to the Athenian captives of 413 B. others produce more than the inhabitants need. The Athenians it was who first introduced the Greeks to cultivated food. They are the inventors of laws. laws and civilization. one cannot do better than start with the philosophic historian Thucydides. 11. moderation and self-control came to be reckoned but the cloak of timidity. 324). containing a proposal of the Delphic Amphictyony to honour the Athenian technitai (theatrical artists). is a violent schoolmaster. and gave them the boon of agriculture.

Very well. while keeping as close as possible to the gist of what they actually said (i . Some illustrations from his work will therefore be very relevant to our theme. which the Athenians wished to force into their confederacy ( 5 . and to him who cheered on another to attempt some crime that he was not thinking of. Comm.hrenbcrg says (S. . law. His reports supply the necessary background to an outburst like that of Thrasymachus in the Republic. 1 Thucydides has primarily in mind the effects of internal strife. ' T h i s sentence takes a pretty fierce bull b y the horns. and may be trusted when he claims that he has heard some of the speeches himself and had first-hand reports of others. aiming at persuasion. with slight alterations. 384. 90). scholars seem a little inclined to h a v e it both w a y s . Applause. i). The most famous example of amoral 'realism' is the discussion which he represents as being held between Athenian envoys and the •mall island of Melos. see any point in appealing to considerations of right. O n the thorny question o f the historicity o f T h u c y d i d e s ' s speeches. and P. Can b o t h halves id tills statement be truer 1 85 . to considerations of interest (τό ξυμφέρον) rather than justice. advantage or interest. in a word. It is remarkable how seldom even his orators. based o n Gomme. . especially in the speeches. went to one who got in first with some evil act. 8 5 .1 1 1 ) . necessity. we 2 T r a n s . . justice. but there remains the certainty that truthful reproduction ( τ ά αληθώς λεχθέντα) lies at the bottom of the speeches'. and that he has reproduced the kind of thing that they were bound to say on each occasion. The Athenians begin by saying that they will neither use moral arguments nor expect them from the Melians. 2 . as y o u wish. because both sides know that by human standards justice depends on •quality of power: the strong do what they can and the weak submit. 42) that he agrees with most scholars ' i n taking not o n l y the " f o r m " hut to some extent also the " s p i r i t " as Thucydidean . justice or other normally accepted moral standards: it is taken for granted that only an appeal to self-interest is likely to succeed. .22. Thucydides had an impressive insight into the minds of his fellow-Greeks. T o confine ourselves. but his narrative. shows these traits to have been equally marked in the dealings of one Greek state with another.Thucydides to have an understanding of the whole to be everywhere unwilling to a c t . and throw light on the current interpretation of such conceptions as human nature. say the Melians (ch. and their mutual relations. I'. on Thuc.

claiming that in spite of their weakness they may hope for divine favour because they stand for right against injustice (όσιοι Trpos ού δικαίους).. try to persuade you. 104) the Melians do venture to introduce moral considerations. . . but equally to guard against attack. . by natural necessity (ύπό φύσεως αναγκαίας). τ ά δέ ξυμφέροντα δίκαια. You would do the same in our position. Pericles told the Athenians frankly that they held their empire ' like a tyranny' ( 2 . if it agrees with your interests. while really calculating your own interests. Those are deserving of praise who. Later however (ch. while their human nature leads them to accept power. 6 0 . and certain knowledge about men. 105 : τ ά μέν ηδέα καλά vouljouai. 2 ) : it might have been wrong to acquire it. . and bid us give in to your interest (ξυμφόρω). 1 9 Similarly in addressing the Spartans themselves ( 1 . 2 ) . Nor will the Spartans help you. but it 1 C h . 1 ) : Under the legal name of alliance they speciously turn their natural hostility to their own advantage . You Spartans. but those who too readily give in to them. More than any others they equate pleasant with good and interest with justice. 86 . .. We did not make this law (νόμον) . The Athenians retort that this is unrealistic: Our belief about the gods. Closely parallel to this are the words of Hermocrates the Sicilian warning his countrymen against the Athenians ( 4 . We merely use it and shall leave it to exist for ever. . 7 6 . It is universal human nature to dominate the unresisting. w e will tell y o u what is good (χρήσιμον) for us. he who is superior rules. ( 6 1 . is that uni­ versally. which never yet deterred anyone from seeking aggrandizement if he had the opportunity of obtaining it by superior strength. nevertheless display more justice than they are compelled to in their superior situation. and. 5 ) It is wholly excusable that they should plot thus for their own aggrandizement. the Athenian representatives declare: It has been established from all time that the weak should be subject to the strong.The ''Nomos'—''Physis Antithesis claim that it is useful (χρήσιμον) as a general principle that those in danger should meet with fairness and justice (τά εικότα και δίκαια) —a principle that y o u yourselves may need to invoke some time . 6 3 . (98) Since y o u forbid us to talk ofjustice. It is not those who seek to dominate that I blame. make use of the argument of justice.

They begin ( 3 . 3. but. wealth leads to pride and lust for more (45. once set upon a certain course. 4 «7 OS V . in advocating condign punishment for the rebellious city of Mytilene. and humanity (fair-mindedness.2). in appealing to Sparta for help.39. Diodotus. T o take vengeance might be strictlyjust. even if it is wrong. repeats this more emphatically. will be deterred from it b y force of law or any other threat (45. It would be simpleminded to deny that human nature. Poverty induces recklessness. and advocates consulting only the latter: this is not a law-court but a political assembly. to do wrong. since the Mytilenaeans have deserved their fate. and the •ole point is how the Mytilenaeans may be best made use o f (44. and no law can prevent it.7). Cleon misjudged when he thought the two coincided in the present case (47. In his speech. love of discussion. He distinguishes justice and interest. Athenian interest demands that they carry out the deed in defiance of decency (παρά τό ίΐκός) unless they are willing to abandon their empire and turn philanthropists. That would evidently not have served his case. state or individual. 1 ) b y saying that they well know what is the rule in 1 ' 3 .3). 3 7 . The Mytilenaeans themselves. but would not be in Athenian interests. decency: επιείκεια. 9 .5). who opposed the atrocity. 40. l e e m to know that appeals to justice or pity will not get them far. 2 . The three things most fatal to an empire are pity. T h e same expression is taken off b y Aristophanes.4). Cleon. he immediately continues.Thucydides would now be dangerous to let it g o . makes no more appeal to the finer feelings than Cleon.5).4). 40. B y proposing to kill all their adult males and enslave the women and children. which is more notable for audacity than logic. It is the nature of everyone. he claims to reconcile justice with interest (δίκαια with ξύμφορα. T h e Irony o f a democracy w h i c h behaved like a τύραννος w a s not something w h i c h Aristophanes would miss.4). he does not shun the concept of justice but blandly accuses the Mytilenaeans of subordinating it to power (ισχύς. δτε πάντες άν­ θρωποι δεδίασί σ* ώ σ περ άνδρα τύραννον. He repeats that it is human nature to despise concilia­ tors and admire the iron hand (39. w h e n his chorus o f k n i g h t s uongrurulaie D e m o s {Knights m i ) because καλήν γ ' !χεις αρχήν.

b e l o w . Thrasymachus bursts out that they are talking nonsense and. and punish whoever departs from them as a law-breaker and wrongdoer. Other instances of the relation between justice and interest occur in the speech of the Corinthians at Athens ( 1 . If. 3 3 6 b ft". they declare that to be right for their subjects which is beneficial to themselves. Justice in all states is the same.56. whether a state is ruled b y a tyrant. this does not imply that they should obey even if those in power happen. (b) Thrasymachus in the ''Republic' The theme o f the Republic is the nature of justice or what is right. but in fact they say little about them. the ruling powers make laws with a view to their own benefit. 1 1 88 . By making these laws. 296 ff. T h e question w h e t h e r the account in the Republic represents the v i e w s and character o f the historical T h r a s y m a c h u s is n o t raised here. pressed to state his own opinion. justice everywhere is what benefits the stronger. 'benefiting friends and harming foes'). Expanding this.The ^Nomas'—'Physis' Antithesis Greece when a subject state revolts in a w a r : the other side accept it in so far as it is useful to them. Rep. to ordain what is not in their interests. Thrasymachus adds that. 1 . he claims. y o u will show yourselves no true judges of right (τό ορθόν) but rather servants of expediency (τό ξυμφέρον). although he has said it is just for subjects to obey the laws laid down by their rulers. 4 2 . Since the government holds the power. but think the worse of it for deserting its allies. asserts that 'Justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger'. should it come to war') and of the Plataeans to the Spartans after surrendering (3. mistakenly. 1 : ' D o not suppose that though what we say is just. Like any other expert or craftsman. namely what benefits the established govern­ ment. a ruler is not. and are soon remarking (ι ι . he says that. 2) that the only trust­ worthy basis for an alliance is an equality of mutual fear. they say. F o r that see p p .3). In answer to questions from Socrates. an aristocracy or a democracy. i ) . your interest points in another direc­ tion. After some preliminary discussion of current definitions ('giving every man his due'. They g o on to say (unusually for speakers in Thucydides) that they will next speak of justice and honesty ( ί ο . y o u are going to estimate what is just b y the standard of your immediate advantage (χρήσιμον).

claims that a craft as such does not seek its own advantage but that of the subject on which it is exercised (έκείνω ου τέχνη εστίν. 3 4 ) 5 which Socrates identifies as the body in the case of medicine. ώ? άληβώς. and Socrates is therefore entitled to retort that the w o r k o f a shepherd. incorruptibility). 1947. b u t w r o n g in i l l u m i n g that the purpose o f all arts is to benefit others on w h o m it is practised. and.) say that. and M. both in private transactions and in his relations with the state (tax-paying. especially 3 4 5 b—c. e v e n i f h e earns his l i v i n g b y it. qua shepherd. ' C r o s s and W o o z l e y (Comm. plunders. It is only then that he will command what is best for himself. 3 4 3 c . it is for the ultimate benefit not of the sheep but of their masters or themselves.J. Injustice is the opposite: it rules over the genuinely3 simple and just. legislates not for the advantage of those who practise it but for that of its subjects. retorts Thrasymachus. he is congratulated and called happy b y the people he has enslaved. B u t it w a s T h r a s y m a c h u s w h o introduced the notion o f an art in the strict (that is. Socrates takes advantage of the fact that Thrasymachus has intro­ duced the analogy between government and crafts like medicine.U. 2 4 and 2 2 ) notes that Socrates is right to claim that the purpose o f »n art as such is n o t t o benefit its practitioner. who act for its benefit because it is the stronger. C f . borrowing his phrase 'strictly speaking'. Phil. but instead of being punished like the small-scale transgressor. Y o u might as well say. Thus injustice is shown to be stronger.Thrasymackus strictly speaking. to m a k e his point that n o ruler errs w h e n acting as s u c h . b u t n o t for its benefit. whereas. the horse in the case of horsetraining and so forth. is concerned solely w i t h the welfare o f his flock. Similarly justice means serving another man's g o o d : for the obedient subject it is a ί/wadvantage. if they keep them healthy and fatten them up. D. ideal) sense. that shepherds study only the well-being of their flocks. A hunter exercises his art o n g a m e . 22. The advantage of injustice is best seen in its extreme and most successful form. and tramples on all that is sacred. selfless service. T h r a s y m a c h u s attacks it legitimately b y p r o d u c i n g a counter-instance. 48 f. and L e e o m i t s the phrase. a dancer o n his o w n b o d y . freer and more 2 D 1 2 Joseph (A. w h i c h he m a y strain o r Injure to reach perfection. The just man always comes off worse than the unjust. 1 1 89 4-2 . When a tyrant has seized power he robs. a ruler when he acts ignorantly or mistakenly. strictly conceived. but only when he exercises his skill correctly. He concludes that the art of government. and that the ruled should obey. C o r n f o r d strangely translates ' w h o are called j u s t ' . F o r a contrary View see also Kerferd. since Socrates's claim a b o u t g o v e r n ­ ment it deduced from a generalization based o n an imperfect induction. on Rep.

52). and I'll say 'all right' and nod and shake my head like someone listening to old wives' tales. t h o u g h Socrates takes it into the moral sphere b y adding w o r d s like καλόν and αίσχρόν. but n o t necessarily h a v i n g the moral implications usually attached to ' v i r t u e ' . using the adjective (αγαθός) w h i c h corresponds t o αρετή. 252 b e l o w . they cannot argue on any generally accepted grounds. ) A t 3 5 3 a . you would accuse me of claptrap. and T h r a s y m a c h u s incautiously agrees. or if you prefer.b Socrates speaks o f the αρετή o f eyes and e a r s : even a knife has it if it is well designed and sharp. to pleaseyou. S. Instead of simply agreeing to this. L e e . instead o f 3 1 2 1 90 . Phil. Moreover. 4 on the w a y w o r d s changed their meaning (p. that justice is what benefits the stronger. ευβουλία) and justice 'a noble simplicity'. Th. C f . says Socrates.' What does it matter to y o u whether I believe it or not? Just refute the doctrine'—words which acquire significance in the light of his later behaviour. (See p . It means the characteristic excellence w h i c h enables any creature. but evidently he will call it honourable and good and everything else that is usually associated with justice. Yes. I don't agree with what you say. question me. T h r a s y m a c h u s agrees w i t h Socrates that he w o u l d call the unjust tyrant 'sensible and g o o d ' . ού τό νενναϊον πλείστον μετέχει. T h u c . T h e first o f w h i c h appeared to Joseph 'absolutely c o n v i n c i n g ' {A. After the first proof that the just man is good and wise and the unjust stupid and bad. He could understand Thrasymachus maintaining that injustice paid in spite of being discreditable. b y turning Socrates's w o r d s μηδαμώς κτλ. καταγελασθέν ήφανίσθη. 1 provides a striking parallel to the present p a s s a g e : τό εΰηθες. Thrasymachus now appears to be speaking his own mind and believing in the truth of what he says. Asked whether this means that he considers injustice a virtue and justice a vice. Later he calls the just man 'a well-bred simpleton' and the unjust 'sensible and g o o d ' . usually so translated. Immediately alter this. 8 3 . since you won't let me speak. But not against your real opinion. If so. 3 1 ) and to C r o s s and W o o z l e y ' a l m o s t embarrassingly b a d ' {Rep. 84 a b o v e ) . What else do you want ? 4 αρετή. and M. So either let me say what I wish.3 and to determine Thrasymachus's position it is important to notice the nature of his responses to them. This is a tougher proposition. but if I did. he replies that he would rather call injustice good policy (or prudence. N o moral j u d g m e n t need be i n v o l v e d . and I could reply to it. into positive form (' please answer as y o u really t h i n k ' ) .The ''Nomos'—'Physis' Antithesis powerful than justice and the original thesis is proved. 1 2 Socrates proceeds to do this b y several arguments. makes T h r a s y m a c h u s ' s reply mean that he will act as Socrates wishes. Thrasymachus replies. w e have the following exchange (35od): Th. 8 2 . organ or instrument to perform its specific function. 3 .

' Socrates. 1M pursuing his own train of thought irrespective of whether Thrasy­ machus is following him. and the fact that the driving-force behind Thrasymachus is passionate feeling rather than philosophical inquiry.Thrasymachus S. T h r a s y m a c h u s will not speak his o w n mind. since he •annot d o so b y Socrates's m e t h o d o f question and answer. (2) Nihilist V i e w . lyn. d. ' Ι Σ Τ Ω . helerencrs for the most important earlier discussions may be found in Kerferd's article. and the conclusion ' i f I am right' is that a strong state owes its power to injustice. and (4) Essential A n a l y s i s . ' Y o u may enjoy your argument with­ out fear: I shan't oppose y o u for I don't want to offend the company' (352b). where he distinguishes between ' I f you are right' and ' I f I am right'. Savigny-Stiftung. 58) that ' T h r a s y m a c h u s ' s mistake was to have agreed w i t h Socrates that justice is the excellence o f the s o u l ' . 29) they present themselves as ( 1 ) Naturalistic Definition. I'll get on with my questions. T o C r o s s and W o o z l e y (Rep. since I don't want to contradict y o u ' (351 d ) . and Thrasymachus is not committed to any of it. If that's what you are going to do. None of this emerges from a lummary of the argument. Contrast the following expressions of Thrasymachus: ' Let it be so. w h i c h is surely the o b v i o u s one. 9« .U. and his final words: ' W e l l . Nothing. (3) Incidental C o m m e n t . but it is emphasized b y Plato at every 1 2 Μ lie iwld he w o u l d act. 19) sees them as ( 1 ) Ethical Nihilism. do it. it is clear. C o r n f o r d ' s ' A n y t h i n g to please y o u ' is a little a m b i g u o u s b u t w a s probably intended to mean the same. except lhal hr makes n o mention o f Max S a l o m o n ' s acute analysis in Ztschr. • T h u s Kerferd (D.3 Such clarification can be most valuable. It follows that neither the immediately preceding argument nor any­ thing later can be said to have Thrasymachus's agreement. ( 4 ) Psychological e g o i s m . and b y exhaustive examination o f the dialogue endeavour to decide which of them is being maintained by Thrasymachus. yet may err by neglecting (as it is never wise to do with Plato) the dramatic iltuation and emotional tension between the speakers. 1947. except 351c 1-3. Socrates's ουδέν μά Δία amounts Ια ' H a v e it y o u r o w n w a y ' . and Socrates thanks him for it. (2) L e g a l i s m . Jowett and S h o r e y h o w e v e r translate in the sense g i v e n above. for he Immediately w i t h d r a w s his agreement ( 3 5 o d ) .J. this can be your holiday treat. In discussing the view here attributed to Thrasymachus the most recent practice has been to consider all possible alternatives as they appear to a philosopher today. ' S o it appears according to your argument' (353ε). ' F o r this reason I cannot agree w i t h C r o s s and W o o z l e y (Rep. Similarly ί σ τ ω at 354a means ' H a v e it y o u r o w n w a y ' rather than Ί grant t h a t ' ( L e e ) . (3) Natural ΙΙΙμΙιι.

The 'Nomos'—'Physis' Antithesis turn. Thrasymachus throws his challenge into deliberately. but themselves come close to Thrasymachus when they claim (ch. bitterly paradoxical form: 'Justice? It's nothing but the interest of the stronger!' This need not mean literally what it says. 1 92 . Men and cities act as if it were just for the weak to be oppressed and the strong to have their way by no other 1 It is necessary to be personal.86. any more than a man does if. l c y that he holds it to be the moral d u t y o f the weaker to serve the stronger but then cynically recommends us not to behave in the w a y in w h i c h we o u g h t to behave. since this is n o w a minority v i e w and others have much to be said for them. Since dikaion is a word so strongly charged with moral approval. in a speech of Brasidas. Barker. What he in fact means is that there is such a thing as justice and he knows very well what it is. is to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of justice is being perverted.3). Joseph. Y e t . o f ' the justification that lies in superior power' (ισχύος δικαιώσει. but in this life he has looked for it in vain. 105): ' W h a t we deem just (δικαιοΟμεν) is consistent with religious belief and human purpose: human and divine alike hold to a law. The shock of the paradox lies in the fact that to every Greek the words justice and just (dikaion) conveyed an impression o f positive moral worth: indeed they embraced such a wide field that the conception of dikaion might almost be said to be co-extensive with that of moral worth.' Here we have the reversal of values. based on natural necessity. Under the stress of powerful emotion. the odious deed was cloaked under a fine phrase. we actually hear.6). Burnet and T a y l o r . and C r o s s and W o o / . as he says. that the stronger subdues others. 4. G r o t e . appalled at the success of wickedness and the wretchedness of many good men. he exclaims 'There is no justice. justice is non-existent'. though more often. In the Melian dialogue the Athenians accuse the Spartans of identifying justice with their own interest. besides the accusation of putting power before justice (3. Thrasymachus's purpose. in all its nakedness. M o r e recently Kerferd has maintained that T h r a s y m a c h u s is preaching a doctrine o f natural right. a m o n g others. The critics of strong-arm tactics in Thucydides usually contrast the two in some such accusation as ' Y o u follow your own interests while pretending to follow justice'. it was difficult for any Greek to say openly that he meant b y it simply the interest of the stronger party.39. T h o s e w h o have in the past taken a v i e w similar to that put forward here include. as I see it. of which Thucydides speaks in book 3.

This could be called either a reversal of current morality—the word 'justice' still conveying approval. Those are the facts: praise or blame does not enter into it. the supreme example of injustice' and this. 93 . 1 1 344a τ ή υ τ ι λ ι ω τ ά τ η ν άδικίαν. and the just subject will. is the interest of the stronger. holds the reins of power. ' i s ' and O u g h t ' . and for a ruling power to indulge pity and humanity is dangerous. to his own disadvantage. Yet 'he robs and plunders. Later. This is the background against which the interplay of actual and ideal. while for the most part denying that this is true and accusing their opponents of acting as if it were. that o f the tyrant who has seized power by a combination of force and treachery. in Thrasymachus's assertions must be seen. All governments make laws in their own interest. though scholars have claimed to resolve it b y subtle analysis. W r o n g ­ doers on a small scale are punished and disgraced. however. a factual statement: Ί maintain that justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger'. as Hermocrates said (p. the •trong are not to be blamed for seeking to rule.Thrasymachus right than their power to do so. were preaching in Thrasymachus's lifetime. One can fill in the rest from Thucydides: it is a matter of human nature. public nor private property'. and call that justice. but standing for something that hitherto no one would admit to approving—or a draining away of moral content from the word itself: what goes by the name of justice nowadays has nothing to do with right or wrong. Thrasymachus says that to judge the advantages o f injustice one should look at it in its most extreme form. serve the ruler and obey his laws. 344c τ ή ν δλην άδικίαν ήδικηκότα. at a particular moment. not on a small scale but wholesale. it is simply used to Hand for the interest of whoever. His is 'the complete. Thrasy­ machus begins by making. This is what Pericles and Cleon. nor on the other hand It there anything morally praiseworthy in their action. T o keep others under is simply profitable. later narrowed to 'the interest of the established government'. and many others. in scorn and anger. so that. concludes Thrasymachus. It accounts for a certain confusion which strikes a reader at once. respecting neither sacred nor pro­ fane. freer and more lordly than justice. then. 86 above). of necessity. Justice. proves my point that injustice is 'stronger. but this man is fawned on and called happy and blessed.

there is force in his remark (Studi.U. M. the label of cowardice or weakness fastened on a man who opposes an act of unjustified aggres­ sion). T h u s justice consists in obedience to laws w h i c h the ruling p o w e r ( T h r a s y m a c h u s ' s chosen example o f ' t h e s t r o n g e r ' ) has laid d o w n in his o w n interest.e. which is a form o f the doctrine of natural right. In one o f the most acute treatments of the question.g. The moral associations of the word dikaion—right or justice—are too strong for its equation with 'the interest of the stronger' to be con­ sistently maintained in the face of questioning. and that this rescues him from inconsistency and is indeed the key to understanding his thesis. not T h r a s y m a c h u s apparently) w h o say είναι τ ό δικαιάτατον ότι τις άν υικφ piajoptvos. But what consistency. 'another man's g o o d ' (343c). but the disadvantage o f the w e a k e r ' . unjusdy. as he puts it. justice ?3 Almost every commentator has noted the contrast in the discussion between the ideal and the actual. is there in contending that (a) justice is the interest of the ruling power (which Thrasy­ machus states simply and without qualification). w h e r e he speaks o f ' a g r e e ­ i n g w i t h T h r a s y m a c h u s that justice is another man's g o o d . It has been argued that Thrasymachus is looking at the matter only from the point of view of the ruled. i. o f those ( w h o e v e r they may b e . i. Such alteration suits the rough-and-tumble of politics and war (e. Salomon noted that the difference between the descriptive and the normative was still in nuce.The 'Nomos'—Physis* Antithesis and the interest of the stronger is justice. W e find it obvious.e. but there has been disagreement about the places in which one or the other standard is introduced. that in the troubled circumstances of the late fifth century established moral canons were ignored and men altered the accepted meanings of moral terms to conform to their actions. but to maintain the distinction may not have been so easy for either Plato or the 1 2 * T h o u g h I d o n o t agree altogether w i t h B i g n o n e ' s estimate o f T h r a s y m a c h u s . it may be asked. but (b) it is not just for the ruler to seek his own interest. A more consistent v i e w is that referred to b y Plato in Laws 10 (890a). ' * B y Kerferd in his article in D. All this illustrates the historical fact to which Thucydides is witness. 38) a b o u t him and C a l l i c l e s : ' B u t behind these t w o names o n e is m o r e conscious o f the politics than o f the p h i l o s o p h y o f the t i m e . whereas injustice is the profit and interest of oneself. but can hardly stand up to philosophical examination. and injustice is the advantage and profit o f oneself. ' i s ' and O u g h t ' . b e i n g the advantage o f the stronger. fact and value. B o t h sides o f the thesis are clearly stated b y A d i m a n t u s at 3 6 7 c . that for him justice consists in the subject seeking the interest of the ruler or.J. 3 94 .

i. G l a u c o n in liU reinforcement o f Thrasymachus's argument does say (361a) that the perfectly unjust man will » r e 10 il ill. e . or says that lie Is so called b y others. The most unjust man becomes the justest. Salomon ignores the fact that Thrasymachus himself introduced the concept of the ruler 'in the strict sense'. ) W h a t he says is that justice ' i s ' their Interest. act according to the l a w . Salomon himself saw Thrasymachus as engaged in purely descriptive sociology down to the place (344 a) where he comes to a change in the ruling power and characterizes the man who has successfully overturned the former laws as ' the greatest criminal'. but for the stronger to seek his o w n interest is unjust. and he did not intend his admission to lead to the moral conclusion in which the ingenuity of Socrates lands him. A s he sees life. and helps to s h o w u p the inconsistency in T h r a s y uidi hint's emotionally charged assertions: justice is the interest o f the stronger (equated w i t h the established g o v e r n m e n t ) .e.Thrasymachus historical Thrasymachus. since Thrasymachus was asking not how a man legislates when governing rightly but how in fact people do govern in this world. people will call him just when once he is in power. 14)). 'Here Thrasymachus not only explains. exercises his art in his own interests. With this interpretation of the latter part of Thrasymachus's remarks we may agree.11 hi. Y e t w h a t S a l o m o n says w o u l d seem t o be o n l y a legiti­ mate Inference from T h r a s y m a c h u s ' s w o r d s . d i e . ' ' In this last sentence S a l o m o n g o e s b e y o n d the text. an ideal. In claiming that Socrates cannot refute Thrasymachus b y speaking of what happens when a man rules rightly (καλώς. who is infallible. 347a). that is. : ' A c t justly. for no govern­ ment is in fact infallible. but in maintaining that up to then he has simply been giving 'sociological information'. Nevertheless the infallible or ideal ruler is still for Thrasymachus the one who legislates unerringly in his own interests. and the just man is the subject w h o in his simple-heartedness is content to s u b nrillnnlc himself and serve that interest. g . A clarification o f ideas is undertaken. the greatest possible reversal of values is going on before his eyes. 1 95 . In fairness t o Kerferd's exposition it must be said that T h r a s y m a c h u s nowhere calls the man or party in p o w e r ' j u s t ' . His rejection of the alternative offered him by Clitophon (that what he meant b y the Interest of the stronger was what the stronger thinks to be his in1 2 ' S t a c . ( T h e y call him ' h a p p y ' and ' b l e s t ' . Salomon invited contradiction.acquires the best reputation for justice. he j u d g e s ' : an attentive reader cannot overlook the scorn and bitterness with which lie speaks. b u t n o n o r m set u p such as. 1911. whether of the art of government or anything else. . It was this which gave Socrates the opening for his argument that no practitioner as such. lediglich soziologische Erkenntnisse geben w o l l e n ' (Savigny-Stifi. . not an actual ruler.

18:' T h r a s y m a c h u s ' defence introduces a contrast b e t w e e n the actual and the ideal w h i c h is ultimately fatal to his position. according to Socrates that that man is called just w h o o b e y s the l a w ) b u t also ττοιητέον -rots αρχόμενοι. in his interesting article in Phoenix. as thinking it is in his own interest rather to obey than to pay the penalty of disobedience. 1 96 . like Hobbes. E . if he obeys them. and M. and in the absence o f resources o f v o c a b u l a r y for m a k i n g philosophical distinctions such as are available to twentiethcentury philosophers. 46) that he ' m i g h t h a v e done better t o h a v e accepted the s u g g e s t i o n ' o f C l i t o p h o n . it m i g h t b e argued. though the act itself required of him brings benefit not to him but to the ruler to which may be added Taylor's remark that unlike Hobbes. s h o w s that in T h r a s y m a c h u s ' s o w n v i e w the subject ought to o b e y .. outbursts of bad temper. that is. to which he responds with insults (such as the suggestion that Socrates needs a nurse). since he does not regard 'right' as having any meaning.' C r o s s and W o o z l e y also say ( p . L . and an unsuccessful attempt to escape (344 d). Thrasymachus feels no need to justify the absolutism of the 'sovereign' by appeal to the 'social contract' by which he has been invested with his sovereign powers.terest. In so far as he represents a doctrine. (b) that the c o m p u l s i o n implied b y verbal adjectives o f this form w a s b y n o means exclusively m o r a l : it could refer to force o f circumstances or t o w h a t must be done t o achieve a specified aim ( w h a t Aristotle w a s later to call hypothetical necessity: examples o f this use appear at 361 c ) . 1967. that every man acts only with a view to his own private interest—if he makes laws. A. A s Joseph wrote: 1 He holds. T h i s . Phil. as thinking them in his own interest.e. makes the Sophist speak o u t o f character for the sake o f his o w n artistic design in the Republic. he has not to show that the sovereign has any right to obedience. t h o u g h Kerferd denies this o n the hypothesis (not v e r y different from theirs) that T h r a s y m a c h u s is preaching a doctrine o f the natural right o f the stronger. In reply it m i g h t be s a i d : (a) A t this stage o f t h o u g h t . S a l o m o n should also h a v e forestalled an objection that n o r m a t i v e language is introduced at 339 c and 341 a. Harrison. w h e r e T h r a s y m a c h u s agrees that w h a t the ruler decrees is n o t o n l y 'just' (i. exasperated by what he regards as the unreality and childishness of the discussion so far. bursts out with an angrily paradoxical statement of what he believes to be the facts of real life: ' There's your vaunted justice for y o u ! ' He is not prepared to see this somewhat rhetorical statement undergo a Socratic examination. it is that called by Kerferd ethical nihilism. O n the interpretation here put forward Thrasymachus. s o m e confusion b e t w e e n descriptive and prescriptive language w a s unavoidable and the complete d i v o r c e from the w o r d δίκαιον o f any suggestion o f obligation impossible. expresses the opinion that this is one o f the points at w h i c h P l a t o ' m a n i p u l a t e s ' T h r a s y m a c h u s . S o Joseph. whether rightly or wrongly) put him at the mercy of Socrates's dialectic.

o u r k n o w l e d g e o f the historical T h r a s y m a c h u s see further p p . Finally. 268. u. 1 6 4 : ' Unlike Callicles. T a y l o r . Phil. Here speaks the disillusioned moralist. by its presence in the soul'.' F o r P o p p e r both T h r a s y m a c h u s and Callicles are 'ethical nihilists' {Open Soc. yet we see men making no use of it' (Hermias = Thrasymachus fr. 1 7 . If they did. this interpretation of the Platonic Thrasymachus accords with one of the few pieces of independent testimony about the man himself. He wants to hear justice praised for its own sake. irrespective of rewards or other extraneous con­ sequences. that justice is good both in itself and for its consequences. G r o t e . by his ill-judged. 1 1 6 ) . ' W h y should w e b o t h e r about the g o d s . Rh. they would not neglect the greatest of human goods. Stud. For 97 . represents the y o u n g as saying. p . 8 D K ) . P . G o m p e r z think it impossible to take it seriously. b e l o w . Similarly A d i m a n t u s . Similar to G r o t e ' s is the m o r e recent statement o f J. 72. ill-tempered^ and paradoxical expression of what is essentially the same view lays himself open to the rigours of the Socratic elenchus. A. The theory is also. who in Plato's dialogue.1888 ed. A scholiast to the Phaedrus says that he 'wrote in one of his own speeches something to this effect: The gods do not see what goes on among men. 1947. 1 Z (c) Glaucon and Adimantus After the foregoing episode Glaucon (at the beginning of book 2) complains that Thrasymachus has been too easily put off. and what effect each has in and by itself. Rhet. He wants an explanation of 'what justice and injustice are. Yale Class.It I» by Nudiciont . 1 . 2946°. a little later in the Republic (365 d ) . essentially different from that of C'ullicles in the Gorgias. neither T h r a s y m a c h u s nor G l a u c o admits the existence o f a natural right at all. but in order to elicit this he must first face Socrates with the case against it in Joseph. and M. who preaches the right of the stronger to seek unlimited power and enjoyment for themselves as 'nature's law'. as Grote perceived. namely justice. Maguire. since they either d o n ' t exist or d o n ' t take any notice o f h u m a n affairs?' It is difficult to detect in this statement o f T h r a s y m a c h u s the O b v i o u s e x a g g e r a t i o n ' and 'manifest h y p e r b o l e ' w h i c h made H . A r i s t . 67. 50). He himself wants to hear Socrates prove his contention. Plato. In the general neglect of justice. v o l . ch. 1 1 T h r a s y m a c h u s ' s fiery temper is also independently attested. 3 1400 b 19.simple t o o b s e r v e that his power to e n f o r c e o b e d i e n c e is g u a r a n t e e d the fact that lie is the s o v e r e i g n . the man who tries to practise it can only be described as a 'noble simpleton' (348c). v n . History. so that it must be assigned to a Tratyviov or agonistic speech (S. which the strong and powerful not only do follow but ought to follow. p.

They say that to do wrong is in itself desirable. so. and even enjoy the favour of the gods through being able to offer them the most lavish sacrifices. as a compromise. is never practised from choice. friends and prosperity of every kind.' 1 98 . Stud!. A man capable of practising injustice with consistent success would be mad to allow himself to be bound b y such pacts. torture and execution that he has chosen the wrong path. Imagine a man endowed with the fabled ring of Gyges. Conversely the perfectly just man must not have the credit for his virtue: that would bring him honour and riches. putting before him all that 'people say' about its origin and nature. commit adultery. and the harm of suffering injury outweighs the advantage of doing it. 41 f. F o r a comparison w i t h H o b b e s see B i g n o n e . w e must look at them in their pure form. It is not hard to predict the fate o f the two men. 1 Thus what matters is not in fact to be. but to suffer it is not. It would completely obliterate the distinction between the good and the wicked. The one who has perfected his wickedness will obviously not be caught—that would brand him as a botcher—but will g o through life with an untarnished reputation for integrity.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis its full strength. The perfectly just will be taught by prison. while the perfectly unjust will be blessed with wealth. especially the quotation from De cive 1 . His virtue must be tested by suffering throughout life an undeserved reputation for wickedness. but only from necessity. Goodness. but to appear. and it is valued not as good in itself but through lack of the power to do wrong with impunity. which by conferring invisibility on the wearer at his pleasure enabled him to escape the consequences of his acts. Experience has proved the difficulty of seizing the fruits of wrongdoing and escaping the harm. for no one could resist the temptation to steal. under the fear of suffering injury oneself. 2 : ' S t a t u e n d u m igitur est originem magnarum et diuturnarum societatum n o n a mutua h o m i n u m benevolentia sed a mutuo metu exstitisse. men made laws and agreements binding themselves to do neither. just. T o compare the lives o f the just and unjust man. and one could never be sure that he was not virtuous for the sake of these perquisites rather than o f virtue itself. This is the origin and nature of justice. What these prescribed they called lawful and just. or justice.. and indulge in every sort of profitable or pleasurable wickedness. each perfect in his way.

99 1 . including posthumous torments in Hades.Nature and Necessity Here Adimantus joins in to add that Glaucon's case is only streng­ thened by the arguments of those who counsel justice.' The factual or amoral character of the current attitude to human behaviour is emphasized when. says Glaucon (359c). but. f>i. D K . nor do we. but for the weaker to be ruled and led by the stronger. . 4 . Instead we have a rather sordid mixture of greed. άνθρωπος τ ό μέν e»(Mit«Uow ύιηρφρονιΐν τό be μή vmtlKov Θαυμά3ειν. but. 11. ιΐιο Π:ΙΙ·Π:ΙΙΙ:Ι: in § 7 <° Λ ανθρωπεία φ ύ σ ι ς ) . in the often-repeated itatcment that it is human nature to do wrong and dominate others wherever possible. 1 . (d) Nature and necessity Self-interest. lliough to live justly is an evil. Even the gods give a miserable life to many just men.μ. we 1 Κ. These views are offered as those of the ordinary run of mankind. since they commend it not for its own sake but only for the reputation and rewards that it brings—honour from men and blessings from heaven in this world and the next—and deprecate injustice as leading to punish­ ment and misery. . and even assisting. Wc should not therefore expect to find any heroic Calliclean advocacy of the powerful and unscrupulous superman. 5 πέφυκε γ α ρ τ ό άνθρώπειον δια παντός αρχειν. Λΐιιιρ'ΐάνιιν (ι-|'. . . but they add that it is hard and laborious. though law or convention (nomos) conitrairis it to diverge into respect for equality. the only important thing is to appear just. 3· 45 ·3 ιτεφύκασί τε ά π α ν τ ε ς . for the strong to lead and the weak to follow. pettiness and fear. since the ring of Gyges is only a fairy-tale. t h e injuries inflicted b y the wicked. it is a necessary one. 290) : Mt is not in nature for the strong to be thwarted b y the weaker. 6. whereas self-indulgence and injustice are easy to practise and only apparently and by convention (nomos) disgraceful. 3 · 3 9 · 5 π έ φ υ κ ε . True. 3 . This is the kind o f realism 0 Γ fact-facing which w e meet in Thucydides. envy. Every­ one would take an unjust advantage of his fellows if he could. is what every nature (physis) naturally pursues as a good. and in the Sophist Gorgias (He/. this involves keeping on the whole within the bounds o f law and conventional morality. Everyone pays lip-service to justice as a fine thing.. and can be swayed by lacrifices. 7 Ο . rites and incantations into condoning. as often. χρησάμενοι τ ή ανθρωπεία φύσει ώ σ τ ε I il|>ujv αρχιιν. The 'perfectly unjust man' is an un­ attainable ideal.

11. F o r more o n this topic see v o l .3 . Ananke fills the clouds with moisture and governs the motions by which they collide and cause thunder. the Pythagoreans) with almost mystical or theo­ logical overtones. t h o u g h they used it in a physiological rather than an ethical sense. π . which they represent as an attempt to thwart natural forces that is rightly doomed to failure.105. Necessity (ananke) as a cosmological force runs right through Presocratic thought.The 'Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis find nature coupled with the idea of necessity.3 In a fragment of Euripides 'the necessary' 1 2 * See v o l . in a passage setting forth the advantages of breaking the law if one can escape detection. (it. ( D K 11.2) the Athenians claim that the rule of the stronger occurs ' b y natural necessity' (ύττό φύσεως άνοτ/καίας). and in emphasizing our common humanity against the artificiality o f racial distinctions he speaks of breathing and eating as activities which are 'naturally necessary to all men'. p. 278) that the begetting of children is looked upon as one of the necessities arising from nature. 346f. which reached its culmination in Leucippus and Democritus. 107 ff. Later in the play (1075) the Unjust Argument speaks of 'the necessities o f nature' with reference to adultery. 353). fr. in the Western tradition (Parmenides. 4 1 5 . and calls shamelessness and self-indulgence 'exercising one's nature'. 3 IOO . appearing as a mindless natural force equated with the chance collisions of the atoms and the cosmic vortices which they form. and the author of this necessity is no longer a personal Zeus but 'the celestial whirl' {Clouds 376ff. c o l . 2. 44 A . b e l o w . In the Melian dialogue (Thuc. but in Ionian rationalism. A n t i p h o n . This association of necessity with nature is used as an argument by the opponents of nomos. that the dictates of law are artificially im­ posed by human agreement. T w o passages in the Clouds of Aristophanes parody the jargon of the scientists and illustrate the way in which it was transferred to human life as a justification for im­ morality. 3 5 1 . Thus in Antiphon we read. * References in the Hippocratic writers t o the φύσι. 5. T h e s e are dealt w i t h fully o n p p . άνθρώ-irou no d o u b t also helped in the transfer o f the w o r d from the constitution o f the universe to the nature o f man. whereas those o f nature are necessary just because they have grown up naturally. 23fT. 15ft'.). D e m o ­ critus himself made the transfer to human life in a less provocative way when he said (fr. c o l .) and 44 B . 1. Empedocles. and this and similar phrases are a reminder of the influence on ethics of the natural science of the day.

94> · 3> a b o v e ) . are men o f a different stamp from T h r a s y m a c h u s . n. and apply to humanity no less than to the world at large. were those to whom this seemed not only inevitable but right and proper. 4) that the Use o f ανάγκη as a c o s m o g o n i c a l force b y L e u c i p p u s and D e m o c r i t u s is irrelevant to its e m p l o y ­ ment b y the Sophists). Ph. says G l a u c o n in the Republic. as if there were 3 ' Fr. T h e quotation is from the earlier Hippolytus. and summarized in the Laws in the words (890 a ) : These views are held by men who in the eyes of the young appear wise. N. Is submitted to b y most men as necessary. 433 N a u c k . 126. ' These. 2 1 (4) THE U P H O L D E R S OF 'PHYSIS' Those who attacked nomos as an unjustified curb on the operations of physis did so from two quite different points of view. 125 f. n. then. Hence young men fall into irreligion. The conclusion to be drawn is that since the laws of nature are inexorable. the compulsion imposed b y law and convention. who say that the height of justice is a con­ quest won by force. u. (a) Selfish Side by side with those who saw in history proof of the fact that it Was human nature for both states and individuals to behave selfishly and tyrannically. like Thucydides and (if I am right) Thrasymachus. 5). Εγωγε φημί καΐ νόμον y e μή σέβειν {ν τοίσι SEIVOIS τ ώ ν αναγκαίων ττλέον. Others drew the positive and practical conclusion that to contravene 'nature's laws' must inevitably be harm­ ful.Might is Right limply replaces physis as the contrary of nomos. men will inevitably follow them unless prevented by the intervention of nomos. this was simply a fact which had to be accepted. if given the chance. η ΙΟΙ . and they ought to be actively followed whenever possible. For them the tyrant was not only an inescapable fact but an ideal. u. N. t h e y n o d o u b t refer t o Phaedra's g u i l t y passion. but n o t accepted as good (from the point o f v i e w o f the Individual's self-interest). It should be noted that ' n e c e s s a r y ' can be applied quite differently t o hoxiiu Itself. (I) Callicles: 'physis' as the right of the stronger. both prose-writers and poets. For some. that o f nomos contingent. T h i s . so that τ ά iverywita correspond to the φύσεως άνάγκαι o f Clouds 1075. ( t h o u g h I cannot agree w h e n he says (126. Heinimann. T h e compulsion o f nature is absolute. and w h o e v e r speaks the w o r d s (see o n this Helnlmunn. The outstanding ex­ position of this ethic is that presented b y Plato in his Gorgias under the nime of Callicles. Ph. which may be called the selfish or individualistic and the humanitarian. ' C f . for w h o m t y r a n n y w a s f| ΐ ι λ ι ω τ ά τ η αδικία and the tyrant την δλην άδικίαν ήδικηκώ$ (p.

W h y . t h o u g h certainly to be classed as a Sophist (p.m a c h u s o f a hot-tempered character (cf. 13) that 'praise o f φύσις is usually associated with an aristocratic bias. laughed. and for various opinions also Untersteiner. in his anxiety to present in all its brutality the case that he wishes to demolish. 1. Probably he existed. 1400b 1 9 ) . it w a s said. D i o . 1 z B y 'authentic detail' I mean that he is assigned to a real deme and g i v e n historical characters as his friends and acquaintances. 4 and his pride in his descent is mentioned at 5i2d. He dismisses those ' who profess to educate men in arete' as a worthless lot. Callicles is a somewhat mysterious figure. D o d d s remarks (Gorgias. no Sophist himself. T h r e e v i e w s are possible and h a v e been h e l d : ( i ) he is purely fictitious. See ch. M o s t G r e e k names h a v e a transparent meaning. and they can be v e r y puzzling. but the situation w a s perhaps rather more complex. D o d d s conjectures that a man 'so ambitious and so dangerously frank* m a y well h a v e lost his life in the troubled years at the end o f the fifth century. Rhet. outbreaks of civil discord as men are attracted to the 'right life according to nature'. n. A r . Yet he is described with an amount of authentic detail which makes it difficult to believe that he is fictitious. See D o d d s . n. and would certainly blush as hotly as young Hippocrates in the Protagoras at the thought of joining their profession. T h e last is the m o s t probable. Plato may well have taken elements from different sources and built up in the person of Callicles a some­ what stylized presentation of the doctrine 'might is right' in its most extreme form.3 the son o f Plato's stepfather Pyrilampes.. 3 4 1 I02 . S o m e seem t o o appropriate to b e true. a b o v e ) . (3) he is a historical figure. Sophists. 40. 344. before he had time t o make his mark on history.k n o w n character like Critias or Alcibiades.The Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis no gods such as the law enjoins us to believe in. should a man o f ancient and n o b l e family call his son D e m o s ? P o s s i b l y also b y his championship o f φύσις itself. o n the other hand. D e m o . and w h o s e moderation and respect for nomos w o u l d n o t h a v e c o m m e n d e d themselves to him. e. and was known to have held views o f the kind which Plato ascribes to him. for apart from his appearance as a character in Plato's dialogue he has left no trace in recorded history.g. at those w h o made this profession (Meno 95 c). ιζί. 39. too. Hence. and friendship with Andron. Aristo-teles o f a teleological philosopher. Callicles m a y h a v e been thinking especially o f Protagoras.p e i t h e s o f an atheist-hunter. and. * 520a. which plainly expressed means a life of domination over one's fellows and refusal to serve others as law and custom (nomos) demand. χ below. from Pindar omvaida'. who was one of the Four Hundred set up in the oligarchic revolution of 4 1 1 . Gorgias. (2) the name is a mask for a w e l l . G o r g i a s himself. His aristocratic and oligarchic connexions are indicated b y his liaison with Demos. though. p. w h o emphatically did s o .s t h e n e s o f the most famous orator o f his day. though acting as host to Gorgias. He is a wealthy and aristocratic young man. T h r a s y . just entering on public life (515 a).

and the more powerful than the less powerful. * (At 488b-d. Those who establish the conventions and make the laws are 'the weaker. \ΟΤ. Gorg. Nature says it is just for the better to have more than the worse. but if I he wicked can escape punishment they are prosperous and happy. Adimantus came nearer to Callicles when he argued that it is the weak who uphold justice (in the conventional sense of course) and censure injustice. he is compelled to contradict himself. thi ft n i r p u K * γ ά ρ oO τό κριίσσον υ π ό τοΰ ήσσονος κωλΟεσθαι αλλά τό ήσσον Οπό τ ο ΰ κρείσσονος Α|ιχιυΟαι κυΐ αγ*σϋαι. It is they w h o say that self-advancement is disgraceful and unjust. It must be remembered that Callicles is using the w o r d nomos for bulb conventional behaviour and positive law. 471a). he has played into Socrates's hands. for he has enough conventional morality left in him to agree that. 56 f. Nonsense.Callicles Callicles takes up the argument with Socrates after the discom­ fiture of Gorgias's young and impetuous pupil Polus. says Callicles. That is the conventional view. superior mill wronger—as s y n o n y m o u s . κρείττων and Ισχυρότερο. who had tried to maintain the same thesis as Thrasymachus. It is nevertheless dishonourable and blameworthy. 1 . who laid that those who make the laws are the stronger party. and that the disgrace attached to injustice is only a matter of nomos. whether tyrant. if a mail is prevented b y shame from saying what he thinks. that 'many achieve happiness through injustice' (47od). the Great King of Persia) as his examples: they are without doubt evil-doers (άδικοι. not through conviction but because o f their own impotence. that is. 338c). ) T h i s sentence and the next (483 c—d) show clearly the influence 11I < iulliilcs's association with Gorgias (if indeed at this point he is more than a mouthpiece llliiuigli which Plato is reproducing the unscrupulous rhetoric of Gorgias himself). Cf. as Callicles points out. Nature and convention are generally in opposition. Callicles says he is using βελτίων.—better. Polus was wrong to grant Socrates his contention that to commit injustice was more blameworthy than to suffer it. for using justice and injustice ol TOOS vouous τιθέμενοι. whereas wickedness is a good thing for the wicked man. oligarchy or democracy (Rep. See pp. By calling them wicked. the majority'. as Polus did. so that. and equate injustice with the wish to have more than others. 1 2 We may note here the formal contradiction of Thrasymachus. above. but to put it forward as the true one is vulgar and mean. Like Thrasymachus also Polus chose tyrants (Archelaus of Macedon. But both o f these would earn Callicles's censure.

since 'the many' make and enforce the laws. H e r e also the natural philosophers m a y h a v e made a contribution. he continues. Our unnatural laws. 1 0 5 . T h u c . 2 3 4 1 ΙΟ4 . teaching them that equality is fine and just. C o m p a r e D e m o c r i t u s ' s theory that men learned certain arts b y imitation o f the beasts ( v o l . though not according to the laws we men lay down. and therefore on Callicles's argument what they decree is naturally right. 5 . Callicles goes on. and of course in neither of its later senses.). Herodotus in quoting an instance expressly excludes the Greeks (2. neither the lex naturae which has had a long history in ethical and legal theory from the Stoics and Cicero down to modern times nor the scientists' laws of nature which are 'simply observed uniformities'. if y o u mean the law of nature. but. it is used as a deliberate paradox. if a character naturally strong enough were to arise. T h e v e r y different v i e w s o f someone w h o w a s prepared t o apply the w o r d ' j u s t ' to w h a t the w o r l d considers unjust may be some additional evidence that his avoidance o f committal w a s deliberate. they are the stronger and better element (Callicles having equated these two epithets himself). and the Athenians in Thucydides's Melian dialogue came close to it even verbally. break his cage and turn master instead of slave. In this first appearance o f the phrase 'law of nature'. for example the behaviour of animals and o f men collectively as states and races. but it is 2 4 1 1 T h r a s y m a c h u s . 11. 86 a b o v e .. 90 a b o v e ) . w e m a y remember. Socrates tries to make him retreat at least to the position of the Platonic Thrasymachus by pointing out that in a democracy. like a young lion he would shake off these fetters.The 'Nomos' —Physis' Antithesis in their conventional senses.3 The bestial criterion of natural behaviour (taking the animals as models) was also known in the fifth century.64). mould our best men from their youth up. but it is parodied more than once in Aristophanes {Clouds 14271!*. when they put forward the principle that he should rule who can as a matter of 'natural necessity' and at the same time an eternal law. See D o d d s ' s note o n Gorgias 4 8 3 6 3 . 2 . point to the fact that the criterion of justice is for the stronger to get the better of the weaker. p . Darius and Xerxes in invading other people's territory were acting according to the nature of justice— according to law too. Then nature's justice would shine forth in all its glory. w o u l d n o t admit that h e deemed injustice n o t o n l y profitable but also honourable and virtuous (p. Birds 753ff. But it epitomized an attitude current already in the late fifth century. Many things. 4 7 4 ) .

t%wrt. 5»>yf. 3 . in which Socrates first gets Callicles to agree that his doctrine is the extreme hedonism which actually Identifies pleasure and the good. The common run of men condemn this indulgence only out of shame at their own incapacity for It. arguments and reproaches of others. not a non­ descript and slavish rabble. T i m e . j o o d σωφροσύνην δέ άνανδρίαν καλούντε. and the w o r d s o f Eteocles in Euripides. human agreements contrary to nature. ΙνομΙυϋη . is ridiculous. When he said that the stronger were the better he meant better—naturally better men (492 a). Such men should rule. τοΰλασσον έλαβε. It is referred to again b y l*l**lo ut JU/>. and good practical sense in regard to the affairs of the state (491c). C f . . wantonness and freedom from restraint. τό δέ σώφρον τοΰ άνανδρου πρόσχημα. if backed by strength.. and it is just that the rulers should be better off than the rest. Callicles replies in a burst of anger that Socrates is talking nonsense and tripping him up over words. that the strong In 1 lie sense g i v e n to ανδρεία here Plato is again introducing an idea that w a s already W i l r n t in the fifth century. Invited by Socrates to amend his statement of who should be master and get their own way he says he means the better and wiser. W e need not for the present concern ourselves with the rest of the discussion. For a man with power over others nothing could be worse or more disgraceful than self-control and respect for the laws. all the rest is fine talk. io5 1 .Callicles and Socrates the many who insist that justice means equal rights for all and to Inflict injury is more dishonourable than to suffer it. then drives him from his position b y •llock tactics until he makes a shameless volte-face and says he has Hot been in earnest: of course he believes that some pleasures are good ind others bad. Worthless nonsense. The truth is this: luxury. The idea that they should 'rule themselves'. and it consists simply in this. fervently and eloquently preached. άπολέσα. those who display courage. ανδρεία φιλέταιρο. that is. therefore all this must be right according to nature and not only to nomos. display selfcontrol. ώνανδρία yap τό πλέον δστι. . and by his courage and practical sense be capable of gratifying them to the full. Natural goodness and justice decree that the mun who would live rightly must not check his desires but let them grow as great as possible. 8 2 . that is. constitute excellence {arete) and happiness. There is such a thing as natural justice. 4 τόλμα μέν yap α λ ό γ ι σ τ ο . 1 1 lere then at last is the championship of physis against nomos in its extreme form.

which perhaps only his acquaintance with Socrates had repressed. It is necessary to emphasize this because there is a curious theory that Plato felt a secret sympathy for Callicles. and nature intends him to get all he wants. Existing human nomoi are utterly unnatural. 140). from the time when as an eager young follower of Socrates he learned from him that 'no man voluntarily does w r o n g ' (in the ordinary sense) to the end of his life when he opposed it once again in the Laws and. The truly just man is not the democrat. 9). 4 7 1 . One may more easily associate oneself with the mild protest of Levinson (Defense of P. Sophists. Dodds agrees with this to the extent that. 1965. or as G. T h e subjective character o f such judgments m a y be s h o w n b y c o m ­ paring the impressions made b y the same passage on t w o critics. Gorgias. and a man o f c u l t u r e : to Jaeger all this is 'bitter i r o n y ' . n.4 8 7 b as 'the true t o u c h s t o n e ' . and Highct and Rensi quoted b y Untersteiner. turned cosmogonist himself in the Timaeus to undermine its deepest foundations. Callicles is 'a portrait of Plato's rejected s e l f . who stood for something deeply implanted in his own nature. he states them with the ease and sympathy o f a man who has suppressed them in himself. w h i c h ' s h o w s the seriousness o f the situation here. but the ruthless tyrant. Might is right. Jaeger speaks o f ' t h e brutally menacing tone o f Callicles'. 'the conflict SocratesCallicles in the Gorgias is not a conflict between two individuals but one which occurs within a single mind'. D o d d s takes at its face value Socrates's praise o f Callicles at 4 8 6 d . Rensi put it. or has yet to suppress them'. 'Although he is fundamentally opposed to the views o f Callicles. because they represent the attempt of the weak and worthless many to thwart the purpose of nature that the strong man should prevail. since its roots were in the natural science of the time. and the irrccon cilable spiritual enmity between the protagonists o f each side' (Jhid. 13 f. D o d d s and Jaeger. This is the morality against which Plato resolutely and undeviatingly set his face. 141I. his portrait o f Callicles 'not only has warmth and vitality but is tinged with a kind of regretful affection'. 40. II. nor the constitutional monarch. D o d d s . because Plato felt ' a certain sympathy' for men of the Calliclean stamp. Neumann again sees Socrates's 'unfeigned affection for his y o u n g friend' in such expressions as ώ φίλη κεφαλή in 5 1 3 c 2 (ΤΑΡΑ. A t 486 a l> D o d d s sees Callicles expressing a sincere concern for Socrates's safety. 472) that 'it is not sound to identify Plato with those of his characters 1 2 T h e quotations are from H . In contrast to the 'affection' in the portrait ( w h i c h is indeed difficult to detect). 286. 1 1 I06 . whereas to Jaeger the same w o r d s are ' a scarcely concealed threat o f state sanctions against h i m ' (Paideia 11. n. Defense of P. honest and frank. K e l s e n as cited b y L e v i n s o n . 344.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis man should live to the utmost of his powers and give free play to his desires.

This eloquence. *«>/ particularly of his connexion with Greek literature and thought. 3 8 8 . W e are not at the moment concerned with the question whether the following views. 5 8 7 . quibbling. K n i g h t quotes a Ιιιιιμ extract from C a l l k l c s ' s speech in the Gorgias. are hi* own. Drivelling nonsense. ΙΟ7 . The apostle of the Herrenmoral. but it ahould be no news to us that Plato was a superb dramatic artist. W h a t Nietzsche called the Sophist-culture w a s for h i m ' t h i s priceless BWvenient in the midst o f the moral. and the dialogue ends with mutual expressions of esteem. That is not surprising. but scarcely relevant. convinced the young Nietzsche. where Socrates is talking to a man for whom. or whether he is simply setting forth for examination' different ' D o d d s . they w e r e JIW« or ( d o not k n o w what. Here on the other hand is unmistakable bitterness and ill-temper. all this is no doubt compatible with the existence of a repressed Callicles in Plato himself. H . 1 (II) Antiphon: 'physis' as enlightened self-interest. the Wille iur Macht and Umwertung aller Werte did not need much convincing. hut seen in the context of his whole philosophy it appears highly im­ probable. 1 4 6 o f A . VMruL. adds Dodds. at the beginning o f his informative appendix o n Socrates. lie has a real respect. to quote Dodds again. while Socrates's reasoning left him cold. whereas Socrates became for him. Psychologically considered. ' w e r e G r e e k s : w h e n Socrates and Plato t o o k the side o f virtue and justice. T h e s e passages •tit cjiioted on p . and Socrates returns as (j. J. ' T h e S o p h i s t s ' . which occur in some papyrus fragments of Antiphon's On Truth. Some aspects of the life and work of Nietzsche. O n p p .Callicles and Plato whom he abhors'. gets irritated. the atmosphere one of friendliness and tolerance. 3 4 1 f.' N o w o n d e r it w a s Callicles w h o appealed to h i m . for he was blood-brother to Callicles. It is instructive to compare the tone of the con­ versation here with that in the Protagoras. When Protagoras occasionally. and the cheap scoring of debating points are some of the accusations which Callicles hurls at Socrates.ood as he gets. and friends of both are at hand to put things right between them with soothing words. Gorgias.9 1 ) . h» M i d . and justifiably. mob-oratory. Dodds sees even greater significance in 'the powerful and disturbing eloquence that Plato has bestowed on Callicles'. 'a fountain-head of false morality'. The criticism is good-humoured. Sec also Nestle. violence. I 4 7 f . he says that the link between Nietzsche and Callicles )>·· received little attention from the exponents o f Nietzsche. though he disagrees with him on fundamentals. K n i g h t ' s b o o k . small-mindedness. Socrates relaxes his pressure. ('•IIU'I™ and Nietzsche (Gorgias.and ideal-swindle o f the Socratic s c h o o l s ' . w h i c h m i g h t perhaps h a v e ItMii mentioned b y D o d d s w h e n .

w o u l d caricature rather than reproduce his style. T h a t OP 1364 is an extract from A n t i p h o n ' s w o r k On Truth is fortunately established b y an attested quotation in Harpocration. 1 (Antiphon fr. A n t i p h o n himself will be considered in detail later (pp. 2. O m i t t i n g 1364 fr. 101 ff. This has been argued because they seem to many scholars to contradict the more conventional morality advocated b y Antiphon elsewhere. The first question may be left because for the present discussion it is enough that they represent views current in the fifth century. which in practice may lead sometimes to a selfish precept ('ignore nomos in your personal behaviour if you can avoid being found out'). The following is a paraphrased version of the papyrus fragments. x i . for the hurt is not merely. 122). as with the law­ breaker. 11. 269) is surely hypercritical. sometimes to a large humanity ('the distinction between Greeks and barbarians is only a matter of nomas'). i 5 2 f . fr. but as its critic. n. 240.The *Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis views of the just taken from tradition or contemporary polemics'. 290 b e l o w . T h e papyri are translated into English b y the editors o f the OP and into Italian (with textual notes) b y B i g n o n e . and tend t o obscure the argument. it is at least natural and practical to advise o v e r t c o n f o r m i t y so l o n g as one lives in a c o m m u n i t y g o v e r n e d b y law. cit. T h a t they contain n o t h i n g directly hostile to nomos is the opinion of. 44 A D K ) : justice consists in not transgressing the laws and usages (νόμιμα) of one's state. 92. T o l e r a b l e in G r e e k . and his repetitions o f a point in different w o r d s .). 56 ff. t h e y can scarcely be rendered in anything like natural English. Philol. Whether or not they are immoral and hostile to nomos should emerge as we look at them. and cf. 1 2 OP 1364. a m o n g others. on nature's o w n principle o f maximizing one's personal pleasure and comfort and minimizing pain and inconvenience.T. a realistic but socially minded utilitarian'. L. p.. toe. 285 ff. It may seem rather that hostility to nomos is their one constant feature. 27!'. Soc.. Therefore the most profit­ able means of manipulating justice is to respect the laws when witnesses are present but otherwise to follow the precepts of nature. C f . χρήσθαι. Greene (Moira. Hence to break the laws without detection does one no harm. Camb. they lack the inevitability of natural growth. Laws are artificial compacts. for similar interpretations see ibid. See OP. Studi. a matter of appearance or reputation but of reality. T o call this inconsistent with the advice to follow nature (Kerferd. 1956—7. w h i c h is discussed o n pp. Justice in 4 3 T h a t the p a p y r u s fragments are t h r o u g h o u t discussing the v i e w s o f others is argued b y Kerferd in Proc. because the passages that we are about to consider do not reveal their author 'as the immoral foe of nomos and social control. or note at b o t t o m o f D K . Alternatively it has been maintained that there is no contradiction. H a v e l o c k . 3 3 4 1 108 . I f not strictly logical. whereas any attempt to violate the inborn dictates of nature is harmful irrespective of discovery by others. 346. T o translate in full A n t i p h o n ' s spate o f rhetorical antitheses.

1 . though they defend them­ selves. and those w h o give their opponents the opportunity to bind them­ selves with an oath while refraining from doing so themselves. see Arist. Kerferd notes (toe. in its natural sense it means freedom. completely ignores this passage. where w e should g o . hear or do. the other unprofitable. Many o f these actions are against nature. not harm. It does not prevent the attack nor the victim's suffering. ( C f . . It cannot be said that what causes pain is more beneficial than what brings pleasure . Pains do not assist nature more than pleasures. and A n t i p h o n ' s n o r m must b e restricted to τ ά φύσει ξυμφέροντα. If the laws protected such behaviour and inflicted loss on those w h o did otherwise. ' A similarly hedonistic doctrine is criticized as A n t i p h o n ' s in X e n . and death is o n l y intro­ duced as a ' p o l a r e x p r e s s i o n ' and for the sake o f rhetorical antithesis. b o t h representing a 'philanthropic utilitarianism'. 29) says. A victim must persuade the court that he has been injured. cit.) T h i s seems m o r e reasonable than Stcnzel's contention (RE Suppl. those w h o cherish parents w h o have treated them ill. p. In the w h o l e o f his essay in Studi sulpensiero antico there is n o mention o f this statement that such behaviour as refusing to attack others except in self-defence. f o r the procedure o f oath-taking. Life and death are both natural. N. S. Mem. also Heinimann. But 'benefit' as the law understands it is a drag on nature. u. i v . but as it is. 3 1 ) that evidently not ever y t h i n g that is φύσει is advantageous. legal justice is not strong enough for this. and nature's are to b e preferred. . is inimical to that ' n a t u r e ' w h i c h w a s A n t i p h o n ' s ideal. . unci treating undeserving parents well.v. cit. . (the relevance o f w h i c h w a s b r o u g h t to m y notice b y Mr J. Rhct. one can imagine w h a t h a v o c Socrates w o u l d make w i t h such imprecise language! Kerferd (loc. Morrison). (See L S J . I 6. . . T h e argument seems to be that both nature and l a w m a y produce harm or g o o d (even an upholder o f nature like A n t i p h o n could hardly deny the occurrence o f natural disasters like earthquakes and floods). 36) that all die emphasis is o n life. ' ) . 1 2 3 4 ' T a k i n g άττό as partitive in sense. because they involve more pain than pleasure. those w h o . 56 a b o v e . but so far as conformity to nature is concerned what they forbid is as good as what they enjoin. w i t h special reference to this clause. it might be worth while to obey them. that w h a t is mentioned here g o e s b e y o n d w h a t the laws require. in his attempted demonstration that there is a close affinity b e t w e e n the doctrines o f the t w o w o r k s On Truth and On Concord. ( C f . the one beneficial to men. and represents therefore a third standard o f action distinct from b o t h nature and the laws. s. Ph. . 3 4 ΙΟ9 . for a •ocially recognized d u t y like that o f adult sons and daughters to support their parents (one o f the most deeply rooted o f any in G r e e k society) was a nomos as m u c h as any positively enacted law. never take the offensive. . ) Bignone. A s C r o i s e t nays. b u t that they have different standards o f w h a t is g o o d and bad. and what is truly beneficial ought to help. 137. and his attacker has equal facilities to deny i t . and when redress is sought it favours the oppressor as much as the oppressed. 6 . B u t there w o u l d b e n o third standard in A n t i p h o n ' s mind. [gap o f seven lines in the p a p y r u s ] .) A d m i t t e d l y it is more usually under­ stood as causative ('results from things b e n e f i c i a l . i377a8lT.Antiphon: Follow Nature not Law the legal sense is for the most part at odds with nature. and ill treatment when the reverse is possible. and the advantages or disadvantages o f adopting a parti­ cular course. even what w e should desire [one thinks o f the tenth commandment]. T h e laws prescribe what w e should see.

x v . 353)r Justice is believed to be something good. Studi. and may suffer injury in return.) that the same hand m a y have added breathings. One has only to think what impression we should have of Plato if our knowledge of the Republic were limited to some fragments of Glaucon's speech (for example.. K r a n z . Its subject and style leave n o reasonable d o u b t o f the author. as well as helpful in human relations.) Sinclair w r o t e (Gr. and to bear true witness about each other is normally considered just.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis OP 1797 (still a part of fr. <έττεΙττε)ρ W i l a m o w i t z . Th. T h e r e is n o conclusive external evidence for the authorship o f tins fragment. whatever their outcome. though their incompleteness makes it difficult to say how far they represent the opinions of Antiphon himself. as there is for the previous one. Here we are presented with three notions o f justice. even if truthful. the sentence at 359c: 'It is natural for every man to pursue selfish ambition as a good. 1 5 3 b e l o w ) 'represents the conclusion o f the theory d e v e l o p e d in OP 1 7 9 7 ' . At least he will have to be on his guard against the hatred of the other. for a decision which benefits one side injures the other. is w h a t G l a u c o n in the Republic ( 3 5 9 a) describes as the ordinary man's v i e w o f the nature o f justice. 9 8 . 7 2 . D i e i s and B i g n o n e preferred <είττε)ρ as corresponding better to the space to be filled. Pol. Thus wrong is involved on both sides. and that 1 7 9 7 m a y even be a later part o f the same roll as 1 3 6 4 . and v e r y little o f the w o r k in w h i c h it occurred. 2 (for w h i c h see p . 1 ) : ' I t makes all the difference to our k n o w l e d g e o f A n t i p h o n ' s o w n doctrine w h e t h e r the missing letters are t o b e restored ε!ττε)ρ o r ίπε1πε)ρ. if the criterion of justice is that one should inflict no injury on another unless first injured oneself. T h i s . inflicts injury on the man against whom he testifies. t h o u g h it b e l o n g e d to the same find and the editors suggest (OP. 11. ( T h e original editors supplied <καί ya>p. One must conclude that trial. whom he has made his enemy. which have sometimes been thought to be irreconcilable and so necessarily of diverse origins. 9 8 a b o v e ) . it will be remembered. 2 6 7 . and it is in a different hand. 3 1 1 I ΙΟ . n.. judgment and arbitration are not just. a c o m p r o m i s e solution based on a ' social c o m p a c t ' : σννΟέσθαι άλλήλοις μήτ' άδικεϊυ μήτ' άδικεϊσθσι (ρ.' B u t either can equally well introduce the writer's o w n o p i n i o n . O n the identification o f the fragment see also B i g n o n e . Untersteiner (Sophists. 2 3 1 These fragments are invaluable as a source for contemporary moral views. but it is n o t clear to m e h o w the cosmopolitanism o f 1 3 6 4 fr.1 0 0 . The witness. but nomos seduces us into a respect for equality') without the explanation that he is temporarily acting as devil's advocate in order to have the case demolished by Socrates. and to call such acts just cannot be reconciled with the principle that it is just neither to inflict nor to suffer injury. and if εϊττερ is correct I am sure it does s o . 1 1 9 f. 44 in DK. accents and marks o f quantity in both. though that man has not injured him. But it will not be just. 1 2 7 ) thinks that the fragment came between the t w o fragments o f 1 3 6 4 . n.

criticism. In nature. life. 1 προσήκει νόμω ορίσαι τ ό δίκαιον. Self-interest demands that a man conform only when he would otherwise be found out and punished. obedience to the laws makes for unity. 1 2 . though given the ring of Gyges no one would or should be virtuous. ) t h o u g h t Protagoras w a s the object o f A n t i p h o n ' s III . are belittled as matters of human agreement. strength and happiness. also Lysias. and the arrival of pede Poena claudo is of small use to a murdered man. 1 9 άνθρωποι. This is supported by a further argument. These are certainly not Antiphon's' dictates of nature'. and death is not. C f . βίκαια for that city as l o n g as they are pp. but here it is obviously believed that opportunities for defying nomos undetected do occur and should be seized. 1 6 7 c . as in Glaucon's account. 1 3 7 . Corporately. 4 . and for the individual it wins friendship and trust and (in direct contradic­ tion to Antiphon) affords the best chance of victory in the courts. lind δίκαια b y Protagoras (in P l a t o . namely that 'lawful and just are the same thing'. Law and nature have different ideals. In the view out­ lined by Glaucon. freedom and pleasures are beneficial. 1 7 2 a ) is rather different: the l a w s o f a city are in force. and 7 4 f . The definition of justice here criticized sounds at first exactly like that quoted with strong approval by Socrates in Xenophon's Memora­ bilia ( 4 . but in contrast to Antiphon Socrates goes on to include the 'unwritten laws' which are of universal application and agreed b y him and Hippias to be divinely ordained. There too laws are admitted to be created simply b y the citizens agreeing on what ought to be done and what not. yet Socrates claims that obedience to them is profitable and rewarding to the individual. B i g n o n e (Studi. 2 . the accepted virtues should be practised for fear of worse. but are not necessarily συμφέροντα. Worse than that. 1 7 2 b e l o w . yet the merits of this conception of justice are argued for at some length. and (like Antiphon with his decrees o f nature) that unlike human laws they cannot be flouted with impunity (p. that the law cannot protect its own.1 3 ) . for they include the duty of honouring one's parents and the requiting o f benefits. These.Antiphon: Three Views of Justice i. Conformity to the laws and customs of one's state. the courts in fact give an equal chance to offender and victim. but law enforces things that are painful and imposes artificial restraints on nature. All this applies to positively enacted laws. These are not truly beneficial. 1 C f . T h e equation o f νόμιμα Theaet. 119 below). It only acts after the event.

for the way in which he introduces them at the beginning and end of his argument that to testify against a man is 'not just' implies they are identical or closely similar. you accept it as a principle of right action. where 1 2 1 1 B y B i g n o n e and Untersteiner. but it is not in anyone's power to ensure that no other man wrongs him. the Forms). y o u immediately find yourself in conflict with another generally accepted principle. In OP 1364. he claims that to refrain from doing an injury except in self-defence is against nature. 251. so the best practical expression of justice is never to take the initiative in wrongdoing. Complete freedom from wrong­ doing. and obviously if this were universally observed the other would follow: if no one acted save in self-defence. either as doer or sufferer. It has been held that these two definitions of justice conflict. but this does not prevent him from pointing out in 1797 that. It might be more apt to compare 359a. T o do no injury except in requital for an injury received. But it cannot have seemed so to Anti­ phon. there would be no attacks to make self-defence necessary. For Untersteiner the state in which injustice is neither inflicted nor suffered 'corresponds to the highest goal of the spirit'. 100 and Soph. like most people. that whoever has informa­ tion that will cause a criminal to be brought to justice is in duty bound to produce it.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis 2. 3. His own consistent standpoint is that a morality enforced by law and custom is contrary to nature. Reference as in p r e v i o u s note. but the objects of the philosopher's contemplation (i. in support of which he refers to Republic 500 c. are said to be in this state. i v . The general impression made b y these fragments is of a single writer determined to show up the inadequacy o f current conceptions of morality. since Plato makes Glaucon say that in the general opinion law was ' a mutual agreement neither to inflict nor to suffer injury'. where not men. Bignone and Untersteiner both hold that the last definition (' neither to do nor to suffer injury') is 'the true definition of justice according to Antiphon'. 112 . is the ideal. if. and cannot therefore have been adhered to b y the same people.e. and nature's way is to be preferred. Very probably the third description of justice was in Antiphon's mind equivalent also to the first. Neither to do nor to suffer injury. See the latter's Sof.

and there is a similar union of the two at Bacchae 895 f.Antiphon: Euripides 'neither to inflict nor to suffer injustice' is the compact entered into by ordinary men as a second-best to having their own way individu­ ally. Elsewhere. H. This brings us to the level of Socrates or Jesus. Ag. ' T h e n we must not inflict injury for injury. It is probably in the isolated line of Euripides (fr. A e s c h . ' T h e n it is not the part of a just man. ' T h e n one must not use any man unjustly in return. namely to do no injury even in return for injury suffered. the highest goal of the spirit is surely a conception of justice not mentioned here at all. in the Republic (335 d. Oresteia. and c. ηιηί.g.. A t Ion 642. w h i c h made the exaction o f retribution or vengeance n o t o n l y a right but often a religious d u t y . whatever we may suffer at his hands'). advocat­ ing conduct which will ensure the maximum of pleasure in the world at large. The antinomian view is reflected in many passages of contemporary literature. accidentally preserved. it appears that the hedonism is selfish and individualistic. conclusions can only be drawn with caution. In spite o f B i g n o n e ' s and Kerferd's arguments. 11. O t h e r passages are quoted b y T h o m s o n . Eur. 144. Naturally. who cares nought for law. e. one must remember h o w deeply rooted in G r e e k morality w a s the doctrine that ' t h e doer shall suffer'. this is mill my impression. and much of what he says here can be interpreted altruistically: the statement that pleasure is more beneficial than pain might represent a hedonistic utilitarianism of a universal kind. 1 2 (iii) Other witnesses. The present fragments offer no evidence that Antiphon was a moralist of this calibre.. 15i>3f. and the purpose o f the present chapter is o n l y to nllow that such v i e w s were current in the fifth century. Ion counts himself happy because both his own nature and nomos together make him good in the service of Apollo. ' S o far as A n t i p h o n is concerned these comments are o f course made on the assumption lli. 1 113 .F. 306-14. and elsewhere in his plays an ostentatious reconciliation of the two itself bears witness to the existence of the view which he is contradict­ ing. or harm him. Cho. 920): 'Twas Nature willed it. as most people believe'. in dealing with such fragmentary extracts.it the v i e w s in question arc his o w n . C f . and Socrates argues for it explicitly more than once. Polemarchus. however. on which Dodds reT o appreciate the revolutionary character o f the Socratic ethic. He was clearly a serious thinker. to harm either his friend or anyone else') and Crito (49b. as when he deprecates refraining from unprovoked agression as contrary to that 'nature' which is his ideal. 185. For men.

viz. so why shouldn't I make a new nomos. they owed much to the professed writers ' On Nature'. what the philosopher feels he has to prove by argument.). It deprives one of the pleasures which make life worth living.The 'Nomos"—'Physis' Antithesis marks that 'the chorus anticipate in principle Plato's solution of the nomos-physis controversy. 1 a b o v e . Instructed by him. The new morality is a favourite butt of Aristophanes. The philosophy here pilloried is that of Callicles. Pheidippides defends father-beating: it is good ' to slight the established laws' (1400).) The author o f the nomos was only a man like you and me. and if caught in wrongdoing (e. as an eternal truth. t o o a b o v e . and Aristophanes has the answer to that too. 433. T h e practice o f taking the animals as our models has already been mentioned (p. Aristophanes caricatures the logic of this in an argument brought by Strepsiades against one of his creditors: ' H o w can you deserve to get your money back if you are so ignorant of meteorological phenomena?' One can hardly do better 3 4 D o d d s ad lac. 101. that when the two terms are properly understood nomos is seen to be founded upon physis'. τ ο ΰ τ ' εκεί καλόν παρ" ήμϊν. 'Indulging nature' should be the aim.quoted on p. η . as we have already noted. It is the poet's privilege to pronounce. is 'just' (1405). though 'nowhere nomos'. that sons may beat their fathers in return for the beatings they had from them? This is parody.g. especially in the Clouds. it is not surprising that. adultery) there are always arguments to prove your innocence. P p . but in Antiphon w e found it maintained in all seriousness that the sacred duty to respect one's parents was 'against nature'.) that he was the first to bring counter-arguments against the nomoi. Clouds. 104 with n. ούδαμοϋ νομΐ3εται (1420). Birds 757 f. and the argument of Antiphon is recalled that the law favours the guilty as much as the innocent. 1 2 Since 'nature' and 'natural necessity' figured so largely in these antinomian tirades. C f . and opposes 'the necessities of nature'. challenging the Just Argument to name anyone for whom it did any good (1060 if. 1 7 9 . ε! y a p ένθάδ' εστίν αίσχρόν τόν πατέρα τ ύ π τ α ν νομω. the Presocratic natural philosophers. 58 f-. also fr. W h e n Pheidippiile2 3 4 1 114 . and declares selfcontrol to be an evil. 4 a b o v e ) . 1283. and this. The Unjust Argument claims (1039 f. (It is 'nature's justice' as upheld by Callicles. The whole plot of the Clouds turns on the claim of'Socrates' to teach his pupils how to escape the legal penalties of wrongdoing. F o r the nomos-physis contrast cf.

(Cf. Zeus's frequent a d u l t e r y ) could b e equally invoked on the side of the wicked (ibid. Besides the atomists. 1 6 5 c) skill. T h e four elements. T h e crudity of popular religion. vv. a n d its postulates are u n t r u e . b u t is m o s t l y a matter o f art. Plato. frr. . w h y not eat dirt and roost on a p e r c h ? ' (ibid. Political skill has s o m e slight c o n n e x i o n w i t h nature.V<I/»/I. are lifeless matter. 11. T h e first part of the passage is translated in full in vol. p . 4 1 7 . s u n . n a m e l y nature a n d c h a n c e : no g o d . ( v o l .d . 59 and 35. based on Homer. intelligence o r art h a d a n y part in it. 144. Laws 8 8 6 b . a m o r e insignificant force o f p u r e l y h u m a n o r i g i n w h o s e creations h a v e little substance o r reality in t h e m . a n d e v e r y c h a n g e is v a l i d f r o m the m o m e n t it is m a d e . A n i m a l s . 1 2 115 . A r t . T h e g o d s themselves h a v e n o existence in nature. ' 889aff.! came later. M o v i n g i n accordance w i t h their c h a n c e . nature k n o w s n o t h i n g o f it. and v a r y in different places a c c o r d i n g to local c o n ­ ventions. d r y w i t h moist. or applied intelligence. and also from the opposition between ' t h e a r t s ' and the natural sciences.g o t properties. b u t are a p r o d u c t o f h u m a n artifice. 1080). T h e o n l y arts w o r t h a n y t h i n g are those w h i c h . It is b y theories like these that agitators incite the y o u n g justifies father-beating b y reference to the unfilial habits of cocks. G o o d n e s s is o n e t h i n g i n nature a n d another b y nomos. see v o l . like medicine. * κατά τ ύ χ η ν έξ ανάγκης. made its o w n contribution to the g r o w t h of irreligious humanism. the elements s o m e h o w came together s u i t a b l y — h o t w i t h c o l d . and as for justice. 1430). assist the forces o f nature. 1 6 The greatest and best things i n the w o r l d are the w o r k o f nature. l x b e l o w ) . ) T h i s will b e discussed later (ch. It is entirely artificial.1 9 . w i t h special reference to the atomists. It i s o n l y fair to udd that stories of the g o d s (e. o r chance ( w h i c h is the same t h i n g ) . plants a n d the seasons o f the year all o w e their existence t o these causes.g.The Opponents of Nomos' than close this a c c o u n t o f the immoralist c h a m p i o n s o f nature against law w i t h Plato's s u m m a r y o f their arguments in the Laws. soft w i t h hard — a n d c o m b i n i n g b y the inevitability o f c h a n c e generated the w h o l e c o s m o s a n d e v e r y t h i n g i n it. his father r e t o r t s : ' I f y o u want to imitate the cocks. 203). ' A r t ' suffers from its aesthetic associations. I . i6f. o w i n g its existence t o artificial c o n v e n t i o n s rather than t o nature. a n d the earth. agriculture a n d p h y s i c a l training. m o o n and stars w h i c h are made o f t h e m . the cosmogonical v i e w s here kummarizcd recall in particular Empedocles. M e n are for e v e r dis­ puting a b o u t it and altering it. No English word produces exactly the same effect as the Greek techne. n . F o r the relationship between τ ύ χ η and α ν ά γ κ η . It includes every branch of human or divine (cf. as opposed to the unaided w o r k of nature. Plato. Those who know no Greek m a y be helped b y the word itself: its incorporation in our ' t e c h n i c a l ' iiml ' t e c h n o l o g y ' is not fortuitous. o r d e s i g n (techne). a n d legislation lias n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h nature at all.

1964. Gel. u r g i n g t h e m t o a d o p t the ' r i g h t life a c c o r d ­ i n g t o n a t u r e ' . o r at least appealed for confirmation t o . A n t i p h o n and e v e n the y o u t h f u l A r i s t o t l e h a v e all had their c h a m p i o n s . E m p e d o c l e s and the atomists 1 are perhaps m o s t v i v i d l y recalled. It w o u l d b e e q u a l l y m i s g u i d e d t o l o o k for a single author o f the ethical v i e w s w h i c h are P l a t o ' s c h i e f target. Protagoras. J . P r o d i c u s . cf. c o n t e m p o r a r y first arose from slime. 2 1 2 Il6 . h o w e v e r (895 a 6 . b y w h i c h t h e y m e a n a life o f selfish a m b i t i o n instead o f service to their f e l l o w .The ''Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis to irreligion and sedition. P l a t o is s p e a k i n g o f beliefs w h i c h . T a t e (CR. i v . t h e y did n o t t r o u b l e t o discriminate t o o n i c e l y b e t w e e n t h e m . 27ff. a v i e w which is criticized b y Burkert in Gott. I h a v e cited this passage from Plato as the best account o f the w a y in w h i c h selfish antinomianism o f the Calliclean t y p e w a s f o u n d e d o n . w h e n h e w r o t e .7 ) . p . T h e juxtaposition attributed to A r c h e l a u s ( ' l i v i n g creatures b u t b y c o n v e n t i o n ' . 157) objected that since most of Plato's opponents in Laws 10 asserted that motion had a beginning they cannot h a v e been atomists. w e r e . and the v a r i e t y o f n a m e s p u t f o r w a r d b y reputable scholars is sufficient e v i d e n c e o f the futility o f the s e a r c h . He himself favours Antiphon. T h e latest discussion of the passage (in date of publication) is Edelstein's in The Idea of Progress (1967). i8of. w h i c h P l a t o f o u n d so s h o c k i n g . see Untersteiner. 1 9 5 1 .m e n and t o l a w . N o t all. 58 a b o v e ) w a s less i n c o n g r u o u s than it s o u n d s . and justice and baseness exist n o t natural naturally science. had l o n g b e e n current i n influential and p r o g r e s s i v e A t h e n i a n circles. also E n g l a n d ' s note on 889 b 5. T h e general non-theistic foundations o f Presocratic science w e r e e n o u g h for P l a t o ' s humanistic o p p o n e n t s . and w e r e i n general a g r e e m e n t w i t h their scientific premises. b u t the u n d e s i g n e d m i n g l i n g o f the ' o p p o s i t e s ' t o p r o d u c e first the f r a m e w o r k o f the c o s m o s and then the creatures w i t h i n it is a c o m m o n feature from A n a x i m a n d e r o n w a r d s . Sof. T h e Sophists h a d m u c h t o d o w i t h their p r o m u l g a t i o n . Anj. as w e h a v e seen. neither c o m m o n t o all the Sophists n o r e x c l u s i v e t o the profession. For a s u m m a r y of the various attempts at identification. h o w e v e r . Critias. T h e selfish ethical c o n c l u s i o n s . T h e c o s m o g o n i c theories are described in general terms w h i c h a p p l y t o m o s t o f the Presocratic s y s t e m s .

and either a l l o w or command w h a t I think w r o n g . Human Rights m a y stand above positive law. If so. the pupil o f G o r g i a s ( p . p . for 1959. 6 . is said t o h a v e held that ' t h e wise m a n in his a c t i v i t y as a citizen w i l l b e g u i d e d n o t b y the established laws b u t b y the l a w o f arete '? T h i s altruistic c h a m p i o n s h i p o f physis against nomos can have various applications. b e l o w ) . just because it is the l a w ? A m o n g the questions he asks are t h e s e : 1. w h o became a d e v o t e d f o l l o w e r o f Socrates. n . 1 1 . as w e h a v e seen it in its Calliclean f o r m . for 1965. current in the 1960s.hi ' h e same year that it appeared. which i s w h a t those w h o advocate it seem to mean b y ' m o r a l i t y ' (it is one side of w h a t a Greek meant b y nomos). and o f a legal c o n c e p t i o n o f justice and right. does this mean that the existence of a common opinion. 2. 1 Similarly A n t i s t h e n e s . ) And he l a y s it d o w n that: I . C a n one discover a common stock of ideas of right and w r o n g . in favour o f so-called ' n a t u r e ' o r ' f r e e d o m ' . C a m p b e l l . nomos) m a y be different at different places and times. . C a n security exist without a common m o r a l i t y ? ( H e is a r g u i n g against L o r d D e v l i n ' s negative answer. Acad. 306. for in the w o r d s o f a m o d e r n a u t h o r i t y w h o describes h i m s e l f as a ' m o r a l i z i n g anarchist' (not a b a d description o f A n t i p h o n ? ) . Disapproval of m y conduct b y others does not prove that I a m w r o n g . . p. D e v l i n republished his own with six others. if o n e does. however. ' Obligation and Obedience to L a w ' . L a w m a y forbid what I think beneficial. and it will be interesting to have them in mind w h i l e w e are investigating it. Brit. still less that I deserve criminal punishment. Brit. W e believe t h a t . brutal and degrading.Law and Justice (β) Humanitarian: written and unwritten law Criticism o f l a w .e. . . and. ' M o r a l i t y ' ( = public opinion. f o r Antisthenes see pp. Most of the questions he raises appear in the ethical debate of the fifth century. w e may have met. the victims of laws that are oppressive. 16 w i t h η . i. W e have heard of. and d i d . o r i g i n a l l y in Proc. or o n the other hand it can b e w h o l l y well-intentioned. 1 above.) 2. does νόμιμον = δίκαιον. It c a n . (Cf. W e k n o w that the law can be used as an instrument o f policy . 66 above. 1965. . which w a s also that of Protagoras. nearly a l w a y s has t w o sides. 304ft. It can b e selfish and brutal. (The Enforcement of Morals. . justifies Itn legal enforcement? 3.) 3.L. H e states as his main theme the question: Ii there a moral obligation to obey e v e r y rule of the law. A . g i v e birth to ideas o f equality. H . He instances the moral values of the W e s t Highlands as compared w i t h those of London. Acad. below. and the so-called ' n e w m o r a l i t y ' of sex. in Proc. 5 1 117 . taking into account the criticisms which it had aroused and w h i c h he lists In a bibliography.) * D. I. Campbell's lecture w a s prompted b y Devlin's on ' T h e Enforcement of M o r a l s ' . W e cannot maintain the complacent positive belief that only the law o f the State is law properly so-called . w i l l it be coterminous with the jurisdiction of a legal s y s t e m ? (In Greek terms.

275): ' N o t o n l y w i l l this b e f o u n d in the [positive] l a w s . 2 and A p p . and d e s e r v e to b e treated independently. 1 3 1 Il8 . ' 3 A r i s t o t l e first equates u n w r i t t e n w i t h u n i ­ versal l a w s . 2 3 9 . to A. T h e s e w e r e r e v o l u t i o n a r y ideas o f incalculable p o t e n c y . Ε to book 1. D e m o s t h e n e s says (De cor. w h o a c c o r d i n g to (Hipp. 1368b 7. 6 1 . p. a n d a v e r b a l association o f ' u n w r i t t e n l a w s ' w i t h physis o n l y o c c u r s . and P. the historically important and influential formu­ lation of the concept first appears in post-Aristotelian times. Maj. In P l a t o ' s On the 'unwritten l a w s ' in general see Hirzel. "Αγραφος νόμος. W h e n the same questions w e r e b e i n g raised in the same terms o v e r perhaps a h u n d r e d y e a r s . ch. Savigny-Stift. 7 0 . and institutions s u c h as s l a v e r y .) and is an integral part o f the general relationship b e t w e e n nomos and physis w h i c h is o u r present s u b j e c t . 104 a b o v e ) w a s perhaps unfortunate. 22 f.. pp. in f o u r t h . B u t fifth-century supporters o f the u n ­ 2 and in particular h o w cities w e r e f o u n d e d in the early d a y s ' . Cope. C . physis Plato in the hearts o f m e n . S u c h a one w a s the Sophist Hippias. social status or w e a l t h . see p p . had n o basis in nature b u t w e r e o n l y b y nomos.4 4 . 1 It is impracticable and artificial t o m a k e a b r e a k b e t w e e n the c e n ­ turies. 152if. For Demosthenes cf. 7 8 a b o v e ) . Salomon. above all in the Stoa. 5 5 f. T h i s chapter w i l l c o n ­ clude w i t h a closer l o o k at the c o n c e p t o f ' u n w r i t t e n l a w ' w h i c h has been mentioned earlier ( p p .c e n t u r y authors. Introd. and the use of ά γ ρ α φ α νόμιμα to describe the unwritten traditions of the Areopagus court (Ibid. b e l o w ) ready to declare that distinctions based o n race. 1373 b 6 .. also the contrast between written and universal law in In Ar'uwa. p . but the age of the Sophists must be considered first because it w a s then that questions w e r e first raised in a sharp and urgent form which concern natural l a w and prepare the w a y for its formulation. 4.The 'Nomos'. T h e r e w e r e n o w p e o p l e ( o f w h o m A n t i p h o n w a s o n e . 1 2 9 f t . o r the death o f Socrates. S p e a k i n g o f the p r o p r i e t y o f p u n i s h i n g deliberate crime b u t n o t i n v o l u n t a r y error.Physis' Antithesis and o f c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m and the u n i t y o f m a n k i n d . W h a t w e are seeing in this p e r i o d is the birth o f the c o n c e p t o f natural l a w as it w a s later u n d e r s t o o d b y thinkers r a n g i n g from the Stoics t o R o u s s e a u . Ehrenberg. A p p . T h e first use o f the actual term ( b y P l a t o ' s Callicles.'s Rhet. a m o n g extant sources. w e cannot i g n o r e the e v i d e n c e o f A r i s t o t l e o r D e m o s t h e n e s a n y m o r e than that o f Hippias o r Euripides. b u t nature herself has decreed it in the unwritten laws and (Rhet. 1 9 1 1 . n o b l e birth. and then calls universal l a w s ' a c c o r d i n g to n a t u r e ' written l a w s w e r e themselves at the same time o n the side o f against the limitations and errors o f positive nomoi. 285d) w a s an a u t h o r i t y o n ' a n c i e n t history in general. 1375332). S. at 400 B . Cf.

Incest w a s repugnant to the Greeks. and suggests a n e w c r i t e r i o n : transgression o f m a n . h a v i n g c o u n t e r e d this a r g u m e n t . Cf. also Eur. laws are n o t u n i v e r s a l l y o b s e r v e d . that for a transgression o f nature's decrees it is inevitable b u t n o t for an o r d i n a r y lawbreaker. oi μέν λανθάνοντες ol 6έ βια30μενοι.14ff. I . καΐ αίσχύνης καΐ 3ημΙας άπήλλακται.m a d e l a w s m a y escape punishment. See G. * It is worth reminding ourselves that Hippias m a y have believed in the u n i t y of mankind (p. fr. and indeed A n t i p h o n m a d e the same p o i n t a b o u t punishment. this h a r d l y justifies the surprising c o n c l u s i o n o f L e v i that ' it g o e s w i t h o u t s a y i n g that the u n w r i t t e n l a w s o f w h i c h T h i s w a s traditional. o n the g r o u n d s that l a w s are n o m o r e than t e m p o r a r y agreements w h i c h c a n n o t b e taken seriously because t h e y are often rejected and a m e n d e d b y the v e r y m e n w h o m a d e t h e m . he praises physis as d e s t r o y e r o f the barriers w h i c h nomos has erected b e t w e e n m a n and m a n (p. ' a n d no l a w prevents i t ' (Eur. Socrates speaks as if it w e r e o n l y 11 question of occasional breaches of a law b y individuals. 4 . and X e n o p h o n 4. 3 Α εο 2 τ α ο υ ν 1 3 ΙΙ 9 GSP . Andr. g o e s o n to ask h i m w h e t h e r he k n o w s also o f u n w r i t t e n l a w s . and 11. 2 1 ά λ λ α δίκην γ έ τοι διδόασιν ol παραβαίνοντες τους ύ π ό τ ώ ν θεών κείμενους νόμους. brother and sister have intercourse. and its practice a m o n g non-Greek peoples w a s considered evidence of their barbarity. μή λ α θ ώ ν δ' οΰ. 270. Hermione intends a cruel taunt w h e n she reminds Andromache of her race. 162 b e l o w ) . 44 ι '· > νόμιμα π α ρ α β α ί ν ω ν εΐάν λάθη τους όμολο/ήσαντας. 346.3 H o w e v e r . ώ σ π ε ρ τους ύ π ' α ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν κείμενους νόμους Ινιοι παραβαίνοντες διαφεύγουσι τ ό δίκην διδόναι. τ ώ ν δέ τ ή φύσει ξυμφύτων έάν τ ι π α ρ ά τό δυνατόν βιά^ηται. Since all w h o o b s e r v e t h e m cannot p o s s i b l y h a v e met. 52. F o r universal laws as divine cf. and w o u l d n o t speak the same l a n g u a g e i f they did. ή ν ούδενΐ τ ρ ό π ω δυνατόν ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω διαφυγεΐν. Oresteia. b u t o f the d i v i n e l a w s n e v e r .) represents h i m as q u e s t i o n i n g the e q u a t i o n o f justice w i t h k e e p i n g the l a w . 162 b e l o w ) . T h e first e x a m p l e s that o c c u r to h i m and Socrates are to w o r s h i p the g o d s and h o n o u r o n e ' s p a r e n t s . a race among w h o m parents and children. T h e t w o in question pass this test (he claims) because incest is d y s g e n i c and ingratitude leads to loss o f friends. ουδέν ί λ α τ τ ο ν τά κακόν. X e n . H e d o e s .6 ) . 4 .4. Mem. It is noticeable that these a r g u m e n t s w o u l d a p p l y equally to a w o r l d ruled n o t b y g o d s b u t b y an impersonal nature. Thomson. t h e y m u s t h a v e b e e n m a d e b y the g o d s . 2 1 Concerning avoidance o f incest and the d u t y t o requite a benefit he is d o u b t f u l . since such b u t Socrates argues that t o say that a l a w is s o m e t i m e s b r o k e n is n o d i s p r o o f o f its v a l i d i t y . and designates t h e m (like Aristotle after h i m ) as those w h i c h are o b s e r v e d in e v e r y c o u n t r y .Unwritten Law Protagoras (Mem. εάν τε πάντας ανθρώπους λάθη. 1 7 3 . but Hippias k n e w that there were whole societies w h e r e such a l a w did not exist. Antiphon fr. Socrates.

Anaximander. t ) in the curious v i e w that Xenophon has put much of Hippias's doctrine into the m o u t h of Socrates. the u n w r i t t e n laws are u n ­ e q u i v o c a l l y o f d i v i n e o r i g i n . s a y s that legislation ' m u s t be conformable to the l a w of nature. De victu 11 ( v i . e x p e r i e n c e and t i m e . Levi also follows Diimmler (Ak. L e a v i n g a b o d y unburied is again said to flout the laws of the g o d s at Ajax 1343 and Eur. W h a t men have laid down. w h i c h Hippias agrees is a m o n g the u n w r i t t e n l a w s . Sophia. ( O n the date of De victu see Kahn. 450. I think. that ' t h e g o d s m a d e these l a w s for m e n ' and ' t h i s d o e s s u g g e s t the w o r k o f g o d s . Sof. and at another time s a y i n g t h a t ' l a w is a tyrant w h i c h often d o e s v i o l e n c e t o nature' ( P l a t o . w h o m i g h t h a v e personal n a m e s and characters o r m i g h t e q u a l l y w e l l b e w h a t w e s h o u l d class as a b s t r a c t i o n s : N e c e s s i t y . i. w i t h a different t h e o l o g i c a l tradition. T h e r e is n o reason w h y h e s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e l i e v e d w h a t X e n o p h o n p u t s i n t o his m o u t h . for the idea that l a w s s h o u l d contain their o w n punishment for those w h o d i s o b e y t h e m must. 1942. 22 above. ) : Men h a v e laid d o w n nomos for themselves but the physis of all things has been ordered b y the g o d s . For a g o o d example of the equation of natural with divine laws see Hippocr. quoted b y Untersteiner.r e l i g i o u s signifi­ cance. n. 2. It is n o t easy for u s . 450 f f . utterly different f r o m those m e n t i o n e d b y S o p h o c l e s in a f a m o u s text o f the Antigone.e.) T h i s is not of course confined to the ancient w o r l d . P. 1 3 1 I20 . but w h a t the g o d s have laid d o w n is right for ever. n. t o understand the place in G r e e k t h o u g h t o f divine p o w e r s . 255) and B i g n o n e (Studi. be it right or w r o n g . Prot. 189. D i i m m l e r ' s chapter is in parts a rather fantastic edifice of hypotheses built on hypotheses. § 1 3 5 . a In the tragic p o e t s . ' 1 It is a d m i t t e d l y n o t clear h o w the denial and o f burial to a b r o t h e r c o u l d b e said t o b r i n g its o w n p u n i s h m e n t in the natural c o u r s e . Justice. Locke in his second treatise. n. the ' u n w r i t t e n ordinances o f the g o d s ' in w h o s e name A n t i g o n e defies the p o w e r o f K i n g Creon. Suppl. 1 3 . because o f their naturalistic.The 'Nemos'—Physis' Antithesis Hippias speaks are. 486 L . m . L e v i . n o n . W e h a v e seen already h o w the P r o m e t h e u s o r o f necessity. as is appropriate. to the will of God of which that is a declaration'.3 In S o p h o c l e s A d . 337d). 1 9 . F o r m a n y o f their m o s t t h o u g h t f u l m i n d s it w a s a matter o f indiffer­ ence w h e t h e r s o m e beneficent force w a s ascribed to a d i v i n i t y o r s i m p l y t o natural processes. b u t this is also true o f n e g l e c t i n g o n e ' s parents. as ( a c c o r d i n g at least t o Socrates) incest ingratitude d o . Hippias same a c c o u n t o f h u m a n p r o g r e s s w a s referred indifferently t o the a g e n c y o f therefore w o u l d see n o i n c o n s i s t e n c y in contrasting p o s i t i v e w i t h d i v i n e l a w s . 69. c o m e from a better l e g i s ­ lator than m a n ' . Persuasion. is never constant. 132.

Metaphorically. they say. these u n w r i t t e n laws m a y b e said t o h a v e b e e n ' w r i t t e n b y the g o d s ' . n o r w i l l forgetfulness e v e r put t h e m to s l e e p ' . and I o w e some of m y o w n references to it. see Ehrenberg.'3 T h e generally a c k n o w l e d g e d u n w r i t t e n l a w s w e r e those that enjoined reverence t o w a r d s the g o d s . 352.37. R e l i g i o u s d u t y is particularly in question in another q u o t a t i o n from Pericles reported in the speech against A n d o c i d e s attributed to L y s i a s ( p s e u d o . *d the criticism of it in Gomme. For a comparison between the Antigone and the epitaphios of Pericles. ar 1 121 5-2 . en­ joining burial of the dead. t h e m s e l v e s to d i s o b e y t h e m ? In A e s c h y l u s . Cf. loc. is called τόν Πανελλήνων νόμον and νόμιμα θεών in Eur. not Socrates. Θνατά φύσις avepcov is •imply a periphrasis for θνατός άνήρ. cit.) speaks o f holiness in w o r d s and deeds ' f o r w h i c h laws are appointed o n h i g h . 28-44. Supplices ( l i f t and 19). T o the Greeks this distinction w a s b l u r r e d : the same l a w . Pericles. T h e fact is that up to the fifth century the Greeks largely ignored the barbarian world : ' 1111.3). See vol. T h o m s o n ' s l o n g note on Eum. Note o n l y (p. and also hospitality t o strangers. respect for parents. and those w h i c h are u n ­ them. ' Suppl. 1 1 3 ) mentions as a difference between Sophocles and Pericles that for the latter the unwritten l a w w a s hardly divine. 269-72 is excellent. the δελτογράφος φρήν of Hades at Eum. like unwritten are Socrates. 11. on which George Thomson justly comments that 'written in the statutes of J u s t i c e ' is only another w a y of s a y i n g that they are unwritten in the statutes of mortal legislators (Ortsteia. a c h o r u s o f the Oedipus Tyrannus (863 if. b r o u g h t to life in the clear air o f h e a v e n . 10): Pericles. requital o f benefactors. 707. respect for parents (cited as o n e o f the unwritten l a w s in the c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n Socrates and H i p p i a s ) is described b y a c h o r u s as ' w r i t t e n in the statutes (θεσμίοις) o f D i k e (Justice) highest in h o n o u r ' . But his audience w o u l d certainly believe It to be divine.Unwritten Law again. ' G o m m e (Comm. On this passage see also p. w h o a r g u e s that the unwritten laws could not have been made b y men and must therefore be the w o r k of g o d s .L y s . s a y s (•ιιιιιιικ'. S. 270). 7 7 above. for n o mortal m a n 1 b e g a t t h e m . 2. and he w a s speaking in a w a y that they w o u l d understand. especially those w h i c h written but b r i n g a c k n o w l e d g e d shame o n those w h o b r e a k designed for the p r o t e c t i o n o f the oppressed. Or. w h o h a v e w r i t t e n the laws for mortals. ) : h o w can it be right for the g o d s . on Thuc. In the famous funeral 2 oration (Thuc. I I . as w h e n I o n i n Euripides's p l a y rebukes A p o l l o for his sin against a m o r t a l w o m a n (440 i f . and P. is that for the former the unwritten l a w is universal. 11. whereas T h u c y d i d e s is ' p r o b a b l y ' thinking of Greek νόμιμα only. w h o s e father is O l y m p u s alone. once advised that in cases o f impiety y o u should invoke not only the written laws about it but also the unwritten in accordance No special significance should be attached to the use of φύσις here.w o r l d ' was the Greek world and 'the g o d s ' were the Greek gods. 6. praises o b s e r v a n c e o f b o t h the positive and the l a w s : ' W e A t h e n i a n s o b e y the l a w s . Another difference between Sophocles and T h u c y d i d e s . 275. 269) that In the conversation between Socrates and Hippias it is Hippias.

All that w e are n o w discussing [says the Athenian ( 7 9 3 a)] is what people in general call 'unwritten l a w s ' . and all such injunctions amount to what they call the ' l a w s o f our ancestors'. 44 A. 23 (Jn Answer. is that the p e o p l e ' d i s r e g a r d all l a w s w r i t t e n or u n w r i t t e n . nor do they k n o w their author. ά γ ρ α φ α νόμιμα and πατρίους νόμους. 1343 (both referring to burial of the d e a d ) . and P. W h i l e νόμιμα could be a v a g u e r term than νόμος. W i t h this in mind w e must bind y o u r new city together with everything possible that goes b y the name o f law. 1 0 : ' S o c i e t y is not something that is kept together p h y s i c a l l y . Devlin. A n d what w e said recently. must pay its price. νόμος (p. was well said.The ' Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis with which the Eumolpidae [hereditary priests at Eleusis] give their decisions. 61 and 70. 3 4 I feel inclined to question Ehrenberg's v i e w of this passage when it leads him to s a y that for Pericles ' e v e n the sacred laws of Eleusis w e r e not part of a divine world contrasted with a man-made o r d e r ' (S. in the degenerate and extreme f o r m in w h i c h it leads to t y r a n n y . to Antiphon an incubus ( l r . before Plato w a s born. in truth a b o d y o f ancestral and age-old precepts which if rightly conceived and put into practice protect and safeguard the written laws o f die time. Cf. 69 a b o v e ) . Aj. which needs society. In saying that they should not be called νόμοι Plato is recalling his remark at 788a that the education of children is a matter for instruction and admonition rather than law. but if they swerve from the right path they cause everything to collapse like a building when the builders' supports give w a y . it is held b y the invisible bonds of common thought. There is no hint that Athens had reached this stage in the d a y s of Pericles. ίνα δή μηδαμη μηδείς αύτοΐς fj δεσπότης. T h e bondage is part of the price of s o c i e t y .' (There is something ol Protagoras here too. 4). laws which no one has been able to invalidate nor dared to contradict. Hirzel pointed to this passage of Plato as a direct contradiction of Pericles's e u o l o g y of Athenian democracy. and the v a r i ­ ations in D e m . T h e y are the bonds that hold a political society together. for in this w a y diey believe that an offender will pay the penalty not only to men but to the gods. col. A common morality is part of the bondage. custom or usage. that ' n o o n e k n o w s f r o m w h e n c e t h e y c o m e ' . of M. If the bonds were too far relaxed the members would drift apart. 563 d. in their determination t o h a v e n o master o v e r them'. T h o m s o n has noticed the striking parallel b e t w e e n the orator's d o t h e y k n o w their a u t h o r ' and A n t i g o n e ' s w o r d s a b o u t l a w s . but Plato i s speaking of a state in w h i c h the democratic ideal of liberty has reached the stage of α π λ η σ τ ί α w h i c h is its downfall. probably a deliberate reminder ot Demaratus's boast in the great d a y s of Greece: επεστι yap σφι δ ε σ π ό τ η . 19 with τους θεών νόμους at Soph. 1 'nor unwritten P l a t o ' s o p i n i o n o f a d e m o c r a c y .). 4 7 ) . E.) T o Plato δεσμοί w e r e a necessity. that one should neither call them laws nor yet pass them over. Suppl. νόμιμα θεών at Eur. links between laws already on the statute b o o k and those still to be enacted. Rep. 2 In the Laws he speaks again o f the u n w r i t t e n l a w s . 2 3 4 1 122 . Cf. it is obvious that they could sometimes be used interchangeably. and mankind.

Written and Unwritten Law
Sexual i n d u l g e n c e in p u b l i c is an example o f the kind o f t h i n g w h i c h Plato suggests should b e d i s c o u r a g e d b y ' u n w r i t t e n l a w ' , habituating the citizens t o a sense o f shame, rather than b y legal p r o h i b i t i o n (Laws 8 4 1 b ) ; and (like X e n o p h o n ' s Socrates) he cites incest as a case w h e r e such unwritten l a w is already an adequate deterrent (ibid. 838 a - b ) . Aristotle attacks the subject w i t h his characteristic zeal for classi­ fication. H e first, in Rhetoric 1, c h . 10 (1368by), divides l a w into particular and u n i v e r s a l : ' p a r t i c u l a r ' is the w r i t t e n l a w o f an i n d i v i d u a l state, ' u n i v e r s a l ' embraces e v e r y t h i n g that is u n w r i t t e n b u t a g r e e d u p o n b y all. In c h . 13, h o w e v e r , after the same initial d i v i s i o n ( i 3 7 3 b 4 ) into particular and universal (and an equation o f ' u n i v e r s a l ' w i t h ' n a t u r a l ' l a w ) , he p r o c e e d s to d i v i d e the l a w o f particular states itself into written and u n w r i t t e n . A t this p o i n t it should b e stated that the object o f the chapter is to classify just and unjust actions. T h e d i v i s i o n o f the l a w s is subordinate to this end, because just and unjust acts ' h a v e been defined relatively to t w o k i n d s o f l a w ' . T h e l a w o f nature exists because ' there really is a natural and universal right and w r o n g , apart from a n y association o r c o v e n a n t ' ; and he q u o t e s as examples A n t i g o n e ' s famous claim and E m p e d o c l e s fr. 135. T h e r e are then (1374 a 18) t w o k i n d s o f right and w r o n g , the o n e laid d o w n in w r i t i n g and the other n o t , and the second is again d i v i d e d into (a) virtue and vice in excess o f that w h i c h the l a w takes note of, w h i c h are visited with praise, h o n o u r s and gifts o r reproach and d i s h o n o u r r e s p e c t i v e l y (i.e. non-legal r e w a r d s and penalties; examples o f the former are gratitude for and requital o f benefits and readiness t o help friends), (b) acts w h i c h , t h o u g h t h e y m i g h t b e the subject o f p o s i t i v e l a w , are omitted b y it o w i n g to the impossibility o f a l l o w i n g for e v e r y v a r i e t y o f case within the f r a m e w o r k o f general r u l e s : here w h a t is n o t w r i t t e n is s i m p l y a supplement to w h a t is. It is k n o w n as e q u i t y ( τ ό επιεικές).
1

1

2

In the Ethics ( i i 3 4 b i 8 f f . ) Aristotle argues that there is both a natural and a legal form of political justice. Some, he says, have doubted the existence of a φύσει δίκαιον, because w h a t ii M.ilural is constant (fire burns everywhere and a l w a y s ) , whereas τ ά δίκαια κινούμενα ΛρΛοιν. These are the doubts of the sophistic age, questioning the certainties of a Solon or an Ac'ichylus. Aristotle counters them b y a somewhat obscure and unsatisfactory argument, irllccting the conflict between Platonist and sophist in his own mind and ending l a m e l y w i t h the M.ttcment that there is ' o n l y one natural, universal constitution, n a m e l y the best'. Barker an interesting hut probably over-subtle commentary on this passage in his introduction to (iiel lie's Nulur.il /.me, WW. ' On die meaning of equity in Aristotle see also W . von Leyden in Philosophy, 1967, 6-8.

123

The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis
A passion for r e d u c i n g e v e r y t h i n g to classified o r tabulated
1

form

is a l w a y s d a n g e r o u s , and A r i s t o t l e has n o t escaped its snares. A s Hirzel p o i n t e d o u t , the d i v i s i o n s are inconsistent, and the passages i n c h . 10 and c h s . 1 3 - 1 4 p r o b a b l y b e l o n g t o different discussions. Y e t , a l t h o u g h there are t w o k i n d s o f u n w r i t t e n l a w , t h e y are n o t c o n t r a d i c t o r y , a n d A r i s t o t l e held b o t h v i e w s : (a) the nomoi o f a parti­ cular c o m m u n i t y are b o t h w r i t t e n a n d u n w r i t t e n , the latter (based o n its c u s t o m s a n d traditions) n o t contradicting b u t s u p p l e m e n t i n g the f o r m e r ; (b) ' u n w r i t t e n l a w s ' signifies also the universal, natural l a w s as in the Antigone a n d D e m o s t h e n e s . It m u s t b e r e m e m b e r e d that A r i s t o t l e is w r i t i n g a h a n d b o o k o f rhetoric, based o n earlier h a n d b o o k s . H i s object is n o t to see that the eternal l a w o f nature prevails, b u t t o s h o w h o w a pleader can j u g g l e w i t h the n o t i o n s o f w r i t t e n a n d u n w r i t t e n l a w as w i l l best suit his case. S o in c h . 15 h e g o e s o n to s h o w h o w the theories w h i c h h e has e x p o u n d e d m a y b e applied in practice. I f the w r i t t e n l a w is against h i m , the a d v o c a t e m u s t appeal t o the universal l a w , insisting o n its greater e q u i t y a n d justice. T h e w o r d s o f the j u r o r ' s oath, ' a c c o r d i n g t o m y honest o p i n i o n ' , m e a n that h e w i l l n o t slavishly f o l l o w the
1

Hirzel, "Αγρ. νόμ. ί ο . Aristotle's classifications can be put in tabular form t h u s :

Rhet. A 1 0 , I368b7ff.

particular = written Rhet. A 1 3 , I373b4ff.

universal — unwritten

Γ particular

universal ( = n a t u r a l )

In addition the classification of r i g h t and w r o n g actions at 1 3 7 4 3 1 8 can b e shown t h u s : right and w r o n g actions

determined b y written l a w

not set down in writing

extra-legal types of virtue and vice

supplementation of existing law

124

Aristotle s Classification of Laws
written l a w . T h e universal l a w is the l a w o f e q u i t y , the u n c h a n g i n g law o f n a t u r e , w h e r e a s w r i t t e n l a w s are unstable. H e w i l l q u o t e the Antigone, and declare that the w r i t t e n l a w s d o n o t fulfil the true p u r ­ pose o f l a w , and so o n . I f o n the other h a n d the w r i t t e n l a w s u p p o r t s his case, he w i l l explain that the j u r o r ' s oath is n o t m e a n t to a b s o l v e him f r o m f o l l o w i n g the l a w , b u t o n l y to save h i m f r o m the g u i l t o f perjury i f he misunderstands i t ; that n o o n e c h o o s e s absolute g o o d , b u t o n l y the g o o d for h i m s e l f ; doctor. T h e s e are the tricks that G o r g i a s and his like w e r e already t e a c h i n g their pupils and w r i t i n g i n their technai, and the passage s h o w s h o w the g r o w t h o f rhetoric G r e e k s contributed to and the passion for litigation a m o n g the unscrupulous subordination the o f ethical
2 1

that n o t t o use the l a w s is as b a d as

not h a v i n g a n y ; and that it does n o t p a y t o try to b e cleverer than the

concepts to the e x p e d i e n c y o f the m o m e n t . In itself, the doctrine o f unwritten l a w s , valid at all times and for all men—nomoi w h i c h are r o o t e d in physis and at the same time d i v i n e l y ordained and o f a lofty moral t o n e — s t a n d s for the archaic traditions, b o t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l and popular, w h i c h w e r e n o w b e i n g challenged b y the n e w m o r a l i t y . F o r H e s i o d justice rested o n the l a w o f Z e u s , as for Heraclitus all human l a w s w e r e emanations o f the divine (p. 5 5 a b o v e ) , and E m p e d o cles (fr. 135) c o u l d speak o f a l a w for all, ' e x t e n d i n g t h r o u g h the w i d e air and the i m m e n s e l i g h t o f h e a v e n ' . T h e religious b a c k g r o u n d to this is seen at its best in the w o r d s o f S o l o n at the e n d o f the s e v e n t h c e n t u r y . W h a t the i m m o r t a l g o d s g i v e , n o m a n can escape. P r o s p e r i t y based o n evil c o n d u c t is i n e v i t a b l y insecure, for Z e u s is g u a r d i a n o f the moral l a w . S o o n o r late the b l o w w i l l fall, t h o u g h Z e u s m a y b e s l o w to punish and the sufferers m a y b e the offender's children. It is the o l d
Bignone (Studi, 129, n. 1) sees in these w o r d s a clear reminiscence of Antiphon. It might •· well be Hippias or others, but at least his remark is further evidence, if that w e r e necessary, that Aristotle is simply repeating notions already familiar in the h e y d a y of the Sophists. Hirzel ('Ayp. vou. 8) finds it difficult to understand h o w Aristotle could s a y here of τό επιεικές that If άιΙ μίνει καΙ ουδέποτε μεταβάλλει in v i e w of the variety which he has earlier ascribed to it. It is uatnnishing how previous scholars seem to have solemnly analysed this passage as a serious statement of Aristotle's views, whereas it is one of a pair of contrasting άντιλογίαι to be used η· occasion demands in the interests of victory in the courts. ( S k e m p is an exception, Plato's Statesman, 198.) On the notion of επιεικές see Cope, Introd. to Rhet. 190-3. 'Sc. and our written laws, which were made for us, m a y not reach the abstract ideal of perfection, but they probably suit us better than if they did.' ( R h y s Roberts, Oxf. Trans, ad lac.) I* )
1 1 1

The 'Nemos'—Physis* Antithesis
doctrine, w h i c h w e see also w o r k e d o u t in A e s c h y l u s , that ' t h e d o e r shall suffer', hybris is i n e v i t a b l y f o l l o w e d b y ate, d o o m , u n d e r the a u t h o r i t y o f Z e u s w h o ' w a t c h e s o v e r the end o f e v e r y t h i n g ' . I n a striking simile S o l o n c o m p a r e s the j u d g m e n t o f Z e u s t o a s p r i n g g a l e w h i c h stirs the sea to its v e r y b o t t o m , ravages the crops o n earth and at the same time s w e e p s the c l o u d s from the s k y s o that the sun shines o u t o n c e m o r e in all its strength. Several scholars h a v e p o i n t e d o u t that in this passage ' the v e n g e a n c e o f Z e u s falls w i t h the w e i g h t and inevitability o f a natural p h e n o m e n o n ' , that ' S o l o n g i v e s us o u r first intimation o f the lawfulness o f n a t u r e ' — surely an additional reason against s u p p o s i n g that the those u p h e l d as d i v i n e in the Antigone (pp. n o f . above). 'naturalistic' u n w r i t t e n l a w s o f w h i c h Hippias speaks are necessarily different from A r i s t o t l e has s h o w n h o w the u n w r i t t e n l a w s c o u l d b e i n v o k e d b y an u n s c r u p u l o u s a d v o c a t e in the interests o f a particular case. T h e r e w a s indeed a d a n g e r o f their abuse, especially w h e n the ideal o f a b e n e v o l e n t and paternal aristocracy had g i v e n place to the c r o w n i n g a c h i e v e m e n t o f G r e e k political g e n i u s , the polis o r city-state, in w h i c h the w r i t t e n constitution w a s the guarantee o f a citizen's rights and the b u l w a r k against t y r a n n y isonomia, or oppression,
3 1

and

the w a t c h w o r d

was

equality before the l a w . Just as physis

could be invoked

either t o u p h o l d humanitarian ideals o r in the interests o f a g g r e s s i o n and the o v e r t h r o w o f constitutional g o v e r n m e n t , so the idea o f u n ­ w r i t t e n law, w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y emphasized the m o r a l g o v e r n m e n t o f the universe, c o u l d , in a m o r e democratic s o c i e t y , appear s i m p l y as retrograde and a menace to the h a r d - w o n assurance o f h u m a n rights that n o w w a s w r i t t e n into the statute-book. T h e restored d e m o c r a c y at the end o f the fifth c e n t u r y decreed that ' the magistrate s h o u l d in n o case make use o f u n w r i t t e n l a w ' , that the laws s h o u l d treat all citizens alike w i t h o u t distinction, and that they must b e displayed in public for all to see ( A n d o c i d e s , De mystt. 85). T h e s e u s , c o n d e m n i n g t y r a n n y in the Supplices
1

o f Euripides (429ff.), says that ' u n d e r written laws

L e s k y , Hist. Gr. Lit. 125 ; Snell, Disc, of Mind, 212. S o l o n , says Snell, is using the H o m e r i c type o f simile, but for a n e w purpose, to express 'not so much the individual explosions ol energy but the necessity w h i c h prompts them, not the unique event, but the continuous c o n d i ­ tion'. T h i s insight 'places him on the threshold o f philosophy*. O n e might compare the cosmic δίκη o f Anaximander. ( T h e passages o f S o l o n referred to occur in fr. 1 Dichl.) O n Ισονομία ;ind democracy see p. 150, n. 2, below.
1

126

Importance of Written Laws
justice is meted o u t impartially t o the feeble and the w e a l t h y , the lesser man o v e r c o m e s the greater i f his cause is j u s t ' . T h i s happens ' w h e n the demos is master in the l a n d ' . T h e difference b e t w e e n S o p h o c l e s and Euripides here is interesting. It w o u l d seem that S o p h o c l e s in the Antigone is a passionate u p h o l d e r o f the u n w r i t t e n law, and Euripides o f the w r i t t e n .
1

Yet both

are

equally o p p o s i n g the tyrant, and S o p h o c l e s , w h o t o o k his full share o f public duties, w a s n o less a c h a m p i o n o f constitutional and legal safeguards. In the Antigone itself (367 f.), the c h o r u s declare that the
2

a m a z i n g i n g e n u i t y o f m a n will o n l y lead to g o o d i f h e remain w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f the polis and respect the laws o f the l a n d , and in the Oedipus at Colonus T h e s e u s rebukes C r e o n b e c a u s e , ' h a v i n g c o m e to a city w h i c h o b s e r v e s justice and determines n o t h i n g w i t h o u t l a w , y o u reject the legitimate authorities' (9i2ff.). W e d o n o t need the w o r d ' w r i t t e n ' here to tell u s that S o p h o c l e s is t h i n k i n g o f p o s i t i v e , f o r m u ­ lated l a w as it w a s u n d e r s t o o d in the A t h e n s o f his d a y . C o n v e r s e l y the T h e s e u s o f Euripides, i n the v e r y same p l a y in w h i c h he insists o n the need for written l a w s , is asserting the same sacred d u t y as A n t i g o n e , the d u t y o f b u r y i n g the dead. B y d o i n g this, he says, I shall preserve the c o m m o n nomos o f G r e e c e (526f.), and his m o t h e r A e t h r a accuses C r c o n o f ' f l o u t i n g the nomima o f the g o d s ' (19). T h a t there is a difference o f m o o d and emphasis b e t w e e n the t w o poets n o one c o u l d d e n y . It cannot be explained o n c h r o n o l o g i c a l grounds,3 y e t in a w a y t h e y d o stand for t w o generations, because Euripides w a s so m u c h m o r e attracted than S o p h o c l e s to the m o d e r n , sophistic currents o f t h o u g h t . L i k e P r o t a g o r a s , h e k n e w that there wore t w o sides to e v e r y question, and he enjoyed as m u c h as Hippias the 'contest o f w o r d s ' in w h i c h his characters i n d u l g e .
1

4

T h e debate

So Hirzel, "Αγρ. νομ. 69-71, in an interesting discussion with which on some points I am venturing to disagree. Pohlenz (Kl. Schr. 11, 352) likens Sophocles to Protagoras in his respect for l a w as man's highest cultural achievement. ' So far as can be judged, the Antigone w a s produced about 440, the Supplices of Euripides about 420, and the Oedipus Coloneus posthumously in 401. Cf. fr. 1X9 (from the A n t i o p e ) :
1 4

ίκ π α ν τ ό ς αν τις π ρ ά γ μ α τ ο ς δ ι σ σ ώ ν λ ό γ ω ν α γ ώ ν α θεϊτ' &ν εϊ λέγειν εΐη σοφός,

l o r Λμιλλαι or Λγώνις λ ό γ ω ν see Suppl. illiilailer ol sophistic sec p. 41 above.

195, 4 7^> Med. 546, Or. 491. On the agonistic

2

127

The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis
b e t w e e n T h e s e u s and the herald as to w h e t h e r the dead w a r r i o r s should b e buried d e v e l o p s into a set piece o n absolute monarchy versus d e m o c r a c y . A l t h o u g h it is clear w h e r e E u r i p i d e s ' s s y m p a t h i e s lie, the herald is n o caricature o f a bombastic tyrant's m i n i o n , b u t an accomplished sophist and orator. M y city, he says, has n o use for m o b - r u l e . N o o n e can s w a y it this w a y or that b y p l a y i n g o n its v a n i t y , pleasing it for the m o m e n t b u t in the l o n g run h a r m i n g i t .
1

Since a w h o l e demos cannot j u d g e a r g u m e n t s c o r r e c t l y , h o w can it direct a c i t y ? E d u c a t i o n takes time, and e v e n i f a l a b o u r i n g m a n is n o fool, his w o r k p r e v e n t s h i m from g i v i n g p r o p e r attention to p u b l i c affairs. ( W h y h a v e these a r g u m e n t s a familiar r i n g ? It is Socrates in the Gorgias w h o c o m p l a i n s that orators in a d e m o c r a c y lay t h e m ­ selves o u t t o natter the demos rather than tell it w h a t w i l l be for its g o o d , and Socrates again w h o said, like H u m e , that ' p o v e r t y and hard l a b o u r debase the m i n d s o f the c o m m o n p e o p l e ' and unfit t h e m for politics, w h i c h w a s a matter for trained e x p e r t s . ) Failure (continues the herald) t o c o m p l y w i t h C r e o n ' s demands means w a r . Y o u m a y h o p e t o w i n : h o p e has been the cause o f m a n y a conflict. E v e r y o n e thinks that its misfortunes will fall o n others, n o t himself. (Just so did the A t h e n i a n s w a r n the unfortunate Melians o f the snares o f h o p e in T h u c . 5.io3-)3 If, w h e n the v o t e is taken, each citizen c o u l d visualize his o w n death in battle, G r e e c e w o u l d b e safe from w a r madness. W e all k n o w h o w m u c h better peace is than w a r , y e t w e r e n o u n c e it in o u r lust to enslave o n e another, as m e n and as cities. A w i s e m a n thinks o f his children, his parents, and the safety o f his c o u n t r y . A rash leader is a d a n g e r : true c o u r a g e lies in f o r e t h o u g h t .
4 2

Here is a m a n w h o has studied the technai o f G o r g i a s and others and mastered all the rhetorical tricks. A n y a r g u m e n t y o u like can b e
' In similar vein H i p p o l y t u s — a v e r y different character—says p r o u d l y {Hipp. 986): * I have no skill to speak to the m o b ; m y w i s d o m is rather for the few, m y equals. And this is fitting. T h o s e w h o in the e y e s of the w i s e are of no account—it is they w h o are more accomplished in the art of mob-oratory.' Hume, Essays and Treatises (Edinburgh, 1825), p. 195. For Socrates see e.g. X e n . Mem. 1 . 2 . 9 , Oec. 4. 2 - 3 , Plato, Rep. 495 d - e , Arist. Rhet. 1393 b 3. More of this in Socrates, 89 ff. 3 It seems to h a v e been a commonplace of the time. Antiphon wrote (fr. 58): ' H o p e s are not a l w a y s a good thing. T h e y have brought m a n y to irreparable disaster, w h o in the end have suffered themselves what they thought to inflict on their neighbours.' 4 Cf. Polynices (another unsympathetic character) at Phoen. 599: ασφαλής γ α ρ εστ' άμείνων ή θρασϋς στρατηλάτης.
128
1

Written and Unwritten Laws: Summary
subordinated to the o p p o r t u n i s m o f the m o m e n t . E v e n the case for pacifism (and n o o n e surpassed Euripides in his h o r r o r o f w a r ; see for instance the c h o r u s in the Helen, 1 1 5 1 ff.) can b e v i v i d l y presented in the interests o f a ruthless ultimatum. T o s u m u p a c o m p l e x situation, the term ' u n w r i t t e n l a w s ' w a s applied in the first place to certain moral principles b e l i e v e d to b e u n i v e r s a l l y valid, o r alternatively valid all o v e r the G r e e k w o r l d . T h e i r authors were the g o d s , and n o b r e a c h o f t h e m c o u l d remain u n p u n i s h e d . T h e y were already closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h the natural w o r l d , for to contrast man w i t h nature instead o f seeing h i m as a part o f it is a m o d e r n rather than a G r e e k habit. S o for instance Heraclitus, w h o s p o k e o f all h u m a n laws b e i n g nourished b y the o n e divine law, also said that i f the sun left his course the F u r i e s , agents o f D i k e , w o u l d find h i m o u t . In contrast to these ordinances o f h e a v e n , each c o u n t r y o r c i t y had its o w n nomoi. It m a d e l a w s to suit its o w n beliefs and n e e d s , l a w s w h i c h had n o force e l s e w h e r e and in their o w n land m i g h t b e altered t o suit c h a n g e d circumstances. I n general it w o u l d b e t h o u g h t just o r r i g h t to o b s e r v e these l a w s , b u t t h e y h a d n o t the s c o p e or force o f the d i v i n e or natural l a w s , and t o the questing m i n d s o f the sophistic a g e it w a s matter for debate h o w far dikaion and nomimon c o i n c i d e d , the a n s w e r d e p e n d i n g v e r y m u c h o n w h e t h e r o r n o t a speaker w a s prepared to include the d i v i n e nomoi u n d e r the latter head. A second m e a n i n g o f ' u n w r i t t e n l a w ' d e r i v e d f r o m the a m b i g u i t y o f the w o r d nomos (p. 56 a b o v e ) . Since it meant the c u s t o m s o f a c o u n t r y as w e l l as its l a w , ' u n w r i t t e n nomoi' s t o o d for w h a t w a s b e ­ lieved in that c o u n t r y t o b e r i g h t and equitable b u t c o u l d n o t in practice be included in a c o r p u s o f w r i t t e n l a w . Y e t it w o u l d b e taken into account in j u d g i n g a particular case ( A r . Rhet. 13743261?.). B y the middle o f the fifth c e n t u r y a secular trend o f t h o u g h t is g a i n i n g g r o u n d at the expense o f the theistic, w h i c h did n o t h o w e v e r b y a n y means disappear c o m p l e t e l y . Side b y side w i t h it appears an
Sec p. i 2 i , n. 3, above. On the so-called ' T h r e e C o m m a n d m e n t s ' see Ehrenberg, S. and P. 1Λ7 72, who rightly claims that the situation was much more fluid than this phrase suggests. Il In of some interest that three of Pericles's unwritten laws (to worship God, to obey parents, mill to show gratitude to benefactors) recur in a modern writer's list of commands whi ch ' L o c k e mid most other theorists' would include in the law of nature (von Leyden, Philosophy, 1956, 27).
1

1

129

T h e decline o f religious sanctions c o i n c i d e d w i t h the rise o f d e m o ­ cratic g o v e r n m e n t . for u n d e r the influence o f mechanistic scientific theories the natural w o r l d is n o l o n g e r subject t o m o r a l g o v e r n m e n t . and their n e g l e c t as i n e v i t a b l y p u n i s h e d . T h e effect is seen in A n t i p h o n . for w h i c h p o s i t i v e . This drastic c o n c l u s i o n is c o n s i d e r a b l y modified w h e n P l a t o g o e s o n to admit that in the absence o f the ideal statesman a g o o d c o d e o f l a w s 130 . w r i t t e n l a w appeared as a safeguard against the return o f t y r a n n y o r o l i g a r c h y based o n the n e w c o n c e p t i o n o f ' n a t u r e ' s l a w ' . and s e c o n d l y (Politicus 292 ff. F o r Callicles the ' l a w o f n a t u r e ' . the c o n c e p t o f ' u n w r i t t e n l a w ' t o o k o n a sinister m e a n i n g and w a s banished f r o m the m o d e r n .) C o d i f i e d l a w is o n l y a set o f c l u m s y rules o f t h u m b .) his v i s i o n o f the w i s e . w i l l b e like a l a y m a n t r y i n g t o cure a patient b y l o o k i n g u p the disease in a b o o k c o m p a r e d to a skilled and experienced p h y s i c i a n u s i n g his expert j u d g m e n t . w h o s e decrees are as absolute. w h o spurns the l a w in his m a r c h to absolute and selfishly exercised p o w e r . T h e latter w a s perforce u n w r i t t e n and s o . for w h o m pleasure is the natural g o a l and the o l d d i v i n e u n w r i t t e n l a w that parents s h o u l d b e h o n o u r e d is ' o f t e n c o n t r a r y to n a t u r e ' . A magistrate w h o g o v e r n s b y it. justified the crudest h e d o n i s m and the m o s t o u t r a g e o u s t y r a n n y . e n l i g h t e n e d and trained ruler. B u t t h e y d o n o t necessarily f o l l o w the precepts o f traditional m o r a l i t y . T o b o t h o f these P l a t o o p p o s e d first his c o n c e p t i o n o f nature itself as an intelligent and m o r a l force. as c o m p a r e d w i t h the true statesman. nature's h e r o . finally. master o f the science o f g o v e r n m e n t . T h i s w a s the state o f the q u e s t i o n w h e n P l a t o t o o k it o v e r : at o n e extreme the e q u a l i t y o f all citizens under a w r i t t e n and published c o d e o f l a w . at the other the ideal o f the s t r o n g m a n . i m p o s i n g the fruits o f his scientific u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n subjects w i l l i n g o r u n w i l l i n g . k i l l i n g o r b a n i s h i n g w h e n necessary for the health o f the c i t y as a w h o l e . ( E v e n the d o c i l e Y o u n g Socrates is m o v e d t o a protest at this point. S u c h a one w o u l d d o better w i t h o u t w r i t t e n l a w s . as those o f the g o d s had b e e n .The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis impersonal ' n a t u r e ' . w h i c h c a n n o t a l l o w for the infinite v a r i e t y o f particular cases. w h i c h e v e r y m a n s h o u l d f o l l o w w h o has the strength and determination to d o s o . m o r e nearly egalitarian society. w h o s e rule w o u l d i n e v i t a b l y benefit his p e o p l e .

mortals and immortals alike'. and they are leges legum'. t o remind ourselves h o w lasting has b e e n this d i l e m m a w h i c h the G r e e k s w e r e the first t o face. APPENDIX Pindar on 'nomos' N o discussion o f the nomos-physis antithesis would be complete without a mention o f Pindar's famous allusion to 'nomos king o f all. owing to the absence o f any machinery for their disallowance. 131 . sometimes with a greater and sometimes with a less degree of reverence for actual l a w — w a s a ready solvent o f political obligation. xlvi-xlviii. ' i t w a s the Law of Nature w h i c h . introduction to Gierke's Natural Law. T h e relevant passage is fr. pp. T h i s c o n c e p t w a s i n v o k e d indifferently in the cause o f p o p u l a r i s m and o f absolutism. Such a conception—applied in various forms. 1-4 occur also • Barker. and could readily allege that he was only exerting. to which m a y be appended as a c o m m e n t w h a t Ernest B a r k e r w r o t e o f the N a t u r a l L a w school o f the seventeenth and eighteenth c e n t u r i e s : T o begin with. the natural rights which he enjoyed under that l a w . Finally. In the A m e r i c a n W a r o f Independence. for ' nature c o u l d b e u s e d t o consecrate the m o n a r c h as well as the p e o p l e ' . 484b ijuutcs the first 4 ji lines and gives the sense d o w n to v. that ' e v e n an A c t o f Parliament made against natural equity . 152 Bowra. Plato at Gorg. . or defending. .Plato s Attitude to Law p r o v i d e s the best ' i m i t a t i o n ' o f his rule and in all o r d i n a r y must b e d r a w n u p and enforced w i t h the u t m o s t r i g o u r . even if in actual practice. so that enactments and acts o f State which ran con­ trary to its prescriptions were strictly null and void. A n English judge had uttered the obiter dictum. 23). . I can only set out the alternatives and indicate what appears to me to be most probably its purport. w. these acts and enactments retained their validity. m o r e than a n y other force. . a n d the twentieth-century judgment o f Mr Campbell. is void in itself. but there is no agreement as to its meaning. for jura naturae sunt immutabilia. 169 Schr. there was the current conception that Natural L a w somehow overbore law positive. in 1614. 7 . w e h a v e o n l y t o l o o k again at the passages from R o u s s e a u and L o c k e q u o t e d earlier ( p . e x p l o d e d the 1 states authority o f the British Parliament and the British c o n n e x i o n ' . T h e rebel against constituted authority could easily plead obedience to the higher law.

w i l l w i s h to follow Heinimann (N. Gorg. Ο. and shows that Pindar certainly could. 1965. Helv. speak o f nomos as human and relative. which is in keeping with Herodotus's remark that each would choose his own nomoi as the finest. σφετέραν δ' αίνεΐ δίκαν έκαστος. I imagine.The ' Nomos'— Physis' Antithesis in schol. A great gain has been the publication in 1961 o f a papyrus (OP X X V I . F e w .) άλλο δ' άλλοισι νόμισμα. Herodotus (3. though the manuscripts of Plato have β ι α ί ω ν (for β ί α ι ω ν ) τό δικαιότατον. Camh. νομός ο τταντων βασιλεύς θνατών τε κ α ι αθανάτων α/ει δίκαιων τό βιαιότατον υπέρτατα χειρί. 203 β (215 Schr. 9. Soc. Nem. comparing P l a t o ' s paraphrase ούτε ττριάμευοξ ούτε δόντος τ ο ΰ Γ. 1 2 T h e poem continues with Heracles's theft o f the horses o f Diomedes. . on occasion.Τ. Helv. 1962 and Theiler in Mus. u. . Pind. 3 1 1 132 . 1965. See on that D o d d s . T h e irony o f this interpretation is apparent. Mus. including a gruesome description o f a man's bones being crunched b y the horses. 1 quote vv. 7 1 ) in a r g u i n g that even ihis does not i m p l y the relative (and hence not universally o b l i g a t o r y ) character of laws and customs because each is an expression of the will of Zeus and therefore binding. and Bowra follow. dvcrrel (' u n p u n i s h e d ' ) P a g e loc. 270-2. 1-8: . Plato's Callicles quotes the passage in support o f his o w n doctrine that might is right: Pindar's nomos is not man-made law but the supreme law o f nature which justifies the most extreme violence (or alternatively does violence to accepted notions o f justice). Aristides ( h i . and Soph.38) associates Pindar's words with his o w n view o f the relativity o f nomos as illustrated b y the experiment o f Darius (p. Ph. 35. 408. "Wilamowitz and Theiler both give nomos in our passage the sense o f ordinary custom or usage (Brauch): 4 See also P a g e in Proc. on A e l . 68 D i n d . . 384 δωρητόν οΟκ α ϊ τ η τ ό ν . cit. This is certainly the sense o f fr. Aristides's paraphrase ( π . 19 Dindorf). and Theiler. 3 αίτητάς Theiler. 68 f. T h i s is universally agreed to be correct. 6 o n w a r d s . 2450) o f the greater part o f the poem from v. and 5-7 in schol. but it still remains a question whether nomos has its usual meaning o f ordinarily accepted custom or stands for a higher law o f the gods. ) is οΰτε αΐτησας whence Boeckh's άναιτήτας w h i c h Schr. W e need not here consider whether this i s a copyist's error or a deliberately ironic misquotation on Plato's part. 16 above). τεκμαίρομαι εργοισιν Ήρακλέος έττεί Γηρυόνα βόας Κυκλώττειον έτη ιτρόθυρον Εύρυσθέος αΐτητάξ3 τε και άττριάτας ελασεν. Philol.

474f. be equally apt?) Untersteiner and Ehrenberg. Geryones. so naturally Nomos Basileus. and that to translate nomos here b y custom closes the w a y to correct understanding. 70 Dind.) that. 7 2 . 79—92 he gives a useful review of previous discussions of the fragment.cit. Pindar intuits ' G o d as the A b s o l u t e ' : to quote his o w n words.). Fr. (57 Schr. HechtsJtnken. . : Ί will never say what is displeasing to Zeus. 81 Schr. He believes Herodotus wilfully misrepresents the quotation in the sense o f fr. γ ο Β . but I will never say what is displeasing to Zeus. for Pindar says that Diomedes in trying to save his horses acted 'bravely. 5 . 203 B . chs. non piu ideale della purezza e della pieta. D o d d s too thinks it unlikely that by nomos Pindar meant merely custom. in Gnomon. (quoted b e l o w : see Theiler. Heracles was Zeus's son. to which H. G o d becomes 'idea e forza del mondo.) Pindar's lines are an indignant protest (σχετλιάξων) against a nomos which approves such violent deeds as those o f Heracles. being realized b y the will o f Zeus. not for human and contingent interests. pp. and Ehrenberg says (Rechtsidee. On pp. it is 'ancient and sacred custom'. and he too compares fr. which lords it over gods as well as men. 70 B . 70 Β . Nomos is ' t h e absolute principle o f divinity'. Pindar admits the right o f the stronger. . Gigante. d r . a usage which can turn violence itself to justice. V o l k m a n n . though they eschew mention o f the Absolute. άλλο δ' άλλοισι νόμισμα. 1 133 .7 . It is ' the law o f Fate.' 2 1 All these interpretations seem to ignore what Pindar plainly s a y s : not that nomos is the will o f Zeus but that even Zeus is subject to nomos. in which Zeus is addressed as δαμιοργός ευνομίας και δίκας.as he makes clear in ί τ . 1958.1 0 8 . ma ideale della giustizia che nel suo compiersi si servi della forza'. 70 is capable o f a less lofty reference than to 'the law o f fate'. though not a 'Schicksalsgottheit' as Schroeder thought. 11 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . According to Aelius Aristides (11. not wantonly. T h e fullest discussion is that o f M . and he confirms this b y quoting another passage (fr. which for him is identical with the will o f Z e u s ' .' T h e continuation o f the present poem is in the same sense. (But w h y should not fr. 1 ie puts the w o r d s between quotes. Unter­ steiner agrees that in Pindar nomos is 'an inviolable and sacred order'. and though Pindar has a higher ethical insight he prefers to say no more. 30. 297. come to not dissimilar conclusions in their o w n w a y s . 190if. Gigante quotes fr. T h e most violent action is justified because. 48 B .75)..Pindar on 'Nomos' it is customary to accept the violence o f Heracles without comment or criticism. it leads to justice and well-being. . 14-17). making holy even what is opposed to the human sentiment o f what is right.he. for it is better to die protecting one's o w n than to be a c o w a r d ' ( w . ' Sophs. n. ii£>f.) in which Pindar says: Ί am on your side. adds E. Wolf. but only as the law and will o f Zeus. 203 Β .

and (gods being the jealous creatures diey are) it w o u l d be unwise for a mortal to take his victim's side too openly. and (b) perpetrated b y a divine being. 2 1sth.34 and 3. . and any act. Pyth. if only it becomes sanctioned by nomos. 5. Pindar may well be shaking his head over this state of affairs. 1 . 39. 7 1 ) . will. 1 1 !34 . He was defender rather than critic o f the Olympians. 5 2 ) . 1 6 . for so the blame is less. but his religion retains much o f the Homeric. T h e r e are similar sentiments in Ol. A similar reply may be made to Heinimann's comment on Pyth. Pindar was pious in the sense that he thought mortals must submit to the will o f the gods. where nomos = form o f government. That is the prudent course. but they were still the wilful. u. shows that although nomos changes it depends not on human caprice but on Zeus (N. amorous. Ph. 2. This. 1. In general he holds to the traditionally prudent attitude o f the Greeks that the gods are jealous and ' mortal things befit mortals'. 3 3 7 ) . T h e more slanderous stories about them must be rejected and their honour upheld (Ol. Ol. 2 .35. the son of Zeus who became a g o d himself. 270) that ' t h e deeds of Heracles are no apt symbol ot the cus­ t o m a r y ' is beside the point. W h a t could be more violent and seemingly unjust and cruel than the theft o f G e r y o n ' s cattle or the horses o f Diomedes? Y e t the power o f nomos makes both men and gods accept it. democracy and aristo­ cracy (for Pindar 'the rule o f the w i s e ' ) are enumerated. as Pohlenz said (Kl. 5 . and it is said that 'the g o d ' favours n o w this one. 'It is meet that a man speak fair things o f the gods. 8 6 . 2 8 f . T o illustrate the universal truth expressed in the first three lines the most appropriate act was one that w a s (a) extremely violent.27. W h a t it does show is that a god can be as capricious as a man. tradition) has immense power. n o w that. Dodds's comment (Gorg. however w r o n g or terrible it may seem in itself. but more probably he prefers to make no judgment. appear to be justified. 1 1 . Both gods and men conform to it.The 'Nomos'—Physis' Antithesis Zeus favoured him. T h e changes between tyranny. W h a t custom has done is to justify them (δίκαιων τό βιαιότατον). Schr. Heinimann thinks.' 1 T o k n o w what was in Pindar's mind in this poem is obviously very difficult. powerful beings w h o fathered mortal heroes and must have their w a y . but I w o u l d venture the following: Recognized custom (usage.

5). M. as u n d e r s t o o d in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries A . 1909. Rep. L'idea del con­ tralto suciale dai Sojisti alia Rij'orma. In T y r t a e u s ' s p o e m (seventh century. Locke scarcely applies the w o r d ' c o n t r a c t ' to political matters at a l l . W . largely through the influence of Rousseau's Contrat Social.ν THE SOCIAL C O M P A C T 1 O p i n i o n s differ as to h o w far the t h e o r y o f the social contract. (b) the pactum subiectionis. t h o u g h they are combined in some modern formulations. from the a g e n c y of God to that of man. m e n tended t o s a y that L y c u r g u s d r e w u p the constitution h i m s e l f b u t w e n t t o D e l p h i for assurance that it had the g o d ' s a p p r o v a l ( X e n . fr. Gough.e. Kaerst r i g h t l y pointed out (Ztschr. 8. and the differ­ ences spring l a r g e l y f r o m the different meanings w h i c h scholars h a v e g i v e n to the phrase. O n l y the former has its origin in Greek speculation. or c o m p a c t . see h o w close the G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s w e r e to those o f later Europe. and as Peter Laslett has pointed out (Locke's Two Treatises. the less specific and legal term is probably to be preferred. the traditional o n e More usually k n o w n as the 'social contract t h e o r y ' . Later. It goes without s a y i n g that there were differences in the concept and its application arising out of differences in historical situation. T h e h u m a n l a w g i v e r o r constitution-maker ( w h o s e existence w a s not denied) w a s o n l y the channel t h r o u g h w h i c h the c o m m a n d s o f heaven b e c a m e k n o w n and effective. One thing that both have in common is the transition from a religious to a secular v i e w of law. O n e ancient b e l i e f a b o u t l a w attributed it ultimately t o the g o d s . i. D ' A d d i o . i f w e wish. an agreement of association between equals. D . . W e shall l o o k at the e v i d e n c e first (briefly in s o m e cases w h e r e it has already b e e n t o u c h e d o n ) . 3 D i e h l ) L y c u r g u s ' s constitution for Sparta is actually dictated in detail b y A p o l l o at D e l p h i . t h o u g h Hume also wrote on The Original Contract. 506) that the contract theory has t w o elements w h i c h must be kept distinct. w a s anticipated i n o u r period o f G r e e k t h o u g h t . and m a y then. w h e r e b y die ordinary citizen is bound in subjection to a higher uiiihority or sovereign. and J . it is ' c o m p a c t ' or ' a g r e e m e n t ' which creates a society. Lac. ( F o r the history of llic concept from the ancient world onward see Kaerst's article. But both Rousseau and Hume use more general terms like ' c o m p a c t ' and ' p a c t ' indifferently. In speaking of the Greeks at least.65) finds t w o v e r s i o n s side b y side. These are (a) the doctrine of a social contract or compact proper.f. 1 1 2 ) . The Social Contract. Pol. H e r o d o t u s (1. T h e people w h o were discovering their identity and determining the place of monarchy after the w a r s of religion and the Reformation w e r e in a very different position from the Sophists.) 1 135 .

as in σύμφημι. ' to put together for oneself. T h e C r e t a n l a w s in their turn w e r e said t o h a v e b e e n the w o r k o f Z e u s ( P l a t o . b u t w h e n the g o d s are r e m o v e d from his parable (as in v i e w o f his a g n o s t i c i s m t h e y m u s t b e ) . ) . s h o w s a desire t o k e e p t h e m united. It meant. and Euripides. 21-6). In d r a w i n g this contrast the act o f legislation is u s u a l l y said t o b e the o u t c o m e o f an a g r e e m e n t o r c o m p a c t (συνθήκη) b e t w e e n the m e m b e r s o f a c o m m u n i t y . 1 8 4 . and they are mutually agreed upon (the reflexive force of the middle assisting). as appears also from examples in L S J .3 T h e records o f P r o t a g o r a s d o n o t contain the actual w o r d ' c o m ­ p a c t ' . which. thus constructing a composite w h o l e . and ( w i t h an infinitive) to agree to do something. 2 and When with with therefore. B y the fifth c e n t u r y an impersonal nature had in s o m e m e n ' s m i n d s replaced the g o d s as the w o r l d w i d e p o w e r that p r o d u c e d the w h o l e order o f w h i c h m e n are a part.The Social Compact o f a religious o r i g i n for the l a w s . secondly to agree w i t h others. Pol. c o m p o s e d . w e h a v e a picture o f m e n perishing for lack o f the art o f l i v i n g t o g e t h e r in cities and b y hard experience learning t o act j u s t l y and respect the rights o f others and so f o u n d i n g See further Guthrie. t h o u g h it sounds tautologous. Laws. 2 3 1 I36 .e. like H i p p i a s . to agree w i t h him. αθανάτου φύσεως κόσμον ά γ ή ρ ω .9 . as in συντίθημι ( a c t . and their Gods. w h e n he speaks in ' P r e s o c r a t i c ' l a n g u a g e o f the ' a g e l e s s order o f i m m o r t a l n a t u r e ' . Nauck arbitrarily alters it to ά γ ή ρ ω ν to settle the matter. T h e prefix σ υ ν . w h i c h does not mean to say t w o or more things together or at the same time. purely human institution d e s i g n e d to m e e t particular needs. and 1 p r o b a b l y therefore s o u g h t the oracle's ratification o f his w h o l e s c h e m e .). m a k i n g his democratic reforms at the e n d o f the sixth c e n t u r y . elsewhere i n his p o e t r y . and also to hear and understand (' put t w o and t w o t o g e t h e r ' ) . i. to put t w o or more things together. 910 Ν . E v e n Cleisthenes. it c o u l d b e contrasted either a d i v i n e o r a natural order o r b o t h . 10. T h e middle voice of συντίθημι w a s used in both w a y s . first. could be right. (b) subjective. r e c e i v e d the names for his n e w tribes from the P y t h i a ( A r i s t .in compound verbs has t w o u s e s : ( a ) objective. and a rationalistic—based similarity o f Spartan and Cretan laws—that o n the the L y c u r g u s copied constitution o f C r e t e . ad init. W h e n the object w a s laws. o r a g r e e d u p o n certain articles. but to say something in unison w i t h another person. or organize. a treaty or the like. as w e h a v e seen. which. w h o h a v e ' p u t t o g e t h e r ' . the v i e w w a s g a i n i n g g r o u n d that l a w is a n o t h i n g p e r m a n e n t or sacred a b o u t it. F o r others. n. it is probable that both meanings were present: the constituent articles are composed or put together. also s h o w s that the form ά γ ή ρ ω could be used for the accusative. the t w o can exist c o m f o r t a b l y side b y side. Gks. Ath. Burnet (EGP. fr. w h i l e it suggests that the t a u t o l o g y could g o back to Anaximander himself. Anaximander Β 2 has άίδιον καΐ ά γ ή ρ ω . 3) says that ά γ ή ρ ω is g e n i t i v e . to do something conjoindy or in h a r m o n y w i t h someone else.

11. and Pol. t h o u g h it is not inconsistent w i t h a belief in an original contract in the past. Mere too one sees how misleading it is to speak of 'the Social Contract t h e o r y ' (p. 50!'. as existing jure divino. . like other c o n t e m p o r a r y p r o g r e s s i v e thinkers. b u t w h e n in a particular case t h e y are b u r d e n s o m e for the citizens. 65 If. b e l o w ) . Pol. In the ' d e f e n c e o f P r o t a g o r a s ' undertaken Theaetetus b y Socrates in the (167 c) w e find a t h e o r y w h i c h refers o n l y t o present conditions. it is factual. 1 1 . 1 Π7 . a c o m m o n m i n d to pursue a c o m m o n p u r p o s e o f g o o d life. P. existing ex contractu . . and. said Ernest Barker. w a s ' n o believer in the doctrine o f a social c o n t r a c t ' . δίκη. that t h e y w e r e formulated as the result o f a consensus o f o p i n i o n b e t w e e n the citizens w h o henceforth considered themselves b o u n d b y them. b u t since P r o t a g o r a s did n o t believe that l a w s w e r e the w o r k o f nature o r g o d s he m u s t h a v e believed. ' W h a t e v e r acts appear just and fine t o a particular state are so for that state so l o n g as it believes in t h e m .it Protagoras believed political institutions and l a w s to be gifts of God in' ' n a t u r e ' . e v e n t h o u g h the T h e quotations are from Barker's Gr. and A. 63. that the strength o f the l a w s lies in the individual's readiness to accept and o b e y t h e m ' ? T h e moral virtues w h i c h m a d e a c o m m o n life possible 1 (αιδώς. P r o t a g o r a s . T h i s is a matter o f ' s e l f . 322e). n o t n o r m a t i v e : w h a t is agreed u p o n by a c i t y is just for that c i t y so l o n g as it continues to regard it as valid (νομί^η — h o l d it as nomos). b u t is s u c h artificiality implied b y the contract t h e o r y ? Is not P o p p e r right w h e n he claims that ' t h e w o r d " c o n t r a c t " suggests . partly because ' a contract issuing in an artificial unity maintained b y artificial l a w s w o u l d b e n o sooner formed than b r o k e n .Protagoras political communities. Mewaldt. . and Gk.c o n t r o l and justice' (Prot. Kulturkampf. 7 3 . rather than as a creation o f m a n . 1 1 5 .' T h i s d i c t u m f o l l o w s from Protagoras's doctrine o f ' m a n the m e a s u r e ' ( p p .g. T h e c o m p a c t has m a d e it just and right for the citizens to k e e p the laws until t h e y are altered. Comm. b e l o w ) . (first published 1906). perhaps m o r e than any other t h e o r y . i s . σ ω φ ρ ο σ ύ ν η ) w e r e necessary preconditions for the f o u n d i n g o f a polis.. Open Soc. the w i s e m a n substitutes others that appear and are beneficial. Thought of P.' T h a t is true. Locncn. e. T h i s is partly because o f Barker's mis­ taken c o n v i c t i o n that he ' c o n c e i v e d the state as an ordinance o f G o d . . 183ff. as S a l o m o n said. Barker's censure might be valid against Hobbes. W h a t is needed and w h a t is e v e r y t h i n g . and Popper. 1.. What I have said of Barker applies equally to a number of critics who have started limn the assumption th. Theory (first published 1918). but not against Rousseau or others w h o spoke of a social conli'iiet. 142.

O f slightly later writers. as D o d d s said o f Critias. equates the latter w i t h ' j u s t i c e b y a g r e e m e n t ' . 139) says that since Antiphon speaks of transgression bringing αίσχύνη as well as 3ημ1α. fr. 108. 172 ff. but also of morality as originating in deliberate agreement. Untersteiner Sof. (See pp. i n a b o v e ) s u g g e s t that this usages o f o n e ' s o w n state') and the identification o f just w i t h lawful b y Socrates in X e n o p h o n (Mem. It left o p e n the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r justice so defined w a s ' b e n e f i c i a l ' (συμφέρον) o r not. 1 1 0 a b o v e ) . S o m e t h i n g like it is also.The Social Compact c i t y m i g h t p r o s p e r better u n d e r different l a w s . a b o v e ) . 1 2 . 100. 11. u. below. A t a n y rate w e m a y safely include P r o t a g o r a s a m o n g those w h o explained the rise o f political c o m m u n i t i e s i n terms o f a contract o r agreement. h e must be including the ' u n w r i t t e n l a w s ' and so his doctrine is not only one of the social contract as origin of l a w . implicit i n the Sisyphus sanctions are instituted b y m e n to c h e c k the s a v a g e r y o f the state o f passage is dealt with more fully on Antiphon. Heinimann (A^. 44 Α ( Ί 1 T h e first w o r d s o f A n t i p h o n fr. 108f. Ph. 145 below. and the v a r i o u s c o n c l u s i o n s t o b e d r a w n from it w e r e u n d e r l i v e l y discussion. But (α) I do not feel so certain that Antiphon w o u l d not associate disgrace with purely legal punishment. νομικόν και συνθήκη. in a w a y natural at the time t h o u g h i m p o s s i b l e before o r since. Untersteiner p e r c e i v e d the idea o f the social contract again in the w o r d s ' neither to inflict n o r to suffer i n j u r y ' . in distinguishing b e t w e e n natural and legal justice. w h e r e laws and their 266). i v . w h i c h f o r m e d the content o f the c o m p a c t a c c o r d i n g to G l a u c o n in the Republic. and pointed to the rapidity w i t h w h i c h t h e y m a y b e c h a n g e d as a reason for n o t t a k i n g t h e m v e r y seriously (p. 1 1 2. D K . p p . 76 a b o v e ) h o w the a u t h o r o f the speech against A r i s t o g e i t o n c o m b i n e s . 143. A n t i p h o n . for w h o m l a w and nature w e r e s t r o n g l y contrasted ( P l a t o . w e h a v e seen (p. say that justice consists in n o t transgressing the l a w s and 4 . p .' (Gorg. defined l a w s explicitly as ' c o v e n a n t s m a d e b y the citizens w h e r e b y t h e y h a v e enacted in w r i t i n g w h a t o u g h t to b e d o n e and w h a t n o t ' ( l a n g u a g e reminiscent o f A n t i p h o n .) I38 . (h) it is a question whether Antiphon intended his words in a historical sense. nature. £ 7 / 1 1 3 4 0 3 2 . w h i c h for h i m (unlike P r o t a g o r a s ) justifies i g n o r i n g them in f a v o u r o f the c o m m a n d s o f nature. Hippias. in the same c o n t e x t o f o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n nature and law. 337d). Similarly A r i s t o t l e later. Prot. 4 . the c o n c e p t i o n s o f l a w as a . T h e Theaetctus pp. 119). legal c o n c e p t i o n o f justice w a s in v o g u e a m o n g the a d v a n c e d thinkers o f the time. also calls laws the result o f agreement. 347 and 355 (pp. 44.

a g u a r a n t o r o f m e n ' s rights against o n e another. Popper Q. rebuilt the Piraeus o n a g r i d plan and laid out the n e w colonial c i t y o f T h u r i i for Pericles. 313 f.Hippias. differ­ ing o n l y in respect o f l o c a l i t y from alliances b e t w e e n distant c o u n t r i e s . m a y have been w h a t caused Aristotle to single it out for quotation. 1 1 4 . below.3 H e w a s m o r e o v e r the first to p r o p o s e a supreme c o u r t o f appeal against w r o n g j u d g m e n t s . T h e limitation o f law t o the n e g a t i v e role o f p r o t e c t i n g the citizens against each other had been p u t f o r w a r d earlier as an ideal b y H i p p o d a m u s . Our authority is again Aristotle.' T h e o n l y w o r d s w h i c h A r i s t o t l e here ascribes t o L y c o p h r o n as a description o f l a w a r e ' a guarantor o f m e n ' s rights against o n e a n o t h e r ' . B u t for s o m e reason pride o f place is a l w a y s g i v e n to L y c o p h r o n . Pol.p l a n n e r and political theorist w h o l i v e d in A t h e n s in the middle o f the fifth century. O u r authority is A r i s t o t l e in his Politics (1280b 10). since he w a s p r o b a b l y n o t w r i t i n g until the fourth the e v i d e n c e already r e v i e w e d m a k e s this i m p o s s i b l e .S. D i s c u s s i n g the perennial q u e s t i o n o f the relation b e t w e e n l a w and morals. 44-6. I26jbj7f[. n o t a means o f m a k i n g the citizens g o o d and just. Pol. and as L y c o p h r o n the Sophist said. not the actual n o u n ' c o m p a c t ' . and A. In his ideal state he w o u l d a l l o w three indictable offences o n l y . w h i c h m a y b e translated as insult. t h o u g h n o d o u b t their G l a u c o n in the Republic 3 contractual nature f o l l o w s and his definition c o m e s close to that m e n t i o n e d b y as one c o m m o n l y held. τ ω ν δικαίων. he claims that the end and aim o f a state is to p r o m o t e the g o o d life and therefore it has a r i g h t and a d u t y to c o n c e r n itself w i t h the m o r a l g o o d n e s s o f its citizens. On Hippodamus •ec the references in llignone. 1 1 139 . ΰβρίζ βλάβη θάνατος. T h e brevity and neatness of L y c o p h r o n ' s definition. and the brief but lucid account of h i m in Barker. Ι γ γ υ η τ ή ς άλλήλοι. T h e passages are chiefly interesting as s h o w i n g h o w l i v e l y in the G r e e k w o r l d w a s a c o n t r o v e r s y that is r e c e i v i n g so m u c h attention from leading authorities o n jurisprudence at the present d a y . and l a w b e c o m e s a c o m p a c t . A s founder of the social contract theory. ' O t h e r ­ w i s e ' . k n o w n t o A r i s t o t l e as a Sophist and t h o u g h t to h a v e been a pupil o f G o r g i a s . Theory of P. 1 century. Lycophron and Others h u m a n c o m p a c t and a gift o f d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e . Stmli. 43. rather than any originality. injury (to p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y ) and murder. he g o e s o n . the r e m a r k ­ able t o w n . ' t h e political s o c i e t y b e c o m e s a mere alliance. n a m e l y ' For Lycophron see pp. H e is e v e n claimed as the founder o f the social contract t h e o r y in its earliest f o r m . t h o u g h .

s h o u l d he find a n y t h i n g objectionable in t h e m . 25 (In Aristog. b u t there is n o s u g g e s t i o n that it w a s d i v i n e . to prevent injustice and b y the punishment of transgressors ' t o make the others better'. It w a s ' j u s t ' for h i m to abide b y their decisions. 86 and 88.).1 7 : the laws aim not only at τό δίκαιον but alsn at τό καλόν καΐ τό συμφέρον. the w h o l e foundation crumble. 1 1 7 . Mill that the o n l y p u r p o s e for w h i c h l a w c o u l d r i g h t l y b e enforced against a m e m b e r o f the c o m m u n i t y w a s t o p r e v e n t h a r m t o o t h e r s . 1 o f the c i t y ' s life w o u l d 140 . w h i c h is to ensure n o t s i m p l y life b u t the g o o d life. his o w n g o o d . w a s n o t sufficient w a r r a n t . For Democritus's view see vol. 1 6 . and it w a s necessary t o the v e r y existence o f the state. and his general c o n c e p t i o n w o u l d b e close to that o f L o r d D e v l i n . education and l i v e l i h o o d to those laws. In P l a t o ' s w o r k s w e h a v e also seen the c o n c e p t i o n o f l a w as a c o m ­ pact p u t f o r w a r d b y witnesses hostile to it. 52d). H e w o u l d h a v e sided w i t h L o r d S i m o n d s . T h e a r g u m e n t is that. p. Socrates has o w e d his birth. 49^1 (fr. L y c o p h r o n and H i p p o d a m u s w o u l d h a v e a g r e e d w i t h J. p h y s i c a l or m o r a l . M o r e o v e r t h e y g a v e h i m f r e e d o m . 1 In P l a t o ' s Crito Socrates e x p o u n d s in his prison cell the doctrine o f an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n h i m s e l f and the l a w s o f his c i t y as an a r g u ­ m e n t against a t t e m p t i n g to e v a d e the j u d g m e n t w h i c h those l a w s h a v e passed u p o n h i m . and as he had risked his life in battle at their c o m m a n d s so he s h o u l d g i v e it u p n o w that t h e y d e m a n d e d it from h i m . that ' w h a t m a k e s a s o c i e t y is a c o m m u n i t y o f ideas. n. he s h o u l d consider h i m s e l f their child and their servant. S. Enforcement of Morals.The Social Compact that c o n c e r n i n g the d e g r e e to w h i c h m o r a l i t y s h o u l d b e enforced b y law. 245). In A r i s t o t l e ' s eyes this i g n o r e s the real p u r p o s e o f political association. since the time w h e n his parents w e r e married u n d e r the l a w s o f A t h e n s . T h a t w a s the a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n them (50c. Since he had n o t c h o s e n to d o s o . 11. and cf. n o t political ideas alone b u t also ideas a b o u t the w a y its m e m b e r s s h o u l d b e h a v e and g o v e r n their l i v e s ' . I f private individuals c o u l d set aside the l a w ' s j u d g m e n t s at their o w n caprice. above. to leave A t h e n s w i t h all his p r o p e r t y and settle elsewhere. 1. w h o in 1962 p r o n o u n c e d it ' t h e supreme and funda­ mental p u r p o s e o f the l a w to c o n s e r v e not o n l y the safety and order b u t also the m o r a l welfare o f the S t a t e ' . On Aristotle's side is also pseudo-Dem. T h e y have a twofold purpose. H e says n o t h i n g a b o u t the o r i g i n o f l a w . Callicles and the ' t h e y ' o f See Devlin.

116. ' 1 2 P o p p e r o n the other hand claims that It will be seen that I do not follow Popper when he sees ' a complete change of front' in Plato between the Gorgias and the Republic. It m a y be relevant to mention Barker's o w n position. there n e v e r was a n y actual o r explicit " c o n t r a c t " : there is and a l w a y s w i l l b e a c o n d i t i o n o f things. justice and selfc o n t r o l and e v e r y t h i n g that militates against a life o f w a n t o n n e s s and licence are ' h u m a n agreements c o n t r a r y to n a t u r e ' . Callicles. O. and again. . and the m o r e c o m m o n p l a c e idea that the l a w s should b e accepted as a necessary evil b u t b r o k e n w h e n e v e r it is safe to d o s o . Law (1934) he w a s more cautious in his expression. asserting o r i m p l y i n g that in the r e m o t e past the first l a w s t o o k shape in s o m e t h i n g like a formal contract b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f an original political c o m m u n i t y ? Barker w r o t e that the social contract theory. the natural-law thinkers w e r e not really dealing with the historical antecedents of the S t a t e : they w e r e concerned with its logical presuppositions. is a legal N K s o c i a t i o n which fundamentally rests on the presupposition of contract.b e s t t o b e i n g able t o d o exactly w h a t o n e likes. w h i c h is a reconciliation of physis and nomos. w h i c h is a c o n d i t i o n o f tacit and implied c o n t r a c t . 98 a b o v e ) . ' T h e y ' . 160. said Callicles. as the Crito s h o w s . ' w h i c h is n o t o n l y that o f G l a u c o n but also that o f m o d e r n writers such as H o b b e s . . at least on the human plane. Glaucon G l a u c o n ( p p . See Popper. A g a i n s t t h e m C a l l i ­ cles exalts the superman w h o w i l l burst their b o n d s and live the life o f a self-indulgent tyrant. On the other hand . ' G. o n the other h a n d — t h e mass o f m a n k i n d as depicted b y G l a u c o n — e n t e r t a i n n o s u c h h e r o i c ideas. 1 0 3 1 ? . In fairness to Barker it must be added that in his introduction to Gierke's Nat.T. . H e therefore o p p o s e s b o t h the ideal o f the s u p e r m a n w h o b y b e i n g a l a w to h i m s e l f is f o l l o w i n g ' n a t u r e ' s j u s t i c e ' . Selfish b e h a v i o u r is limited t o e v a d i n g o f the law w h e n it can b e d o n e w i t h o u t fear o f detection. and in his later years m o u n t e d a p o w e r f u l attack against those w h o maintained that it c o u l d b e in a n y w a y o p p o s e d t o physis.' 141 . Government i s for h i m ' an essential attribute of political society. are the w e a k m a j o r i t y .l a w thinkers were apt to talk of an unhistorical "state of n a t u r e " and of an unhistorical act of contract b y w h i c h men issued from i t . He said there ( p .P. since for e v e r y o n e to b e h a v e so is a practical impossibility. In the first place. as distinct from society. . T h o s e w h o laid d o w n the l a w s . 1 C a n w e say h o w far the t h e o r y in G r e e c e w a s a ' h i s t o r i c i s t ' o n e . x l i x ) : ' N a t u r a l .S. which is itself in turn an essential attribute of human nature'. has b e e n met b y m o d e r n thinkers point b y p o i n t .Socrates. T h e y accept the existence o f the c o m p a c t as a s e c o n d . . P l a t o h i m s e l f is o f course an a d v o c a t e o f nomos. and there is still a case to be made for the view that the State.

and prima 2 facie it w o u l d seem. νόμους τίθεσθαι καΐ συνθήκας). b y his o w n efforts'. 6off. . P r o t a g o r a s and Critias b o t h held this t h e o r y . shows that it is rather a question of this or that philosopher's theory of a social contract. . i f n o t t o necessitate a t h e o r y o f a historical social contract.) above. each one holding it in a somewhat different f o r m . b u t h a v e b e e n g i v e n this f o r m b y P l a t o . and constituted a reaction against earlier m y t h i c a l accounts o f h u m a n d e g e n e r a t i o n . until the fatal c o n ­ sequences o f s u c h an ' u n o r d e r e d and brutish l i f e ' c o m p e l l e d m e n t o s u b d u e their s a v a g e instincts in the interests o f a c o m m o n defence against hostile nature. p r o ­ p o s i t i o n s u p p o s e d l y g i v i n g an a c c o u n t o f w h a t i n d u c e d m e n to e m e r g e from a state o f nature into the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a social c o m m u n i t y ' . ( S o J e b b explains έδιοάξατο.The Social Compact this objection is n o t applicable to L y c o p h r o n ' s t h e o r y because it did n o t take a historicist f o r m . insist that w h a t G l a u c o n p r o p o u n d s is n o t ' t h e Social C o n t r a c t t h e o r y ' for the v e r y reason w h i c h m a d e B a r k e r assert that it w a s . on Rep.S. T h e theories m e n t i o n e d in the Gorgias and Republic are t o b e identified w i t h L y c o p h r o n ' s . F o r this theory see pp. it w e n t w i t h Presocratic scientific theories a b o u t the o r i g i n o f physical life. n a m e l y that ' t h e emphasis is entirely o n the factual. T h i s w e h a v e already l o o k e d at. 1 1 4 ) . C r o s s and W o o z l e y . is surely to b e g a b i g question. the theory w o u l d certainly exclude Glaucon's account. 1 Perhaps the first t h i n g t o n o t e is the w i d e s p r e a d acceptance at this time o f the historical t h e o r y o f the e v o l u t i o n o f s o c i e t y from a p r i m i t i v e state i n w h i c h e v e r y o n e w a s for h i m s e l f alone. from the 'traditional historicist theory of the social contract' (O.b e historical. as Popper does when he distinguishes the theoretical form. T o s a y that the o n l y social contract theory is one that does not rely on a historical statement. at least t o p r o v i d e a setting h i g h l y c o n d u c i v e to i t . and that a n y s u p p o s e d l y historical fact a b o u t the o r i g i n o f l a w is irrelevant t o it. and it can hardly be denied that Glaucon's is a contractualist theory (359a συνθέσθαι ό λ λ ή λ ο ι ς . and b o t h b e l i e v e d in the social c o m p a c t as a historical Comm. and is therefore i m m u n e from the objections brought against it in that form. all of w h o m t h e y admit as contractualists. 71 ff. but i s it not misleading to speak of' the Social Contract t h e o r y ' ? ( T h e capitals but not the italics are theirs. A s w e noted. w h o s e criterion for a t h e o r y o f social contract is that it m u s t express a m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n to o b e y the l a w s c o n ­ sequent o n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s o w n u n d e r t a k i n g t o d o s o .) W h a t the authors themselves say of Hobbes. Even Sophocles in the Antigone chorus (355) mentions the legal regulation of social life as something which man ' developed for his o w n benefit. A s there defined. o r w o u l d . It seems more helpful to start with the fact that there are t w o main forms of the theory. Locke and Rousseau. concerned solely w i t h the end of the state (which he himself sees in L y c o p h r o n ) .) 1 1 142 . and Appendix (79ff.

In the fourth c e n t u r y the a u t h o r o f the speech against A r i s t o g e i t o n d r e w the opposite m o r a l : l a w s w e r e instituted against nature because nature is ' d i s o r d e r l y ' and l a w intro­ duces impartiality and equal justice for all. In their e y e s the fact that laws are n o t natural b u t merely agreements releases the citizen from a d u t y to o b e y them in all circumstances. H e held that his w h o l e life. pp. that a p h i l o s o p h e r m a y put his t h e o r y in historical f o r m w i t h o u t i n t e n d i n g it t o b e literally so u n d e r s t o o d . where the obligation of obedience to government is ascribed to a promise'. ' h e |Socrates| builds a Tory consequence of passive obedience on a Whig foundation of the original contract. like that o f e v e r y other citizen. b e l i e v i n g that the best w a y to m a k e its structure clear is to represent it as b e i n g built u p bit b y bit o u t o f the elements w i t h o u t i m p l y i n g that s u c h a ' Hume noted this. 59 1. ed.iti-d t/emos in the ease of the generals after Arginusae (Socrates. but in calling the l a w s ' a g u a r a n t o r o f mutual r i g h t s ' he m u s t h a v e had a similar v i e w in m i n d .) T h e attribution to Socrates is undoubtedly historical. W . at least implicitly. 208). to d o so. he comments. p. T h e e v i d e n c e for L y c o p h r o n is slight. t h e y h a v e b e e n accepted b y c o m m o n a g r e e ­ ment and must b e o b e y e d . 1 o f this principle w o u l d tear apart the w h o l e . calling the Crito 'the only passage I meet with in antiquity.o u t o f a contract and agreement a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h . A s the decisions o f w i s e men g u i d e d b y the g o d s . H e m a y intend o n l y a ' g e n e t i c definition'.' (Of the Original Contract.W o o z l e y c o n d i t i o n s for ' t h e Social C o n t r a c t t h e o r y ' b y affirm­ i n g a moral o b l i g a t i o n to o b e y the l a w . a J Jin. his altitude is confirmed not only by the maimer of his death but by his solitary championship of the law against an infilli. b u t neither d o t h e y fulfil the C r o s s . T h e r e is another possibility to be considered.Was Greek Theory Historicist? fact. then the o n e unmistakable adherent o f it at this period is S o c r a t e s . I f o n e accepts as essential marks o f a social contract t h e o r y that it should m a k e n o historical statement a b o u t the o r i g i n o f l a w b u t h o l d that e v e r y m e m b e r o f a state has a m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n to o b e y its laws because he h i m s e l f has contracted o r undertaken. 236. an analysis o f a state o f things into its constituent elements. w h i c h Plato shared w h e n he w r o t e it. It can h a r d l y b e d o u b t e d that the Crito is true to his c o n ­ victions. T h e v i e w s o f A n t i p h o n and (as reported) o f Hippias m a k e n o explicit reference t o historical origins. C . ' T h u s ' . Infringement fabric o f society. As I)e Strycker has justly pointed out (Melanges Gregoircs. had been the a c t i n g . in return for their b e n e ­ fits.). he w a s under o b l i g a t i o n to regard the laws as masters to b e o b e y e d .

of E. ch. ibi nulla philo- Y e t as w e read the w r i t i n g s o f the social-contract theorists w e find that the distinction b e t w e e n literal and instructional u s e o f g e n e t i c e x p o s i t i o n is b y n o means clear-cut. W h i l e c l a i m i n g o n the o n e h a n d that the historical p r o p o s i t i o n . H e says that facts d o n o t affect the question. pt. in o r d e r t o form a p r o p e r j u d g m e n t o f o u r present state'. h e m u s t constitute it himself. a n d h e p r o c e e d s to g i v e examples. and that h i s investigations ' m u s t n o t b e considered as historical truths. rather calculated t o explain the nature o f things than t o ascertain their actual o r i g i n ' . 253 ff. § 8 . b u t o n l y as mere c o n d i t i o n a l and h y p o t h e t i c a l reasonings. cit. a n d p r o b a b l y n e v e r w i l l e x i s t .The Social Compact process o f c o n s t r u c t i o n e v e r t o o k temporal f o r m . In general. 1. he. n o r plane figures t o solids. and o f w h i c h it is nevertheless necessary t o h a v e true ideas. as paraphrased and quoted b y Cassirer. o r w h e t h e r h e b e l i e v e d in a literal p r o c e s s o f creation. 1. . A g e o m e t r i c i a n m a y explain the structure o f a c u b e in terms o f constructing a square o u t o f four equal straight lines and then a c u b e o u t o f six squares w i t h o u t m e a n i n g that straight lines existed prior in time t o plane figures. is irrelevant t o their t h e o r y . a n d I b e l i e v e it w a s n e v e r g e n e r a l l y s o all o v e r the w o r l d . ' and ' b y the social c o m p a c t we have given life and existence t o the b o d y p o l i t i c ' ( m y italics). Y e t later in the Origin of Inequality 1 he w r i t e s : T h e nature and value of genetic definitions is lucidly set forth b y Cassirer in P. that before the contract m e n l i v e d i n a state o f nature. Hobbes. R o u s s e a u i n the preface t o the Discourse Origin of Inequality on the calls the state o f nature a state w h i c h ' p e r h a p s n e v e r did exist. F r o m P l a t o ' s immediate pupils onwards. ' i f o n e w a n t s t o " k n o w " s o m e t h i n g . he m u s t cause it t o d e v e l o p from its i n d i v i d u a l e l e m e n t s ' . b u t there are m a n y places w h e r e t h e y l i v e s o n o w ' . 3 1 nulla . . that p o i n t w a s reached in the h i s t o r y o f m a n k i n d . and i n the Social Contract w e find:' I assume. T h e idea o f g e n e t i c definition w a s extended from p h y s i c s t o political t h e o r y b y H o b b e s . c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e disputed w h e t h e r h e intended his c o s m o g o n y t o b e u n d e r s t o o d in this w a y . t h e y seem anxious t o g i v e it all the historical f o u n d a t i o n t h e y can. T h i s seems a perfect e x a m p l e o f a g e n e t i c definition. 2 144 . . Ubi generatio sophia intelligitur. T h u s H o b b e s h i m s e l f : ' It m a y peradventure b e t h o u g h t there n e v e r w a s s u c h a time n o r c o n d i t i o n o f w a r as t h i s . . for the sake o f a r g u m e n t . De corpore.

4 145 . h e p o i n t s out. w h i c h did o r c o u l d g i v e b e g i n ­ n i n g t o a n y lawful g o v e r n m e n t in the w o r l d ' . O f the others w h o m w e h a v e considered. C .Historicism and Genetic Definition ' S u c h w a s . (References in Kern. l i d ) says that Plato here puts the theory in historicist form. H e n o t o n l y m a k e s the u n e q u i v o c a l statement: ' T h i s is that. 221 f.. W a l l e r . At (iorg. g i v e n o sign o f p r o p o u n d i n g a historical t h e o r y o f the o r i g i n o f l a w . R e c o r d e d h i s t o r y .S. 483 b the present tense is used throughout. ) . ή ν γ ά ρ π ο τ έ χρόνος (once upon a time). p. and compels the citizens to rule and be ruled in accordance with t h e m ' (326d). but I do not find it so. Orph. w h e t h e r political virtue can b e t a u g h t . Leviathan. 7 2 . Frr. ch. s o far as o u r e v i d e n c e g o e s . 303. which are the inventions of good lawgivers of ancient times. b u t g o e s o n t o state and rebut the objection that n o historical instances can be q u o t e d o f the setting u p o f a g o v e r n m e n t in this w a y . C r o s s and W o o z l e y say ( w i t h n o reference g i v e n ) that ' as L o c k e s a w m o r e clearly than H o b b e s . 1 O f the G r e e k theorists.'s Rep. w o u l d p r o v i d e n o s u p p o r t for the t h e o r y ' . Origin of Inequality. Y e t it takes so m u c h from o f h i s t o r y that. has a fairy­ and m a n y m y t h i c a l elements. pt. the factual p r o p o s i t i o n . Popper (O. 175 f. o r m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n . p. trans. P. Cole ( E v e r y m a n ) . e v e n i f it w e r e true. 13 (ed. w h e n it c o m e s . P r o t a g o r a s seems the m o s t l i k e l y t o b e g i v i n g a genetic definition. and that o n l y . he p r o b a b l y k e p t a f o o t in b o t h c a m p s . like his post-Renaissance 3 seriously held theories successors. can o n l y b e g i n w h e n civil s o c i e t y has already b e e n in existence l o n g e n o u g h to a l l o w the d e v e l o p m e n t o f lettered leisure. S. ( W .) ' All that he says on the subject in the logos that follows the mythos i s : ' T h e State sets u p the laws. Rousseau. Similarly w i t h L o c k e . His aim is n o t a historical a c c o u n t o f the o r i g i n o f civilization b u t an a n s w e r to Socrates's question. he proceeds to g i v e reasons w h y the o n e h e has p u t f o r w a r d is ' the m o s t n a t u r a l ' and t o defend it against others. A n t i p h o n and L y c o p h r o n . ) . echoes the legendary poets Linus and Orpheus and w a s used again in verse b y Critias and Moschion. Y e t §§99-100 o f the Second Treatise s h o w plainly that for L o c k e it was a historical fact. 8 . 254. e d . M o r e o v e r the narrative. I . 169. Hippias.. 1 4 Socrates's is emphatically n o t a References for this p a r a g r a p h : Hobbes. and it is a matter o f indifference t o h i m w h e t h e r he c o n v e y s this answer in the f o r m o f a reasoned tale flavour 2 argument o r o f a narrative. Cross and W o o z l e y . and o n the next p a g e . ' T h e beginning.C. n o r is it apparent in the speech against A r i s t o g e i t o n or in P l a t o ' s C a l l i c l e s . the o r i g i n o f s o c i e t y ' . after repeating that the actual originating cause o f political societies is indifferent t o his a r g u m e n t .

B u t he w o u l d still h o l d that o b s e r v a n c e o f those faulty l a w s . and this ideal w a s equated w i t h k e e p i n g the l a w s . he appears t o the as his t h e o r y o f ' m a n m e a s u r e ' d e m a n d s : w h a t is just is o n l y w h a t o n e ' s state declares to b e just. lead to the brutal selfishness exemplified b y Callicles. w h i c h is an essential element in ' h u m a n e x c e l l e n c e ' as a w h o l e (325a). that failure to d o so w o u l d disrupt s o c i e t y . In Socrates's i m a g i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the laws o f A t h e n s . 2 claims to be g i v i n g a historical a c c o u n t . n a m e l y a distinction b e t w e e n the l a w s t h e m ­ selves and their administration. is identified w i t h ' p o l i t i c a l e x c e l l e n c e ' . ' y o u 146 . w h e r e b y the c o n t e n t o f just action in that state w i l l be altered. Either justice retained its m e a n i n g o f an ethical ideal. w a s m o r a l l y right as an alternative t o the c h a o s w h i c h w o u l d ensue i f e v e r y citizen felt free t o disregard t h e m . factual interpretation. T h e q u e s t i o n t h e y did ask w a s w h e t h e r ' j u s t ' w a s the same as ' l a w f u l ' . First. A n t i p h o n a n d H i p p i a s o n the other hand maintained that. T h e answers w e r e o f t w o t y p e s . S u c h a belief c o u l d .The Social Compact historicist doctrine. in a s k i n g w h e t h e r the G r e e k s b e l i e v e d in the social c o n t r a c t t h e o r y . t h e y say that. n o r m a t i v e and factual. P r o t a g o r a s is represented in the Protagoras as t a k i n g the first l i n e : justice. i f he abides b y the decision o f the c o u r t and agrees to be e x e c u t e d instead o f t r y i n g to escape. t h o u g h it need n o t .s o u n d i n g w o r d ' j u s t i c e ' all t h e y meant b y it w a s o b s e r v a n c e o f the existing l a w s . F i n a l l y . In the Theaetetus a d o p t the s e c o n d . or it w a s claimed that w h e n m e n u s e d the h i g h . it carried n o m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n and o n e m i g h t d o better to f o l l o w the c o n t r a r y precepts o f physis. w h i c h c o u l d in fact b e an u n w i s e o r harmful c o u r s e . the respect for l a w w h i c h has raised m a n from a state o f s a v a g e r y and w i t h o u t w h i c h s o c i e t y w o u l d collapse. Socrates agreed w i t h P r o t a g o r a s that it w a s just (in the sense o f m o r a l l y o b l i g a t o r y ) t o o b e y the l a w s or else g e t t h e m c h a n g e d b y peaceful persuasion (this alternative is m e n t i o n e d in the Crito).J O n l y G l a u c o n in Rep. because all that w a s meant b y justice w a s c o n f o r m i t y to nomos. w e are p u t t i n g t o t h e m a q u e s t i o n w h i c h t h e y did n o t ask themselves. until t h e y w e r e altered b y p r o p e r constitutional processes. B u t t w o further and points m a y be n o t e d . T h e state m a y b e p e r s u a d e d that it w a s at fault and a m e n d its l a w s . there is a hint in the Crito o f s o m e t h i n g w h i c h does n o t o c c u r e l s e w h e r e .

Suppl. S e c o n d l y . 1 5 6 ff. 2 2 8 . 147 . I f o n the other hand h e runs a w a y . In other w o r d s .The Question in Greek Terms w i l l b e the v i c t i m o f a w r o n g done t o y o u n o t b y us. Socrates w a s i n c l u d i n g the universal and d i v i n e u n w r i t t e n laws and t a k i n g into a c c o u n t j u d g m e n t in a future life as w e l l as in this. b u t b y y o u r f e l l o w m e n ' . a n d i n the Crito the laws g o o n i m m e d i a t e l y f r o m the point just m e n t i o n e d to say that the l a w s in the next w o r l d w i l l n o t receive h i m k i n d l y i f t h e y k n o w that he has tried t o d e s t r o y their brothers in t h i s . o n c e a v e r d i c t has b e e n legally g i v e n there is n o legal alternative t o its e x e c u t i o n . 1 ' T h a t Socrates believed in a future life is disputed (see Socrates. but it seems that there w a s r o o m for H i p p o d a m u s ' s p r o p o s a l for a court o f appeal. the l a w s . F o r the u n w r i t t e n laws w e h a v e the e v i d e n c e o f X e n o p h o n . in s a y i n g that ' j u s t ' w a s identical w i t h ' l a w f u l ' .3 1 . F o r the idea of judgment pursuing a man from this w o r l d to the next cf. b e l o w ) . Aesch. he w i l l b e b e h a v i n g d i s h o n o u r a b l y b y b r e a k i n g his agreements and contracts w i t h the laws t h e m s e l v e s . Socrates s a w n o t h i n g w r o n g w i t h this e v e n in the case o f his o w n death-sentence. pp.

So far as the latter t w o are concerned. A n d in a democracy all these. but I reply. and the best at listening to and judging arguments are the many. first. and the need to defend d e m o c r a c y w a s a spur t o further a r g u m e n t s in its f a v o u r . D e m o c r a c y w a s part o f a general m o v e m e n t t o w a r d s e q u a l i t y . it is cast in an entirely C r e e k mould. w h o says to the y o u n g oligarchs o f his c i t y ( 6 . A g a i n s t it s t o o d o l i g a r c h y . have an equal share. democratic leader o f S y r a c u s e . for instance in the speech o f A t h e n a g o r a s . b o t h as an established political c o n ­ stitution and as an ideal. in w h i c h the rich h a v e their place. oligarchy only a part. whether acting separately or together. T h u c y d i d e s p r o v i d e s s o m e o f the best examples o f this. that demos means the whole state. and w h e t h e r in p o w e r o r in o p p o s i t i o n a l w a y s a foe to b e r e c k o n e d w i t h . secondly. (Hdt. and that the wealthy are also the best fitted to rule. oligarchy and democracy. b y n o means a spent force. 3 .VI EQUALITY (i) POLITICAL EQUALITY In the fifth c e n t u r y d e m o c r a c y .2 . N a t u r a l l y therefore an i d e o l o g i c a l conflict d e v e l o p e d 1 which led m e n o n b e y o n d constitutional questions t o larger p r o b l e m s o f h u m a n nature and h u m a n relations. In practice it did n o t A classic statement of it is the debate w h i c h Herodotus somewhat incongruously re­ presents as taking place between the three Persian usurpers on the respective merits of monarchy. 3 8 . ) 1 I48 . b u t it is for the m o s t intelligent to g i v e c o u n s e l — p o s s i b l y conflicting c o u n s e l . H e r e w e h a v e the ideal o f a d e m o c r a c y . 8 0 . but the best counsellors are the intelligent. for there are t w o sides t o e v e r y q u e s t i o n — a n d the decision is in the hands o f the w h o l e p e o p l e . that the wealthy may be the best guardians o f property. 5 ) : D o y o u dislike being politically on an equality with a large number? But h o w is it just for members o f the same state to be denied the same rights? I shall be told that democracy is neither sensible nor fair [literally ' e q u a l ' ] . w h e n t h e y h a v e listened to the a r g u m e n t s and sized them u p . reached its climax in A t h e n s and s o m e other G r e e k cities.

orderliness. c o n c o r d . and c o n c o r d resembles friendship. philia. 2 2 . ττολ.' ' Philia. M o r e e v e n than d e m o c r a c y . in the relation between parents and offspring. Opponents of democracy can take it in the first s e n s e . Vlastos. m a k e ' Cf. 4 . 8. and in Plato (Tim. 4 . η . . 2 1 149 . 5 ) . u n i t i n g friend t o friend.\is 114b).y. . N o . Elsewhere he defines c o n c o r d as 'friendship in the political s p h e r e ' . ι : ' T h e ambiguity in δήμος (pleps or populus) is all to the g o o d . A m o n g human b e i n g s it is friendship or •flection. and A r i s t o t l e says that i f the citizens are friends justice m a y w i t h e r a w a y .Homonoia a l w a y s w o r k out like that. L e g i s l a t o r s are e v e n m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h friendship than w i t h justice. while thoughtful democrats can Invoke the second. a word of remarkably w i d e application. the c o n c e p t m o s t closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h equality w a s perhaps homonoia. Ίσ. but it extends beyond the human sphere. C o n c o r d does n o t mean s i m p l y c o m m u n i t y o f beliefs. as the opposites w e r e made to blend In Pherecydes. for ' t h e w i s e men who have written about nature and the whole say that like must a l w a y s be philon to l i k e ' (l. and Socrates in the course of demonstrating that the just is c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h the lawful says that c o n c o r d is the best o f all things for a city and its object is t o secure obedience to the l a w s ( X e n . and Theophrastus even among plants. and essential t o the preservation o f the political order. for friends d o n o t c o m m i t injustice against each other. Similarly in the Gorgias (508a) ' t h e w i s e ' s a y that hcuven and earth and gods and men are all held together b y community. T o inculcate friendship is the statesman's chief end. c o n c o r d (literally ' b e i n g o f one m i n d ' ) . friend­ s h i p and equality w e r e seen as interdependent i f n o t identical. it is justice that ' b r i n g s order i n t o o u r cities and creates a b o n d o f friendship and u n i o n ' (Plato. In the Republic (35id) the pursuit o f justice leads to c o n c o r d and friendship. for demos n o less than oligoi c o u l d b e applied to a section o n l y o f the p o p u l a t i o n — c o u l d mean plebs as w e l l as populus -— and as such c o u l d b e ruthless in its treatment o f the rich or intellectual. 3 2 c ) cosmic philia resulted from the geometric structure of the world. for their aim is to replace faction b y c o n c o r d . ally t o ally. It is connected with the old doctrine of ' l i k e to l i k e ' . Prot. c o n c o r d is a w o r d applied to cities w h e n the citizens agree a b o u t their c o m m o n interests. Mem. F o r P r o t a g o r a s . In the earlier and more mythical cosmogony of Pherecydes (fr. Euripides (to b e quoted in context s h o r t l y ) sees equality as a b o n d o f u n i o n . Aristode (EN ι155a 18) saw it a m o n g birds end animals as well. o r m e r e l y on an academic subject like a s t r o n o m y . the notions o f justice. 322c). Indeed. 3) the w o r l d w a s created by α conflation of the opposites through philia. c i t y to c i t y . T h a t c o u l d exist b e t w e e n strangers. 1 6 ) . but only because it has (he power of assimilating them to each other (fr. temperance and justice. 'justice and friendship are either the same o r nearly s o ' . In Umpcdoclcs the cosmic spirit of philia unites unlikes. In the t h o u g h t o f this p e r i o d .

although not s y n o n y m o u s with democracy. so that the w h o l e passage stands in a v e r y close relation to Aristotle. m a k e no reference to ομόνοια at all. Ισονομία. 8 a ) . G o r g i a s h o w e v e r seems t o h a v e used it in a p a n . where Antiphon says that people w h o do not attack others unless provoked. Gesch. cit. loc. I234B22FF. a p r e v e n t i v e o f that stasis (faction. might Equal 2 1 o r equality itself is the m o s t frequent c a t c h w o r d in the m i d d l e a n d late fifth c e n t u r y . the ideal o f homonoia. 6 2 . a n d the ideal is equal political and judicial r i g h t s . though I cannot g o all the w a y w i t h Vlastos w h e n he claims that the mention of ολιγαρχία Ισόνομος at T h u c . a n d p u b l i c responsibilities are allotted n o t a c c o r d i n g to A r . 1. EN 1 1 6 7 3 2 2 . I50 a 1 . 296. 250) a m o n g the ' g r e a t d e e d s ' w h i c h c o n c o r d alone m a k e s possible for a c i t y .) T h i s seems to b e in general true. In spite of the interesting passages which he adduces for comparison. Ισότης. B i g n o n e {Studi. F o r references to ομόνοια see further Schmid. 1 ) that in the A t h e n i a n d e m o c r a c y p o w e r is i n the hands o f the p e o p l e .H e l l e n i c sense. he completely ignores col. 293 ff. it w a s a l w a y s identified w i t h it in the fifth century. so w e are quite in the dark as to w h a t Antiphon said about it. especially EN 1 i 6 7 a 2 2 f f .v. a s he s a y s . w e l l seem to offer a better a n d truer c o n c e p t i o n o f equality. in RE. in reconciling 'Αλ. 349 f. 3 7 . . and w h o return the bad treatment of their parents with kindness. 3 fits his theories perfectly. Ισος. EE I 2 4 i a 3 2 f f . δμ. ) .. 1 ( D K . o f a concordia ordinum. one of Socrates's pupils i s said to have maintained that φιλία w a s the product of δικαιοσύνη and ομόνοια the truest manifestation of φιλία (409 a . it is not surprising if their denotations too should occasionally differ. Pericles puts it ( T h u c . 163. 1 0 1 . If. ' W a g i n g w a r ' is for D e m o c r i t u s (fr. Paid. In the CUtopho. Vlastos h a s argued against Gomme that. Ίσον. 5 of OP 1364 fr. D o w n to the time o f P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e . Ισονομεϊσθοπ. 11. F o r the meaning of Ισονομία see Ehrenberg s. ZjR. 162 b e l o w ) . (Vlastos. Moreover. n. πολιτική. 3 . v n . homonoia w a s m a i n l y c o n c e i v e d as confined w i t h i n the polis.) argued for a close relation between the moral doctrine of concord in Antiphon's π . Bignone hardly makes his point. where Socrates tells T h r a s y m a c h u s that injustice leads to hatred and fighting but justice to ομόνοια and φιλία.e . ομονοίας and his doctrine of justice as developed in the Αλήθεια. Suppl. . if only to gain a special effect. όμ. w h e n he c h o s e it as the subject o f his o r a t i o n to the inter-state a s s e m b l y at O l y m p i a (fr. adding that it is not όμοδοξία. Unfortunately. civil strife) w h i c h s o b e d e v i l l e d the life o f t h e G r e e k c i t y states. EN H 5 5 a 2 2 f f .). Ehrenberg. Cf. b e i n g in fact the virtue b y w h i c h it k e p t its u n i t y and m a i n ­ tained itself against outsiders. 2 .b o r n . the extant fragments of the π . and π . Jaeger agreed.Equality the same practical c h o i c e s a n d c a r r y t h e m o u t . A t a time w h e n d e m o c r a c y m i g h t in practice m e a n n o t the equal participation o f the w h o l e c i t y in g o v e r n m e n t b u t the seizing o f p o w e r b y the hitherto p o o r a n d u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d at t h e expense o f the rich and w e l l . the connotations of the t w o w o r d s are different. are acting contrary to nature. and this a c c o r d s w i t h his declaration that v i c t o r i e s o f G r e e k s o v e r G r e e k s w e r e matter for s o r r o w ( p . 1. B i g n o n e m i g h t have added Rep. 351 d. he noted. in private disputes e v e r y o n e is equal before the l a w .

508a. the g e o m e t r i c a l (anti-tyrannical b u t aristocratic) and the arithmetical ( d e m o c r a t i c ) . city to city and allies to their allies. and h o n o u r instead E q u a l i t y .Political Equality a n y class s y s t e m but s o l e l y o n merit. the p e o p l e rule in y e a r l y turns o f office. fr. 1 1 lsoc. Plato.7 5 8 3 . It is interesting that to describe d e m o ­ cratic equality in the Laws Plato uses the same three words as Euripides in the same o r d e r : it is τήν μίτρω Ισην καΙ σταθμω καΐ αριθμώ. Areop. Gorg. Equality it is w h o established measures and weights for men and delimited number. but the less is always foe to the greater and ushers in the day o f hatred. 1.) the y i e l d i n g o f winter to s u m m e r and n i g h t t o d a y is used t o s u p p o r t the c o n t r a r y moral that e v e r y w h e r e there are rulers and subjects.' F o r the praise o f equality as such w e h a v e the Phoenissae (531 ff. 2 1 .) : καΐ γ α ρ μέτρ' άνθρώττοισι και μέρη σταθμών Ίσότης έταξε κάριθμόν διώρισε. and submission o f one to the other is necessary. and neither grudges the other his victory. O n d e m o c r a c y itself his T h e s e u s e c h o e s the sentiments o f A t h e n a g o r a s and Pericles {SuppL 404): ' T h e c i t y is free. T h e phrase οϋτ' άριθμφ ούτε σταθμω at Xen. and (as w e see f r o m Plato and I s o crates) led to a c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n t h e ' t w o equalities'. and the p o o r m a n is g i v e n an equal share w i t h the rich. w h e r e Jocasta pleads w i t h her s o n t o renounce the pernicious daimon A m b i t i o n . (Shakespeare t o o t h o u g h t that the course o f nature confirmed the indispensability o f ' d e g r e e ' . W h a t is equal is a stable element in human life.). Equal in the year's circuit are the path o f dark night and o f the sun's light. and as a reminder that w e are in the a g e o f ferment w h e r e e v e r y a r g u m e n t has t w o sides w e m a y notice that in the Ajax o f S o p h o c l e s (668 ff. T h e n e w emphasis o n equality as an ideal is perhaps best seen in the plays o f E u r i p i d e s . E v i d e n t l y it w a s in the air before A r c h y t a s the P y t h a g o r e a n m a d e his claim that the art o f calculation ' ends faction and p r o m o t e s u n a n i m i t y ' (see v o l . Laws 7 5 7 3 . 6 151 os Ρ . and in her praise of Ίσότης Jocasta says (541 f. 399 Ν. Symp. See uleo Soph. w h o unites friend to friend.336). Shall day and night serve mortals and y o u not brook to give your brother equal share in the dynasty with yourself? W h e r e in this is justice? O n e notices again the readiness w i t h w h i c h the G r e e k calls o n nature at large to endorse a c o u r s e o f h u m a n a c t i o n . nor is p o v e r t y e v e r a bar to office. ) Interest­ i n g also is the c o n n e x i o n in t h o u g h t b e t w e e n equality in the social and political field and i n the field o f metrical standards and mathe­ matical calculation. 4·43 suggests a proverbial clement.

as w o u l d b e expected at this time. and w e h a v e the care o f it. 578. 44 B . 152 . vol. (3) SOCIAL EQUALITY T h e spirit o f egalitarianism led t o a q u e s t i o n i n g o f distinctions based n o t o n l y o n w e a l t h b u t o n birth o r race. (See OP. Phaleas h a d t h o u g h t o f this t o o . though its relation to fr. applied only between citizens. 2. A n t i p h o n . and Phaleas s h o u l d tell u s w h a t kind o f e d u c a t i o n he p r o p o s e s . but their sense can be taken as certain. t o u s . o u r o n t y s o u r c e ) s a y s he w a s the first t o affirm that the citizens o f a state o u g h t to h a v e equal B y a b o l i s h i n g w a n t he h o p e d t o abolish c r i m e . and this needs suitable e d u c a t i o n . Later h o w e v e r ( 1 2 6 7 0 9 ) Aristotle says that he limited this to the possession of land. OP 1364. possessions. b u t A r i s t o t l e c o m m e n t s that c o l d and h u n g e r are n o t the sole i n c e n t i v e s to crime. w h i c h hitherto had seemed t o m o s t G r e e k s natural and fundamental. says A r i s t o t l e . imperfect f o r m . and w a s m o d e r n e n o u g h t o p r o p o s e that n o t o n l y w e a l t h b u t also e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d b e p r o v i d e d ' e q u a l l y ' b y the state: but. in its c o n t e x t . 1 1 important 2 p a r a g r a p h so far o m i t t e d f r o m o u r s u m m a r y o f the p a p y r u s f r a g m e n t s . and e v e n to that b e t w e e n master and slave. ' A c t u a l redistribution o f w e a l t h o n an egalitarian basis. 1. fr. s o m e t h i n g a l m o s t Christian in Jocasta's designation o f it as a trust from h e a v e n (555): ' W e m o r t a l s d o n o t h o l d o u r w e a l t h as a private p o s s e s s i o n .) A r i s t o t l e (Pol. e v e n i f in a. it is n o use e v e r y o n e h a v i n g the same e d u c a ­ tion i f it is o f the w r o n g sort. fr. b u t w h e n t h e y w i s h t h e y take it b a c k a g a i n . Th. Gr.Equality (2) EQUALITY OF WEALTH A s t o w e a l t h there is. 1 1266339ff. it is the g o d s ' . the o p p o n e n t o f nomos in all its f o r m s . x i . It is thus from the fragment w h o s e authenticity is guaranteed. and Phaleas even proposed that all artisans should be publicly owned slaves ( 1 2 6 7 ^ 5 ) . είναι τάς κτήσεις τ ώ ν π ο λ ι τ ώ ν . 93. DK. ( O n his date see G o m p e r z . p r o b a b l y a b o u t the end o f the fifth c e n t u r y . issued his challenge o n b o t h n o b l e birth and race in an It runs t h u s : ί σ α .. Of course the equality. 1 is u n k n o w n .) Considerable restoration has been necessary in the first few lines. and in fact the greatest crimes are caused b y excess and n o t b y n e c e s s i t y : it is n o t m e n ' s possessions b u t their desires and a m b i t i o n s that m u s t be equalized. w a s first p r o p o s e d b y a certain Phaleas o f C h a l c e d o n .

and the translation follows Bignone's restoration in Studi. within our o w n race. 485) βεβαρβάρωσαι. 65. the Greek is rather unusual.' 1 1 ' Turn's point that only biological equality is in question has been adequately dealt w i t h b y Merlun. both barbarians and Greeks. and more often the derogatory implication w a s prominent. since b y nature w e are all made to be alike in all respects. w h o i n a d i a l o g u e On Nobility of Birth m a d e o n e o f the speakers confess his b e w i l d e r m e n t as to the application o f the term. * And no doubt also to a sophistic straining after rhetorical effect b y means of the double (factual and pejorative) significance of βάρβαρο. T h e double emphasis in φύσει ττεφύκαμεν i s lost in English. for w e all breathe the air with our mouth and nostrils and [eat with our h a n d s ? ] . 2 5 . Nevertheless the Greeks had a strong sense of their superiority to other men. CP (1950). I53 6-2 . for which he finds hints in a passage of P o r p h y r y ' s De abilinentia ( 3 . p. [ T h e y can all be provided in the same w a y b y all men.5 A n o t h e r w h o at a b o u t the same time o r rather later (there is m u c h uncertainty a b o u t his date) castigated distinctions based o n birth w a s the 6 Sophist L y c o p h r o n . but those from humble homes w e neither respect nor look up to. that m a y b e due t o the fragmentary state o f the t e x t . 221 N a u c k ) . e v e n m o r e a m o n g p h i l o s o p h e r s than a m o n g o r d i n a r y m e n . χρόνιο. If barbaros means •tupid. and in all this] none o f us is marked off as either barbarian or G r e e k . Grenfell and H u n t r e n d e r : ' w e are all b y nature alike fully adapted to be either barbarians or Hellenes'. Unity. and at least A n t i p h o n ' s message is plain. p . 313 f. 1 3 I f the l o g i c o f this passage appears strange (' W e p a y great attention to h i g h birth.. stupidity. ' Fr. w h i c h is probably more accurate. T h e w h o l e argument m a y have been some­ thing like t h i s : ' W e pay too m u c h attention to a man's race or. and use the term to mean ignorant or u n c i v i l i z e d . for (έπεί) 4 in reality there is n o difference b e t w e e n barbarians and G r e e k s ' ) . and Baldry. w i t h the same needs and means of satisfying them. trans. Barbaroi strictly means all non-Greek-speaking people.* This can be seen from the needs w h i c h all men have. 43ff.Antiphon on Birth and Race T h e sons o f noble fathers w e respect and look up to. Nevertheless the following sentences show that the intention is in fact to obliterate the distinction between the t w o . If this is the translation. 59 Ross (Oxf. . ώ ν iv βάρβαροι. or lack of moral sense. For Lycophron see pp. Or. 164. In ordinary speech the w o r d carried an imputation of ignorance. In this w e behave to one another like barbarians. W e call the rest of mankind barbaroi. and is often used to make this factual distinction w i t h no derogatory implication. to his descent. It is an insult when T y n d a r e u s says to Menelaus (Eur.). W e k n o w o f this f r o m A r i s t o d e . are we not the real barbaroi here? In point of fact there is no difference in nature between Greeks and non-Greeks. . and ut the same time w e respect or despise people according to their ancestry.. H i s c o m p a n i o n replies that this is v e r y natural. b u t this is to b e h a v e like barbarians. below. 91 Hose. for there is m u c h d i v i s i o n and o b s c u r i t y a b o u t its significance. Nor is there an essential difference between high and l o w born. ' Of the w o r d s in square brackets little is left in the Greek. p. All men are the same at bottom. that in nature there is n o essential distinction either b e t w e e n h i g h and l o w birth o r b e t w e e n different races.

see Nestle. i6f. Eur. His v i r t u e s p r o v o k e O r e s t e s t o reflections like these (367ff. and fine children s p r u n g from the u n w o r t h y . and all three fragments are from the same play. 95. even in Euripides's time. T h a t poverty need not destroy inherited nobility of character is repeated in a fragment of his Archelaus (fr. he marries the d a u g h t e r o f A g a m e m n o n to a p o o r peasant remarkable for the c o u r t e s y and n o b i l i t y o f his character. 638. But one must never forget that his lines are spoken in character. 235 expresses utter contempt for w e a l t h . for to his contemporary A n a x a g o r a s and other philosophers the process which g a v e birth to the cosmos and all living creatures in it w a s one of continuous ' s e p a r a t i o n ' .3 O n birth the c h o r u s s i n g (fr. 326). w h o has come d o w n in the w o r l d . 1 0 ) . T h i s primal uniformity of mankind appears also in Sophocles's Tereus (fr. For the plot of the p l a y and context of fragments see V o g t . 248 appears to revile poverty. 6 . T h e subject o f the Alexander ( P r i n c e P r i a m disguised as a slave-herdsman) g a v e E u r i p i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y o f raising the questions o f birth and o f s l a v e r y f r o m b o t h sides. noble lineage and material possessions still went together more than they do with u s (Nestle.Equality Is it a precious and g o o d thing. ' In k e e p i n g w i t h this are several passages o n bastardy w h i c h insist that the bastard is b y nature the equal o f the legitimate.b o r n t h o u g h his father b e a greater than Z e u s . 52): W e g o too far if w e praise noble birth among mortals. 168. For his attitude to m o n e y in general. Euripides. 336): ' O f h i g h birth I h a v e little g o o d to say. I n m y eyes the g o o d m a n is the n o b l e . but as he says. 334ff. W h e n first. 532). frr. 3 4 1 1 154 . Similar sentiments o n the subject o f n o b l e birth are frequently o n the lips o f the characters in E u r i p i d e s . 323). long ago. and its dignity lies in words. and it is typical o f h i m that in his Electro. for there is confusion i n the natures o f m e n . 232).): ' A b o u t m a n l y virtue n o t h i n g is clear. In Greece. or as Lycophron the Sophist wrote. I h a v e seen a w o r t h l e s s s o n o f a n o b l e father. he says that its splendour is not apparent. ' M o r e o u t s p o k e n is an unidentified character in the Dictys (fr. and the unjust b a s e . some­ thing altogether empty? Comparing it with other goods. Androm. 22. maintaining that to prefer it is a matter o f opinion. 4 2 1 In the interests of accuracy it must b e said that in the prologue the peasant proclaims h i m ­ self the descendant of a noble line. and in v i e w of Orestes's remarks it seems that little significance i s to be attached to the fact. Sklaverei. but fr. ' p o v e r t y wipes out n o b i l i t y ' . and o n l y inferior b y nomos. p o v e r t y in the w i t o f a rich m a n and a great m i n d in a p o o r m a n ' s b o d y . o r i n n a m e . 1 4 1 . and the helplessness of the first without the second is emphasized elsewhere in Euripides (frr. the human race was born. 377. T h a t the well-born are the virtuous is said to have been maintained b y Antisthenes ( D L . Fr. T h e choice of verb here (διέκρινε) betrays the poet's interest in natural science. and Earth our mother brought them forth. whereas in truth there is no difference between low born and high born.

1966. above.3 w h i c h in A t t i c a w a s m o s t l y cultivated b y small peasant h o l d e r s . W e have no peculiar traits. II. also Nestle. but A r i s t o p h a n e s depicts them as s p e a k i n g freely. Cttflley in JHI. n. A c o m m o n practice w a s for o w n e r s o f industrial slaves t o a l l o w them to w o r k i n d e p e n d e n t l y . in mines ( w h e r e the c o n d i t i o n s m i g h t b e h a r d i n d e e d ) . and sometimes i m p u d e n t l y .c o m m o n e r b y n o means necessarily c o i n c i d e d w i t h the political division o l i g a r c h . In the fourth c e n t u r y A r c h e s t r a t u s b e q u e a t h e d his b a n k to his former slave P a s i o n .. Euripides. The 2 treatment o f slaves. b a s e b o r n and b a d . and these m i g h t s a v e e n o u g h t o b u y Nestle. high and low born are the same stock. T h e o b s c u r i t y and c o n f u s i o n w h i c h Euripides and L y c o p h r o n found in this topic w e r e natural e n o u g h at a time w h e n the d i v i s i o n aristo­ c r a t . b u t w i t h the g o o d ' (Alex. M. V. T h e intelligent w e r e g i v e n p o s t s o f responsibility as secretaries or b a n k .Nolle Birth: Slavery the land engendered all to look alike. Jones in Slavery. w h o s e w o r d s are o b v i o u s l y adapted to a moral sense in the lines ' N o b i l i t y c o n so r t s n o t w i t h the b a d . ' For authorities see Α . 38. I l l u l sec Finley in Slavery. v a r i e d w i d e l y . 53). deals with it under four h e a d s : ( 1 ) as an imposition of late. Cf. as a fourth. but time through nomos has made birth a matter o f pride. 14H f. fr. ' T h e w h o l e d e v e l o p m e n t s h o w s that u p to the end o f the fifth c e n t u r y in A t h e n s the n o b i l i t y f o r m e d a p o w e r w h i c h c o u l d m a k e its influence s t r o n g l y felt as m u c h o n the side o f the democratic constitution as o c c a s i o n a l l y in v e h e m e n t o p p o s i t i o n t o i t . in p r i v a t e l y o w n e d factories. N o l o n g e r can n o b l e and g o o d . ' 1 F o r Euripides the test is m o r a l . (4) SLAVERY F o r most Greeks society without slavery was unthinkable.m a n a g e r s . w h o in turn leased it t o his o w n freed slave. p . and to a smaller extent o n the land. (3) communal slavery. w i t h . to their masters. and the w o r k t h e y w e r e g i v e n to d o . and J . 1 . 324. and m i g h t ultimately be freed b y their o w n e r s . T h e lot o f d o m e s t i c slaves naturally v a r i e d . 1. ed. A t A t h e n s they w e r e e m p l o y e d in d o m e s t i c service. tnrliiphiirical slavery of a man to his own base desires. ( 1 ) as the justifiable position of inferiors. 348 ff. Euripides. Finley.d e m o c r a t . V o g t . p a y i n g a fixed s u m f r o m their earnings and k e e p i n g the rest. b e interchangeable terms as t h e y w e r e for a T h e o g n i s . 1—19. T h e other essays in this collec­ tion are also to be recommended. Sklaverei und llumuniiilt.

T h i s enforced deterioration w a s already recognized in Homer. 10) is w e l l k n o w n : slaves at A t h e n s are an insolent lot w h o w i l l n o t g e t o u t o f y o u r w a y in the street. ι . and y o u are n o t a l l o w e d to strike t h e m for the simple reason that there is n o t h i n g in their dress and general appearance t o distinguish t h e m from free A t h e n i a n s . right 1400): ' I t is over for G r e e k s to rule o v e r barbarians. Hec. and there w a s a l a w u n d e r w h i c h a n y o n e c o u l d b e p r o s e c u t e d for an act o f hybris against slave as w e l l as c i t i z e n . Pol. n. 142 f. there w a s a general feeling against e n s l a v i n g G r e e k s . 4 6 . 2 o i f . Phil. See Od. see N e w m a n . S o m e w e a l t h y m e n b o u g h t large n u m b e r s and m a d e a g o o d i n c o m e b y leasing them o u t as labourers. b u t o f the c o m ­ plete d e p r i v a t i o n o f initiative t h r o u g h b e i n g e m p l o y e d as ' l i v i n g t o o l s ' .8 . 93. In this w a y the question o f s l a v e r y w a s c o n n e c t e d in the G r e e k m i n d . a life o f ' a l w a y s a p p e a s i n g the masters. The Laws of Athens. and m o s t slaves w e r e obtained. b u t w e are free. A s Iphigenia s a y s in Euripides (LA. Politics. But on Aristotle's description of the slave as a ' l i v i n g tool'. 2. I . : slavery robs a man of half his ά ρ ί τ ή . The Laws of Athens (1968). 1 7 . and to please their lords in w h a t e v e r task is assigned them Ά Demosth. VM^uL. w i t h that o f racial inferiority.Equality their freedom. M o r e o v e r the m o r a l and intellectual inferiority o f their slaves w a s a fact.' It is l i k e l y therefore that A n t i p h o n . 3 . 377. 3 2 z f . for this is best for slaves. 2 3 4 1 i 6 5 . Cf. I . b u t n o t barbarians 2 1 G r e e k s . from n o n .G r e e k countries. for s u b m i s s i o n to a h u m a n d e s p o t rather than t o l a w w a s in G r e e k e y e s e q u i v a l e n t to s l a v e r y . vol. I n spite o f all this the hard fact remained that the slave w a s a chattel to b e b o u g h t and s o l d . see Harrison. Eur. also o p p o s e d the doctrine o f 'natural s l a v e s ' w h i c h p r e ­ d o m i n a t e d at the time and w a s later defended b y A r i s t o t l e . n o t o f nature. pt. fr. as in the A m e r i c a n . On the laws of slavery at Athens see Harrison. 3 . In Meid. ch.3 b u t the fact is n o t e x p l i c i t l y r e c o r d e d . D e m o s t h e n e s t o o says that slaves at A t h e n s h a v e greater rights o f free speech than the citizens o f other states. w h o denied a n y natural distinction b e t w e e n G r e e k and barbarian.X e n . b y w a r o r raids. F o r further information. for t h e y are slaves. T h e c o m p l a i n t o f the O l d O l i g a r c h ' ( p s e u d o . C o l o u r w a s g i v e n t o the idea o f barbarian inferiority b y the G r e e k v i c t o r y o v e r the Persians and b y the t e n d e n c y o f other p e o p l e s t o b e despotically ruled. Eur. the inevitable effect. 6. Ath. So Nestle. I f s l a v e r y as an institution w a s accepted. 163.

h e shared the c o m m o n b e l i e f that s o m e w e r e b y nature fitted o n l y for s l a v e r y . 251. T h e frequency w i t h w h i c h a slave is s h o w n as sympathetic. 57. and an e c h o in P h i l e m o n ' . unci have saved their masters' lives. p. says that slaves have often proved better than brothers or •οη·. 5 0 : 'Slaves w h o are well disposed towards their master's house incur great hostility from their equals. e v e n t o u c h i n g .' (Cf. says that a n y o n e w h o trusts a slave is a f o o l . a b o v e ) . never looking to the future. since he w a s a dramatist and his characters utter o p p o s i n g sentiments. whereas (a) it is completely without context. as w e h a v e seen. 86. 2 1 6 ) . ' B u t it need n o t a l w a y s be s o : ' H o w pleasant it is for slaves to find g o o d masters. and the relationship b e t w e e n slaves and their masters described in favourable. fr. from the Alcmaeon. and for the See Schlaifer's informative essay in Finley. t h o u g h he proclaims that the slave m a y b e better than his master and therefore w r o n g l y enslaved. ' I'l. all belly.Criticisms of Slavery A c c o r d i n g t o R . T h e theme o f the Alexandros. no more worthless and useless pos­ session in a house than a slave with thoughts above his station' (cf. But for Euripides's belief in natural slavery hct relics entirely on fr. 127. (k) the text itself is uncertain and the word φύσιι an emendation. Schlaifer. a reference in A r i s t o t l e . 1 157 . 245): wretchedness o f a slave's lot w a s alluded to in the Archelaus ' O n e thing I a d v i s e : n e v e r let y o u r s e l f b e taken alive into s l a v e r y if y o u h a v e a chance o f d y i n g as a free m a n . b u t at the v e r y least h e p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e o f a m o u n t i n g tide o f p r o ­ test against s l a v e r y in his lifetime. 2 1 b u t is nevertheless striking. N o n e o f these b e l o n g s to the fifth c e n t u r y . o n the o n e hand the splendid affirmation o f the equality o f all m e n ( p p . fr. F r o m other passages w e can b e sure that these w o r d s w e r e uttered b y unsympathetic characters.' fr.' fr. 5 1 : 'It is a bad thing to have slaves w h o are too g o o d for their masters. terms. i54f. 49: ' S o evil is the race o f slaves. o f all criticism o f s l a v e r y as an institution (as distinct f r o m errors and abuses in its application) ' t h e r e are o n l y three s u r v i v i n g s c r a p s : a sentence o f A l c i d a m a s .) Fr. property and whole families (Laws 776a). m a d e it a natural f o r u m o f o p p o s i n g v i e w s . 48:' There is no greater burden. and o n the other sentiments like t h e s e : fr. fr. T o isolate his o w n v i e w s is difficult.Ho. w h o was no abolitionist. and s o u n d s as if it wrro upokcn by a tyrant or other unpleasant character. Schlaifer h o w e v e r has e x c l u d e d Euripides o n the g r o u n d that. T h e (fr. does n o t o f itself p r o v e an antipathy t o s l a v e r y as s u c h .

97ο άκάλασθ' όμιλεΤν γ ί γ ν ε τ α ι δούλων τέκνα.3 4 . A t Helena 730 a slave claims t o h a v e ' t h e m i n d . Fr. 495 · 4 ' ff-> seems to mean that the brave and just. a m o t h e r to t h e m (Ale. but I do not find the text altogether clear. 392.). and the accidental character of slavery. 2 I f in these passages Euripides d o e s n o m o r e than s h o w s y m p a t h y for slaves.Equality masters t o h a v e a w e l l disposed slave in the h o m e ' (fr.. and the general lack o f it is repeatedly m e n t i o n e d in his p l a y s as a feature o f the slave's hard l o t . ά λ λ ' ό voOs ελεύθερο. 1027. nor does the literal translation in Nestle's note (Eur. Ion 674. 1 3 4 15» . Phoen. and m a n y slaves are better than the free'.w o m a n is o f little w o r t h ' . Med. See fr. 3 just as in a fragment from the Melanippe f r o m the Phrixus slaves'. and i f a n y t h i n g happens to m e — w e l l . ) . 89): ' I w i l l g o . the life o f a s l a v e . p .). i249ff. 769 f. Slaves share the j o y s and sorrows of the h o u s e ­ hold. even if of slave stock. and perhaps reflect an actually e x i s t i n g relationship w h e n at its best.). t h o u g h n o t the name. ness and the p a t h o s o f a slave are reflected in the w o r d s o f A n d r o ­ m a c h e ' s h a n d m a i d a g r e e i n g to g o o n a d a n g e r o u s mission for her mistress (Andr. 4 (511) it is said that ' t h e n a m e o f slave w i l l n o t (831): ' t o m a n y slaves the n a m e b r i n g s disgrace c o r r u p t a g o o d m a n . and t h o u g h in heart t h e y b e l o n g m o r e t o the free t h a n those w h o are n o t In the Ion the statement is g i v e n universal f o r m . o f a free m a n ' . e l s e w h e r e he g o e s further in c l a i m i n g that a slave m a y b e the equal o r superior o f the free. w h o m she hails as a friend and w e l l w i s h e r and p r o m i s e s to cherish as her o w n father (730 ff. and there are m a n y other passages H i p p o l y t u s listens and replies seriously w h e n his 88 ff. for t o n o b l e slaves it is a g l o r y t o die for their l o r d s . Even Sophocles w a s prepared to let a character g o as far as this. after d e * Ion 7 2 5 . 5 6 6 . are nobler than others w h o are full of vain fancies. and the same slave d o e s n o t shrink from d e f e n d i n g h i m against his father's anger (Hipp. and in the Helena (1639) another h a n d m a i d defends her mistress w i t h the w o r d s : ' K i l l n o t y o u r sister b u t m e . T h e o l d slave-tutor o f C r e u s a ' s father. fr. t h o u g h t h e y admit it is n o t 2 i o f . at least in a special case. is brought out b y the chorus in A e s c h y l u s ' s Agamemnon (1084). e v e r y w h e r e thus (ibid. 3 1 3 . ' T h e freedom o f speech a l l o w e d t o slaves in Euripides w a s b r o u g h t against h i m b y A r i s t o p h a n e s (Frogs 949).. Bacch. 358). 1 The slaves o f A l c e s t i s are distraught w i t h g r i e f at the death o f her w h o w a s 1921!. 529). Contrast fr. 854 tl σ ώ μ α δοϋλον.. in the same strain. 546) seem to correspond v e r y well w i t h his version in the text ( p . 54. when they say of Cassandra's gift of prophecy μένει τ ό θείον δουλία περ έν φρενί. B o t h the faithful­ slave offers a d v i c e .

143). where Aristotle is a r g u i n g for the existence of a natural as distinct from a merely legal justice.· ούδένα δοϋλον ή φύσι. Rhet 1 3 7 3 b . and Levinson agrees (D. 336. the name. 178 f. T h e scholiast's use of the verb μελετάν (Οπερ ΜιοοηνΙων μιιλιτφ καΐ λέγει) supports this. then the enslavement o f G r e e k s . n. in the c o u r s e o f w h i c h one f o r m o f it after another w a s b e i n g w e i g h e d in the balance and f o u n d w a n t i n g . In all else the slave. is n o w o r s e than the free. Hrzoska (RE. όφηκε π ά ν τ α . the o n l y s u r v i v i n g affirma­ tion o f this before the time o f A r i s t o t l e is a q u o t a t i o n f r o m a pupil o f G o r g i a s named A l c i d a m a s : ' G o d has set all m e n f r e e . 1. below. and first enslavement for debt. For Alcidamas see pp. Politics. 3 S l a v e r y w a s already. and no conjectures about what w a s prudent or tactful can stand u p ιΐμ. 52. T h u s Aristotle himself had no doubt that Alcidamas w a s speaking of a universal l a w of nature. as 1. that is due either to his o w n individual character o r to slavery itself. 1536) supposed that the w o r k w a s not a genuine speech for the occasion but only a ' S c h u l s t u c k ' . /.Euripides and Alcidamas on Slavery claring that he is r e a d y t o die in her service adds (854): ' O n e t h i n g alone b r i n g s shame u p o n slaves.. nature has m a d e no man a slave.filer however (quoted b y N e w m a n . w h o s e inhabitants had b e e n serfs o f theirs for centuries. 2 — ' t h e w e l l . 1 4 2 ) : it is ' e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y that he would have been led on to make a universal application of his principle' (an excellent example 11Γ i h r textbook rhetorical argument έκ τ ο ΰ εΐκότο. he a d d s : ' a n d so also Alcidamas in his Messenian speech'. 1 4 1 .ιιΙιΐΝΐ the words themselves. N e w m a n pointed o u t (Politics. 1) thought that to have attacked the whole Institution of slavery w o u l d not have served the purpose of his speech. b u t n o reference to the historical c o n t e x t can w e a k e n the universality o f the principle as enunciated. 1 A p a r t from Euripides ( w h o died in 406). w h i c h has ruined an originally g o o d m a n . b e l o w ) .b o r n m a n is the g o o d m a n ' — i t w o u l d b e perverse n o t t o r e c o g n i z e an o u t r i g h t denial o f natural divisions w i t h i n the h u m a n race w h e r e b y one can b e b o r n to serve and another to rule. θεό. w i t h the c o r o l l a r y that s l a v e r y is w r o n g in itself. then enslavement t h r o u g h war. or his capacity for double-think. Allcr quoting the familiar lines of the Antigone about the eternal unwritten laws. therefore he would not have done so. o r a line like fr. T h a t is g u a r a n ­ teed b y the w o r d s ' G o d ' . T h e actual w o r d s (ελευθέρου.' T h i s occurred in a speech to the Spartans r e c o m ­ m e n d i n g them t o liberate Messene. * I therefore confine such reference to a footnote. so that a total c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the institution m i g h t w e l l seem to b e at h a n d ' . But the fact is that the uliilenicnt is universal. 359. '59 . do nut enter the question. Eur. of P. w e r e successively b e i n g eliminated. πεποίηκεν) are quoted b y a scholiast on A r .' In these passages. See pp. ' a l l ' and ' n a t u r e ' . I. taken w i t h fr. ' u n d e r g o i n g a r i g o r o u s e x ­ amination. A slave as s u c h is o f n o less w o r t h than a free m a n . 31 iff. and a passage In lite same strain from Empedocles. T h e Sophist's sincerity. N o w it has b e e n ' T h i s is well and forcefully put b y Nestle. I f he is morally inferior. i f he be a g o o d m a n .

for. represent o n this p o i n t a d e c i d e d l y retrograde s t e p ' ? (5) RACIAL EQUALITY T h e a n s w e r lies in the g r o w t h o f the c o s m o p o l i t a n idea. b u t it is a matter o f l i v e l y c o n t r o v e r s y w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e already current in the time w i t h w h i c h w e are n o w chiefly c o n c e r n e d . then ( p r o b a b l y after 335). after l a y i n g d o w n as a principle that ' s l a v e r y is c o n t r a r y t o natural l a w ' . n o one w a s e v e r a slave b y nature.o w n e r c o u l d h a p p i l y acquiesce in the w o r d s o f the D e c l a r a t i o n o f I n d e p e n d e n c e . b u t it had b e g u n . h e has the same flesh. and are to b e attributed t o an earlier generation o f Sophists than A l c i d a m a s . T h i s w a s the v i e w o f P l a t o . for i n nature there is n o difference. ' B y this time.o w n e r s h i p is unnatural.o w n e r i n m i n u t e d e t a i l . then. L a t e in the same c e n t u r y the affirmation recurs i n a p l a y o f P h i l e m o n (fr. ' t h a t all m e n are created e q u a l ' . O f c o u r s e m e n ' s exasperating ability t o k e e p their t h o u g h t s in separate c o m p a r t m e n t s persisted. 95 K o c k ) : ' E v e n i f a m a n b e a slave. H o w true is the claim o f Nestle in 1901 that ' i t w i l l re­ d o u n d for all time t o the g l o r y o f G r e e k sophistic that. t h o u g h chance enslaves the b o d y . these liberal sentiments w e r e w e l l k n o w n . 160 . Neither. in the A t h e n s o f Euripides and Socrates. P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e . T h e s t r u g g l e w a s destined t o b e l o n g . proceeds t o e x p o u n d the rights o f the s l a v e . w h e n the assertion that it had n o f o u n d a t i o n in nature w a s first o p e n l y m a d e . ' T h e c u r r e n c y o f the idea in the s e c o n d h a l f o f the fourth c e n t u r y is also attested b y A r i s t o t l e . and the Socratic s c h o o l . A l c i d a m a s w r o t e his Messenian speech a b o u t 360. and in the nineteenth c e n t u r y an A m e r i c a n s l a v e . and a p o w e r f u l w e a p o n for the o p p o n e n t s o f s l a v e r y had b e e n f o r g e d .G r e e k s ) w e r e naturally inferior. c o u l d o n l y b e theoretically defended o n the g r o u n d that slavery barbarians ( n o n . and surely a great step f o r w a r d in the h i s t o r y o f h u m a n rela­ tions has been taken. w h o writes in the Politics (i253b2o): ' S o m e however hold that s l a v e . It is o n l y b y nomos that one is slave and another free.Equality uttered. for it is based o n f o r c e . since the enslavement o f G r e e k b y G r e e k w a s g e n e r a l l y u n p o p u l a r . it o p p o s e d the existence o f s l a v e r y o n theoretical g r o u n d s . is it just. starting from the c o n c e p t i o n o f natural l a w . L e v i n s o n p o i n t s o u t that the Justinian c o d e .

1. \cr Schlaifer. I lippocr.c ) . 1 1 0 4 1 L6L . I j u d g e m y a g o o d m a n ' s fatherland w a s the w h o l e w o r l d . W h e t h e r the illustration in meant to have more than formal logical significance is perhaps doubtful. it is difficult to fit ' b i t i n g sarcasm' here into Plato's general v i e w . which lasted until the /. S o m e m o r e general statements m a y also b e noticed w h i c h tend in the same direction. w a s already m a d e b y A n t i p h o n . On the pan-Hellenic outlook of the Sophists. 1 I le w a s prepared to b e m o r e specific: o n l y G r e e k s w e r e characterized b y g o o d intellect and l o v e o f learning.Effect of Environment on Character w h o w o u l d o n l y admit the enslavement o f barbarians (Rep. and there seems t o h a v e been a p r o v e r b i a l expression to the effect that T h e relations b e - ' Plato defended slavery to the end of his life. p. and so o n . C o n d i t i o n s in A s i a M i n o r p r o d u c e p e o p l e industry. existing o n l y b y nomos. luir. Lysias Or. 43 f. for the fifth-century H i p p o c r a t i c treatise o n Airs. Plut. In spite of S k e m p 111/ loc.e ) where he g i v e s Greeks and barbarians as an example of a faulty classification. 98). (11. 247 (again in the form of an iambic trimeter. 4 friend'.1 brief account of the growth of the Greek sense of unity and superiority to other lace*. op. in spite o f this scientific veneer. It is noteworthy however that in the Phaedo (78 a ) he recommends searching not o n l y the whole of Greece but also the barbarian nations to find a cure LOR the fear of death. Dcmocr. is inadequate). A. because one non-Greek race differs from another as much as either from the Greek. Nachtr. 2 . 6 . and Plato's point involves no necessary denial that all the different barbarian races are In HOME respects inferior to the Greek. 52 L . I2ff. cit. 2 W h e n . 13 27 b 29). e v e n i f m y e y e s n e v e r light o n h i m . pp. has been d i e d as evidence of a temporary change of mind (Schlaifer. 3 1 . 424. e v e n i f he live in a faroff land. 1047.W.l o v i n g and l a c k i n g in c o u r a g e intellect as w e l l as p h y s i q u e . K i r . and this claim. Phoenicians and E g y p t i a n s avaricious ( 4 3 5 e . the last theoretical p r o p o f s l a v e r y was r e m o v e d . T h e passage in the I'oliiicus ( z f a c . w h i c h makes them a natural master-race. ) T h e last point. northerners like T h r a c i a n s and Scythians w e r e b o l d and irascible b y nature.P. l i v i n g in an inter­ mediate g e o g r a p h i c a l position. 1 1 5 1 and T i m e . 4 ] . about the Greeks. chs. In a fragment o f Euripides (902) w e f i n d : ' T h e g o o d [in s o m e authorities " w i s e " ] m a n . in Laws as well as Rep. above.H e l l e n i s m and a w i d e r c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m w h i c h embraced the barbarians. A l l this had a basis in c o n t e m p o r a r y science. op.met. 93 IT. Waters and Places and and g i v e s a detailed a c c o u n t o f the effects o f climate o n character o f g o o d p h y s i q u e b u t p l e a s u r e . possess b o t h intelligence and c o u r a g e . It is adapted in Aristoph.4 3 6 A ) . is added b y Aristotle ( / W . on which D K I I . fr. it b e g a n to b e claimed that racial distinctions w e r e unnatural. fr. but obviously in dependence on earlier sources. s l u g g i s h and unfit for w o r k . G r e e k s . as w e h a v e seen. ch. 4 6 9 b . 3 It is important to distinguish b e t w e e n p a n . dwellers in the h o t marshes o f the Phasis r e g i o n are fat.

as Untersteiner thinks. 433. Unity. i l l . 4 3 . fell o u t a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s .s p e a k i n g w o r l d c a m e m o r e and m o r e to b e regarded as f o l l y . J. of Metaph. for b y nature like is k i n t o l i k e . Bignone.H e l l e n i s m . Sophs. D o e s Hippias here ' r e c o g n i z e ' . distinguished nomos f r o m physis d o e s not. t h e y m a d e c o n s t a n t w a r o n o n e another. 470c w h e n h e says that the G r e e k race is ' o n e family and one k i n ' .. o r indeed o f p h i l o s o p h e r s . b u t i m m e d i a t e l y adds that G r e e k s and barbarians are n o t o n l y alien b u t natural e n e m i e s . like and rejected the f o r m e r A n t i p h o n . Here o p i n i o n s h a v e differed o n the question w h e t h e r Hippias is p r e a c h i n g the u n i t y o f m a n k i n d o r s i m p l y o f G r e e k s . for w h i c h quarrels w e r e t e m p o r a r i l y set aside and a sacred truce p r o c l a i m e d . o f itself. 2 9 . 1 1 ΐ62 . y e t the sense o f Hellenic u n i t y w a s s t r o n g . Hippias in the Protagoras (337c) and calls the w h o l e c o m p a n y . n o r d o e s his acquiescence in the existence o f certain universal u n w r i t t e n l a w s in X e n o p h o n . Strauss. Sof. 5 b ) that victories o v e r barbarians called for h y m n s o f t h a n k s g i v i n g . b u t nomos. the w i s e s t o f the G r e e k s . For various opinions see Untersteiner. Independent and jealous. for it c o u l d w e l l b e t h e y w h o m he means t o call ' n a t u r a l l y a l i k e ' ( ό μ ο ι ο ι ) . f r o m different states.Equality t w e e n the G r e e k city-states w e r e paradoxical.G r e e k s for d i r g e s .. 1959.G r e e k w o r l d w h i c h had b e e n a c h i e v e d w i t h s u c h success in the Persian w a r s . 1041". A t these times the ties o f a c o m m o n l a n g u a g e ( e v e n i f split into dialects). w h i c h in itself accentuated rather than softened the distinction b e t w e e n G r e e k and barbarian. tyrant o f m a n k i n d . b u t those o v e r f e l l o w .c i t i z e n s — b y nature. of the assembled (Greek) c o m p a n y . Baldry. G o r g i a s w r o t e (fr. 2 1 T h e fact that H i p p i a s . T h e ideal w a s the u n i o n o f G r e e k s against the n o n . and w r i t e r s w h o use the l a n g u a g e o f c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m m a y m e a n o n l y t o c o m m e n d p a n . ' m y k i n s m e n family a n d f e l l o w . τό Έλληνικάν yivos οώτό α ϋ τ ω οίκεϊον καΐ σ ν γ γ ε ν έ ί Rep. In the fifth and fourth centuries the fragmentation o f the G r e e k . p r o v e that he w o u l d h a v e joined h i m in a s s i g n i n g distinctions o f race and class to it. r e l i g i o n and culture (typified b y the H o m e r i c p o e m s ) o v e r r u l e d the differences b e t w e e n the states. D e l p h i and the I s t h m u s . ' a s friends and k i n s m e n the m e n o f all cities and all n a t i o n s ' ? H i s actual w o r d s are the same as those o f P l a t o ' s Socrates at Rep. and fostered b y the great pan-Hellenic festivals at O l y m p i a . violates nature in m a n y w a y s ' . StuJi. n o t b y nomos. auyvEve's τε καΐ οίκείουξ Hippias in Prot. It w o u l d therefore b e scandalous i f they. 283 f.

315 w i t h n. See also p. master and slave. 1 1 1 2 163 . Since all m e n o r i g i n a l l y c a m e from the earth. and p r o b a b l y b y Hippias and others t o o . W e have just seen this applied to distinctions of birth in Euripides (fr. a b o v e ) . a b y . 11. T h e idea o f the basic equality o f m a n k i n d w a s firmly r o o t e d in a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l t h e o r y . 343. nature g a v e n o one the right to v a u n t h i m s e l f as s p r u n g from better s t o c k than a n y o n e else. T h e debt o f G r e e k science and mathematics to n o n . It w a s . 154 f. 6). it w o u l d b e strange i f belief in universal. ' n a t u r a l ' l a w s o f h u m a n b e h a v i o u r w e r e not accompanied b y a c o n v i c t i o n that the h u m a n race is fundamentally akin. T h i s a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l basis for the nomos-physis antithesis means that its justification o f equality is universal. H e r e w e are s i m p l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the question w h e t h e r the idea later k n o w n as the unity o f m a n k i n d o r the b r o t h e r h o o d o f m a n w a s already m o o t e d in the fifth c e n t u r y .Greeks and Barbarians T h e relations b e t w e e n G r e e k s and barbarians w e r e c o m p l e x . P l a t o m i g h t in o n e place dismiss the E g y p t i a n s as avaricious. T h o u g h o u r k n o w l e d g e is lamentably scanty. and cannot b e adequately discussed h e r e .G r e e k . 207. 58 (Archelaus) and vol. pp. 472. Hippias himself said that in w r i t i n g a w o r k o f his o w n he had m a d e use o f the poets ' a n d the prose-writers b o t h G r e e k and barbarian' (fr. pp. 4. and it is reasonable to suppose that a m a n w i t h a n y pretensions to p h i l o s o p h y w h o f o u n d it relevant to one distinction w o u l d a p p l y it t o a l l — h i g h and l o w b o r n . Volume v m of the Entretiens Hardt (Grecs et Barbares) is devoted to a discussion of them. A t h e n i a n and Spartan.p r o d u c t o f the fermentation o f m u d o r slime. b u t in the Timaeus he makes t h e m the repositories o f ancient w i s d o m i n contrast t o the ' c h i l d l i k e ' G r e e k s .G r e e k p e o p l e s was freely a c k n o w l e d g e d b y H e r o d o t u s and others. T h a t sort o f distinction came o n the scene later as a p r o d u c t o f nomos o n l y . b y A n t i p h o n . 52. G r e e k and n o n .

Ethics. pp. 164 . T h e s e c o n d o r sceptical stage m i g h t e q u a l l y w e l l b e called positivist. and each m i n d perceives a different b e a u t y ' . T h e chapter o n the Sophists (p. 307. c o r r e s p o n d i n g in a nation to c h i l d h o o d . ethics may be said to have begun in scepticism. that is. and it is b y n o means g e n e r a l l y accepted that b e l i e f in absolute values is m o r e m a t u r e than p o s i t i v i s m . H e calls the s e c o n d . Phil. is ' n o quality in things t h e m s e l v e s . 1 5 5 .e. In o n e respect his d i v i s i o n w o u l d n o t pass u n c h a l l e n g e d t o d a y . 2 In statements like these the modern positivist w o u l d n o t w i s h t o b e told that his standpoint w a s either pre-Platonic o r adolescent. represents maturity. sceptical o r sophistic era ' t r a n s i t i o n a l ' . 49) mentioned Sir A l e x a n d e r G r a n t ' s d i v i s i o n o f m o r a l i t y into three stages.VII THE R E L A T I V I T Y OF VALUES A N D ITS E F F E C T S ON ETHICAL THEORY 1 If physical philosophy begins in wonder. i. N o t e v e r y adult re­ c o v e r s the c o n v i c t i o n s o f his c h i l d h o o d . In Greek thought the the transition w a s t o the idealism o f P l a t o . G r a n t . b u t he is in fact repeating the S o p h i s t s ' assertions in the c o n t r o v e r s y o f the fifth and fourth centuries B . a return t o earlier beliefs m o r e d e e p l y held because attained b y independent thought. C . it exists m e r e l y in the m i n d s w h i c h contemplate t h e m . Similarly b e a u t y . I . * See Cassirer. T h e positivist rejects the v i e w that p o s i t i v e l a w m u s t set out f r o m the ideal o f a natural. of Enlightenment. a p h i l o s o p h i c a l reaffirmation and defence o f those absolute v a l u e s w h i c h are accepted b y ' s i m p l i c i t y and t r u s t ' o f c h i l d h o o d as t h e y are in the pre-critical stage o f s o c i e t y . T h e positivist k n o w s that the search for g o o d n e s s is a chimaera-hunt. u n i v e r s a l l y valid. 1 Cf. w h i c h is d e r i v e d f r o m the p o s i t i v e l a w p r e v a i l i n g at a particular t i m e . and implies that o n l y the third. adolescence and m a t u r i t y in the i n d i v i d u a l . 59 f. as it w a s for H u m e . standard o f r i g h t : there is o n l y a relative right o r g o o d n e s s .

asserting his lust for p o w e r in truly sophistic terms. Flor. De aud.Positivism and Adolescence V a l u e for h i m . 242. T h e moral problem i s : W h a t am I to do? W h a t attitude am I to take? A n d moral judgments are directives in this sense. exists b y nomos o n l y . his t h o u g h t w a s often distorted as it 1 1 filtered A y e r . the dispute has reappeared m a n y times. /nut. In E u r i ­ pides a character asks rhetorically. 19. b u t w h e n w e s a y ' j u s t ' o r ' g o o d ' w e disagree w i t h o n e another and e v e n in o u r o w n minds. 4 . and to Plato in Stobaeus. t o w h i c h Socrates h i m s e l f w a s so s t r o n g l y o p p o s e d . and b o t h Plato and Antisthenes w e r e credited w i t h the r e t o r t : ' S h a m e f u l is shameful.): ' I f the same t h i n g w e r e to all m e n b y nature fair and w i s e . I'. Mem. 1 physis. rebellion and w a r ( X e n . 271) s a y s that the lines Iron 1 1 lie Phoenissae ' u n m i s t a k a b l y reproduce the doctrine of P r o t a g o r a s ' . but are w e not rather reminded of Socrates? 165 . Ar. Cf. the problem being whether or not it really is there. Philosophical Essays. W e can n o w see that the whole dispute about the objectivity of values. in P l a t o he remarks that w h e n w e utter w o r d s like ' i r o n ' o r ' s i l v e r ' w e all k n o w w h a t w e mean. is pointless and idle. as inevitably happens.1. 4 . there w o u l d b e no disputes o r quarrels a m o n g us. T h e retort is attributed to Antisthenes b y Plutarch. B u t as it is there is n o consistency or impartiality w h e r e mortals are c o n c e r n e d : it is all names. 8 ) . Pointless and idle t h o u g h it m a y b e .). as for A r c h e l a u s . seeming or no seeming'. as it is ordinarily conducted. 1 m e .i i 2 a . n o t b y F o r A y e r there is n o t e v e n a c o n t r o v e r s y : Talking about values is not a matter o f describing what may or may not be there. and w h e n Hippias claims to k n o w w h a t justice is. w i t h o u t reality'. 3} c. fr. A g a i n . w h i c h d r e w from A r i s t o p h a n e s the p a r o d y .3 T h e s e quotations g i v e an idea o f the sceptical atmosphere o f the time.ur. h o l d i n g that agreement o n the m e a n i n g o f moral terms w a s an essential preliminary to m o r a l i t y in practice. Nestle (VM^uL.82 (both quoted b y Nauck on the fr. 5. 2 5 Eteocles in the Phoenissae. and in s p e a k i n g o f the positivism o f fifth-century Greece o n e can hardly claim that it w a s rendered obsolete b y P l a t o . ' I'haedr. Euthyphro 7c~d. ' W h a t action is shameful i f it seem not so to the a c t o r ? . Frogs 1475. T h e m o s t distinguished a d v o c a t e o f the relativity o f values ( t h o u g h . There is no such problem. 261. says (499if. Socrates congratulates h i m ironically o n a d i s c o v e r y w h i c h w i l l cause juries t o cease differing o v e r their verdicts and p u t an end t o litigation.Alc. ' W h a t action is shameful i f it seem not so to the a u d i e n c e ? ' .

oddly e n o u g h . 8 ) . is that the goodness of a n y ­ thing lies in its fitness to perform its proper function—an unimpeachably Socratic tenet (el./. and others only to cattle or dogs. 333 e—334 c. T h e o b j e c t i v i t y o f the g o o d effect is n o t denied.). 1 1 166 . Plato. . W h a t is g o o d for A m a y be b a d for B . Precisely h o w his thought differed from that of a Sophist like Protagoras is . His thought w a s intensely practical: what is good must be useful. aesthetic v a l u e s the case is e v e n m o r e o b v i o u s . I . T h e utilitarian equation of αγαθόν w i t h ώφέλιμον w a s a favourite one w i t h Socrates. I still call them g o o d . n o r m a l in E g y p t i a n and so o n . however. so far as men are concerned. but only Fr. Heraclitus had earlier a d d u c e d the first t y p e o f relativity as o n e justification o f his p a r a d o x o f the identity o f o p p o s i t e s : ' S e a w a t e r ' . 445.The Relativity of Values t h r o u g h other. Mem. 3 . 7 ) . b u t t h i n k i n g m a k e s it s o ' . he m a y m e a n that ' t h e r e is n o t h i n g either g o o d o r b a d . Xenophon (Mem. are neither. but it is not correct to say as Cai/. (b) W h e n a speaker says that g o o d and bad are o n l y relative.ί does that the passage in Xcnuplum is ' U<\ i r mente antiplatonico' ( b y which he means against the Platonic Socrates). Rep. because the effect o f e v e r y t h i n g is different a c c o r d i n g t o the object o n w h i c h it is exercised. etc. . ch. W h a t Socrates is a r g u i n g there. see vol. 6 5 . w h a t is g o o d for A in certain circumstances m a y be bad for h i m in others. less gifted minds) w a s P r o t a g o r a s .) Nor can it be doubted that the speech of Protagoras represents h i s actual v i e w . s h o w s Socrates s a y i n g something similar (what i s g o o d for a h u n g r y man is bad for one in a fever. drugs and many others—which are harm­ ful to men. Urbin. and the same thing can be useful or harmful according to circumstances (Meno 87e-88c and Xeu. Stud. § 8. 8 . not. 1964. drinks. and others which are beneficial. (a) T h e r e is n o t h i n g to w h i c h the epithets g o o d . m . and his philosophical challenge to traditionally accepted n o r m s w a s in its turn based o n relative and subjective theories o f o n t o l o g y and e p i s t e m o l o g y . relativity m a y m e a n one o f t w o things. ' i s at the same time purest and m o s t p o l l u t e d . b e i n g drinkable and salutary for fishes. A n y investigation o f the nomos-physis antithesis turns u p p l e n t y o f examples o f t h i s : incest With a b o m i n a b l e in G r e e k e y e s . A s applied t o v a l u e s . 352ε—353d). of P r o t a g o r a s ) .1 large question. bad or the like can b e applied absolutely and w i t h o u t qualification. u n d r i n k a b l e and d e a d l y t o m e n . 6 . he said. but are harmful or beneficial to horses. the c i r c u m ­ stances o f its application and so o n . Prot. and on this account has been accused of fathering on h i m the ideas of Antisthenes (Caizzi. 6 1 . ' m a y b e equated w i t h 'beneficial to m e n ' : 2 1 Protagoras d e v e l o p s the theme in a n s w e r t o a s u g g e s t i o n o f Socrates that ' g o o d ' Even if things are not beneficial to men. I k n o w plenty o f things—foods. 4 . and so o n . Some have no effect on animals. and others again which. b u t it varies i n i n d i v i d u a l cases. (See Socrates.

that their arts are necessary because o f the difference between one man and another and between men and animals. T h a t it m a y well be. it is h a r d l y irrelevant for h i m to r e p l y w i t h his o w n t h e o r y o f its diversity. T o H. and he took its intrusiveness to be evidence that it w a s an extract from one of I'ronigoras's own books. 162) it w a s a 'disturbing Interruption'. A l l doctors forbid the sick to use oil in preparing their food. Since Socrates has v i r t u a l l y asked P r o t a g o r a s w h a t h e means b y the c o n c e p t ' g o o d ' . O r take olive oil. the p o i n t b e i n g ethical. So diverse and multiform is goodness that even with us the same thing is g o o d when applied externally but deadly when taken internally. and similarly g o o d and skilful orators m a k e g o o d instead o f evil courses appear just t o cities. for instance. whereas men find it of service both to the hair and to the rest o f the body. as t w o branches o f the art o f i m p r o v i n g h u m a n nature. except in the smallest quantities. is g o o d for all plants when applied to their roots. for the Sophists the c o n n e x i o n b e t w e e n ethics. but Plato is not the sort of writer to p u s h some­ thing in where it is not wanted simply in order to introduce a verbatim quotation. H a c k f o r t h objected that. 43. Soc.Protagoras: Morals and Medicine on trees. ' In a n u n p u b l i s h e d lecture. h u s b a n d m e n . u. Manure. and some again are good for the roots o f trees but injurious to the y o u n g growths. R. I67 33-5. 1 ' yM ) (quoted in part on p. T h i s able little speech has c o m e in for a surprising a m o u n t o f criticism o n the g r o u n d o f irrelevance.' V e r s e n y i has p o i n t e d o u t the close parallels that exist b e t w e e n P r o t a g o r a s and the H i p p o c r a t i c On Ancient Medicine :3 2 1 treatise Doth stress the facts that their arts are human inventions rather than original endowments. healthy and true sensations instead o f b a d . and most inimical to the hair of all animals except man. w h e n o n plants. It is very bad for plants. but utterly destructive if put on the shoots or y o u n g branches. politics and rhetoric o n the o n e h a n d and h y g i e n e or medicine o n the other w a s important. T h a t a Sophist should at the same time s h o w off his miscellaneous k n o w l e d g e is o n l y in character.c ) P r o t a g o r a s says. . the irrelevance lies in t a k i n g the meanings o f ' g o o d ' b e y o n d the ethical sphere. and that there is a resulting relativity o f what is g o o d for each. g i v e it s o u n d . 83 a b o v e ) : Versonyi. Both hold that ' o u r present A d a m and Grube both call it irrelevant. i f a plant is sick. T h e s e t o o . Gomperz (S. ' W h e n m e n exercise their skill o n b o d i e s I call t h e m physicians. Hum. c o n c e r n i n g the equation o f ' g o o d ' w i t h 'beneficial to m e n ' . moral and p h y s i c a l . B u t not o n l y w a s Socrates's question p u r e l y general. In the Theaetetus ( 1 6 7 0 .

T h i s reappears in A n t i p h o n (fr. for in any enterprise when the beginning is right. method. trans. appropriate. its effect lives and burgeons throughout their lives. the political and the medical arts] is to find what is useful. But. Jones ( L o e b ed. C h . ' S p e e c h ' . ' t h e resemblance m a y not appear s t r i k i n g ' . T h i s similarity o f aim. h e ' d e v e l o p e d an " a r t o f c o n s o l a t i o n " parallel to the t h e r a p y o f the b o d y b y p h y s i c i a n s ' . b e t w e e n medicine and o r a t o r y . so w o r d s c a n i n d u c e j o y or grief. o r b y evil persuasion d r u g and b e w i t c h the m i n d . 3. ' b e a r s the same relation t o the m i n d as d r u g s t o the b o d y .s h y . pp. customs. ' T h i s t h e o r y w a s actually p u t into practice b y A n t i p h o n in his ' p s y c h i a t r i c c l i n i c ' as reported i n the Lives Ten Orators: of the 1 h i r i n g a special r o o m in C o r i n t h . 2oof. apart from the fact that. but at times makes it exceedingly difficult to draw a sharp dividing line between them.) cites D. 4 0 as evidence that the Law i s late e n o u g h to have been written under Stoic influence. as he s a y s . T h i s a n a l o g y is applied specifically to the t e a c h i n g o f medicine in the H i p p o c r a t i c Law ? T h e learning o f medicine may be likened to the g r o w t h o f plants. and s o m e p u t an e n d t o disease and others t o life. T h e aim o f both [sc. but see p . 57) that illness is a h o l i d a y for the w o r k . T h e views o f our teachers are as it were the seeds. b u t also b e t w e e n b o t h and h u s b a n d r y . On this and the identity of Antiphon see further below. and (almost) subject not only leads to constant association o f the t w o .The Relativity of Values w a y o f life' (laws. J o n e s . I h a v e assumed here that the story in the Vitae is true. i m p r o v i n g respectively the p h y s i c a l and m o r a l c o n d i t i o n s o f m e n . 290. [Plut. for then t h e y do not h a v e to g o out to w o r k . said G o r g i a s (Hel. 14). the outcome is likely to be right too.] Vitae 833 c. so must one expect the harvest to be. the care o f m e n and that o f plants. O u r natural ability is the soil. Psychological insight is also suggested b y his dictum (fr. and neither rain nor drought can destroy it. and similarly when g o o d education is ploughed into y o u n g persons. A s d r u g s d r a w off different h u m o u r s f r o m the b o d y . A s is the seed that is ploughed into the ground. Antiphon A 6. like G o r g i a s . 257f. he seems to have overlooked the extract Irom Antiphon. 2 1 l68 . 60): Primary among human concerns is education. 7 . w i t h notes. fear o r confidence. P r o t a g o r a s sees a close parallel n o t o n l y . harmonious and undisturbed life.L. fitting. or due to the nature o f what each has in his care so as to promote healthy. regimen) is not b y nature but 'has been dis­ covered and elaborated during a long period o f time'.

and in c h . 9) is no evidence against this. a b o v e ) m a y b e a d d e d another c h . Socr. Hum. Protagoras might have been itc(|uuliited with it. op. and that Protagoras himself w a s influenced b y the more empirical of contemporary physicians seems to me beyond doubt. n. 100 f. and w h a t w i l l b e the effect o f each o n each i n d i v i d u a l . 169 . Verncnyi. 1 1 . 1 W e have already seen h o w w i d e s p r e a d w a s the t e n d e n c y t o s u b ­ stitute the concepts o f interest and a d v a n t a g e . but it w a s probably later ( L l o y d in Phronesis. It w a s the medical writers a b o v e all w h o insisted (as success in their craft d e ­ manded) o n the relativity o f ' g o o d ' and ' b a d ' t o the i n d i v i d u a l . Perhaps a more nccuiaif way of putting it would be that Protagoras's own empirical turn of mind led h i m to lake an intercut in medicine and similarly practical subjects. for the universal standard o f (Thucydides. so that their nurture is perfected. but w h a t man is in relation to different f o o d s .The Medical and Agricultural Analogies Learning from childhood is analogous to the seeds' falling betimes upon the prepared ground. the useful or the b e n e ­ ficial (συμφέρον. χ ρ ή σ ι μ ο ν . 3. T h e s e passages should increase o u r insight into the m i n d o f a Sophist and assist an understanding o f P r o t a g o r a s ' s use o f medical and agricultural examples in a n s w e r i n g Socrates's question. but denied b y L o n g r i g g in HSCP. a k n o w l e d g e o f medicine is necessary to the k n o w l e d g e o f m a n and indeed o f nature in general. If I'eatugicrc were right in putting it anywhere between 450 and 420. is m a d e in Ancient Medicine (ch. Its date is uncertain. its conclusions •pi lug more from the exigencies of medical practice than from the influence of a n y non-medical thinker. w h i c h emphasizes the c o n n e x i o n It is sometimes supposed that VM w a s written under the influence of Protagoras (e. W h a t the physician needs t o a n s w e r is n o t a general question like ' w h a t m a n i s ' . A s ' t h e interest o f the s t r o n g e r ' naturally the appropriate o r fitting (έπιτήδειον). 20 it is argued that. but in itself it w a s s i m p l y utilitarian and practical.g. ώφέλιμον). w i t h w h i c h g o e s ' j u s t i c e ' or ' r i g h t ' . extract from Ancient Medicine. That according to Sextus he ' i n t r o d u c e d ' the 'man— m r t m i r c ' doctrine (Verscnyi. and b e t w e e n m a n and animals. C o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n w h a t is g o o d for man in health and m a n in sickness. 1963). 1963). cit. 8). far from a k n o w l e d g e o f the w h o l e nature o f m a n b e i n g a prerequisite o f the medical art (as certain philosophers maintained). B o u n d u p w i t h it w a s the n o t i o n o f necessity {ananke). T i m e strengthens all these things. drinks and w a y s o f life. Diligence is the working o f the soil. Even so. T h e place o f instruction is as it were the nutriment that comes from the surrounding air to the things sown. n . 1 and to the examples already cited ( p p . T h r a s y m a c h u s ) it b e c a m e a doctrine o f self-aggrandizement and n e g ­ lect o f the rights o f others.

that to the Greeks Fineness automatically included excellence. that all v a l u e . Seltman p u t the p o i n t w e l l (Approach Beautiful is a misrendering o f kalos. because what is fine must be fitted to its purpose and therefore g o o d .j u d g m e n t s are p u r e l y subjective? A t first sight According to Aristotle.The Relativity of Values b e t w e e n practical a c t i v i t y and a relative c o n c e p t i o n o f v a l u e s : ' T h e fact is that sheer necessity caused m e n to seek and d i s c o v e r m e d i c i n e .' T h i s again is b o u n d u p w i t h the w h o l e e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w o f h u m a n p r o g r e s s (p.e. replies Socrates. 67 f. o r is adapted b y nature for o u r w a n t s . and d o n o t . did n o t speak m u c h o f it in isolation. for these may be employed in most of the senses o f the Greek words. 29): 1 C . but καλόν is used uAo where no action or movement is involved. O n e reason for this w a s the close association in their m i n d s o f b e a u t y w i t h appropriateness and fitness for f u n c t i o n . T h e n . i. α γ α θ ό ν refers to actions only.) D i d P r o t a g o r a s also b e l i e v e i n the relativity o f v a l u e s in the s e c o n d sense. (See Metaph. i f w e h a v e e y e s for seeing. In all this it is n o t easy t o find references to specifically aesthetic values. 83 a b o v e ) . since b e i n g p r o m i n e n t and b u l g i n g they can see far t o the side and n o t s i m p l y straight in front o f t h e m . the G r e e k s w e r e n o t i n ­ sensitive to b e a u t y . ) 1 I70 . N e e d l e s s to say. to Greek Art. kalon. because sick m e n did not. b u t as the a m b i g u i t y o f their w o r d for it. But put it. and w e are on the right track. p p . Fineness could become the ultimate Value by which all other Values could be measured. 5). profit b y the same r e g i m e n as d o m e n in health. t h o u g h in a n y discussion o f the relativity o f v a l u e s these m i g h t b e the first to o c c u r to u s . W e can perhaps get nearest to the meaning b y using Fine and Fineness. A delightful illustration o f this association in the G r e e k mind is the ' b e a u t y c o n t e s t ' in X e n o p h o n ' s Symposium ( c h . ( T h e passage is fully translated in Socrates. C r i t o b u l u s g i v e s his case a w a y at the outset b y s a y i n g that a n y t h i n g is beautiful (kalon) i f it is w e l l c o n ­ structed for the p u r p o s e for w h i c h w e h a v e a c q u i r e d it. T . m i n e are m o r e beautiful than y o u r s . T o say that for the Greeks Beauty and Goodness were one and the same is an error. 1 0 7 8 3 3 1 . the difference between αγαθόν and καλόν is that καλόν is the more inclusive term. Socrates u n d e r ­ takes to p r o v e t o the c o m p a n y that he is m o r e beautiful than the y o u n g and h a n d s o m e C r i t o b u l u s . s u g g e s t s . and so o n .

' T h e n y o u k n o w that he puts it s o m e t h i n g like this. and E m p e d o c l e s and P a r menides emphasized the c o n n e x i o n b e t w e e n a m a n ' s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and his t h o u g h t s . ) . is the r e p l y . so it is t o m e . below. See on them vol. 11. Socrates therefore offers a defence w h i c h he says P r o t a g o r a s w o u l d h a v e g i v e n Fr. kalon) to some and the opposite to others. Aristotle has collected the passages in Metaph. 1 . ' If it is admitted that the ' D o u b l e A r g u m e n t s ' (pp. 161 c f f . and is both bad and g o o d . so it is to y o u — y o u and I b e i n g m e n . n a m e l y that w h a t appears to each individual is the o n l y reality and therefore the real w o r l d differs for e a c h . is discussed more fully on pp. 67. and this is all the m o r e likely because he w o u l d find similar ideas in c o n t e m p o r a r y natural philosophers. o f the things that are that t h e y are. ' O f t e n ' . 1009b 15 ff. b u t n o w there c o m e s a remarkable d e v e l o p m e n t . and the criterion (μέτρον) is what appears to each individual. ' In the Theaetetus (152 a). Socrates asks T h e a e t e t u s i f he has read t h i s . A s Socrates says (Theaet. A detailed interpretation is reserved for the discussion of its epistemological implica­ tion*. laudable and blameworthy. 1062b 1 3 ) : (386a). since often a particular thing appears g o o d (or beautiful. 1 1 I I 7 . below. meaning simply and solely that what appears to each man assuredly also is. they provide further evidence that his relativity included such concepts as g o o d and bad. pp. and as it appears t o y o u . I'ltr lino of άνθρωπο. 2 A l l the direct sources a g r e e o n the general m e a n i n g o f P r o t a g o r a s ' s s a y i n g . 3i6ff. ' Since this a d d i t i o n is m a d e in practically the same w o r d s in the Cratylus adds the i n f o r m a t i o n (Metaph. 183 ff. and there c o u l d b e n o sense in Protagoras o r a n y o n e else setting h i m s e l f up as a teacher. it follows that the same thing both is and is not.Beauty and Function: 'Man the Measure s a y i n g that m a n is the m e a s u r e : 1 1 at least this w o u l d s e e m an inevitable c o n c l u s i o n from his famous ' M a n is the measure o f all t h i n g s . it t o o m u s t b e a part o f P r o t a g o r a s ' s o w n a r g u m e n t . b e l o w ) reflect P r o t a g o r a s ' s teach­ ing. 3 1 9 . 188 If. and o f the t h i n g s that are n o t that t h e y are n o t . A n a x a g o r a s told his pupils that ' t h i n g s w o u l d b e for them such as t h e y s u p p o s e d them to b e ' . 3 S o far so g o o d . and this is b o r n e o u t b y A r i s t o t l e . w h o that the ' t h i n g s ' in q u e s t i o n include v a l u e s Protagoras said that man is the measure o f all things. and whatever else is asserted in contrary statements. 229. light and wrong. If this is so. that as e v e r y single t h i n g appears to m e . o n the thesis as so far p r o p o u n d e d n o m a n can b e w i s e r than another.

1 ) . n a m e l y c h a n g e the p u p i l to a better state. w h e n a m a n has a d e p r a v e d (poneron) state o f m i n d and c o r r e s p o n d i n g t h o u g h t s . at 1 6 7 c 1 ) . n o t all are e q u a l l y g o o d (agatha). It consists in maintaining that. In the case o f physical sensations. and for other references see Untersteiner. (c) S u c h things as a w h o l e c i t y thinks just and h o n o u r a b l e (kala) are so for it as l o n g as it thinks t h e y a r e . trouble. u. w i t h the overtone of conducive to efficient performance of function w h i ch w a s c o m m o n l y present in Greek terms of approbation. honourable. Moser and G. wholesome (coupled with hygieinon. T h e point is a r g u e d fully b y H. Th. S. as P r o t a g o r a s w o u l d h a v e it.The Relativity of Values if he w e r e a l i v e . 263 ff. 2 1 172 . 457f. beautiful. Plato uses a v a r i e t y of w o r d s in this passage. claim that ' r e a d i n g the Protagoras in the light of the Theaetetus' has been a prime cause of misinterpretation of the earlier dialogue. 1966. R. 2 1 T h e wise (sophos) m a n is he w h o can c h a n g e w h a t appears and is b a d (kakon) t o a n y o n e o f us and m a k e it b e and appear g o o d . n o r m o r e i g n o r a n t than the healthy. for false beliefs are i m p o s s i b l e .. (n. the w i s e m a n substitutes In this w a y it is a l l o w e d that s o m e m e n are w i s e r than others. B u t the d o c t o r . Kakon: the most general word for bad. pain or grief (from noun ponos. 1. t h o u g h all beliefs are equally true. even though t h e y are beliefs a b o u t the g o o d n e s s o r badness o f s o m e t h i n g . the Sophist does w i t h w o r d s w h a t the doctor does with drugs ( c o m p a r e G o r g i a s . the sophos in the heal­ i n g art. b u t in each case w h e r e t h e y are injurious (ponera). he must have reconciled his profession as a Sophist w i t h his claim that all beliefs are e q u a l l y true. I h a v e inserted them in R o m a n letters and append a r o u g h approximation to the different senses w h i c h they conveyed to a Greek.) that the one presents a ' g e n u i n e ' . b u t . H e does n o t m a k e h i m e x c h a n g e false beliefs for true. Kustas. poneron: causing toil. Gomperz's assumption (Gk. H e r e is a p a r a d o x : t w o m e n ' s beliefs can b e e q u a l l y true. there is n o difficulty. L. jof. (b) In e d u c a t i o n . others w h i c h are and appear s o u n d (chresta). labour. A s Cornford says. but it is u n l i k e l y that it departs from the sense of what he taught. suffering). the other a ' s h a m ' P r o t a g o r a s — a h i g h l y arbitrary procedure. S. of g o o d quality. restores his n o r m a l appreciation o f g o o d f o o d or. Sophs. b u t n o t e q u a l l y v a l u a b l e . kalon: fine. in Phoenix. T h e sick m a n dislikes w h a t he tastes. Gomperz. laudable. a l t h o u g h n o m a n thinks falsely. at least w i t h P l a t o ' s e x a m p l e . healthy. thoughts— he m a k e s his m i n d s o u n d and s o g i v e s h i m s o u n d (chresta) n o t truer b u t better. and there is no other w a y in w h i c h he could h a v e done it. T h i s claim depends on accepting T h . effective. all of w h i ch are sometimes simply translated ' b a d ' or ' g o o d ' . as w e s h o u l d say. can so c h a n g e his c o n d i t i o n that it b o t h appears and is s w e e t and pleasant. and w i l l be g l a d w h e n the d o c t o r . chreston: useful. (a) A sick man's f o o d is bitter (for h i m ) : he cannot b e called mistaken w h e n he says it is. p . distress. 168 a b o v e ) . serviceable. Evidently w h a t follows w a s not to b e found in Protagoras's w r i t i n g s . agathon: the most general w o r d for good.

their institution and o b s e r v a n c e w e r e necessary for the preservation o f s o c i e t y . o u g h t t h e y to b e c h a n g e d . I f w h a t a c i t y thinks just and fine is just and fine for it so l o n g as it thinks so.Protagoras on Truth and Value makes his unpleasant f o o d b o t h seem and b e pleasant t o h i m . (3) T h e r e w a s the doctrine o f the social c o m p a c t as held b y Socrates. t h o u g h the legal m a c h i n e r y m i g h t lead to an unjust j u d g m e n t in an individual case. T h i s m i g h t be (<z) the o l d religious idea. that l a w s came from the g o d s . w h i c h c o u l d n o t b e equated w i t h the dictates o f positive l a w . rich and p o o r . It w a s s a i d : ( 1 ) T h a t the t w o w e r e identical b y definition. n o b l e and c o m m o n e r . ( 2 ) A s a result o f (b). that ' j u s t i c e ' includes o n l y w h a t is enjoined o r sanctioned b y the l a w s . and a d u t y to i g n o r e it w h e n it conflicts w i t h a fact o f nature like the equality o f G r e e k and barbarian. as A n t i p h o n pointed out. then. g o i n g b a c k to tribal d a y s . as w e l l as seem. and s o c o u l d not err and m u s t b e o b e y e d (' all h u m a n l a w s are nourished b y the o n e divine l a w ' ) . b u t useless and likely t o cause harm. g o o d for that city t h o u g h n o t perhaps for others. and morality. b o t h just and fine (kala) for the c i t y ? P r o t a g o r a s is s e e k i n g his o w n solution to that b u r n i n g o f the day. B u t w i t h moral values the case is different. t h o u g h l a w s w e r e n o t ' b y n a t u r e ' . the relation b e t w e e n nomimon and dikaion. it w i l l n o t w a n t its v i e w s o r its laws c h a n g e d nor. w h i c h is reflected in P r o t a g o r a s . and the statement o f their identity s i m p l y analytic. for the l a w m i g h t b e unjust and c o n v e r s e l y w h a t w a s just extended b e y o n d the field o f legal enactment. o r (b) a criticism c o n s e q u e n t o n the equation o f the t w o : g i v e n the definition. ' J u s t ' and ' r i g h t ' represented m o r a l v a l u e s . o n e w o u l d h a v e t h o u g h t . led to a certain a m o u n t o f confusion. the identity o f just and legal w a s denied. n o r its j u d g m e n t s s o u n d and profitable. T h e w h o l e function o f o u r sense o f justice (dika) is ' t o m a k e political order question positive law 173 . H o w then can t h e y b e . T h e y should b e like the o l i v e oil o f the Protagoras speech. and the still fluid state o f o p i n i o n . T h e topicality o f the c o n t r o v e r s y . it w a s still right for the citizen to accept it because his m e m b e r s h i p o f the state implied a p r o m i s e to o b e y the l a w s in return for the m a n y legal benefits o f citizenship. a m a n has a right to o b s e r v e it o n l y in so far as it coincides w i t h his o w n interests. It seems h o w e v e r that the c i t y m a y n o t b e wise. I le held that. a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h .

if Protagoras's moral doctrine contains an inconsistency and contradiction of his funda­ mental premise. after all. * For a criticism of Gomperz's interpretation of Protagoras see ZN. S. 66 a b o v e ) . w h o like h i m t r y to combine their relativism w i t h positive doctrines and precepts for human action. 2 1 W h a t this a m o u n t s to is that P r o t a g o r a s ' s criterion is q u a n t i t a t i v e : all j u d g m e n t s are e q u a l l y true. 9 1 7 ) . N a t u r a l l y therefore he inclines to those w h o equate dikaion w i t h nomimon. H i s t h e o r y c o r r e s p o n d s t o his rhetorical practice. If v a l u e judgments are o n l y v a l i d for the individual. u. he shares this inconsistency w i t h most modern relativists. G o m p e r z (S. and he has attempted a s o l u t i o n w h i c h w i l l take a c c o u n t o f t h e m . is in fact an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l justification o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f rhetoric. a c c o r d ­ i n g as t h e y g r a s p m o r e o r less o f reality. . Y e t in the m i d d l e o f the fifth c e n t u r y it w a s i m p o s s i b l e for a t h i n k i n g m a n to i g n o r e the existence o f b a d l a w s . 269. h o w can a j u d g m e n t that t w o beliefs are of unequal v a l u e be valid for m o r e than the individual w h o m a k e s i t ? ' (Gomperz. H . I f the result is an inconsistent o r circular a r g u m e n t . T h e y w o u l d n o t essentially alter the case. then decides for o n e as the ' b e t t e r ' . Just s o the e p i s t e m o l o g i s t p r o v e s that all v i e w s are e q u a l l y true because e a c h grasps o n e facet o f the truth. that w h i c h his disposition a l l o w s h i m t o see. b u t g i v e the appearance o f a m o r e o b j e c t i v e standard. its interest lies i n the state o f the q u e s t i o n at the time. so t h e y are m o r e o r less n o r m a l o r a b n o r m a l and thus s t r o n g e r o r w e a k e r . w h o m P r o t a g o r a s calls the w i s e . and the m o s t n o r m a l m a n . 1.The Relativity of Values p o s s i b l e ' ( p . 275). R. 1 174 . R. strongest and best belief. has the m o s t n o r m a l . Since P r o t a g o r a s w a s f a m o u s for his claim to ' m a k e the w e a k e r a r g u m e n t the s t r o n g e r ' . G o m p e r z ' s explanation o f the p a r a d o x is that each m a n is r i g h t because e a c h sees o n e facet o f the truth. rather than ' w o r s e ' and ' b e t t e r ' w h i c h P l a t o uses in his defence and w h i c h m a k e the circularity p a r ­ ticularly g l a r i n g . F o r P r o t a g o r a s . b u t n o t e q u a l l y v a l u a b l e because.) A s v o n Fritz remarks (RE. It is. 1357. n. w h i c h led P r o t a g o r a s to take s u c h a t o r t u o u s c o u r s e . b u t (as w i t h b o d i l y health) there are n o r m a l and a b n o r m a l dispositions. T h e rhetor m u s t b e able t o defend o p p o s i n g p o i n t s o f v i e w w i t h equal success b u t finally t o b r i n g o n e t o v i c t o r y as the ' s t r o n g e r ' . the rhetor is identical w i t h the w i s e m a n b e c a u s e h e has b e e n trained to see b o t h sides. T h e explanation ' T h a t there i s a logical circle here cannot b e denied . 269) s u g g e s t e d that h e m a y h a v e u s e d these epithets here. u. . x x m . a q u e s t i o n w h i c h has not even n o w been resolved. w h e r e a s the l a y m a n sees o n l y o n e — t r u t h b u t partial truth ( p .

effects that will b o t h be and seem better to the Sophist's pupil after his training. 1 1 2 and H 4 f . and these. B y thinking out this matter on independent lines. a belief that will p r o d u c e better effects in the future. ( 322 C 4 ) . F o r a state. w h i c h led h i m to the conclunlon ihat Plato's ' A p o l o g y of P r o t a g o r a s ' w a s in fact ' n o t one A p o l o g y but t w o ' . containing nwpectivcly "a " s u b j e c t i v i s t " conception compatible w i t h the m a n . that is. for as C o r n f o r d s a i d ( P T K .S. and this they can o n l y d o ( a c c o r d i n g t o the t h e o r y ) b y c o n v i n c i n g the citizens that the alteration will b e o f practical a d v a n t a g e (chreston)— that. 1966. he •aid. but a statesman m a y persuade it that others w o u l d be o f greater a d v a n t a g e to it. crimes o f v i o l e n c e will diminish rather than increase. and that therefore the m a i n ­ tenance o f existing l a w s . 7 3 ) ' sounder' for P r o t a g o r a s ' d o e s n o t mean " n o r m a l " . It can o n l y m e a n m o r e useful or expedient. I f these c o n d i t i o n s are altered. its l a w s and c u s t o m s are right and laudable so l o n g as t h e y are enforced o r socially a p p r o v e d .m e a s u r e principle as stated in i6(5d and a " u t i l i t a r i a n " one not so compatible' (pp. ' Cf. 175 . T h e y are of course the doctors (or in their respective spheres the liii»biiudnicn.What Protagoras Meant has its attractions. ( T h e p o i n t is m a d e e x p l i c i t l y at 172 a. for that w o u l d set u p the majority as a n o r m o r measure for the m i n o r i t y ' . it is likely to b e because in the first place a f e w a d v a n c e d thinkers (sophistai as a G r e e k m i g h t call them) succeed in initiating the diffusion o f different i d e a s . is right and p r o p e r so l o n g as it has the b a c k i n g o f public o p i n i o n and is legally enforced. b u t is w e a k e n e d b y its reliance o n the c o n c e p t s o f ' n o r m a l ' a n d ' a b n o r m a l ' . orators or Sophists). O n l y i f n e w l a w s are enacted b y c o m m o n 1 consent and constitutional processes can the c h a n g e b e for the better. were w i s e ' (Cornford's translation). 1 1 6 ) . is just and laudable because the alternatives o f disobedience o r s u b v e r s i o n w o u l d destroy the ' b o n d o f friendship and u n i o n ' o n w h i c h o u r v e r y life depends Prot. He does not say that these better judges are the healthy Μ op|>oscd to the sick. p. T h e contention that i 6 9 d is inconsistent with it i s untrue. e v e n t h o u g h t h e y are n o t the best. T . H e w i l l then prefer his n e w beliefs. w e m a y say. for instance. ' s o m e men are superior in the matter of what i s better or worse. 146 above. ) . Cole in Yale C.) Capital p u n i s h m e n t . In particular I do not outre that Plato has misinterpreted or misunderstood the doctrine of ιβ-ja-b (p. All that Plato s a y s there is that. according In Protagoras. Behind this t o r t u o u s a r g u m e n t is P r o t a g o r a s ' s c o n v i c t i o n that dike exists for the preservation o f social order. I hope I h a v e resolved tlie dilliculty felt and expressed b y A . for the individual.

w h o refers to the rebuttals of W e n d l a n d in Gott. 1. so legislation k e e p s a state s o u n d and h e a l t h y . Rhetorik. 2 as the substitution o f g o o d rhetoric for b a d . and it has b e e n c o n t e n d e d that T h a t this leading is an e x a g g e r a t i o n w i l l h a v e a l r e a d y appeared. in its forensic. V I I . O b v i o u s l y w e are n o t here c o n c e r n e d w i t h appraisal o f the w o r k s o f L y s i a s . S p . 681 f. τ ω ν λ ό γ ω ν τέχνη. and G. γεγραμμένα (PI. A s g y m n a s t i c k e e p s the b o d y fit. believing and k n o w i n g . One should also mention K j o U ' s a r a d e i n i ? j f ? . a b o v e ) . 4 4 . Kennedy. Gel. P l a t o c o u l d e v e n describe his o w n dialectical p h i l o s o p h y rhetoric alone w a s the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g m a r k o f a S o p h i s t . S u p p l . It m u s t b e read in the l i g h t o f his o w n doctrine o f the s u p e r i o r i t y o f k n o w l e d g e . 3 P l a t o . b u t d e m a n d s a closer l o o k . 1 b u t the t h e o r y behind G r e e k rhetoric h a d p h i l o s o p h i c a l implications. w i t h w h i c h n o t o n l y the Sophists b u t P l a t o h i m s e l f felt that t h e y h a d t o c o m e t o g r i p s . n o r others o f t h e m ' . 1 3 1 I76 . Αηζ. persuading and proving) (i) GENERAL R h e t o r i c has already b e e n m e n t i o n e d in these p a g e s (20. b o t h as a c t i v e practitioners a n d as teachers. 4 . 50 f. no.). s y s t e ­ m a t i z e s and writers o f rhetorical h a n d b o o k s . Gomperz in his Sophistik u. and k n o w n o t w h a t t o m a k e o f themselves. M a y e r . appearance and persuasion. Lit. and D r e r u p . Zentralbl. ( 1 9 1 3 ) . n. distinguishes sophistic and rhetoric b y an elaborate a n a l o g y . w h o k n e w his Sophists.VIII RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY (Seeming and being. ( 1 9 1 3 ) . 266 d ) or simply τέχναι (p. w o r k i n g in the same sphere and o n the same subject-matter. I f the b o d y falls W h i c h m a y be studied in such w o r k s as Blass's Attische Beredsamkeit. designed to s h o w h o w ' t h o u g h t h e y differ in nature. reality and t e a c h ­ i n g t o belief. T h e thesis is denied in the Prodikos of H. are confused. Norden's Antike Kunstprosa and Dobson's Greek Orators. n o r w i t h questions o f m a n n e r and s t y l e . 1039—1138. Phaedr. B y H. τ ά βιβλία τ ά περί τ η . y e t t h e y are so c l o s e l y related that Sophists and orators. A n d o c i d e s o r other A t t i c orators. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. b u t all the Sophists w e r e d e e p l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h it. political and epideictic branches.

in fact. 1 i77 . and s h o w that. that is. w h o c o n s i d e r e d (κίΓμ. was not new. and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g art in the state is the e x e c u t i o n o f justice. 182 w i t h η . in so far as p r e v e n t i o n is better than c u r e .m a k i n g to a r g u m e n t . A l l these arts h a v e their counterfeits. 1 T h e rhetorical art w a s also k n o w n as ' the art o f logoi'. It can b e said. the v e r y p e o p l e . it w a s c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h p h i l o s o p h y . and similarly rhetoric c o r r e s p o n d s t o the due execution o f justice in that it aims at cajoling an audience and p r o d u c i n g the s e m b l a n c e .). rhetoric and medicine or drii|{«. Plato m a y h a v e had P r o t a g o r a s and his Antilogiai (p.u p . To g y m n a s t i c c o r r e s p o n d s m a k e . that sophistic and rhetoric are ' p r e t t y nearly the same t h i n g ' . g i v i n g the appearance o f health. b u t w i t h o u t real k n o w l e d g e . for w h a t the difference is w o r t h . T h e w o r s t offenders are the m e n w h o deal in contradictions (άντιλογικοί) and think it the height of cleverness to h a v e discerned that there is n o soundness o r certainty in a n y t h i n g o r a n y a r g u m e n t . then. medicine w i l l c u r e it. not his o w n lack o f experience. P l a t o ' s a i m w a s t o g e t it o u t o f the h a n d s of superficial persuaders and special pleaders. »* wc have seen (pp. the ' u n c u l t u r e d w h o s e desire is n o t for w i s d o m b u t for s c o r i n g off an o p p o n e n t ' (91 a). b u t his censure extends to all rhetoricians and Sophists. and the w i d e meaning o f this w o r d (from t a l k i n g o r s p e e c h .Rhetoric and Sophistic sick. b u t e v e r y t h i n g g o e s u p and d o w n like the current in the E u r i p u s and n e v e r stays the same for a m o m e n t . T h e comparison between mind and body.d ) . n o t the reality. o f justice. Plato refines on it. 1 b e l o w ) particularly in m i n d . W i t h o u t it a m a n believes w h a t e v e r he is t o l d . w h o claims t o k n o w the best diet for the b o d y b u t in fact aims o n l y at pleasing the palate. T h i s is the lesson o f the Phaedrus (see especially 278 b . sophistic is superior in so far as the art w h i c h it imitates is superior. t h o u g h t ) m a d e possible v e r y different c o n c e p t i o n s o f the art o f w h i c h it w a s the subject. but.) Socrates attributes the evil o f ' m i s o l o g y ' — an aversion from logoi o f e v e r y k i n d — t o lack o f p r o p e r training i n ' the art o f logoi'. 5 1 0 a . reason. 1 6 7 ft. and in his disillusionment falls t o a b u s i n g . and so misses the path to k n o w l e d g e and truth. p r o p e r l y applied and based o n k n o w l e d g e o f the truth. c l a i m i n g t o impart w h a t k e e p s a state sound. t h e n later discovers it is false. T h e counterfeit o f the d o c t o r is the chef. b u t logoi themselves. and in the Phaedo (90b ff. IFFIfc. and t o legislation sophistic.

1 . Stenzel goes so far as to say that l a n g u a g e i s the starting-point of Socrates's teaching. In P l a t o ' s e y e s . Mem. 3 . H e w a s c o n v i n c e d that i f one u n d e r s t o o d a t h i n g o n e c o u l d ' g i v e a logos o f i t ' . Buch 58) doubts the historicity of the incident. 2. the d r a w i n g u p o f rules for its application. 1 1 . and that the best teachers make the greatest use o f speech and those with the deepest knowledge o f the most important matters are also the best speakers? 3 T h e ' i n v e n t i o n ' o f rhetoric is attributed t o t w o Sicilians o f the first half o f the fifth c e n t u r y . 2 . and his d e m a n d for definitions w a s a d e m a n d that p e o p l e s h o u l d p r o v e that t h e y u n d e r s t o o d the essence o f c o u r a g e . 3 .Rhetoric and Philosophy themselves masters o f ' the art o f logoi' and the best teachers o f it t o o t h e r s . 4 4 3 ) . ' L o o k at m e . Cf. H e p u t it to a different use from the S o p h i s t s . 3 1 this w a s n o t altogether unreasonable. X e n . C o r a x and T i s i a s . i ) . Halbb. Mem. 98) that Plato makes two things clear about antitogiki and e r i s t i c : they w e r e rife in Socrates's time and not d u e to a perversion of his elenchus. T o be a good speaker as w e l l as a man of action had. ' H e held that those w h o k n o w w h a t a n y g i v e n t h i n g is m u s t also b e able to e x p o u n d it t o o t h e r s ' ( X e n . w e learned through speech. 6 . is it l i k e l y that s o m e o n e like m e should g o for a b i g s t r o n g m a n like h i m ? ' I f o n the other hand he is a S a m s o n . as L e s k y points out (HGL. v. 4 n a m e l y the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the appeal t o p r o b a b i l i t y instead o f fact. I n v e n t i o n in this c o n n e x i o n had a specific m e a n i n g . a l t h o u g h he w a s n o rhetorician. as in actual fact. justice o r w h a t e v e r else w a s u n d e r discussion b y finding a verbal formula w h i c h w o u l d c o v e r all cases o f i t . 350). and their e m b o d i m e n t in w r i t t e n h a n d b o o k s . that any other g o o d lesson that may be learned is learned through speech. b u t . I f he is smaller and w e a k e r than his v i c t i m he w i l l say. Stenzel in RE. he w i l l * T a y l o r has pointed out (VS. b y which w e k n o w h o w to live. 9 . 4 . and their ancestry is Eleatic. 3 1 . T h e f o l l o w i n g w o r d s w h i c h X e n o p h o n p u t s i n t o his m o u t h are characteristic (Mem. he m u s t i n v o k e the a r g u m e n t from p r o b a b i l i t y . G i g o n (Komm. 821 f. 92. he has n o need o f the art. Reihe. I f a m a n accused o f assault can p r o d u c e facts s h o w i n g i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l y that h e did n o t c o m m i t it. but. i f Critias in m a k i n g it illegal to teach the art o f logoi had Socrates particularly in m i n d . 1 3 4 I78 . been the ambition of a Greek since Homeric times (//. he is a r g u i n g that a g o o d cavalry commander must be a g o o d speaker): Has it not occurred to y o u that all the best things that w e learned according to custom. Socrates w a s the real master o f this art. i f h e c a n n o t . erst.

which then appealed by its novelty. speed limit o n a m o t o r w a y w a s b r o u g h t police w h o claimed t o h a v e f o l l o w e d the defendant for nearly a mile w i t h their s p e e d o m e t e r registering 80-85. 135). P r o t a g o r a s o f A b d e r a . 1 179 . c o i n c i d e d w i t h the expulsion o f the tyrants and the establishment o f d e m o c r a c y . 11. because Gorgias on the embassy of 427 is said to h a v e amazed die Athenians b y his art. and ' W o u l d I b e s u c h a f o o l as t o d r i v e at o v e r 80 w i t h a p o l i c e . 11.irtilui. w h i c h is n o t o n l y speech and a r g u m e n t b u t also appearance o r b e l i e f as o p p o s e d t o fact (ergon). ' Λ point noted b y Democritus. T h e s e latter. either in its political o r its forensic under t y r a n n y . b u t w h a t appears. T h e defence w a s n o t c o u n t e r e v i d e n c e from the a c c u s e d ' s o w n speedometer. 3 A distinction m a y b e d r a w n b e t w e e n the Sicilian s c h o o l .13). 12. 1). 58 a ) . and claimed b y Gorgias in favour of his «rt (Pluto. b u t they w e r e certainly ready t o step in and s u p p l y the d e m a n d for it w h i c h accompanied the d e v e l o p m e n t o f personal freedom all o v e r G r e e c e . 1 It in not to be thought that. 181 (vol. and its g o a l is persuasion.c a r o n m y t r a i l ? ' R h e t o r i c teaches from the first that w h a t matters is n o t w h a t is the case. h e n c e that it w a s easy for h i m to see that it w a s f o l l o w i n g h i m . " W o u l d I b e s u c h a fool as t o attack h i m w h e n I a m the first p e r s o n o n w h o m suspicion w o u l d f a l l ? ' T h e s e a r g u m e n t s are 1 pre­ served as a sample f r o m C o r a x and T i s i a s . 4 6 (presumably from the Σ υ ν α γ ω γ ή τεχνών) for C o r a x and Tisias as the first to have written handbooks on rhetoric after the expulsion of the tyrants from Sicily. w e r e n o t the pioneers o f rhetoric. T h e y were already in love with it (φιλόλογοι). It is ' t h e art o f logos'. 273 a . T h e Sophists. 1402 a 1 7 ) connects it w i t h Corax. and rhetoric is par form. and that o f other Sophists w h o c o n g r e g a t e d at A t h e n s . w h o w a s said to be his pupil. Phileb. fr. A n accusation o f e x ­ by c e e d i n g the 70 m . C i c . h . O n the credit side it m a y b e said that persuasion is better than f o r c e .8 1 .The Argument from Probability a r g u e .b ) attributes it in a mimewhat garbled and caricatured form to Tisias. besides b e i n g interested i n Aristotle (Rhet. A g o o d m o d e r n o n e w a s reported in the Sunday Times for 21 M a y 1967. Its birth in S y r a c u s e . up. C i c . and in general Aulitzky in RE. p . See also Arist. Brut. 1 3 7 9 . x i . then. 1 2 . w h a t m e n can be persuaded o f (Phaedrus 267 a). see n. 496). and what took them b y surprise w a s G o r g i a s ' s exotic and .il style. P r o d i c u s o f C o s and Hippias o f Elis. A r i s t o t l e n o t e d (ap. they were unacquainted with artistic and professional oratory. flourish 2 excellence the democratic art w h i c h cannot. Plato (Phaedr. though later it w a s seen as c l o y i n g and ullccted ( U i o d . It w a s that the p o l i c e car had a flashing b l u e l i g h t . G o r g i a s and P o l u s and a i m i n g m a i n l y at fine s p e a k i n g (εύέττεια). carried o n after C o r a x and T i s i a s b y E m p e d o c l e s ( v o l .

and his d e m a n d for definitions w a s a d e m a n d that p e o p l e s h o u l d p r o v e that t h e y u n d e r s t o o d the essence o f c o u r a g e . H e w a s c o n v i n c e d that i f o n e u n d e r s t o o d a t h i n g o n e c o u l d ' g i v e a logos o f i t ' . Stenzel goes so far as to say that language is the starting-point of Socrates's teaching. I n v e n t i o n in this c o n n e x i o n had a specific m e a n i n g . b y which w e k n o w h o w to live. justice o r w h a t e v e r else w a s u n d e r discussion b y finding a verbal formula w h i c h w o u l d c o v e r all cases o f i t . I f he is smaller and w e a k e r t h a n his v i c t i m he w i l l s a y . he is a r g u i n g that a g o o d c a v a l r y c o m m a n d e r m u s t be a g o o d speaker) : Has it not occurred to y o u that all the best things that w e learned according to custom. T h e f o l l o w i n g w o r d s w h i c h X e n o p h o n puts i n t o his m o u t h are characteristic (Mem. 3 3 4 1 I 7 8 . erst. and their ancestry is Eleatic. X e n . Mem. been die ambition of a Greek since Homeric times (//. is it l i k e l y that s o m e o n e like m e s h o u l d g o for a b i g s t r o n g m a n like h i m ? ' I f o n the o t h e r hand he is a S a m s o n . 350). 3 . Socrates w a s the real master o f this art. 2. i f Critias in m a k i n g it illegal to teach the art o f logoi had Socrates particularly in m i n d .Rhetoric and Philosophy t h e m s e l v e s masters o f ' the art o f logoi' and the best teachers o f it t o o t h e r s . Cf. 98) that Plato makes t w o things clear about antilogikiand eristic: they w e r e rife in Socrates's time and not due to a perversion of h i s elenchus. Mem. 3 1 . Reihe. 4 n a m e l y the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the appeal to p r o b a b i l i t y instead o f fact. 6 . and that the best teachers make the greatest use o f speech and those with the deepest knowledge o f the most important matters are also the best speakers? 3 T h e ' i n v e n t i o n ' o f rhetoric is attributed t o t w o Sicilians o f the first h a l f o f the fifth c e n t u r y . Gigon (Komm. 92. v. 1 . as L e s k y points out (HGL. and their e m b o d i m e n t in w r i t t e n h a n d b o o k s . 4 4 3 ) . ' H e held that those w h o k n o w w h a t a n y g i v e n t h i n g is m u s t also b e able t o e x p o u n d it t o o t h e r s ' ( X e n . 2 . he w i l l T a y l o r has pointed out (VS. Stenzel in RE. the d r a w i n g u p o f rules for its application. 821 f. b u t . ' L o o k at m e . 2 1 this w a s n o t altogether unreasonable. 9 . C o r a x and T i s i a s . T o be a good speaker as well as a man of action had. 3 . a l t h o u g h he w a s n o rhetorician. he m u s t i n v o k e the a r g u m e n t from p r o b a b i l i t y . In P l a t o ' s e y e s . w e learned through speech. b u t . I f a m a n accused o f assault can p r o d u c e facts s h o w i n g i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l y that he did n o t c o m m i t it. he has n o need o f the art. 1 ) . 4 . Buch 58) doubts the historicity of the incident. ^. as in actual fact. H e p u t it to a different use f r o m the S o p h i s t s . 1 1 . Halbb. that any other g o o d lesson that may be learned is learned through speech. i f he c a n n o t .

A n accusation o f e x ­ c e e d i n g the 70 m . hence that it w a s easy for h i m t o see that it w a s f o l l o w i n g h i m . besides b e i n g interested in Aristotle (Rhet. fr. A g o o d m o d e r n o n e w a s reported in the Sunday Times for 21 M a y 1967. 1 3 7 9 . because Gorgias on the embassy of 427 is said to h a v e amazed the Athenians b y his art. 1). a/i. w h a t m e n can be persuaded o f (Phaedrus 267a). and rhetoric is par 2 excellence the democratic art w h i c h cannot. w h o w a s said to be his pupil. See also Arist. C i c .b ) attributes it in a antnewhat garbled and caricatured form to Tisias. and what took them b y surprise w a s Gorgias's exotic and artificial style. G o r g i a s and P o l u s and a i m i n g m a i n l y at fine s p e a k i n g (εύέπεια). 4 6 (presumably from the Σ υ ν α γ ω γ ή τεχνών) for C o r a x and Tisias as the first tu liuve written handbooks on rhetoric after the expulsion of the tyrants from Sicily. p . I I .3 A distinction m a y b e d r a w n b e t w e e n the Sicilian s c h o o l .8 1 . T h e y were already in love with it (φιλόλογοι). C i c . 135). O n the credit side it m a y b e said that persuasion is better than f o r c e . x i .The Argument from Probability a r g u e . w e r e n o t the pioneers o f rhetoric. h . see n. T h e defence w a s n o t c o u n t e r e v i d e n c e from the accused's o w n speedometer. It w a s that the p o l i c e car had a flashing blue light. ) It is not to be thought that. Its birth in S y r a c u s e . b u t w h a t appears. 11. Plato (PhaeJr. 496). 2 7 3 a . b u t t h e y were certainly ready t o step in and s u p p l y the d e m a n d for it w h i c h accompanied the d e v e l o p m e n t o f personal freedom all o v e r Greece. and claimed b y Gorgias in favour of his art (Pluto. Phileb. which then appealed by its novelty. Brut. T h e s e latter. either in its political o r its forensic form. then. ' Λ point noted b y D e m o e n t u s . flourish u n d e r t y r a n n y . and its g o a l is persuasion. " W o u l d I b e s u c h a fool as t o attack h i m w h e n I a m the first person o n w h o m suspicion w o u l d f a l l ? ' T h e s e a r g u m e n t s are 1 pre­ served as a sample from C o r a x and T i s i a s .13). A r i s t o t l e n o t e d (ap. speed limit o n a m o t o r w a y w a s b r o u g h t b y police w h o claimed t o h a v e f o l l o w e d the defendant for nearly a mile w i t h their speedometer registering 80-85. a n d ' W o u l d I be such a fool as t o d r i v e at o v e r 80 w i t h a police-car o n m y t r a i l ? ' R h e t o r i c teaches from the first that what matters is n o t w h a t is the case. though later it w a s seen as c l o y i n g and allotted (Diud. 1402a 1 7 ) connects it w i t h Corax. It is ' t h e art o f logos'. 1 179 . T h e Sophists. carried o n after C o r a x and T i s i a s b y E m p e d o c l e s ( v o l . and that o f other Sophists w h o c o n g r e g a t e d at A t h e n s . 12. w h i c h is n o t o n l y speech and a r g u m e n t b u t also appearance o r b e l i e f as o p p o s e d t o fact (ergon). 181 ( v o l . P r o t a g o r a s o f A b d e r a . and in general Aulitzky in RE. P r o d i c u s o f C o s and Hippias o f Elis. c o i n c i d e d w i t h the expulsion o f the tyrants a n d the establishment o f d e m o c r a c y . they w e r e unacquainted with artistic and professional oratory. 58a). 1 2 .

T h e justification o f this w a s that. t o a Sophist and rhetorician. ' t h e y held the p r o b a b l e ( o r l i k e l y . i6ze). e m p h a s i z e d the c o r r e c t use o f l a n g u a g e όρθοέττεια. S i c k i n g (Mnem. Versenyi.s e e m i n g . . εικότα) in m o r e h o n o u r than the t r u e ' . E v e n w h e n d e c e p t i v e . Sicking p. . G o r g i a s claimed that nothing exists ( o r is real). A s it is. all persuasion (philosophic. όρθότης ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ) and so w e r e led o n f r o m their c o n ­ cern w i t h p u b l i c s p e a k i n g t o initiate the studies o f p h i l o l o g y and g r a m m a r . plausible. Socr. and valid for him alone. w e can only distinguish between successful and unconvincing. the deceit m a y b e a just o n e and the d e c e i v e d g o a w a y w i s e r than before. that i f it did w e c o u l d n o t k n o w it. 290). though on p. . e t y m o l o g y and the distinction o f s y n o n y m s . Since all human inquiry moves within the realm o f opinion. truth and k n o w l e d g e w e r e illusion. 3 ' I f . s a y s G o r g i a s (fr. (See § 6 b e l o w . T h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l basis is the same as that o f P r o t a g o r a s ' s ' W h a t seems t o each m a n is as far as he is c o n c e r n e d ' . there would be a great difference between deception and truth. 'scientific'. 8. legal or other) is a result o f the force o f eloquence rather than o f rational i n s i g h t . nor can b e recognized or communicated. D K 11. Hel. but r e l y on the p r o b a b l e ' (Theaet. 2 4 5 ) appears to think o t h e r w i s e .Rhetoric and Philosophy e d u c a t i o n in its w i d e s t sense. j u d g m e n t w o u l d b e e a s y as s i m p l y f o l l o w i n g f r o m w h a t w a s s a i d . If men knew. persuasive and fruitless arguments. ' T h e logos has supreme p o w e r . Hum. 1 267 a ) . . t o m a k e the truth 35 D K ) . where deception is easy. 4 7 f. Phaedr. 1 9 6 4 . 2 3 1 l8o . the only alternative is that each man's private sensations and beliefs are alone valid. and w h i c h so s h o c k e d the absolutist P l a t o . and i f w e c o u l d k n o w it w e c o u l d n o t c o m m u n i c a t e o u r k n o w l e d g e t o another. n a m e l y that (as he p u t it o f T i s i a s and G o r g i a s . That Gorgias's polemic is not aimed solely at the Eleatics (' nicht nur'. 1 1 a. b a n i s h i n g fear and g r i e f and fostering j o y and c o m p a s s i o n ( G o r g . b u t since it is n o t so . 2 3 2 .* Turning Parmenides upside-down. as happens w i t h the Plato must have enjoyed the i r o n y of i m a g i n i n g Protagoras as protesting against precisely the methods of argument w h i c h he himself found objectionable in the Sophist and his k i n d : ' Y o u adduce no compelling proof at all. and it is neutral. It can d o great g o o d . ' i t w e r e possible t h r o u g h w o r d s (logoi) a b o u t reality (ergd) pure and clear to the hearers. but it can hardly be denied that if nothing has real existence. ) T h e essential theoretical basis o f rhetoric w a s that w h i c h distin­ g u i s h e d it f r o m the b e g i n n i n g . 2 4 5 he drops the qualification) cannot alter this.

The Power of the Logos fictions o f t r a g e d y . fame and m o n e y . it appears. w h i c h to G o r g i a s w a s o n l y rhetoric in v e r s e . and n o t h i n g m o r e . ' b u t h a d n o desire to w i n t h e m u n j u s t l y ' . ' T i l e whole discussion w i t h G o r g i a s throws an invaluable light on current conceptions of r h e ­ toric. Aoyotf μάλλον f\ TOIS ipyois προσέχειν τ ο ν νουν. is c o n c e r n e d entirely witli means.) contrasts Proxenus the B o e o t i a n . 4 5 6 C . * Gorg. it w a s n o t for the same reason. and on his disclaiming to teach αρετή pp. in an offhand w a y . where. 58 a for his conviction of the superiority of pcrnuuslon to every other art. after p l a y i n g the argument from p r o b ­ ability throughout his speech. 1 B u t in itself it is s i m p l y ' t h e art o f p e r s u a s i o n ' . below. Gorg. R h e t o r i c . Gorgias w o u l d not maintain that it i s all the same whether a murder takes place on the stage or in reality. Xenophon (An. Gorgias does indeed admit. T h e scepticism and subjectivism nl which lie was such a notable representative were rooted in the previous history of philosophy. 452ε). n o t e n d s . 271 f. with the unscrupulousness o f M e n o the Thessalian ( w h o s e c o n n e x i o n with G o r g i a s is k n o w n f r o m P l a t o ) . But w h a t i s death? W h a t e v e r w e are persuaded it i s . it is time for the old and respected man to be released and his brash pupil to take over.4 5 7 C W h e n Socrates presses his argument. Palamedes t o w a r d s the end ( § 3 4 ) exhorts his hearers μή τ ο ΐ . when Socrates goes on to d r a w the conclusion that in fact rhetoric cannot be used for w r o n g end*. he disclaimed the teaching o f arete (Meno 95 c) and maintained that the rhetorician is n o t t o b e b l a m e d i f his pupils e m p l o y their skill for w i c k e d ends.6. and bears no marks of caricature. T h o u g h it c o n c e r n e d r i g h t and w r o n g . o r a n y o t h e r g a t h e r i n g o f c i t i z e n s ' ( P l a t o . See also Phileb. 3 H e t a u g h t his pupils t o praise 1 and f'rr.16ff. a n y m o r e than a b o x i n g instructor i f his pupil g o e s a w a y and k n o c k s his father d o w n . I f Socrates's pupils did n o t all d o him credit. T h i s art o f s p e a k i n g G o r g i a s claimed t o teach. that if his pupil doesn't k n o w about right and w r o n g he supposes he can teach h i m (1110 lubjects for w h i ch Socrates and Plato found a lifetime of philosophy inadequate I). 2. 2 (2) PROTAGORAS Protagoras's subjectivism has a l r e a d y b e e n i n t r o d u c e d in c o n n e x i o n w i t h the relativity o f v a l u e s . T h e r e is a nice bit of rhetorical effrontery in Gorgias's Palamedes. a n d his teaching had different effects o n pupils according to their character. It is of course unpardonably crude. w h o paid G o r g i a s ' s fees because he l o n g e d for greatness.) says it is nothing but apetitioprincipii to regard rhetoric as the source of I'rotugonis's philosophy. II only Ha u reaction trom its universal assumption of an unperceived reality u n d e r l y i n g pheno1 l8l . Deceit then i s possible. but. 9 ( λ ό γ ο ν Ι χ ω ν μέτρον). a r m e d w i t h w h i c h a man can c o n v i n c e o f w h a t e v e r he likes ' a j u r y in c o u r t . Nestle (ZN. 23 and 1 1 . and its close relation t o his activities as a teacher o f rhetoric is o b v i o u s . In spite of his denial of abtolutc truth. the p e o p l e i n the A s s e m b l y . 1358 n. senators in the C o u n c i l .

D. 4 . that w h a t cannot be contradicted m u s t ' a p p e a r to. g . w h o w e r e v e r y much more than d e m a g o g u e s or soapbox orators. ( 9 . so the philosophical situation provided a background suited to its theoretical justification. for example. See Binder and Liesenborghs in Mus. 1 5 2 ε and Crat. and w r o t e t w o b o o k s o f ' C o n t r a r y A r g u m e n t s ' w h i c h m u s t h a v e b e e n a rhetorical t e x t b o o k . R. T h i s m a y be simply a mistake. Aristotle's w o r d s certainly do not exclude this. he says (after m e n t i o n i n g denial o f the l a w o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n ) : ' W h a t P r o t a g o r a s says originates i n the same o p i n i o n . ' T h e r e a r e ' . for m a n y p e o p l e h o l d o p i n i o n s o p p o s i t e t o each o t h e r . Steph. Aristoph. Plato liked to bring in not o n l y earlier philosophers but even poets as soi-disant parents of philosophical doctrines.L. 5 3 . w h i c h . Clouds nzS. 6 2 ) . A 2 1 . ' 3 mena or even (in the case of the Eleatics) d e n y i n g them their right to exist (cf. but adds. cf. at Theaet. 3 1 . 1 and in the Euthydemus (286b-c) Socrates attributes to ' P r o t a g o r a s and e v e n earlier t h i n k e r s ' the thesis that it is impossible to contradict. at least one man. of w h i c h an e q u a l l y possible translation w o u l d b e : O f e v e r y thing two contrary accounts can be g i v e n . since Aristotle represents it as an inference from w h a t he said. 3 . w a s n o t o r i o u s for his claim ' to m a k e the w e a k e r a r g u m e n t the s t r o n g e r ' (see e . he says. 1402323 ff. Protagoras w o u l d not agree with Aristotle that e v e r y t h i n g that can be uttered must be true and false ( i o o y b 2 o ) . which no doubt influenced Protagoras's v i e w s but contained them o n l y in e m b r y o . Top. D. Gomperz {S. 1966. i o r after all nobody believes that m e n are triremes or walls. can w e suppose ol άμφί Π. in v i e w of m a n y Platonic examples to the contrary.). and t h e y m u s t stand o r fall t o g e t h e r . 1007 b 18) speaks o f the thesis ' that c o n t r a d i c t o r y statements a b o u t the same t h i n g are simultaneously t r u e ' and ' i t is possible either t o assert o r d e n y s o m e t h i n g o f e v e r y subject' as o n e that m u s t b e a c c e p t e d b y those w h o accept P r o t a g o r a s ' s dictum. e v e r y t h i n g m u s t at the same t i m e b e true and false. Helv. 9 .) and H. 442 ff. Rhet.). and other evidence makes it practically certain. Eudoxus ap. D . T h e thesis of the impossibility of contradiction is usually ascribed to Antisthenes on the evidence of Aristotle {Metaph. 402b he carries the Heraclitean flux-doctrine back to Homer. that it w a s first argued b y Protagoras. ( D K . a m o u n t s to s a y i n g that it is i m p o s s i b l e to speak falsely. 3 I82 .) h a v e argued from these passages that the impossibility of contradiction w a s not a tenet of Protagoras himself. u. Nor. 9 . B y z . and Plato's l a n g u a g e suggests that it m a y have been well k n o w n in sophistic circles of the fifth century.). were anxious to provide. 1024b 32. 1 1 Untersteiner {Sof. at 100936. A r . Symp. or be believed b y ' . D.L. he said. ' T h e 'earlier t h i n k e r s ' need not be taken too seriously. 15 a b o v e ) . 1 0 4 b 20). and this the best of the Sophists. but Prodicus w a s acquainted with both Protagoras and Antisthenes ( X e n . as. Plato would chiefly be t h i n k i n g of Heraclitus and h i s doctrine of the identity of opposites (vol. 225 f. citing Plato. It is best to avoid dogmatizing about cause and effect. 1. cf. just as the democratic freedom of Athens favoured the rapid rise of rhetoric in practice. 2 A r i s t o t l e (Metaph. A p a p y r u s from an author of the fourth century A . ascribes it to Prodicus. intended to exclude Protagoras himself. L o w e r d o w n . T h e r e is however this quali­ fication to b e made. for i f all that appears and is b e l i e v e d is true. and s a y o n l y that. ' t w o o p p o s i t e a r g u m e n t s o n e v e r y subject'. T h e most that can be claimed is that they do not prove that it w a s . 3 5 ) calls it the thesis of Antisthenes. 5 5 ( Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ι ώ ν α ' β ' ) . p. 49 f.L.Rhetoric and Philosophy censure the same case.

60. Abh. someone ( τ ι ν ί ) is at o n c e real in relation t o him'. Math. (See p. Far from o u r k n o w l e d g e and sensations b e i n g the measure o f reality.216. T h i s h o w e v e r in a misuse o f the term w h i c h m a k e s it m e a n the o p p o s i t e o f w h a t it should. the statement is q u o t e d b y Sextus. cf. see the Appendix. καταβάλλοντε. 1. standard o f judgment.. 178b (and cf. 1 1 8 ) . t'ktatt. t h o u g h unless P l a t o g o e s b e y o n d h i m in this he w o u l d h a v e extended ii to the corporate o p i n i o n o f a state as e m b o d i e d in its l a w s .H. ι D K ) : Man is the measure o f all things. 1 . in o r d e r to ' T h e position of this sentence in his w o r k is vouched for b y Plato (αρχόμενο. 202 (of ancestral I I m i l l i o n s ) ούδεί. P. ) Besides P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e . w e i g h t . Άληθεία. 161 c) and Sextus (έναρχάμενο. 1 T h e continuation s h o w s that he had chiefly the i n d i v i d u a l in m i n d . and o f ι he things that are not that they are not. quotable Its Haying. Bacch. and there is n o reason t o d o u b t that P l a t o .Protagoras: 'Man the Measure' T h e theoretical foundation for all these statements lies in the thesis w i t h w h i c h he o p e n e d his w o r k o n Truth. 2 1 6 (DK. o f the things that are that they are. On the translation of this fragment. Math. 160c). A t the end of a discussion o f metron in the Metaphysics (1053331) he says (to paraphrase and e x p o u n d a difficult passage) that. he says. τ η .1Ι0. τ ώ ν καταβαλλόντων. etc. v a l u e . quantity. Si-xt.. Eur. Sextus. Cf. P. 7. the w o r d is applied to k n o w l e d g e and sensation because they are a m e a n s o f learning a b o u t things.66). 188—92. α υ τ ά καταβαλεϊ λόγο. e x p l a i n i n g : ' truth is Nomething relative because e v e r y t h i n g that has appeared t o . its j o b in to adapt itself to their nature as already determined. ΙΊ. ' TIIP analogy that he uses to illustrate this is not particularly happy but rather as B o n i u 1 1U It Vxrinpluin piiriiin Icliuilcr a d l l i b i t u m ' : it i s . 1 and w h i c h has already b e e n quoted for its b e a r i n g o n concepts o f v a l u e (fr. as if u e thought we were measuring 1I lunwlvrH when s i t n i c i M i c else measures us and we learn our own height from the number of times lliut lie applies (lie tout-rule. -J. w h o also understands it o f the individual. Ges. it is reality w h i c h must measure the a m o u n t and w o r t h o f o u r c o g n i t i o n ^ K n o w l e d g e cannot determine the nature o f t h i n g s . 172 a b o v e . A metaphor l i m n w r e s t l i n g .. 1 1 4 . it means arguments which overthrow others. I . iippciits to have been an alternative title for the Αλήθεια (Bernays. Thcact. l8] (isr . as a standard measure enables us to learn their size. i n addition to its more usual meanings. A 14).H. f o l l o w e d b y Sextus.? T h e w o r d ' m e a s u r e ' (metron) w a s p r o b a b l y c h o s e n b y P r o t a g o r a s lor was the epigrammatic flavour w h i c h it g i v e s t o his v e r y right in e x p l a i n i n g it as kriterion. o r been believed b y . pp. κριτή.^ meaning is also b r o u g h t o u t b y a criticism o f A r i s t o t l e ' s .

w h i c h are so far re­ moved from communis opinio. etc. V o n Fritz s a y s similarly {RE. ACP. Theaet.) It is o u r o w n feelings and c o n v i c t i o n s that measure o r determine the limits and nature o f reality. A r i s t o t l e is s p e a k i n g from the point o f v i e w o f his o w n and the P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y . b u t c o m e t o b e as t h e y are p e r c e i v e d . w h i c h o n l y exists in relation to t h e m and is different for e v e r y o n e o f u s . o r that the w i n d i n itself is neither w a r m n o r c o l d ? In general terms. and is w a r m t o y o u w h o feel it w a r m . relativism or phenomenalism. o r (β) that the perceptible properties h a v e n o the percipient? C o r n f o r d (PTK. 34ff. 369. h e adds. against the Eleatics. o i 6 f . w h o denied the e v i d e n c e o f the senses and the reality o f the o p p o s i t e s . ) . and contrasting w i t h it the doctrine o f P r o t a g o r a s that n o t h i n g exists s a v e w h a t each o f u s perceives and k n o w s . X L V . t h e y m a y b e g i v e n the n a m e o f k n o w l e d g e . D e m o c r i t u s said it is neither s w e e t n o r sour. but makes it clear that this conclusion w a s not d r a w n b y Protagoras ( i 6 o d f l . as w e l l as the Ionian tradition. it does lead to absolute relativism and subjectivism. a n d for was s u p p o r t i n g ' t h e n a i v e realism o f c o m m o n s e n s e ' . A r i s t o t l e ' s o p p o s i t i o n s h o w s that for h i m P r o t a g o r a s ' s w a s a d o c t r i n e o f pure subjectivism o r relativism. a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h there exists a reality b e y o n d and independent o f o u r k n o w l e d g e o r beliefs. Halbb. ( ' B e c a u s e h o n e y seems bitter to s o m e and s w e e t to others. 1 184 . W a s this a correct assessment o f i t ? T w o v i e w s h a v e b e e n t a k e n . b u t s o m e are p e r c e i v e d b y o n e m a n .) f a v o u r e d the first v i e w : P r o t a g o r a s 1 independent existence in the object. (Since o u r perceptions o n this t h e o r y are infallible. if Protagoras's statement is carried to its logical conclusion. that the senses w e r e t o b e trusted and things w e r e m i x t u r e s o f the opposites a p p r e h e n d e d b y sense. ) t h a t P r o t a g o r a s ' s s t a t e m e n t d o e s n o t e x p r e s s full sensualism.Rhetoric and Philosophy reach the truth. T o p u t it in the terms o f P l a t o ' s example (Theaet. 152c. w h e n P r o t a g o r a s s a y s that man is the measure o f all t h i n g s . h e is t a l k i n g nonsense. i f the w i n d is c o l d t o m e w h o feel it c o l d . H e w a s also in a c c o r d w i t h Heraclitus's b e l i e f i n the coexistence o f opposites and t o o k his side against D e m o c r i t u s . also Cherniss. d o e s this m e a n that the w i n d in itself is b o t h w a r m and c o l d . are w e t o s a y (a) that all properties p e r c e i v e d b y a n y b o d y coexist in a p h y s i c a l object. but aims at opposing a ' Philosophic des gesunden Menschenverstandes' to the philosophies of the Eleatics. He claims that this is borne out b y the Theaetetus: Plato goes on to point out that. Cf.. S o . t h o u g h it s o u n d s clever. others b y another. Heraclitus. m e a n i n g the m a n w h o k n o w s o r p e r c e i v e s . 152b).

H e c o n ­ cludes that for P r o t a g o r a s contrary sense-objects. ( " g r o u n d s " . and to call his doctrine ' s u b j e c t i v i s t ' . and for a similar theory in our own time. Ο. that perceptible properties h a v e n o independent existence. he identifies this theory w i t h P r o t a g o r a s ' s .H. especially 1 0 4 7 a 4 . c o r r e s p o n d s to the 'secret d o c t r i n e ' (Theaet. and Sextus proves an u n t r u s t w o r t h y witness o f g e n u i n e P r o t a g o r e a n ideas w h e n ' I'niliiKiiras would thus be in agreement w i t h the contemporary philosopher D i o g e n e s of Apollnnlu. in w h i c h Sextus attributes t o Protagoras the doctrine that ' m a t t e r is in f l u x ' ( τ η ν ύ λ η ν ρ ε υ σ τ ή ν ιΐναι). see v o l .H. P.7 . u. l o r this. s w e e t or i n general perceptible w h e n n o o n e is p e r c e i v i n g it. T h e l a n g u a g e o f Sextus is s o entirely that o f a later a g e as to cast suspicion o n its substance. 1. P. like the h o t and the c o l d .H. 2 . 1. i52cff. see vol. is supported by 2. w h o w r o t e (P.) T h i s . b e l o n g s to the ' s e c r e t d o c t r i n e ' . T h e thesis that n o m a n has the right to contradict another because each m a n ' s sensations and beliefs are true for h i m has little to d o w i t h ' t h e n a i v e realism o f c o m m o n s e n s e ' . but. so that matter.) w h i c h e v e r y o n e agrees is 1.e. A c c o r d i n g to C o r n f o r d the s e c o n d v i e w . 3 1 the first.Protagorean Relativism Heraclitus that it is b o t h ' . T h i s . 1. was quite commonly used to mean a property like hot. is m i s l e a d i n g . and his c o n c l u s i o n — ' T h u s a c c o r d i n g to P r o t a g o r a s m a n p r o v e s to b e the criterion o f w h a t e x i s t s ' — d o e s not f o l l o w from his premises.218. A l t h o u g h he denies it. T h e t h e o r y of a substance or matter c o n t a i n i n g properties w h i c h m a y or m a y n o t be perceived is specifically denied for P r o t a g o r a s b y A r i s t o t l e . It has to be remembered that δυναμίξ. exist i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f a n y percipient. in itself. I I . besides its AilaliHi'lliiti Miisc of potentiality. w h o u r g e d m e n t o f o l l o w the logos w h i c h w a s c o m m o n to all and despised them for l i v i n g as i f each had his o w n private w i s d o m (fr. ' Λ/»Μ/Ά. i.218) that ' t h e logoi Sextus. in q u o t i n g Sextus. as s u p p o r t for not P r o t a g o r e a n . surely. 185 7-3 . 381. Scr vol. properties) exist (as C o r n f o r d says) w h e t h e r t h e y are p e r c e i v e d o r n o t : a jar o f h o n e y lias its sweetness n o n e the less because n o b o d y is tasting it. i l l . 3. o r e v e n ' r e l a t i v i s t ' . sweet 01 it'll. Sext. C o r n f o r d claimed. C o r n f o r d ) o f all appearances subsist in the matter. 1. and little m o r e with Heraclitus. that n o t h i n g is c o l d . 425). B u t his a r g u m e n t s are n o t strong. W h e n discussing the Megarian t h e o r y that there is n o such t h i n g as a p o t e n ­ tiality that is not actualized. can b e all things that appear t o all m e n ' .63. n. 3. he omits the p r e v i o u s sentence. ' t h i n g s ' o n his interpretation (that is. h o t .

Col. in d e b a t i n g w h i c h o f the T h e v i e w attributed b y Cornford to Protagoras seems rather to resemble that w h i c h Socrates in the Cratylus (386 d ) distinguishes from his and assigns to Euthydemus. μή μάλλον είναι τοϊον ή τοϊον τ ώ ν π ρ α γ μ ά τ ω ν εκαστον. π . for it is a denial o f the v e r y m e a n i n g o f physis. n o difference b e t w e e n appearing and b e i n g . b u t turned a w a y from t h e m t o teach the o n e t h i n g that mattered. 4 318 c - 319 a ) . t h o u g h it will be evident that I do not accept his further claim that it applied only to k n o w l e d g e of nature and that Protagoras did not extend it into the ethical field. 1940.m e a s u r e ' statement itself and its obvious implications. b u t this w a s because t h e y w e r e t o b e explained as due t o the interaction b e t w e e n the atomic structure o f o u r b o d i e s and that o f the p e r c e i v e d object. he w a s acquainted w i t h their theories. p p . Cf. this is a better one than sensualism or phenomenalism. s w e e t and bitter. 3 8 9 ) . it w o u l d seem. Democr. T h e r e was a permanent physis or reality. 1 3 4 1 I86 . F o r P r o t a g o r a s there is n o n e . 156 (Plut. and for this D e m o c r i t u s attacked h i m . claiming t o possess the secret o f the universe. n a m e l y π α σ ι π ά ν τ α ομοίως είναι άμα καΐ αεί. each m o r e incredible than the last. 1109a). 1945. and n o m a n is in a p o s i t i o n to call another mistaken. Ph. for the theory applied to w h a t w a s thought or believed as w e l l as what w a s perceived. T h e conclusion here reached as to Protagoras's subjectivism agrees w i t h that of A d . 51 a b o v e ) . 7 . n a m e l y a t o m s and v o i d ( v o l . Math. to notions of r i g h t and w r o n g as w e l l as sensations of hot and cold. w e c a n n o t a r g u e a b o u t i t : it is w a r m for m e and c o l d for y o u . Prot. D e m o c r i t u s t o o said that all sensations are subjective. T h e difference between u s rests on a different interpre­ tation of his speech in the Protagoras. Rev. T h e r e is n o t m u c h profit. Vlastos. N o natural p h i l o s o p h e r w e n t as far as this. 438. If a label i s wanted.Rhetoric and Philosophy he tries to g o further than the ' m a n . Sext. fr.440). h o w t o take care o f o n e ' s o w n affairs and the business o f the state ( P l a t o . as G o r g i a s said ( p . A 1 1 4 . W h a t seems to m e is for m e . 591. b u t in fact o n l y p i t t i n g one o p i n i o n against another. L i k e all the Sophists. h a v e n o existence in nature. I f w h a t I feel as w a r m y o u feel as c o l d . anticipated Plato (Theaet.3 H e w a s i n the v a n g u a r d o f the humanistic reaction against the natural p h i l o s o p h e r s . L e v i ' s article in Philosophy. Adv. that h o t and c o l d . 1 W e m a y c o n c l u d e that P r o t a g o r a s a d o p t e d an extreme s u b j e c t i v i s m 2 a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h there w a s n o reality b e h i n d and independent o f appearances. o b j e c t i n g that o n his v i e w ' n o t h i n g w a s a n y m o r e such than such'. w h o s e c o n t r a d i c t o r y speculations w e r e b r i n g i n g t h e m into disrepute a m o n g practical m e n — e a c h o n e . therefore. 1 7 1 a ) in a r g u i n g that the doctrine is self-refuting ( D K . and w e are each the j u d g e o f o u r o w n impressions. He also.

Ethical Conclusions of Protagoras philosophers h e b o r r o w e d from o r reacted against. or their appointed representatives. T h e r e is n o a l l . as a d o c t o r d o e s for his patient. then for h i m . It is generally said that.e m b r a c i n g ' g o o d for m a n ' . i 2 6 o a 2 7 ) . w h i c h m a y nevertheless b r i n g home the point that. k n o w i n g and being. whereas • tin SuphUlN were empiricists w h o denied the possibility of a general definition o f ' g o o d ' on the ΜΙ1111111Ι· that it differed relatively to individual men or societies and their circumstances. it would seem. t o w h o m stealing b o t h seems and is bad. In Greek thought epistemology and o n t o l o g y . the epistemologicalthe ontological doctrine o f c o m p l e t e subjectivity b r e a k s d o w n : appearance o f the m o m e n t is subordinated to a h i g h e r standard. anil when and for how l o n g — a man. who is compared to a qualified doctor who not o n l y k n o w s liow In administer various treatments but understands also which is appropriate to a particular pulli'iil. 1 167b). undoubtedly. O u r information relates o n l y to states. the etui or purpose o f h u m a n nature and s o c i e t y . to w o r k u p o n h i m b y persuasion until his v i e w — t h a t is. the truth for h i m — i s c h a n g e d . lliu tliiilt't tluilly n. ' T h e relation of Socrates and Plato to the Sophists is subtle. that is. Here. b u t o b v i o u s l y . Socrates (and Plain lifter h i m ) insisted that there w a s one universal good. the task o f the Sophist. 166 above. Yet in the Phaedrus it is the ' t r u e rhetorician'. i f a m a n sincerely believes that it is g o o d t o steal. are not to b e separated. w h o taught that all sensations and o p i n i o n s w e r e to b e rejected as false. T h u s Aristode (like Plato in the Mend) i l i ' | i k l « lilin as insisting on a general definition of arete" in contrast to Gorgias w h o preferred to viiiiinriaie nepanile virtues (Pol. We h a v e seen that his relativism extended t o the field o f ethics. T o d i a g n o s e the particular situation and prescribe the best c o u r s e o f action for a m a n or a state under g i v e n c o n d i t i o n s . w h e r e b y the standard o f truth o r false­ h o o d is a b a n d o n e d . and morals and the social order w e r e s a v e d b y this c u r i o u s doctrine.3 T o ensure ' A cltimny expression. in the empirical tradition of the best 1S7 2 . b u t this w a s far f r o m his thoughts. 167a) so that w h a t appears and is to him sour appears a n d is s w e e t . A t the same time the other kind o f relativity c o m e s i n : m e n a n d societies differ w i d e l y . ' That which is described under (a) on p . typical o f its p e r i o d . b u t replaced b y the p r a g m a t i c standard o f better or w o r s e . especially as w e k n o w so little o f the c o n t e n t o f his w r i t i n g s : t h e y w e r e all c h a s i n g chimeras. as P r o t a g o r a s saw it. just as it is w o r t h w h i l e for a d o c t o r to c h a n g e a sick man's w o r l d b y his d r u g s (Theaet.iined philosopher. h o w e v e r it m a y be today. k n o w l e d g e of w h i c h w o u l d dive the key to right action for e v e r y b o d y everywhere. T h e l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n o f P r o t a g o r e a n subjectivism is m o r a l and political a n a r c h y . ' S o m e appearances are better than others. so it is w o r t h w h i l e for the majority. is. B u t . t h o u g h his direct polar o p p o s i t e w a s o f c o u r s e P a r m e n i d e s . it is g o o d . and »o therefore d o their needs. so l o n g as he b e l i e v e s it. t h o u g h n o n e is truer* (Theaet.

). Gomperz on the other hand held the universalist view unambiguously (G. . R. 14). though not the art of rhetoric proper. DK: some points of translation Controversy has flourished for many years over the translation o f three words in this sentence: άνθρωπος. 1. Each man's mind. Ph. 451): ' M a n . G .Rhetoric and Philosophy that that c o u r s e is f o l l o w e d is the c o n c e r n o f the rhetorician. u.T. Sophs. . rather include and transcend than undo the w o r k of Sophists and rhetor­ icians. 2<58 a . Grant (Eth. o f Theaet. 11. xxix). x i v ) . H . the ordinary rhetorician. 217 that no one would have been more astonished at the question than Protagoras). § 8 . τέχνης α ν α γ κ α ί α . Such questions call for careful consideration. p. . after all. 115). in spite o f saying on p. p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m s e e i n g that his art o f d e f e n d i n g b o t h sides. 117). APPENDIX Protagoras fr. In contrast. 135 f. 234ff. Campbell (ed. άνθρωπος. resembles a q u a c k w h o has learned from a book h o w to g i v e an emetic or a purge. It m a y b e that the Socratic search for definitions. but has no idea when its use will be appropriate {Phaedr. H i s o w n integrity. 1.' ( M y italics. Zeller himself. Nestle (with some qualifications. see his edition o f the Prot. see especially Socrates. but in his Plato. 222 f. Is Protagoras using it in (a) an individual or (β) a universal sense. Loeb ed. a necessary propaedeutic to it ( τ α τ φ ό τ ή . but one m a y quote 328-9: ' H o w e v e r multifarious the mental activities may be. 188 . i . .. and t a u g h t b o t h arts. described in the Phaedrus as being.) T . Grote is always quoted as the originator o f (/>). Their teaching is.e d g e d s w o r d in the h a n d s o f less s c r u p u l o u s m e n . 322 ff. 269 c ) . or is he (c) unaware o f the distinction? F o r older authorities see Z N . is still the limit or measure or limit o f his cognitions. cos. . 86 with nn. P r o t a g o r a s w a s b o t h . and its offspring the Platonic dialectic of 'collection and d i v i s i o n ' . Gomperz (S. χρήματα. e. T h e a v e r a g e rhetorician w a s satisfied w i t h the means a n d careless o f the e n d . Ill. (to which Zeller refers) I do not find this interpretation. . w h o ' t h r o u g h ignorance of dialectic is unable to define the nature of r h e t o r i c ' . was obviously not Greek medical teaching. u.. w a s a t w o . Burnet (Th. Calogero and A d .). with its peculiar endowments . ι . perhaps. ch. H e turned the heads o f the y o u n g b y telling t h e m that i f t h e y o n l y mastered the art o f persuasion t h e y c o u l d h a v e the w o r l d at their f e e t : w h a t t h e y d i d w i t h it w a s their affair. n. and m a k i n g the w e a k e r a r g u m e n t appear the stronger. Levi (for w h o m see Untersteiner. 2 6 9 b ) . Heinimann (N.c . In the past at least the majority o f scholars have supported (a). 1357..g. R. 1. Bury (Sextus. 1. each man has his own peculiar allotment and manifestation thereof. to P. T h e pages must be read entire. to which his cognitions must be relative .

S o m e w h o h o l d this v i e w combine it w i t h (a): P r o t a g o r a s w a s t h i n k i n g o f the i n d i v i d u a l . 703-5). w h o s a y s i n h i s Hist. 86f. provided it is t a k e n t o e x c l u d e (b). H a l b b . . p . G . ("/. 84). Untersteiner a g r e e s (Sopks. L e s k y .' a. 204. n. b u t t h e dlutinction w a s p r o b a b l y n o t p r e s e n t t o h i s m i n d . G o m p e r z . C l a s s e n (Proc. 34) thinks it un- distinction b e t w e e n existence Mild essence c o u l d not h a v e b e e n c o n s c i o u s l y p r e s e n t to P r o t a g o r a s ' s m i n d .9.. lilntnriciil to p o s e the q u e s t i o n b e c a u s e the 90. 708). S e x t u s ] w h o s e u s e of t h e word ίκαστοξ s h o w s t h a t t h e y a l s o t o o k t h e s e n t e n c e as r e f e r r i n g to t h e Individual. 42. w h i c h h a s g a i n e d f a v o u r r e c e n t l y .) father a n d s o n both s p o k e f o r the f o r m e r . Gr. 1959. then w h a t a p p e a r s t o all m e n e x i s t s for all m e n . H o l d e r s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( c ) . t h o u g h he adds that the question is of little i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e s t a t e m e n t . cos b e i n g t h e e q u i v a l e n t of ότι. 452. If w e a r e d e t e r m i n e d t o d i s b e l i e v e P l a t o . i n h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t Protagoras w o u l d h a v e m a d e n o d i s t i n c t i o n . 189 . Afr. Heinrich's arguments seem decisive. i f P r o t a ­ goras men. Lit. Untersteiner (Sophs. 35) a n d C o r n f o r d ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . t h e n it fits n o n e of the e v i d e n c e . 4 o n 11.T. 236. n. t h e manner of t h e i r •xlstcnce? G o m p e r z mtnlogy of fr. w h o d e n i e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f fr. Italics arc his. 345: ' C e r t a i n l y lite sentence refers to t h e i n d i v i d u a l . us ' w h a t w a y w i l l there b e [sic] t o get the better of w i c k e d n e s s ? ' T h e Sophs.) C a l o g e r o (see U n t e r s t e i n e r . or d o e s it c o n t a i n t h e idea of ' h o w t h e y a r e ' . H. . A n y o n e w h o d o u b t s it m u s t h o l d t h a t Pluto is l y i n g o r m i s t a k e n . D o e s it s i m p l y m e a n ' t h a t t h e y a r e ' . . w e littve still to r e c k o n w i t h o t h e r a u t h o r s [ A r i s t o t l e . T r u e e n o u g h . p h i l o s o p h e r s to ' h o w ' . 4 as a n a r g u m e n t t h e o t h e r w a y . So d i d J o e l (Gtsch. Ass. T h i s s e e m s l i k e l y e n o u g h . τί μέτρον κακότητος Ιφυ. n o t i n g t h a t c l a s s i c a l ncholurs tend to the m e a n i n g ' t h a t ' . u. . cos Εστίν. G. Von I'ritz (RE. XLV. f ί. but m a n k i n d as a w h o l e . ' If Z e l l e r ( Z N .). R. if w h a t a p p e a r s t o a n i n d i v i d u a l e x i s t s lor him. El. 914) t a k e s t h e s a m e v i e w . ( S e e T h . i n c l u d e Joel (Gesch.Translation of Protagoras Fr. Z e l l e r ( Z N . c i t i n g t h e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e g o d s . w h i c h h a s n o t f o u n d g e n e r a l acceptance. 1. b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r e w a s a n y t h i n g at all t h a t a p p e a r e d t h e s a m e Hut w a s it n o t the e s s e n c e o f h i s t e a c h i n g t h a t this w a s n o t s o ? to all After all this it is r e f r e s h i n g to t u r n t o t h e c o m m o n s e n s e o f a h i s t o r i a n of Greek literature. t h o u g h h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is c o n n e c t e d w i t h Ilia curious c o n c e p t i o n o f μέτρον as ' m a s t e r y ' . 1) t h o u g h t it m o r e c o r r e c t t o i n c l u d e b o t h m e a n i n g s . ι the individual. c l a i m s t h a t t h e r e is n o c o n t r a ­ diction b e t w e e n t h e t w o . b e c a u s e . 1357) is c o r r e c t in describing this v i e w as m e a n i n g t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o P r o t a g o r a s ' T h i n g s present t h e m s e l v e s t o u s as u n d e r t h e l i m i t a t i o n s a n d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d i s ­ position of h u m a n n a t u r e t h e y m u s t p r e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s ' . (It i n v o l v e s t r a n s l a t i n g S o p h .

Discussion has concentrated o n t h e w o r d ώ ς i n this p h r a s e . that I d o n o t e n t i r e l y a g r e e w i t h h i m w h e n o n p .e x i s t e n c e o f a t o m s j u s t a s h e is t h e m e a s u r e o f t h e b e i n g . c h . T h i s is a w o r d o f v e r y w i d e a p p l i c a t i o n . ' Plato's exegesis b e c o m e s entirely natural a n d intelligible i f w e understand the a b s o l u t e u s e o f einai as . T h a t ώ ς c a n m e a n ' h o w ' is u n d e n i a b l e .c o l d o r n o t . b u t i t is a l s o u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y w i t h ό τ ι . proportion. τ ώ ν γ ε μ ή έ ό ν τ ω ν τ ί ν α ά ν τ ι ς ο ύ σ ί α ν θ ε η σ ά μ ε ν ο ς (It will have appeared. 1966. .). g . s e n s e o f είναι w h e n u s e d w i t h o u t p r e d i c a t e s is ' t o e x i s t ' . f o r a n affirmation s u c h as " t h e r e a r e a t o m s a n d v o i d " . Untersteiner (Sophs. fits P l a t o ' s e x ­ p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e : 'as e a c h t h i n g s e e m s t o m e . b u t t h e w o r d ε σ τ ι is e q u a l l y w o r t h c o m m e n t . ) . 3 8 . 3 . as h e p o i n t s o u t . w o u l d t h e n b e i n c l u d e d a s a s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e g e n e r a l f a c t u a l a s s e r t i o n i n t e n d e d b y P r o t a g o r a s ' s s t a t e m e n t has esti. H . 1 0 2 4 b 17/V. b u t it is T h e use of είναι and -πράγμα in Aristotle's discussion of ψεύδος (Mtiaph. VM^uL. i f n o t t h e o n l y . K a h n is v e r y p e r s u a s i v e in h i s c l a i m t h a t i t s f u n d a m e n t a l v a l u e i s ' n o t " t o e x i s t " b u t " t o b e s o " . t h e n h e is the m e a s u r e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o r n o n . t o w h i c h s h o u l d b e a d d e d t h e s o p h i s t i c H i p p o c r a t i c ά τ τ α γ γ ε ί λ ε ι ε ν ώ ς ε σ τ ί ν . " that t h e y a r e s o o r n o t s o " . b e c a u s e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n a l l t h e different s e n s e s o f λ ό γ ο ς c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n s c i o u s l y p r e s e n t t o t h e m i n d o f a w r i t e r o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y . 2 ( v i . I f m a n is t h e m e a s u r e o f all t h i n g s . o r " t o b e t r u e ' " . L i k e o t h e r s c h o l a r s I h a v e h i t h e r t o w r i t t e n o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e p r i m a r y . e . T h i s . T h a t it is s o u s e d h e r e is m a d e o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p r o b a b l e b y its setting (especially in the negative clause ώ ς ούκ εστι) and b y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h fr. t h o u g h c o m m o n l y in pi. χ ρ ή μ α . H e p r o f e s s e s t o g i v e a r e v i e w o f its p o s s i b l e m e a n i n g s .) 3. 4 L . b u t C . a n d s o s o m e ­ t h i n g i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o m a n ( N e s t l e . . R e c e n t l y t h e r e h a s b e e n a t e n d e n c y t o o v e r s t r e s s its e t y m o l o g i c a l c o n n e x i o n w i t h χ ρ ή σ θ α ι a n d n a r r o w it d o w n t o ' s o m e t h i n g o n e u s e s ' . 1 treatise trans­ De arte. definition o r w h a t e v e r . 271). 250. m e a n i n g anything from a n oracle to m o n e y (so in sing. 1 I0O .b e i n g . ' S e e h i s a r t i c l e in Foundations of Language.Rhetoric and Philosophy T h i s is r a t h e r l i k e s a y i n g t h a t . as " w h a t is s o " o r " w h a t is t h e c a s e " .c o l d o f t h e w i n d . h o w e v e r .1) t h e r e is n o s e n s e i n a s k i n g w h e t h e r h e m e a n t a s t o r y o r any o f the other things the w o r d c o u l d m e a n : argument. e s p e c i a l l y p . a n affirmation o f fact i n g e n e r a l . " t o b e t h e c a s e " . 4.) may lend some support to his view. such is i t f o r m e ' . o r a c c o r d i n g t o as a c t i o n o r 79) ' t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h i n g s u n d e r s t o o d e x p e r i e n c e ' . W h a t decides is t h e c o n t e x t . 3 . pretext. 262 h e calls Protagoras ' a philosopher o f c o m m o n sense'. t h e r e f o r e w h e n H e r o d o t u s s a y s Ιλεξε Aoyov ( i . T h e e x i s t e n t i a l u s e . 141. e t c . H d t . w h e r e ' t h a t ' is c e r t a i n l y t h e m o s t n a t u r a l lation o f ώς.

1. b u t Prot. relation χ ρ ή μ α τ τ ο λ λ ό ν τ ι χ ρ υ σ ο Ο . (/') C a s e s w h e r e 'lliey thought 'what it m i g h t b e o m i t t e d : (Hdt. (c) In p e r i p h r a s i s : Ooc μ έ γ α 1. 285). I lie p a s s a g e w h i c h affords t h e s t r o n g e s t s u p p o r t t o N e s t l e ' s t h e s i s . Oec. 485 b ) .v. S e e X e n . ( O n U n t e r s t e i n e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s a y i n g i n g e n e r a l ] \ . ι η v e r y partial o n e . t h e y w i l l h a v e i n c l u d e d t h e ' o p p o s i t c s ' a t u l c o n c r e t e t h i n g s a l i k e ( v o l . H o l l a n d i n CQ. Ale. is s e v e r e b u t just.130. at E u r . b u t it w o u l d b e fanciful t o s u p p o s e that this r e l a t i o n is i n t h e w r i t e r ' s m i n d . Birds (iilfniy Clouds 2). t h o u g h not cited b y h i m i n this c o n n e x i o n . 1265. χρήμα 512 it d r e a d f u l ' (Aesch. t ( χρήμα means ' w h y ? ' . ( S o p h . τ ί χ ρ ή μ α λ ε υ σ σ ω . λ ι π α ρ ό ν τ ό χ ρ ή μ α τ ή ς π ό λ ε ω ξ ' w h a t a fine c i t y ! ' ( A r i s t o p h .2).. 'she mismanaged the w h o l e business' τώ χ ρ ή μ α .) T h e f o l l o w i n g ( a l l e a s i l y uvailable in L S J ) find n o m e n t i o n . τπκρόν τ ι μοι δοκεΐ (Ιυαι. I n a n y case it is o n l y o n e o f m a n y meanings. F . (f) (Hdt. b u t e x p l a i n s t h e m as a n 'event.36.5). Tr. χρήμα. 534b). U n t e r s t e i n e r d o e s g i v e which one under­ b o t h these r e f e r e n c e s . VM\uL. amount: χ ρ ή μ α π ο λ λ ό ν νεων.1). (</) I n p l u r a l a n y t h i n g useful o r g o o d f o r m a n . I I . ά τ τ α ν τ ό χ ρ ή μ ' ήμαρτε. to mankind 3. ' a p o e t is a l i g h t . κακόν Ph. ' f o r what cause?'. ' a great b o a r ' (Hdt. In explaining Protagoras's sentence Plato (Crat. ' i t s e e m s t o m e d i s a g r e e a b l e ' ( P l a t o . δεινόν τι χρήμα έποιεΰντο. ' a l o t o f g o l d ' (idem.7-8.Translation of Protagoras Fr. ' a large n u m b e r o f s h i p s ' 6. and seems t o b e confined t o the plural.4). (e) C a s e s w h e r e ' d i i n g ' is t h e o n l y p o s s i b l e t r a n s l a t i o n : κοΟφον χ ρ ή μ α τ ι ο ι η τ ή ξ έ σ τ ι ν καΐ π τ η ν ό ν κ α ι ιερόν. unci s o f r e q u e n t l y : τ ό χ ρ ή μ α τ ω ν ν υ κ τ ώ ν δ σ ο ν . a n d w e m a y c o n c l u d e t h a t n o w o r d m o r e specific t h a n ' t h i n g ' w i l l s e r v e as its t r a n s l a t i o n in the dictum o f Protagoras. goes (χρήται)'). j u s t i c e a n d injustice is u n d e n i a b l e . 330c a n d a l l o w that these w e r e still c o m m o n l y r e g a r d e d b y t h e G r e e k s a s e x i s t i n g things ( π ρ ά γ μ α τ α ) .16. 826). to ii p h i l o s o p h y ol'f. Hut there is little p o i n t in p u r s u i n g 10 1 . N o d o u b t it is p o s s i b l e t o r e p r e s e n t χ ρ ή μ α i n all t h e s e c a s e s a s h a v i n g (what thing o f w h o s e existence w e are aware Iihs n o t ? ) . χ ρ ή μ α τ α will have been for Protagoras what they w e r e for his c o n t e m p o r a r y A n a x a g o r a s : that i s . That 'things' d Include heat a n d c o l d .. 10 a n d e l s e w h e r e ) . W e n e e d n o t d i s m i s s t h e liiller f r o m the a r g u m e n t o n the g r o u n d s that m a n c a n n o t b e a m e a s u r e o f (lie e x i s t e n c e o f trees a n d s t o n e s (as N e s t l e d o e s .43. tome Number. do I see?' Cho.vt' 271): a c c o r d i n g est percipi he c a n . ' h o w l o n g t h e n i g h t s a r e ! ' (</) A s the E n g l i s h ' b u s i n e s s ' i n its w i d e c o l l o q u i a l s e n s e . Ion 1136). Gorg. \H) a 386 e ) e q u a t e s it w i t h π ρ ά γ μ α . 1956. 8. ' i t ' s a b a d b u s i n e s s ' (idem. w i n g e d a n d h o l y t i l i n g ' ( P l a t o . a w o r d w h i c h also h a d b e c o m e e s t r a n g e d f r o m its p a r e n t v e r b a n d w a s u s e d t o m e a n s i m p l y ' a n e x i s t i n g t h i n g ' .

essaj__on the nature and p o w e r of logos' ( V e r s e n y i . 1887.b ) : ' T h e art of persuasion far surpasses all others and is far and a w a y the best. Gorgias and Tisias must h a v e b e e n a l m o s t exact contemporaries. 579). w a s put b y Preuss in 4 1 4 .Rhetoric and Philosophy this line. 2 . since A r i s t o t l e (Soph. Maass before 4 1 1 (Hermes. p. el. n. since all the examples given b y Plato and Aristotle are o f properties or attributes. A s to date. D . Existent. I should not be surprised if Helen's speech in the Troades ( 9 1 4 . 54 on p. T h e chorus appeal to Hecuba to destroy the ττειθώ of this ' e v i l woman w h o k n o w s h o w to speak'. 43 f . On the character and genuineness of these t w o speeches see Dobson. Orators. ethics and rhetoric. w a s dated b y E. 166). ancTthe Helen KaTrjeen w e l l described asJan. 2. for it m a k e s all things its slaves b y w i l l i n g submission. Phaedr. T h e e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l implications of this h a v e already b e e n m e n t i o n e d ( p p . 95 and other references in his n. J o e l .. T h e general opinion i s n o w favourable to their genuineness. T h e Hel. 183 b 36) says that this w a s his m e t h o d of instruction. 3ff. but the sole evidence is an unsupported statement in Pausanias's handbook for travellers in Greece in the second century A . Rh. Reihe. 23. Phileb. Hel. Hum. n o t by v i o l e n c e ' . p r o v i n g that ' t h e w o r d is a m i g h t y d e s p o t ' . Gomperz. 44). 1 He w r o t e manuals of the art ( p . 50 f. Gott. i x . 1 7 . See Stegemann in RE. a b o v e ) .8). o r On Nature. 657ff.17. 11 and 11 a) w i l l be s u r v i v i n g e x a m p l e s . 1957. 1 9 1 1 ) and b y Pohlenz before the Troades (Nachr. These are what w o u l d concern Protagoras as a teacher o f politics.6 5 ) owed something to what Gorgias makes her s a y on the same subject. and that (as P l a t o says G o r g i a s re­ peatedly declared. Perhaps he did. Leipzig. Halbb. 1920. Sophs. (6. In Euripides she takes the offensive at once b y s a y i n g her troubles w e r e Hecuba's fault for bearing Paris ( ! ) .). 7 2 . 2 1 Gorgias himself calls the Helena a τταίγνιον. 3 5 1 ) s a y s Tisias ' c e r t a i n l y accompanied h i m to Athens in 4 2 7 ' on his mission for Leontini. L e s k y (HGL. ) : it is certainly not serious in its ostensible purpose (Gorgias docs not mind whether Helen's m e m o r y is vindicated or n o t ) . Gesch. • the treatise On the Non- T h e Eleatics. 140. w h i c h m a y h a v e consisted largely of m o d e l declamations to be learned by heart. between the Troades and Helen of Euripides (De Eur. Untersteiner. Ges. 4. 1. O f these the Helen and Palamedes 2 (frr. and goes on to blame Aphrodite. Schmid. and we m u s t n o w face the p r o b l e m s of that remarkable tour de force. 192 . 5 8 a . on which the best comment is probably V e r senyi's (Socr. b y their p r i m i t i v e limitation o f the term ' b e i n g ' Plato. n. S o irresistible is its p o w e r that if H e l e n w a s persuaded into adultery she w a s as guiltless as if she had b e e n a b d u c t e d by force.. Gesch. 99. which however he is using as a vehicle lor his general v i e w s on the nature of λόγος and ττειθώ. u. H. 44. see Calogero in JHS. S. Hum. associated w i t h his c o u n t r y m a n T i s i a s in the use of the a r g u m e n t f r o m p r o b a b i l i t y . 16 with n. 267a. T h e Pal. (3) GORGIAS G o r g i a s w a s primarily a teacher of rhetoric. Socr. born in the decade 490-480.

11// li/ttit.Gorgias on the Non-Existent to what is o n e . P l a t o . Mnem. T h e y are n o t a l w a y s contains lacunae and corruptions. Both texts are available with Italian translation III IJiilrratcincr. c l a i m s tli. i . o r as a serious contribution to p h i l o s o p h y . a denial o f all being in the Eleatic sense. had d r i v e n practical p e o p l e like Protagoras to the opposite extreme o f subjectivism. 1.. it is n o t c o m ­ municable to a n y o n e else. 36fT. (Metaph. H. 254a). A great deal o f i n k has b e e n spilt o v e r the question w h e t h e r this w a s intended as a j o k e o r p a r o d y . W . 225-7. a n d C a l o g r r o in JHS. 367 •lid J70. 11. . For MXG in general. u n c h a n g i n g and timeless. n. T h e w a y t o these uiteful distinctions had b e e n closed for a time b y the b l u n t antithesis o f Partnenides.. Mntm. as A r i s t o t l e pointed out 1026b 14). Sof. & An. J. Sicking says r i g h t l y that ' e s doch keineswegs v o n v o r n luuelii I'rNMirlit. e v e n i f it is c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to a n y o n e . Phronesis. one in the little w o r k On Melissus. 1957. Sextus in DK. d a s s man mit der Alternative Scherz-Ernst dem Charakter des W e r k e s gerecht winded k ' t n n c ' . contrasted Sophists as ' those w h o take refuge i n the darkness o f n o t . 1. 3. 6 5 ff. S i l k i n g .. 1964. * I'nr orientation in the discussion see Untersteiner. 1955. referring to the chapter on Gorgias in lila Λ7.il ' i t is neither a joke nor an exercise. that the Sophists r e c o g n i z e d o n l y accidental as o p p o s e d to essential b e i n g . b u t w e possess t w o paraphrases o f its arguments. 1 1 5 . H e meant. 1958 endeavoured to s h o w that Sextus has no independent Value an a aource when compared with MXG.b e i n g ' w i t h p h i l o s o p h e r s w h o are ' d e v o t e d t o the nature o f b e i n g ' (Soph. and t o o k the Eleatic bull b y the h o r n s . but it is a mistake to think that p a r o d y is ' MXG 979 a 1 1 . Sophs. ' f l i c treatise itself has n o t s u r v i v e d . Kerferd. In agreement. O b v i o u s l y P r o t a g o r a s ' s ' w h a t appears to me and is for m e ' had n o existence in the Eleatic o r Platonic sense (in w h i c h ' w h a t i s ' w a s c o m ­ pletely inaccessible to the senses). H e set o u t to p r o v e three t h i n g s : (d) that n o t h i n g exists. for a succinct jllilKinmit on their relationship. 22. 227fT. c o n v i n c e d that a n y explanation o f phenomena m u s t still a l l o w for an eternal and changeless b e i n g o v e r and a b o v e them. Sextus. Pol. and Sicking. and t h e y w e r e o n l y established b y P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e . and o n e in Sextus. Sophs. the conditional and relative as opposed to the self-existent or absolutely existent. and references to some of the m a n y earlier discussions. 163—. and G o r g i a s b r o u g h t this o p p o s i t i o n fully into the o p e n . t)6{. 7 . (c) that. b y b o l d l y proclaiming that ' n o t h i n g e x i s t s ' . Math. b u t b e t w e e n t h e m t h e y g i v e a g o o d idea o f the t y p e o f argument w h i c h G o r g i a s e m p l o y e d . v o l . Brockcr in Hermes. 1964. but a h i g h l y ironical reductio ad 2 >93 . 1 6 . Gorgias fr.9 8 0 D 2 1 . and the relevant section o f MXG 1 Xenophanes and (iorgias attributed t o A r i s t o t l e . that is. also U n m u l r l n c r . (b) that e v e n i f it d o e s it is i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e l o man. See L l o y d .

557. . it w a s as easy t o p r o v e ' i t is n o t ' as ' i t i s ' . T h e title o f the w o r k is itself sufficient indication o f p a r o d y . his aim w a s t o s h o w that. reminding one o f Gorgias's advice to pupils ' t o d e s t r o y an o p p o n e n t ' s seriousness b y laughter. and laughter b y s e r i o u s n e s s ' (fr. N a t u r e o r T h a t W h i c h I s ' (CaeL v o l . But the 'decisive agreed principle' comes from Parmenides. 1 I94 . T h i s applies at least to the first part of the treatise proving the thesis that ' n o t h i n g i s ' . and b y s a y i n g that ' n o t h i n g i s ' G o r g i a s w a s d e n y i n g the a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g all their systems. which to judge from the summaries w a s the longest and most important. b u t n o n e the less serious. G o r g i a s ' s p u r p o s e w a s n e g a t i v e . to demonstrate that o n their o w n r e a s o n i n g it is as easy t o p r o v e the c o n t r a r y o f χ as χ itself. 1. G o r g i a s w o u l d h a r d l y w i s h to d e n y the existence o f e v e r y t h i n g in the sense in w h i c h the o r d i n a r y m a n understands e x i s t e n c e . C o n s i d e r i n g the subject o f P a r m e n i d e s ' s w o r k . b u t the f o r m o f his a r g u m e n t s s h o w s that their i r o n y w a s aimed especially at P a r m e n i d e s and his f o l l o w e r s . and considered as p a r o d y the idea of a r g u i n g from it as a premise and then d i s proving Κ is a good one. yet the v e r y next one begins 'Neither does w h a t is exist. Kerferd (be. f o r . ' and proceeds to a r g u e it. a physis o f things. b y the sort o f a r g u m e n t s that P a r m e n i d e s used.Rhetoric and Philosophy i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h serious intention. f r o m the apeiron o f A n a x i m a n d e r to the air o f A n a x i m e n e s . the four ' r o o t s ' o f E m p e d o c l e s and the atoms o f D e m o c r i t u s . that b e h i n d the shifting p a n o r a m a o f ' b e c o m i n g ' o r appear­ ances there existed a substance o r substances. see menides and Melissus. cit. . it is safe to s a y that that w a s its full title t o o . 11. S i m plicius. says that b o t h g a v e them the title ' O n N a t u r e ' . 102). A l l such permanent ' n a t u r e s ' w o u l d b e abolished o n G o r g i a s ' s thesis. T h e n a m e ' O n N a t u r e ' w a s g i v e n t o the w o r k s o f m o s t o f the Presocratic natural p h i l o s o p h e r s either b y t h e m s e l v e s or b y their c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ( v o l . 73). l o g i c (the a b s u r d i t y o f a r g u i n g f r o m ' it i s ' and ' i t is n o t ' as s u c h ) w a s o f the u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e b o t h to c o m m o n sense and to the t h e o r y o f rhetoric. T o s h o w u p the a b s u r d i t y o f Eleatic. w h o s h o w s and Melissus O n first-hand k n o w l e d g e o f the b o o k s o f b o t h P a r ­ 556. and p a r t i c u l a r l y o f P a r m e n i d e a n . Except that I see more of Parmenides in it than his parenthesis suggests. 1 his his absurdum of the Eleatic philosophy (especially of Z e n o ) ' . 15) finds it hard to believe that Gorgias could have a r g u e d in a certain w a y because having appealed to a ' d e c i s i v e agreed p r i n c i p l e ' he then turns round and denies i t : one argument depends on the impossibility of s a y i n g that w h a t is does not exist. I am sure that this explanation of it as ironical is correct. T h e i n v e r s i o n o f P a r m e n i d e s ' s a r g u m e n t s is undoubtedly amusing. 12).

for P r o t a g o r a s and other ' s o p h i s t s ' o f his time could d o the same t h i n g better. Kmpedocles four ( w i t h Strife and L o v e a m o n g t h e m ) . Scxtus classes G o r g i a s w i t h those w h o abolished a constant standard of j u d g m e n t (/criterion).11 id refilling ihein with their own weapons he put liimscli in die same class. because. his ' n o t h i n g e x i s t s ' m u s t have been meant as a serious philosophical thesis. or Melissus w h o amid the infinite profusion o f things tried to find proofs ihut all is one? What they did demonstrate was that it is easy to trump up a false argument about whatever y o u like to put forward. A t the b e g i n n i n g o f his t h o u g h a m u c h y o u n g e r m a n than G o r g i a s . jol. and G o r g i a s c o n d e m n e d h i m s e l f b y s t o o p i n g to use their o w n a r g u m e n t s . 8. 268-9 h e issues a similar w a r n i n g against the ' o l d o f w h o m o n e said there w a s an infinite n u m b e r o f b e i n g s . t h o u g h the significance o f his tirades for the character o f On the Non-Existent c. Rh. ready to press a n y t h i n g into the MM ν It 11 11I Ills iininedijle case. A l c m a e o n t w o . since in these attacks Isocrates has n o qualms in g r o u p i n g G o r g i a s w i t h the lilcatics and p h i l o s o p h e r s like E m p e d o c l e s . Isocrates. and G o r g i a s n o n e at all. I o n three o n l y . cannot w e l l be i g n o r e d . or / c m ) who tried to show that the same things were possible and impossible. above all things an advocate. P a r m e n i d e s and Melissus o n e . i x . S. He was. w h o had the audacity to say that nothing is. l i e compares their efforts to c o n j u r i n g tricks w h i c h serve n o useful purpose but are g a p e d at b y fools. It has b e e n a r g u e d that. u. I confess to a •ΙΙμΙιΙ ΙιΉΙιιμ of uneasiness.m o n g e r s and eristics o f all k i n d s . Nophists'.irly twenties (Miinscher in RE. 1 lis criticism of Gorgias w o u l d be that b y bothering at all about llii) iilillnmiphi'm . w a s his pupil w h e n in his Helen he attacks p a r a d o x . has been v a r i o u s l y j u d g e d . but adds that he used a different m e t h o d o f attack from P r o t a g o r a s . and after s u m m a r i z i n g his a r g u m e n t s he c o n c l u d e s : ' T h e s e are the difficulties raised b y G o r g i a s . p h i l o s o p h y should turn its b a c k o n all such idle speculations. however. if o n l y o n a c c o u n t o f his c o n t e m p o r a n e i t y . e x p o u n d e d o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s . (iorff. 1 In his o w n v i e w . P r o b a b l y h o w e v e r more w e i g h t s h o u l d b e laid on the fact that Isocrates treats e v e n the philosophers as tricksters ready t o maintain the m o s t absurd h y p o ­ thecs. 195 . and t h e y d o • Svt> DIHIIII. w h o reproduces the v i e w s of H . A g a i n in Antid.Gorgias on the Non-Existent T h e r e is one witness w h o . lie would surely have claimed him as an a l l y rather than attacked him along wllh ilir i r » l . if Isocrates knew Gorgias's treatise as an ironical exposure n f Klrallr i n i s o n i n g . T h e y are not e v e n original. Gomperz. 2152). W h o could outdo Gorgias.

B u t t o b e and n o t t o b e at the same t i m e is absurd. that there is n o ' c r i t e r i o n ' . See also Freeman. b y c o m p a r i n g and discussing o u r experiences. 115—18. 1 3 7 . a n d . Phil. i . for there is n o such stable reality t o b e k n o w n . 3 5 9 . and the o n l y rule can b e t o act as at a n y m o m e n t seems m o s t expedient. therefore the non-existent is n o t . N e i t h e r does the existent exist. 145-58. O n e of the best essays on the subject in English. for there can b e n o criterion for w h a t neither exists n o r can b e k n o w n n o r is o f a nature to b e described t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n . etc. It s h o u l d b e said as a p r e l i m i n a r y that P a r m e n i d e s ' s thesis d e p e n d e d o n o n e and the same G r e e k v e r b (είναι) m e a n i n g b o t h ' t o b e ' ( w h i c h m a y refer t o the relation o f subject t o predicate. i. T h e f o l l o w i n g is n o t a c o m p l e t e a c c o u n t . T h i s p o s i t i v i s m is i m p o r t a n t b o t h for its o w n sake and for the reaction w h i c h it p r o d u c e d in thinkers o f the calibre o f Socrates and P l a t o . Gesch. never noticed n o w a d a y s .Rhetoric and Philosophy a w a y w i t h the criterion.e. I f it d o e s . c o r r e c t t h e m and reach the k n o w l e d g e o f a reality m o r e ultimate than either. it is this. and Brocker. i s that of Grant. n a m e l y ' e x i s t s ' . 1 Ϊ96 . 6 ) . it is either the existent. y o u can p r o v e o n his o w n premises the o p p o s i t e o f w h a t h e s a y s . T h e p u r p o s e m u s t b e to b r i n g in the p o i n t that b y s a y i n g that s o m e t h i n g ' i s x'.e. T h i s might be thought obvious.b e i n g it is not.6 1 . w h a t e v e r the predicate. it is. A t the same time G o r g i a s turns against h i m his criticism o f the stupid c r o w d w h o claim that t o b e and n o t to b e are the same as w e l l as different (fr. 6 . Ethics. T h e non-existent does n o t exist ( ' w h a t is n o t is n o t ' ) . it m u s t b e either eternal o r There i s a full s u m m a r y in Untersteiner. Sophs. b u t sufficient t o c o n v e y their character. exists. i.) and ' t o e x i s t ' . ' In their c o n c l u s i o n s G o r g i a s and P r o t a g o r a s w e r e at o n e .4 2 . W e m a y n o w l o o k at s o m e o f the a r g u m e n t s o f On the 1 Non-Existent. d o e s n o t e x i s t . vor Sokr. i n d i v i d u a l to species. but Gorgias solemnly argues it i n ultra-Parmenidean t e r m s : in so far as it is c o n c e i v e d as n o t . Comp.or the non-existent^or b o t h . b u t in s o far as it is non-existent. y o u are a l l o w ­ i n g b e i n g t o i t . n o appeal t o general standards o r principles is possible. d. Similarly in m o r a l s . t h e y stand for the same w o r d in G r e e k . {a) Nothing exists. and since a c c o r d i n g to P a r m e n i d e s ' i s ' has o n l y o n e m e a n i n g . W h e r e either is used i n the E n g l i s h v e r s i o n . identity. Y o u and I c a n n o t . i f there is a n y t h i n g that m a y b e s p o k e n o f as a general sophistic v i e w . If_anything^exists.

Gorgias on the Non-Existent
generated o r b o t h . T h e a r g u m e n t that it cannot b e eternal depends o n identifying temporal w i t h spatial infinity and then c o n t e n d i n g that ' w h a t i s ' cannot b e infinite. Since Melissus h a d said that it w a s , and m o r e o v e r reached this c o n c l u s i o n b y the same c o n f u s i o n o f t e m p o r a l with spatial ( v o l . n , lojff.), it seems l i k e l y that at this p o i n t h e is the butt o f G o r g i a s ' s sophisticated w i t . T h e a r g u m e n t that it is n o t generated f o l l o w s the lines o f Parmenides fr. 8.7if., b y d e n y i n g in turn that it could b e generated from w h a t is o r w h a t is n o t . A g a i n , it must be either o n e o r m a n y . I f one, it m u s t h a v e quantity, discrete o r c o n ­ tinuous, size and b o d y , b u t then it will b e divisible a n d s o n o t o n e . Y e t for a n y t h i n g t o exist w i t h o u t m a g n i t u d e is absurd. F o r this t o o an Eleatic p r o o f w a s available, since it h a d b e e n a r g u e d b y Z e n o (frr. 1 and 2 ; v o l . 11, 391, n . 2 ) , and a c c o r d i n g t o a fragmentary part o f MXG (979 b 36) G o r g i a s seems t o h a v e referred t o this. N o r c a n it b e m a n y , for a plurality is c o m p o s e d o f ones, s o i f the o n e d o e s n o t exist, neither can the m a n y . Neither d o b o t h e x i s t . T h i s w o u l d seem fairly o b v i o u s b y n o w , but G o r g i a s is e n j o y i n g his g a m e w i t h Parmenides. A l t h o u g h h e has already s h o w n that ( a ) w h a t is n o t and (p) w h a t is d o n o t exist, h e now ' p r o v e s ' that b o t h d o n o t exist together. I f b o t h exist, t h e y are identical s o far as existence is c o n c e r n e d ; and since w h a t is n o t docs n o t exist, and w h a t is is identical w i t h it, w h a t is w i l l n o t exist either.* In p r o v i n g his s e c o n d and third h y p o t h e s e s , G o r g i a s g o e s b e y o n d the Eleatics, and his a r g u m e n t s are perhaps m o r e interesting.
(6) If anything exists it cannot be known or thought of by man. We
1

certainly think o f things that d o n o t exist, e . g . chariots c r o s s i n g the sea
It w a n of course Leucippus and Democritus w h o , trapped in the net of Parmenidean l a n gungc, »uid that both being and non-being existed, meaning b y these terms solid b o d y and void ( v o l . I I , 391). Gorgias m a y have had them i n mind, but the nature of his ' p r o o f s ' shows that the KIMIICH mo hie main target all the time. Cf. Mondolfo, Problem, 180, quoted b y Untersteiner,
1

Λιι/Λι. ι AH, 11. 32.
' llulcmtcincr, Sophs. 146, interprets t h u s : ' T h e attribution of existence to both Being and Nnt-liplng lends to their identification " s o far as existence is c o n c e r n e d " : therefore B e i n g merges lulu that cxlntcncc of Not-being which is Non-existence; Being therefore, like Not-being, Will mil cxliit.' T h i s is probably the best that can be done. It is all, of course, e n g a g i n g nonsense. Tlim wlmt la not docs not exist is said in Sextus's summary to be όμόλονον (admitted, or c o m ­ mon μκ mini) mid would seem to follow from the expression itself, though this has not prevented ( u ' l y l M Iti>m ' p r o v i n g ' it curlier.

I97

Rhetoric and Philosophy
and flying m e n , a n d a c c o r d i n g to Sextus G o r g i a s stated and defended the c o n v e r s e , that, i f t h i n g s t h o u g h t are n o t existent, then the existent is n o t t h o u g h t . H e m a y h a v e b e e n p a r o d y i n g s o m e o n e w h o w a s g u i l t y o f this, b u t m o r e p r o b a b l y h i s a r g u m e n t w a s that, i f o u r t h o u g h t o f s o m e t h i n g is n o t sufficient t o p r o v e its existence, then, e v e n i f w e think o f s o m e t h i n g real, w e h a v e n o means o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g it f r o m the u n r e a l . G o r g i a s has indeed ' a b o l i s h e d the c r i t e r i o n ' . MXG (980a 9 ff.), i f its c o r r u p t i o n s are suitably e m e n d e d , g i v e s a better sequence o f t h o u g h t . I f e v e r y t h i n g that c a n b e t h o u g h t o f exists (as P a r m e n i d e s had repeatedly said, frr. 2 . 7 ; 3 ; 6 . 1 ) , then n o t h i n g is untrue, e v e n the statement that chariots c r o s s the sea. [ T h i s w e m a y assume t o b e absurd.] W e c a n n o t fall b a c k o n the senses, for t h e y are unreliable unless c h e c k e d b y t h o u g h t , w h i c h has already failed u s .
(c) Even if it can be apprehended, it cannot be communicated to another.
2 1

T h i s thesis rests chiefly o n a p o i n t insisted o n b y G o r g i a s ' s master E m p e d o c l e s , that each sense has its o w n objects and c a n n o t distinguish those o f another ( T h e o p h r . De sensuj; v o l . 11, 231). I f there are t h i n g s existing outside o u r s e l v e s , t h e y w i l l b e objects o f sight, h e a r i n g , taste and s o forth. O u r means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n is speech, w h i c h is n o n e o f these external objects, a n d is u n d e r s t o o d differently. Just as a c o l o u r cannot b e heard, o r a m e l o d y seen, s o ' s i n c e w h a t is subsists externally, it c a n n o t b e c o m e o u r speech, and w i t h o u t b e c o m i n g speech it c a n n o t b e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o a n o t h e r ' (Sext. Math. 7 . 8 4 ; that c o g ­ nition c a n o n l y b e d u e t o the interaction o f similars is another E m p e d o clean doctrine, v o l . 11, 229). ' S i g h t d o e s n o t distinguish s o u n d s , n o r h e a r i n g c o l o u r ; a n d w h a t a m a n speaks is speech, neither a c o l o u r n o r an o b j e c t ' (MXG 980b 1). A c c o r d i n g t o MXG 98ob9ff. G o r g i a s added that the hearer c a n n o t h a v e in his m i n d the same t h i n g as the
T h a t Gorgias had the ά π α τ η of t r a g e d y in mind is probable. Cf. fr. 23. (Gercke, followed b y Untersteiner, restored ά π α τ α ν ί ο Γ ά π α ν τ α at MXG 98039.) Untersteiner (Sophs. 1 7 1 , n. 7 1 ) mentions the Oceanides of A e s c h y l u s crossing the sea in w i n g e d chariots π τ ε ρ ύ γ ω ν θοαίς άμίλλαις (P.V. 1 2 9 ; MXG 980 a 1 2 has άμιλλασθαι άρματα) and Bellerophon in Euripides. ( W h y not D a e d a l u s ? Sophocles w r o t e a p l a y of that name, and after all it w a s Pegasus w h o flew, not Bellerophon except per accidens.) S o A d . L e v i ; see Untersteiner, Sophs. T h e probability i s strengthened b y P.H. 2.64, where in close p r o x i m i t y to a mention of Gorgias, and possibly still dependent on h i m , Sextus s a y s : ε! δέ τισίν [sc. αίσθήσεσι καΐ διανοΐαι; κρινοΰσι τ ά π ρ ά γ μ α τ α ] , π ώ ς κρινοΰσιν άτι ταϊσδε μίν ταΐς αίσθήσεσι καΐ (τηδε) τ η διανοία προσέχειν δει, ταΐσδε δ' οΟ, μή έχοντες κριτήριον όμολογοϋμενον δι' οΰ τάς διαφοράς αΙσθήσεις τε καΐ διανοίας έπικρινοΰσιν ;
1 1

198

Gorgias on the Non-Existent
epeaker, for t h e same t h i n g c a n n o t , w i t h o u t l o s i n g i t s i d e n t i t y , present in m o r e p e o p l e than o n e . E v e n i f i t c o u l d , it n e e d n o t be appear

the same t o t h e m b o t h , since t h e y a r e different from o n e a n o t h e r a n d i n different places. E v e n t h e same m a n d o e s n o t a p p r e h e n d t h i n g s s i m i l a r l y a t different t i m e s , o r a s presented b y different s e n s e s . Finally o n e m a y q u o t e a p r e g n a n t s a y i n g o f G o r g i a s , a p p r o p r i a t e l y called b y Untersteiner ' G o r g i a s o n t h e t r a g e d y o f k n o w l e d g e ' . It h a s c o m e d o w n t o u s w i t h o u t c o n t e x t o r a n y i n d i c a t i o n o f its p l a c e in his w o r k s : F.xistence is u n k n o w n u n l e s s it a c q u i r e a p p e a r a n c e , a n d a p p e a r a n c e is f e e b l e u n l e s s it a c q u i r e e x i s t e n c e .
1

N O T i i . F r o m t h e a r g u m e n t s u s e d b y G o r g i a s it s h o u l d b e c l e a r t h a t t h e main w e i g h t o f h i s i r o n y fell u p o n t h e E l e a t i c s , a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r o n P a r m e ­ nides, t h o u g h t h e thesis i t s e l f is e q u a l l y c o g e n t a g a i n s t all t h o s e P r e s o c r a t i c s w h o h u d posited the existence of a non-sensible reality ( o r realities) b e h i n d t h e c h a n g i n g p a n o r a m a o f t h e s e n s i b l e w o r l d . ( S e e G . R e n s i , Fig. di • if <!rote ( / / i f f . mena fibs. 99, η . i, q u o t e d b y U n t e r s t e i n e r , Sof. n , 36.) T h i s w a s i n e s s e n t i a l s t h e v i e w

i888ed. v o l .

vn,

51 f.).

G o r g i a s , said G r o t e , is u s i n g t h e w o r d (noumenal) existence. ' H e denied

Ί ο h e ' in the E l e a t i c s e n s e , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h i t d i d n o t a p p l y t o p h e n o ­ b u t only to ultra-phenomenal that any such ultra-phaenomenal S o m e t h i n g , or N o u m e n o n , e x i s t e d , or

c o u l d be k n o w n , o r c o u l d b e d e s c r i b e d . O f this t r i p a r t i t e t h e s i s , t h e first n e g a t i o n w a s n e i t h e r m o r e u n t e n a b l e n o r less u n t e n a b l e t h a n t h a t o f t h o s e p h i l o s o p h e r s w h o b e f o r e h i m h a d a r g u e d f o r t h e a f f i r m a t i v e : on t h e last two p o i n t s h i s c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e n e i t h e r p a r a d o x i c a l , n o r s c e p t i c a l , b u t p e r f e c t l y just, a n d h a v e b e e n ratified b y t h e g r a d u a l a b a n d o n m e n t , either a v o w e d o r implied, o f s u c h ultra-phaenomenal researches a m o n g the major

pari

o f philosophers.'

(ί η He's v i e w h a s b e e n c r i t i c i z e d b y s e v e r a l later s c h o l a r s , e . g . b y A . C h i a p p e l l l , 011 t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n n o u m e n a l a n d p h e n o m e n a l it f o r e i g n to all G r e e k t h o u g h t b e f o r e P l a t o . I t m a y h a v e b e e n P l a t o w h o flf*l f o r m u l a t e d it e x p l i c i t l y i n t h o s e o r s i m i l a r t e r m s , b u t t h e c o n t r a s t b e ­ t w e e n a p p e a r a n c e a n d ( n o n - s e n s i b l e ) r e a l i t y is a l e i t m o t i v o f P r e s o c r a t i c ΐΐίοιιμίιι, a n d t h e w h o l e basis o f t h e p r e s e n t a c c o u n t o f t h e S o p h i s t s a n d their contemporaries is t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f their r e l a t i o n s w a s at t h e

' I 1. j n (I'rniii I'mcliis on Hcsiod's Erga 758) Ιλεγε δέ τό μέν είναι « φ α ν έ ; μή τ υ χ ό ν τοΟ Seliflf, ιΛ Η ίίπκιΐν άσΟινές μή τυχόν τ ο ΰ είναι. T h e implication no doubt w a s that f t l . h ' i i . Γ it iinkiiiiwiililr, and appearance non-existent, and the Greek w o u l d bear the translation ' t a t i i M i i n ' Is* iinkiiow.ibleyur it does not acquire appearance', etc.

199

Rhetoric and Philosophy
centre o f fifth-century philosophical controversy. (Cf. p. 4.) For Heraclitus eyes and ears were untrustworthy unless the mind could interpret their message and discover the underlying truth. Parmenides made the distinction clearly, saying that only the objects o f nous existed and the phenomenal world was illusion. Democritean atomism also taught the doctrine o f a reality behind appearances, a noumenal (the object of'legitimate' as opposed to 'bastard' cognition) behind the phenomenal. (For the relation of this to Plato's philosophy see v o l . 11, 462.) This was the legacy which the Sophists inherited and made the most o f for their o w n purposes. Zeller also criticized Grote ( Z N , 1367, n. 2), saying that even the Eleatics themselves did not dis­ tinguish appearance from what lay behind appearance, but only the true view o f things from the false. In fact, however, Parmenides distinguished τ ό ov—what exists or is real (or if w e follow Kahn, p . 190 above, what is the case)—from τ ά δοκοΰντα, what appears but does not exist, which is what Grote said he did.

(4)

OTHER

VIEWS:

SCEPTICISM

EXTREME

AND

MODERATE

A certain X e n i a d e s o f C o r i n t h , w h o m w e k n o w o n l y from a b r i e f reference in S e x t u s , also a d o p t e d an extreme scepticism at a b o u t this time. A c c o r d i n g to Sextus ' h e said that e v e r y t h i n g w a s false, that e v e r y impression and o p i n i o n is false, and that e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h c o m e s t o b e c o m e s to b e f r o m w h a t is n o t and e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h is d e s t r o y e d is d e s t r o y e d i n t o w h a t is n o t ' . W h a t a r g u m e n t s , i f a n y , he used t o support this thesis w e d o n o t k n o w , and his assertion is w o r t h q u o t i n g s i m p l y as another example o f the disrepute into w h i c h the rival theories o f the natural p h i l o s o p h e r s and especially the l o g i c o f P a r m e n i d e s had b r o u g h t the w h o l e subject o f the nature o f reality and the p o s s i ­ bility o f c h a n g e . It w a s P a r m e n i d e s w h o expressly attacked the idea that a n y t h i n g c o u l d c o m e i n t o b e i n g from w h a t is n o t (fr. 8 . 6 f f . ) , b u t the w h o l e o f Presocratic p h i l o s o p h y and indeed all G r e e k t h i n k i n g u p to n o w had b e e n based o n the u n q u e s t i o n e d a s s u m p t i o n that ex
nihilo nihil
1

1

fit.

7,

Math. 7 . 5 3 . Mentions of h i m in §388 and P.H. 2.76 add nothing. T h e only indication of his date is that according to Sextus he w a s old enough to have been mentioned b y Democritus. On Xeniades in the context of his time see n o w L l o y d , Pol. & Anal. 1 1 3 , and in general von Fritz in RE, 2. Reihe, x v m . Halbb. (1967), i438f., w h o has m i s g i v i n g s about the trustworthiness of Sextus's report. * For the Parmenidean thesis ούδ' είναι π ο λ λ ά ά λ λ ά μόνον α υ τ ό τό όν as the logical conclusion of archaic thought based on die principle ίκ μη OVTOS ουδέν άν γενέσθαι see Ar. Phys. 1 9 1 a 23 33.

200

Xeniades and Cratylus
C r a t y l u s , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Socrates ( P l a t o , Crat. 429 c!, 4 4 0 d ) , carried t o extremes the Heraclitean doctrine o f the flux o r i m pcrmanence o f e v e r y t h i n g in the sensible w o r l d . A r i s t o t l e , discussing In his Metaphysics the sceptical doctrines that e v e r y statement is b o t h true and false, o r alternatively that n o true statement c a n b e m a d e , attributes them t o a b e l i e f that there is n o existence outside t h e sensible world, in w h i c h (i) contraries e m e r g e from the same thing, a n d (ii) e v e r y t h i n g is constantly m o v i n g and c h a n g i n g . T h e latter o b s e r v a t i o n , he goes o n ( i o i o a i o ) , b l o s s o m e d into the m o s t extreme o f these doctrines, that o f the ' Heraclitizers' a n d C r a t y l u s , w h o finally decided that he o u g h t t o say n o t h i n g at all, b u t o n l y m o v e d his finger, a n d criticized Heraclitus for s a y i n g that o n e cannot step t w i c e i n t o t h e same river o n t h e g r o u n d that o n e c o u l d n o t d o s o e v e n o n c e . H e evidently t h o u g h t (as o n e w o u l d expect from w h a t is p u t i n t o his mouth in Plato's Cratylus) In the fifth-century that t o utter a n y statement is t o c o m m i t
2 1

oneself t o the affirmation that s o m e t h i n g is.

c o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t nomos and physis, it has n o w

become clear that t w o positions m u s t b e distinguished a m o n g those w h o were sufficiently serious philosophers t o trouble a b o u t t h e o n t o l o g i c a l and cpistemological implications o f their v i e w s . ( T h i s d i d n o t i n c l u d e all the controversialists, for the a r g u m e n t itself arose i n the c o n t e x t of practical h u m a n action a n d w a s used primarily t o a d v o c a t e a certain attitude to l a w and m o r a l i t y . ) It w a s possible to think that l a w a n d Ciutom, and w i t h t h e m t h e totality o f sense-impressions, w e r e to b e contrasted as mutable a n d relative w i t h a nature w h i c h w a s stable, permanent and k n o w a b l e , o p p o s i n g like D e m o c r i t u s w h a t w a s ' b y nomos' to w h a t w a s ' i n reality'. It m a y b e that ' w e really k n o w nothing, for truth is i n t h e d e p t h s ' ( D e m o c r . fr. 1 1 7 ) , b u t there t h e t r u t h is, if w e can d i v e deep e n o u g h t o find it. A l t e r n a t i v e l y it w a s held
I'tir (Iicm characteristics o f the sensible w o r l d cf. especially Melissus, fr. 8 . 3 : ' I t appears to tW tllttt hot becomes cold and cold hot, hard becomes soft a n d soft hard, t h e living dies, a n d is Burn out o f the n o n - l i v i n g ; that all these things change, and w h a t w a s a n d w h a t is n o w are i n Hn wny «III"·: iron which i s hard i s w o r n a w a y b y contact w i t h the finger, a s are g o l d and stone glltl livery other tough-seeming substance, while out of water come earth a n d stone. It follows tllMl w« do not nee or recognize what is real (τά δντα).' See vol. 11,105,and Morrison in Phronesis,
Ι»Λ», | « .
1

' (Viii. ^ j y d . (Presumably he did not carry consistency so far as to deny himself speech in iikIiIiiu 11 ic ci ilic ism o f Heraclitus.) This argument is attributed explicitly to A n t i s t h e n e s ; <W (i. i i u Uclow.

201

Rhetoric and Philosophy
that there w a s n o o b j e c t i v e and permanent reality behind appearances a n d therefore, since these w e r e p u r e l y s u b j e c t i v e , n o possibility o f scientific k n o w l e d g e . N o natural p h i l o s o p h e r b e l i e v e d this, b u t sophists seized o n the inconsistencies b e t w e e n their a c c o u n t s as e v i d e n c e that t h e y w e r e n o t t o b e trusted. ( C f . G o r g i a s , Hel. 13, p . 51 a b o v e . ) It w a s these sceptics w h o m A r i s t o t l e criticized for m a k i n g e v e r y statement true and false, o r true statements
1

i m p o s s i b l e , and

they

included

P r o t a g o r a s and G o r g i a s . It has b e e n claimed that A n t i p h o n w a s also o f their n u m b e r . T h e e v i d e n c e is scanty and d u b i o u s , b u t so far as it exists it points t o a different c o n c l u s i o n . It is confined t o fr. 1, a passage in G a l e n w h i c h exists o n l y in a c o r r u p t f o r m and has b e e n variously restored. c o n v i n c i n g result,
2

T h e m o s t t h o r o u g h examination, w i t h the m o s t is that o f Morrison.3 G a l e n first says ( C r i t i a s

fr. 40, p . 302 b e l o w ) that Critias in the s e c o n d b o o k o f his h o m i l i e s frequently o p p o s e s the m i n d to the senses, then adds that A n t i p h o n d o e s the same in the first b o o k o f his Truth. T h e r e f o l l o w s the q u o t a t i o n , w h i c h therefore, w h a t e v e r its precise i m p o r t , m u s t express a contrast b e t w e e n t h o u g h t and sense. I n M o r r i s o n ' s translation it r u n s : ' W h e n a m a n says a single t h i n g there is n o c o r r e s p o n d i n g single m e a n i n g (νους), n o r is the subject o f his speech a n y single t h i n g either o f those things w h i c h the m o s t p o w e r f u l b e h o l d e r sees w i t h his sight o r o f those things w h i c h the m o s t p o w e r f u l k n o w e r k n o w s w i t h his mind.'-* N o r e a d i n g o r interpretation can p u t the m e a n i n g c o m p l e t e l y b e y o n d
So Schmid, Gesch. 1 . 3 . 1 , 1 6 0 : 'Antiphon joins in the epistemological scepticism of Prota­ g o r a s and Gorgias, in that he also contests the possibility of real k n o w l e d g e and confines himself within the limits of δόξα. W i t h i n this framework he distinguishes t w o levels of c o g n i t i o n : a higher one through the mind ( γ ν ώ μ η ) and a lower one through the senses, which in his v i e w as in that of the Eleatics and the atomists cannot communicate a n y valuable cognition.' Yet e v e r y other contemporary thinker w h o distinguished between mental and sensual perception associated the one w i t h real k n o w l e d g e and the other w i t h δόξα, and so far as I can see Schmid produces no evidence at all for the surprising idea that Antiphon, t h o u g h he accepted both modes of c o g n i ­ tion, saw the functions of both alike as confined w i t h i n the limits of δόξα. In Hipp. De meet. off. x v i i i B . , 656 K. Besides the attempts g i v e n b y D K in their apparatus, that of H. Gomperz (S. u. R. 67) and the interpretation of Untersteiner, w h o accepts Bignone's text (Sophs. 235 and 258), m a y b e noted. Cf. also Stenzel in RE, suppl. IV, 37. Phronesis, 1963, 36ff. His text of the fr. itself is as f o l l o w s : εν τ ω [or better τοι] λέγοντι ουδέ γ ε νους εϊς, 2ν τε ουδέν α ύ τ φ ούτε ώ ν δψει όρςί (ύ ό ρ ω ) ν μακρότατα ούτε ώ ν γ ν ώ μ η γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ε ι ύ μακρότατα γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ω ν . Literally ' t h e man w h o sees farthest' (or most deeply, μακρότατα) w i t h his sight and 'tin man w h o has the deepest insight (or power of recognition, γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ω ν ) with his mind ( γ ν ώ μ η ) . ' I have altered Morrison's ' s e e r ' to ' b e h o l d e r ' to a v o i d the former's misleading associations with prophecy.
1 3 4 1

202

Antiphon
d o u b t , b u t A n t i p h o n seems to be criticizing the a m b i g u i t y o f l a n g u a g e und the shifting m e a n i n g o f w o r d s , w h i c h renders t h e m incapable o f expressing reality, w i t h the implication that such a constant reality does exist. E v e n p h e n o m e n a , if the senses are k e e n e n o u g h , can b e ' a sight o f the u n s e e n ' , as A n a x a g o r a s and D e m o c r i t u s held ( v o l . n , 459), t h o u g h b o t h w e r e emphatic in contrasting the p o w e r s o f sense and intellect and insisting o n an unseen reality b e h i n d the perceptible flux o f b e c o m i n g . (It w a s o f c o u r s e an aspect o f p h y s i c a l b o d y n o less than the p h e n o m e n a , n o t a noumenon in the Pl a t oni c o r A r i s t o t e l i a n sense.) T h e y w o u l d agree w i t h Heraclitus that the senses d e l u d e unless subject to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g m i n d . A n t i p h o n seems to h a v e f o l l o w e d them rather than the Eleatics w h o denied that the senses c o u l d assist in any w a y w h a t s o e v e r t o w a r d s the apprehension o f ' w h a t i s ' . It is in k e e p i n g w i t h this that A n t i p h o n , unlike G o r g i a s w h o t h r e w doubt o n all the theories o f the physici alike, m a d e his o w n s t u d y o f Presocratic the natural w o r l d , w h i c h t o o k u p a large part o f the s e c o n d b o o k o f his Truth. T h e fragments s h o w h i m s p e a k i n g in traditional style o f c o s m o g o n y (the ' o r d e r i n g ' o f the w o r l d ) and o f the c o s m i c whirl, o f the nature o f the sun and m o o n , eclipses, hail, earthquakes and the sea, and o f b i o l o g i c a l m a t t e r s .
1

T h e contrast b e t w e e n natural

and artificial he illustrated, in a passage criticized b y A r i s t o t l e , b y s a y i n g that if o n e w e r e to b u r y a w o o d e n b e d and the r o t t i n g w o o d sent out a s h o o t , w h a t c a m e u p w o u l d b e s i m p l y w o o d , n o t another b e d . N o r does fr. 1, as here interpreted, conflict w i t h the ethical v i e w s e x p o u n d e d in the p a p y r u s fragments o f Truth, w h e r e the reality and Inevitability o f nature are o p p o s e d t o the artificiality o f nomos as truth to appearance, and nomos is stigmatized as a shackle i m p o s e d o n nature.3
' l-'rr. 1 3 - 3 6 (fr. 1 5 , on the origin of life from putrefying matter, is referred to b o o k 1). N o t llliil lit* recorded observations on these topics show any originality. So far as the scanty fragments g o , they seem to be a hotchpotch of Presocratic ideas, g o i n g back to Heraclitus and Empedocles, mill common to A n a x a g o r a s and Diogenes of Apollonia. On the influence of A n a x a g o r a s rl', Mmnlgliano in Riv. di Filol. 1930, i34f., and for a s u m m a r y Freeman, Comp. 395f. ' A r . I'hys. 19339, cited also more briefly b y Harpocration. See fr. 15 in DK. O n Aristotle's rillirlmu ol Antiphon here see Guthrie in CQ, 1946. h i . 44 Λ, pp. toSf. above. For a fuller discussion of the bearing of these fragments on A n t i plion'* oiiiologicnl views, and their relation to the use of language, see Morrison's valuable mih In In 1'hnmes'is, 19Λ3. Of Antiphon's remarks in fr. 44 Β (Oxy. Pap. 1 7 9 7 , p . n o above, dliniit llir inconsistency of a p p l y i n g the name ' j u s t i c e ' to the bearing of true witness), Morrison •ityn (p. 4 4 ) : ' T h i s argument, again, tends to the rejection of common names, w h i c h have no •ΙιιμΙι' meaning, anil adopting instead concepts which a i e based on nature.'
1

1

20

J

3. b u t λ ό γ ω ν τ έ χ ν η referred 2 Philol. in P l a t o . T h e p r o b l e m o f the (όρθότης ονομάτων) aroused names w i d e s p r e a d interest at this time. n o t vice versa. and the H i p p o c r a t i c De arte 2 ( q u o t e d b y D K after fr. 49. Phaedrus 263a. prooem. H e cites the Clouds o f A r i s t o p h a n e s (740 £ ) . quoted b y Morrison. 115. Hipp. 4 .) g i v e s g o o d reasons for s u p p o s i n g that e v e n the m e t h o d b y w h i c h .. On ούχ όμολογηθεντα. ) . S e e p. I77f. 66. 1 1 . Camb. cf. cit. ι ο 8 a b o v e . ' w h o teaches h o w t h e y o u g h t t o b e m a d e ' . particularly to rhetoric (pp. and i n another place G a l e n . the De arte passage Heinimann. Also relevant is Xen. H i s reference t o the e q u i v o c a l u s e o f w o r d s i n G a l e n ' s quotation is o b v i o u s l y d i s a p p r o v i n g . X I X . a b o v e ) . 7 K. for w o r d s are a n attempt t o i m p o s e legislation o n nature (νομοθετήματα φύσεως). 49). n. 119 f . A n t i p h o n ' s p o s i t i o n i n this debate w a s perhaps n o t far from that taken u p b y his sparring-partner Socrates. 454a). horn. Mem. pp. u. φύσεως φύντα Plato. above).d e b a t e d t h e m e : the relation o f l a n g u a g e t o its subject-matter. Nat. D K 1 1 . 165 above. 347: τ ά τ η . 1 5 7 . Proc. cepts w h i c h t h e y w e r e intended correctness o f words or 1 P r e s u m a b l y his teaching w a s that t h e y should b e made to fit t h e c o n ­ t o express. Phaedr. 44 A . cit. Soc.1 2 (Socrates.Rhetoric and Philosophy (5) LANGUAGE AND ITS OBJECTS N o doubt A n t i p h o n was not a profound philosopher. Ph. v . T h e r e the w r i t e r says that the arts. M o r r i s o n (loc. Rep. p . 1 o f A n t i p h o n ) .. at least w i t h reference t o moral t e r m s : o n 2 the m e a n i n g o f ' j u s t ' a n d ' g o o d ' w e disagree w i t h each other a n d e v e n w i t h ourselves. O n e is reminded also o f A n t i p h o n ' s contrast b e t w e e n nature as a matter o f g r o w t h and law as c o n v e n t i o n a l agreement. n a m e l y ' d i v i s i o n a c c o r d i n g t o natural k i n d s ' ( κ α τ ' εϊδη διατέμνειν fj ττέφυκεν.3 1 Galen. adds that this is m a d e sufficientlyjplainJby A n t i p h o n . a n d M o r r i s o n has clearly s h o w n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f this debate ' i n the w i d e r investigation o f the p r o b l e m o f h o w δ ν τ α (existing things) are t o b e k n o w n ' (Joe. 159). b u t o n e m a y regret t h e scantiness o f our k n o w l e d g e o f h i m because w h a t w e h a v e g i v e s u s o n e b r i e f g l i m p s e o f a m u c h . N. οί π ε ρ ί λ ό γ ο υ ς έ χ ο ν τ ε ς sounds v e r y general. w a s not i n v e n t e d b y Plato b u t current i n the fifth c e n t u r y .. p. w h e r e a s the kinds are n o t c o n v e n t i o n a l l y i m p o s e d b u t natural g r o w t h s ( β λ α σ τ ή μ α τ α ) . and cf. 5 (ibid. c o m m e n t i n g o n the fact t h a t ' each o n e o f those c o n c e r n e d w i t h logoi thinks fit t o c o i n n e w n a m e s ' . 265 e. 3 Fr. Gloss. 5 . see p . Socrates p r o p o s e s t o rectify it. o r sciences (technai. 1 9 6 1 . 706 Β. 42 f. take their t e r m i n o l o g y from the kinds (εΐδεα). 204 . and this is a state o f things that calls for r e m e d y .

presumably (though he g a v e no reference) on the strength of Crat. ιπρί έ π ω ν δεινόν είναι· εΌτι δέ τοΰτο τ ά ΰττό τ ώ ν π ο ι η τ ώ ν λεγόμενα οΐόν τ ' είναι συνιέναι. w h e r e P r o t a g o r a s claims that an educated m a n o u g h t to b e skilled in this subject so as to understand w h e n a p o e t is c o m p o s i n g c o r r e c t l y and w h e n not. Λ Μ ΑρΟώξ πεποίηται καΐ ά μή. Epos m a y m e a n a w o r d . 213. B o t h h a v e b e e n t h o u g h t t o b e the titles o f b o o k s b y P r o t a g o r a s . 267 c Plato introduces όρθοέπεια in connexion w i t h Protagoras. w a s an alternative title for it. όνομ. a name o r a n o u n . and w e m a y b e sure that for m o s t o f the Sophists. Stud. Crat. "M9» 3 4 ^ ) thinks όρθοέττεια w a s no more than a slogan or catchword. C. Mus.ιι· shows clearly e n o u g h that whatever Protagoras w r o t e on the subject occurred in the Αλήθεια. but a late writer (Themistius. 20a. T h e association of the w o r d s έπη and άρθώζ surely is suggestive. Or. 3 9 1 c . 3 9 1 b . M u r r a y (Gk. 1965.ιι·. and F e h l i n g has d r a w n attention to the significance o f Prot. n. 3 9 1 c . p. Crat. Afr. and Hackforth translates it as the tide of a book. as teachers o f rhetoric. that the q u e s t i o n at issue w a s w h e t h e r the names o f things had an T w o ^ x p r e s s i o n s h a v e to b e considered. it included that.Correctness of Language Instruction i n ' t h e correctness o f n a m e s ' is ascribed b y P l a t o t o P r o t a g o r a s . 1 205 . b u t this is at least uncertain. 150 Dindorf) says that he taught όρθοέττεια and όρθορρημοσύνη. P r o d i c u s . (See p p . T h r a c ) . 23. Prodicus. 5 5 ) . o r effective. b e l o w . orthoepeia. 1 It is s o m e t i m e s taken to m e a n s i m p l y the correct. b u t w a s also a current term for p o e t r y (not o n l y e p i c ) . T h e catch-phrase is brought in by Aristophanes in connexion with Euripides ( τ η . T h a t orthoepeia orthoepeia 1 had this reference is indicated b y the title o f D e m o c r i t u s ' s w o r k ' O n H o m e r .S. M o r e o v e r in his grammatical p r o n o u n c e m e n t s the target o f his criticism is the Iliad.. 176) assumed that π . ονομάτων. s a y i n g o r speech. A c t u a l l y the reply of Hermogenes at Crat. 220 and 221. Onoma is a single w o r d . b u t s u g g e s t i o n s for the right use o f l a n g u a g e set in the f r a m e w o r k o f a criticism o f p o e t r y . from a scholium on Dion. ) F e h l i n g c o n c l u d e s that he had n o systematic p r o g r a m m e t o offer. but it is at least vouched lor a s a title among the w o r k s of Democritus (fr.* T h e y d o n o t necessarily m e a n the same. though not among Protagoras's as listed b y D. where Hermogenes is recommended to ask his brother τ η ν ορθότητα περί τ ω ν τ ο ι ο ύ τ ω ν |. o r natural. Progs 1 1 8 1 ) . use o f l a n g u a g e as w e s h o u l d understand it. Euthyd. όρθ. ( 9 . 1·. and unusual w o r d s ' .3 and challenges Socrates to interpret a p o e m o f S i m o n i d e s . o f w h i c h the nearest possible translation is perhaps ' c o r r e c t d i c t i o n \ and ' t h e correctness o f names^Jop0oxrjs ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ) . B u t P l a t o ' s Cratylus inherent. fitness o r were merely conventional shows signs.L. Prodicus is usually connected w i t h όρθότη. τ ω ν έ π ω ν . 2. the Sophists. 384b. f r o m w h i c h a c o m m e n t o n H o m e r i c Protagoras. 2 7 7 ε . Classen on the other hand ( P . and the Sophists in g e n e r a l . ' At Phaedr. the nature of names] ή ν έμαθε π α ρ ά Πρωταγόρου. 338 eff. όρθότητο. Crat. S e e I chliiig in Rh.

T o maintain the c o m p l e t e l y arbitrary character o f names leads i n e v i t a b l y to a c c e p t i n g the P r o t a g o r e a n thesis that there is n o o b j e c t i v e reality b u t things t o o are different for each i n d i v i d u a l . B e l o n g i n g t o each t h i n g is o n e natural and p r o p e r n a m e . See Momigliano. d o u b t l e s s as a result o f s u p e r h u m a n p o w e r s . 95 f. Socrates a r g u e s that actions (ττράξεις) like t h i n g s ( π ρ ά γ μ α τ α ) h a v e a fixed nature and m u s t b e p e r f o r m e d w i t h the p r o p e r instrument.) 1 1 206 . 452. Mus. Ant. but it seems the obvious place. n. in Democr.) τ ά ονόματα. T h e fact that a g r o u p o f m e n h a v e a g r e e d w h a t t h e y w i l l call a t h i n g d o e s n o t m a k e that its n a m e : indeed a w o r d w h i c h has n o further w a r r a n t y is n o t a name at all. 26. h a v e the funcHe approved the use of άλλοφρονεΤν as a term for mental derangement. 1. fr. (Perhaps one should not overlook the attribution of it to Democritus b y Proclus. p . n . L i k e the s t u d y o f the ' c o r r e c t n e s s o f n a m e s ' it p r o b a b l y i n c l u d e d speculation o n the natural fitness o f names to w h a t t h e y signified. Atti Torino. 1929—30. 438a. ( F o r the place of speech in evolutionary theories of society cf. citing first o f all his practice o f m e n t i o n i n g t w o names for a t h i n g . for Socrates introduces H o m e r as an a u t h o r i t y o n the latter subject. D i o d . (τιθέμενο. and Soph. p. 1. mythical divine or heroic εύρετής and the collective action (ομολογία or συνθήκη) of an evolving society. 429a.g i v e r o r l e g i s ­ lator w h o h a d c o m p l e t e insight into the nature o f the t h i n g itself. A s k e d for his o w n o p i n i o n . or else that o f E u t h y d e m u s that all things possess all attributes t o g e t h e r and all the time. o n e u s e d b y m e n and the other b y the g o d s : ' o b v i o u s l y the g o d s m u s t call them b y the names w h i c h r i g h t l y and naturally b e l o n g t o t h e m ' (Crat. 391 d ) . but in all probability Proclus is importing the cate­ gories of h i s o w n time. and differs for different p e o p l e . ό θέμενο. n a m e l y w o r d s or names ( ο ν ό μ α τ α ) . It m u s t be s u p p o s e d t o h a v e been b e s t o w e d b y an original n a m e . νομοθέτης. as c u t t i n g w i t h a knife. 436b—c. w h o s e instruments. Hence as Fehling has pointed out (Rh. See vol. Socrates at first supports C r a t y l u s .Rhetoric and Philosophy v o c a b u l a r y has s u r v i v e d . 1965. P u t t i n g it i n his o w n teleological terms. and for the divine teacher Eur. So. 81 above. T h i s includes speech. T h i s t h e y agree is w r o n g . Suppl. cusses t w o o p p o s i n g v i e w s . 2 1 2 . the same for G r e e k s and foreigners alike. 80. the later contrast between a φύσει and a θέσει theory of names is not appropriate at this date. T o this thesis o f C r a t y l u s H e r m o g e n e s o p p o s e s his o w n that correctness o f names is determined solely b y c o n v e n t i o n and a g r e e ­ m e n t .) T h e opposition i s between θέσις ( κ α τ ά φύσιν) b y a single. 2 i 8 f f . w h i c h dis­ ' C o r r e c t n e s s o f n a m e s ' is the subject o f the Cratylus. p. T h a t this occurred in the above-mentioned w o r k is not expressly stated. ) .

ind ridiculous'. In w h a t . A n a m e is a v o c a l imitation o f an o b j e c t — n o t in the c r u d e sense in w h i c h o n e imitates a c o w b y s a y i n g ' m o o ' . T h e y are g i v e n b y nomos. and still m o r e d i r e c t l y to the letters and syllables o f w h i c h t h e y are c o m p o s e d .g. but tomorrow will find someone. i f w e had n o t speech. Socrates then p r o c e e d s t o illustrate his p o i n t b y a series o f e t y m o l o g i e s m o s t o f w h i c h are o b v i o u s l y fanciful.m a k e r is n o l o n g e r r e c o g n i z a b l e . 989^: note the inevitable ορθώς. N e v e r t h e l e s s ( t u r n i n g to C r a t y l u s ) it m u s t b e said that. the names. the letter r imitates m o t i o n o r v i o l e n t a c t i o n . the references to Euthyphro at 39<Sd—e.) 1 207 . s o m e w i l l be better imitators than others. 407c!.) Socrates E. b u t c o n v e y i n g the nature o f the t h i n g . as. Under his influence Socrates has l>rc<>me possessed. 400a. the dialectician. E i t h e r the names are right. m a k i n g e v i d e n t his o w n sceptical attitude t o w a r d s t h e m b y several ironic r e m a r k s . W o r d s b e i n g c o m p o u n d o r simple. then. that H e is p a r o d y i n g a c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e . e.g. s i m p l y u n m e a n i n g noises like the b a n g i n g o f a g o n g . 2 1 naturally fitted for its object. T h e f o r m o f the w o r d w i l l s o m e t i m e s s h o w it o b v i o u s l y e n o u g h . e . are n o t arbitrary labels. the essences o f real things. w o r k i n g u n d e r the direction o f the skilled user. b u t m a n y w o r d s h a v e b e c o m e so battered and distorted in the c o u r s e o f history that the intention o f the original n a m e . ' A practice with w h i c h Euripides s h o w s himself familiar w h e n his Hecuba connects the ΐ'ρι u i n g syllables o f ' A p h r o d i t e ' with αφροσύνη. the ' Cratylus' tion o f teaching a b o u t . then. 'either a priest or a S o p h i s t ' . C r a t y l u s disagrees. (7>o. / s m o o t h n e s s .m a k e r w h o ( o n the a n a l o g y o f other crafts. w e m i g h t c o n v e y the nature o f heaviness b y a d o w n w a r d m o v e m e n t o f the hand. o r t h e y are n o t h i n g . g . He wiil let it run iniJ. as w i t h painters.iy. (It is in k e e p i n g w i t h this that C r a t y l u s a v o w s h i m s e l f o n e o f those w h o h o l d that it is i m p o s s i b l e to speak falsely. to purge it a w a y . ' f o l l y ' . and k e e p i n g his o w n o p i n i o n to himself. N a m e s . T h e s e are l i k e the p i g m e n t s w h i c h the painter m a y use either s i n g l y o r in c o m b i n a t i o n to b u i l d u p his picture.Correctness of Names. o r expert at d i s c u s s i o n . b u t a f o r m o f imitation o f their objects. and so w i l l be their p r o d u c t s . and i s uttering his etymologies under divine inspiration. and h e n c e b y a legislator or w o r d . Else­ where (426b) he describes his etymological guesses more straightforwardly as 'presumptuous . d o e s the correctness o f n a m e s c o n s i s t ? Socrates disclaims k n o w l e d g e — t h i s is the p r o v i n c e o f the S o p h i s t s and p o e t s — b u t is i n d u c e d to e x p o u n d a t h e o r y . this applies m o s t directly t o the simple. a shuttle-maker w h o s u b ­ s e r v e s the w o r k o f the w e a v e r ) m u s t p r o d u c e the n a m e is. and d i s t i n g u i s h i n g .

e . O n such a t h e o r y it c o u l d w e l l . s o a w o r d t o o m a y b e w r o n g l y identified w i t h s o m e t h i n g other than that o f w h i c h it is the i m a g e (430 c ) . O n l y Socrates puts f o r w a r d an e x ­ planation sophistic. and w o r d s are an attempt t o reproduce that nature t h r o u g h the m e d i u m o f s o u n d . Amundsen in Symb. H e distinguishes between inarticulate sounds. 438c). b u t s u c h imitation is n e v e r perfect. T h e o p p o s i t e v i e w o f C r a t y l u s a l l o w s for a reality (physis') t o w h i c h the name is essentially united (383a). 11 f. b u t C r a t y l u s remains u n c o n v i n c e d . and falls b a c k o n the superhuman p o w e r o f the original i n v e n t o r o f names. T h e thesis o f H e r m o g e n e s . o b v i o u s l y has h i s e y e on the Cratylus.G r e e k o r i g i n for s o m e w o r d s is m e n t i o n e d at 409 d . a n d in s o m e cases v e r y imperfect. is a g r e e d in the d i a l o g u e t o lead t o the P r o t a g o r e a n doctrine that there is n o reality b e h i n d appearances. this m o r e paradoxical t h e o r y ( w h i c h as w e shall see immediately w a s that o f A n t i s t h e n e s ) holds that there is a physis for e v e r y t h i n g and n o p o s s i ­ b i l i t y o f n a m i n g o r d e s c r i b i n g it w r o n g l y . just as a picture o f S m i t h m a y b e w r o n g l y identified as a picture o f Jones. ( T h e possibility o f a n o n . T o a p p l y t o it w h a t others w o u l d call the w r o n g name o r logos is t o utter n o name at all b u t m e r e l y u n m e a n i n g noises (430a. as A n t i p h o n said. b e t w e e n physis a n d nomos. b u t for the o p p o s i t e reason t o that g i v e n b y P r o t a g o r a s . T h i n g s h a v e a fixed nature. 1 208 . c o m m o n to e a r l y man and animals. that w o r d s are o f p u r e l y arbitrary and c o n v e n t i o n a l o r i g i n . besides w h i c h the w o r d s h a v e b e c o m e c o r r u p t e d t h r o u g h use and the passage o f time (421 d ) . False o p i n i o n o r statement is impossible. ά λ λ ' όταν γ έ ν η τ α ι σύμβολον. Osl. οίον θηρίων. N o r are the imitations attempted in different parts o f the w o r l d the same. ώ ν ουδέν έστιν όνομα). 1 T h e s e linguistic theories h a v e an o b v i o u s c o n n e x i o n w i t h current theories o f k n o w l e d g e and o f reality. 1966.Rhetoric and Philosophy c o u n t e r s that an imitation can n e v e r b e e x a c t l y like the original in all respects. See on this L. He sides w i t h Hermogenes in maintaining ( i 6 a i 9 ) that a name i s φ ω ν ή σημαντιχή κ α τ ά συνθήκην and that this means ( a 2 7 ) ότι φύσει τ ώ ν ονομάτων ουδέν έστιν. 416 a. and ' n a m e s ' which are conventional (a 28. that Aristotle in the first chapters of De interpr. s o that ' h e w h o k n o w s the names k n o w s the things a l s o ' (43 5 d ) . o f l a n g u a g e based and maintained o n the antithesis commonly called and especially clearly b y D e m o c r i t u s A n t i p h o n . o r it w o u l d be the original. 425 c ) Further. which are natural a n d c o n v e y meaning but are not y e t l a n g u a g e . δηλοΟσί γ έ τ ι καί οί αγράμματοι ψόφοι. W h e r e a s h e dissolved reality in appearance. e v e n from the b e g i n n i n g . b e true.

granted that w o r d s are i m a g e s o f things. and Socrates leads h i m o n f r o m it t o his o w n ' d r e a m ' o f a b s o l u t e and u n c h a n g i n g forms o f b e a u t y .Antisthenes on Names m e n u s u a l l y o r c o n v e n t i o n a l l y a p p l y the w o r d 'justice* t o w h a t is n o t truly. C r a t y l u s is still inclined to stick t o his o w n Heraclitean p o s i t i o n . 1 7 ) . b u t recent w o r k has s h o w n that 1 his need n o t necessarily b e s o . b u t o n l y ' m a n is m a n ' and ' g o o d is g o o d ' .' ( M y italics. W e m u s t l o o k at the e v i d e n c e . T h e e n d o f the Cratylus affords another fascinating g l i m p s e (cf.) 1 2 209 . in an a g r e e ­ m e n t t o g i v e the matter further t h o u g h t . a b o v e ) o f the w a y in w h i c h Socrates turned sophistic a r g u m e n t s t o his o w n p u r p o s e s . and the d i a l o g u e ends. 304 ff. and are different f r o m their fleeting representations in a fair face o r a g o o d action. ' Grote. In fact the t w o doctrines are held to be inseparable. g o o d n e s s and the rest. is fundamental to 1 Antisthenes's thought and will have important quotations. H e s u d d e n l y asks C r a t y l u s if. s h o w e d his sense o f the importance o f E d u c a t i o n . B u t in a reader's m i n d the seed has b e e n s o w n . and it is c o m m o n l y t h o u g h t that he w a s o n e o f those w h o held that to predicate one t h i n g o f another w a s e r r o n e o u s : it is n o t admissible t o say ' man is g o o d ' . it is n o t better t o learn o f the reality w h i c h an i m a g e expresses rather than o n l y o f the i m a g e . a b o v e ) . c o r r e c t l y o r naturally just. i n . A n t i s t h e n e s . and declaring that ' t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n is the s t u d y o f n a m e s ' . or one thing to be many.' U n f o r t u n a t e l y w e are still d e a l i n g w i t h fragmentary and it is difficult to b e certain w h a t A n t i s t h e n e s ' s teaching w a s . 187. See also Caizzi in Stud. like so m a n y . o r o n N a m e s ' . 182. he like P r o t a g o r a s w a s credited w i t h the thesis that it is impossible t o contradict o r t o speak falsely. 31.) T h e title of the w o r k occurs in D. Accordingly it was impossible for two speakers 1 rally to contradict each other. C a i z z i s a y s t r u l y : ' T h e p r o b l e m o f the relation b e t w e e n things and names. consequences.L. p . 5 1 1 : ' " M a n is g o o d " was an inadmissible proposition: affirming different iliings to be the same. n. A s w e h a v e seen ( p . a disciple o f Socrates w h o w a s a m o n g the l a n g u a g e b y entitling a w o r k O n intimate circle present at his death. 19Λ4. w h i c h a l o n e can b e said t o b e real and k n o w a b l e .'s list ( 6 . Plato. 38· (References are to Caizzi's edition of die fragments. C r a t y l u s c a n n o t dispute this. n . 3. αρχή παιδεύσεως ή τ ώ ν ονομάτων επίσκεψις. Urb. For Antisthenes in general see pp. o r better the close c o n n e x i o n o f the o n e w i t h the other. fr. below. 2.

L . 46). since the t h i n g itself and the t h i n g p l u s certain n o n ­ essential attributes are s o m e h o w the same. g . 3 4 ^ ) detects a discrepancy between Aristotle's witness and Proclus's. for he w h o speaks s a y s s o m e t h i n g . Δ ) . 1 4 1024 b 17 ff. x l i : ' T h e r e is only one term applicable to one thing. and practically i m p o s s i b l e t o speak falsely.' He refers not to Aristotle but to Isocr. w h y it w a s foolish o f A n t i s t h e n e s t o s u p p o s e that a t h i n g can o n l y b e s p o k e n o f b y its p r o p e r logos. a d i a g o n a l c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h the side) o r p r o d u c e the appearance o f s o m e t h i n g non-existent ( e . fr.) F u r t h e r . ό δέ τό δν λ έ γ ω ν αληθεύει. Socrates and educated Socrates (or Socrates the educated m a n ) . Campbell. says A r i s t o t l e . ' Procl. φησι. 1 j fT. T h i s a c c o r d s w i t h D . n a m e l y that w h i c h describes its essence. πδ$ γ ά ρ . Urb. λόγοζ αληθεύει. Caizzi (Stud. he g o e s o n . 37 Pasq. It m a y refer (a) t o things o r facts. y e t the logos ' p l a n e figure e v e r y p o i n t o n w h i c h is equidistant from a g i v e n p o i n t ' d o e s e x i s t . 45. therefore in practice w h e n w e speak o f a false logos w e m e a n o n e w h i c h b e l o n g s to s o m e t h i n g other than that to w h i c h it is applied. H e r e A r i s t o t l e will h a v e had in m i n d the classic difficulty. Caizzi notes (Stud. commenting on Aristotle's definition of a definition as λάγο$ ό τό 1 4 2 1 0 . often referred to b y P l a t o and used b y A n t i s t h e n e s h i m s e l f in s u p p o r t o f his thesis o f the impossibility o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n : ' E v e r y logos (statement) is true. A r i s t o t l e deals w i t h 1 the c o n c e p t ' f a l s e ' . dreams. f r o m w h i c h it f o l l o w e d that it is i m p o s s i b l e to contradict. Ιλεγε μή δεϊν αντιλέγει». g . (b) t o logoi. It has b e e n u n d e r s t o o d as a single w o r d o r term. 3 : A n t i ­ sthenes said ' a logos is that w h i c h sets forth w h a t a t h i n g w a s or is ' .e. T h e reference to Antisthenes comes at tine 32. a false logos is o f w h a t is n o t . e . T h i s is the reason. Theaet. T h e m e a n i n g o f logos here e m e r g e s from the c o n t e x t . o n e t o o n e . 29) that its authenticity is confirmed b y Alexander. (Antisth. ό γ ά ρ λ έ γ ω ν τ ι λέγει. and suspects that Proclus has given a current justification of Antisthenes's paradox without g o i n g back to the original source. In Top.Rhetoric and Philosophy In his ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i c t i o n a r y ' (Metaph. it has o n l y b e e n misapplied. In Crat. According to Plato in the Snphht (262 a ff. g .) a logos must contain at least a noun and a v e r b . it describes s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i s . Alexander. 42. e. i. (fr. He/. where the rendering ' t e r m s ' seems even more improbable in the context. i f t h e y are n o n ­ existent ( e . Urb.3 b u t clearly means a description. and h e w h o s a y s w h a t is speaks t r u t h .g. 4 9 ) : "Α. ' S p e a k i n g a b s o l u t e l y ('qua 3 f a l s e ' ) . he w h o says s o m e t h i n g says w h a t is. o r statement o f w h a t a t h i n g is. or illusionist p a i n t i n g ) . 6 . in another sense there are m a n y . a l t h o u g h there is in a sense o n l y o n e logos o f each t h i n g . ( A triangle e v e r y p o i n t o n w h i c h is equidistant from a g i v e n p o i n t d o e s n o t exist. ουδέ δύο λ ό γ ω περί τ ώ ν α υ τ ώ ν π ρ α γ μ ά τ ω ν άντειπεϊν. ό δέ τ ι λ έ γ ω ν τ ό όν λέγει. the logos o f circle is false i f applied t o a triangle. Fr.

o n c e again. i s not sufficient b y itself as some h a v e thought. 33 f. or.3 S u c h theories o f l a n g u a g e are m a d e m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i b l e b y the p r o b a b i l i t y that t h e y o w e d their o r i g i n t o the prestige e n j o y e d b y rhetoric. Arist. 166). Nevertheless more concrete examples w o u l d have been w e l c o m e there too. and Contemps. and the application of the theory to natural objects is not so obvious to us. and in particular to ol άμφί Πρωταγόραν. of w h o m Antisthenes appears to have been the first. F o r G o r g i a s persuasion w a s s o v e r e i g n because there w a s n o truth o v e r and a b o v e w h a t a m a n c o u l d b e p e r ­ suaded to b e l i e v e . to say 'Socrates i s b l a c k ' would be to s a y nothing at all. but since each t h i n g has o n l y one logos ( w h i c h after all. For the effect on problems of this kind of the a m b i g u o u s Greek phrase ουδέν λέγειν el. T h e doctrine expounded here is that parodied b y Plato at Euthyd. the art o f persuasion. then. a n d P r o t a g o r a s w a s already teaching his pupils that o n e v e r y subject o p p o s i t e positions c o u l d b e a r g u e d w i t h equal xi fjv είναι σημαίνων. 1 5 P r e s u m a b l y A n t i s t h e n e s w o u l d h a v e claimed that 2 ' o n e cannot s a y ' ' m a n is a w i n g e d and feathered a n i m a l ' . for that is t o s a y w h a t is not. w h o explains h o w the assertion that each t h i n g has o n l y one logos led t o the impossibility o f s p e a k i n g falsely o r o f t w o p e o p l e c o n t r a d i c t i n g each other. T h i s is helpful. 11. and the o n l y alternative is that. I can only s a y that I see no alternative explanation. and m o d e r n scholars h a v e b e e n similarly reticent. fr. is n o t c o n t r a d i c t i n g another w h o g i v e s a different logos o f man. vol. 1964. For Antisthenes (says the a u t h o r ) . w h i c h however does not b y itself constitute a definition. means s i m p l y ' o n e thing w h i c h can b e s a i d — λ έ γ ε σ θ ο η — a b o u t i t ' ) this is i m p o s s i b l e . and that others have interpreted Antisthenes similarly but softened the implausibility b y refraining from illustrating their interpretations with examples. in its context. Metaph. defends the insertion of είναι on the g r o u n d s that without it the formula might apply equally to a statement of the genus (it is an answer to the q u e s t i o n ' W h a t is m a n ? ' to say ' He is an a n i m a l ' . T o contradict.Antisthenes on False Statement and Contradiction T h e ' f o o l i s h n e s s o f A n t i s t h e n e s is enlarged o n b y p s e u d o . whereas for Aristotle it is to say Socrates with an untrue predicate. a l t h o u g h uttering the s o u n d ' m a n ' .e. in the Peripatetic terminology of Alexander.dff. 28. Urb.. g e n u s is a predicate in the c a t e g o r y of b e i n g ) . N o n e o f o u r authorities g i v e s examples. Cf. i. but mathematical defini1 ii >ns are a special case. One w o u l d welcome a similar illustration of a logos of the essence of Socrates which w o u l d maintain the difference between the t w o philosophers. the speaker is really talking a b o u t birds and s o . If this sounds implausible. t h e y m u s t say different things a b o u t the same thing. 1 2 1 211 . to say n o t h i n g (ουδέν λ έ γ ε ι ν ) . in addition t o a n y m o r e specialized uses. and referred to πολλοί δή. I f t h e y say different t h i n g s t h e y m u s t b e s p e a k i n g a b o u t different things and hence n o t c o n t r a d i c t i n g e a c h other. 44 B ) .' M y discussion of these matters owes much to Caizzi's lucid interpretations in Stud. i o o 6 b 2 0 . H e w h o says n o t h i n g cannot contradict o r b e contradicted. ' T h e fjv. especially in the discussion of essence and accidental attributes on pp. Field gives the example of a triangle ( P . 20.A l e x a n d e r in his c o m m e n t a r y ( A n t i s t h .

g . 1 0 9 1 8 7 g i v e s some evidence from literature that the word had a contemptuous flavour. a d v o c a t e evil as b e i n g really g o o d . e n u m e r a t i n g o r n a m i n g his elements. n. A n t i s t h e n e s h i m s e l f w r o t e rhetorical exercises. and n o man c o u l d contradict another in the sense o f o p p o s i n g a true v i e w t o a false. and p e r s u a d i n g s o m e o n e that the creature signified b y this logos possesses the virtues g e n e r a l l y ascribed t o horses. w h a t a m a n b e l i e v e d w a s true for h i m . ' A s an e x a m p l e . since definition predicates o n e t h i n g y o f another. c o n t e n d i n g for the arms o f Achilles.8) that Antisthenes taunted the Athenians w i t h the ignorance of their strategoi b y s a y i n g that they ought to vote that d o n k e y s are horses (or ' v o t e d o n k e y s into the position of horses'. difficulty w h i c h w a s raised b y the Antistheneans and other s u c h c r u d e J thinkers is n o t inapposite.A l e x a n d e r ad loc. It suggests evasion. i g n o r a n t t h e m s e l v e s o f the nature o f g o o d and evil. and to have adopted a rhetorical style in his dialogues. μακρόξ. T h a t this phrase w a s used b y Antisthenes himself is vouched for b y pseudoAlexander. W e m a y say he is a rational mortal animal. ^ b e c a u s e a definition is an extended logos? Y o u can explain w h a t it is J like. o f w h i c h w e still possess speeches o f O d y s s e u s and A j a x . TOUS SVOUS ί π π ο υ ς ψηφίσασθαι). the s E l s e w h e r e in the Metaphysics (1043b23) h e s a y s : ' T h e r e f o r e 1 . He is said to h a v e been a pupil of Gorgias before he met Socrates (p. n a m e l y c o m p o s i t e substance. 554. \ b u t its elements cannot b e defined. b u t o n l y that it is like tin. w h e t h e r sensible o r i n t e l l i g i b l e . that y o u cannot define w h a t a t h i n g is. e . p s e u d o . j T h e r e is a class o f substance o f w h i c h definition (όρος) o r logos is I possible. In connexion 260b) w i t h the last p a r a g r a p h it is interesting that P l a t o (Phaedrus examines the effects o f a p p l y i n g the name ' h o r s e ' t o the logos o f d o n k e y ( ' t a m e animal w i t h the largest e a r s ' ) . o f silver y o u cannot say w h a t it is.L. fr.Rhetoric and Philosophy v a l i d i t y . 1 4 and 15 Caizzi.3 H a y d . A n t i s t h e n e s m a y h a v e g o n e further than P r o t a g o r a s in a t t e m p t i n g a philosophical explanation o f h o w this c o u l d b e s o . b e l o w ) . and the one m u s t b e matter and the other f o r m . λ ό γ ο . 306. 44 B ) takes ' m a n ' . b u t this in t u r n is o n l y a string o f names. In Met. Aristotle w a s speaking a little carelessly. ( A n t i s t h .* But A r i s t o t l e has m o r e about A n t i s t h e n e s ( o r his f o l l o w e r s ) . and W a r r i n g t o n renders it ad sensum. ' c i r c u m l o c u t i o n ' . 2. when at 1043 b 29 h e used the two w o r d s opov και λόγον to describe Antisthenes's view. (6. 1 3 4 1 212 . W e are s i m p l y listing. in order to c o m p a r e t h e m to the harm d o n e b y rhetoricians w h o .* for a definition is different from T h e r e is a story in D. or from his o w n point of v i e w . ' M a n ' is a name. Frr. b u t neither separately n o r c o l l e c ­ t i v e l y d o t h e y p r o v i d e a definition. R o s s on Metaph.

Metaph. y e t ultimately w e shall c o m e t o a simple. T h e r e can b e n o logos o f the first elements o f w h i c h w e and e v e r y t h i n g else c o n s i s t . n f f . B u t the c o m p o u n d s m a d e u p o u t o f t h e m . b u t can b e p e r c e i v e d . 1043 a 146°. and this t y p e o f definition applies t o natural objects also. ) . I I h i s is explained b y pseudo-Alexander. s o m e t h i n g i f w e h a v e s i m p l y described it as c o m p o s e d o f elements w h i c h are themselves indefinable? P l a t o in the Theaetetus (201 dff. o r explained the b e i n g of. ' o n e mil. elemental entity w h i c h c a n n o t b e so d i v i d e d . T h e t h e o r y assumes that a c o m p l e x w h o l e is n o m o r e than its parts put t o g e t h e r in a certain w a y . resulted Innii a confusion between the particular and the universal references of a noun like ' h o r s e ' . is n o t simply elements-plus-combination but a new. p. 2 c h .). for that is m e r e l y an e n u m e r a t i o n o f (ultimately indefinable) elements and their arrangement. F o r him a definition m u s t include an expression o f the cause (see e . T o this A r i s t o t l e o p p o s e s his o w n v i e w (inspired b y P l a t o ) that the essence o r substance o f a n y t h i n g . w h e n one thing is predicated of another. ι< I. A h o u s e is n o t t o b e defined as b r i c k s e n c l o s i n g a space and c o v e r e d b y a roof. T h i s is referred t o c o n t e m p I Icnce Antisthenes's mistake of s a y i n g that.h a n d and hostile reports. unitary ' f o r m ' . g . A n t i s t h e n e s w o u l d b e r i g h t . are inexplicable and u n k n o w a b l e . 10. for i n fact A r i s t o t l e ' s t h e o r y o f substance a m o u n t s t o an assertion o f his faith i n t e l e o l o g y . Post. I f that w e r e all that c o u l d b e said. ) For Aristotle individuals are inilrliiiablc: o n l y definitions of species and genera are possible. 2 1 5 . It is defined b y s a y i n g that it is a shelter for man and his possessions. W h a t is ' r a t i o n a l ' or ' a n i m a l ' ? E v e n i f w e c a n d i v i d e t h e m into further pluralities o f names. then. 3. can h a v e the names b e l o n g i n g to them c o m b i n e d t o m a k e a logos. An. t h e y can o n l y b e n a m e d . w h e r e a s c o m p l e x e s are k n o w a b l e and explicable and c o m p r e h e n s i b l e b y a true o p i n i o n . T h e mistake. All the elements stated in a definition are formal constituents. In Metaph. 4 3 2 b 2 1 . e t c . a c o m b i n a t i o n o f names. n. in his v i e w . B u t h o w can w e claim to h a v e defined.Antisthenes and Aristotle on Definition a n a m e . b e l o w . and this w i l l b e indefinable. ii d o e s n o t seem l i k e l y that A n t i s t h e n e s s u p p o r t e d the doctrine that none b u t identical predication is possible.1 he matter and the other form'. that is. for ' n a t u r e m a k e s n o t h i n g w i t h o u t a p u r p o s e ' (De caelo 291 b 13. the final cause. ) 1 213 . w h i c h is expressed in its definition (the ' w h a t it w a s to b e the t h i n g ' ) . 554.) describes a similar doctrine a n o n y ­ m o u s l y . E l e m e n t s . 1 A s far as can b e j u d g e d from these s e c o n d . De an. for this is just w h a t a logos is. b e i n g c o m p l e x t h e m s e l v e s .

i o 4 3 b 2 3 f f . o n e t o o n e ' . i n c l u d i n g that o f A r i s t o t l e himself. as that described in the Soph. ( H e m a y h a v e been some 20 years older than Plato. 208. it is plain that logos here is n o t limited to a single term. I f it is true that A n t i s t h e n e s said ' a logos is that w h i c h sets forth w h a t a t h i n g w a s or i s ' . 1 w h i c h in v i e w o f the current uses o f logos w o u l d in a n y case b e i m p r o b a b l e . b u t in the light o f other e v i d e n c e . 2 thoughts' ' G r o t e (Plato. n. G r o t e called h i m the first nominalist. b u t I d o n ' t see h o r s e n e s s ' .]. 2 8 . 6 (Antisth. i n . w h i c h themselves c o u l d o n l y b e named. ) ' i s surely v e r y different from such crude nominalism [sc. Theaet. 40. w h i c h Socrates s o u g h t t o define and P l a t o w a s already p r o c l a i m i n g as independent realities. S o m e h a v e identified this w i t h the thesis ascribed to A n t i s t h e n e s b y A r i s t o t l e that ' a thing can o n l y be s p o k e n o f b y its p r o p e r logos. w h o s e teacher A m m o n i u s also q u o t e d the mot o f A n t i s t h e n e s as an illustration o f his v i e w that ' t h e k i n d s o r forms existed o n l y i n o u r (έν ψιλαϊς έτπνοίαις). for y o u h a v e the e y e w i t h w h i c h a horse is seen. but y o u h a v e n o t y e t acquired the e y e to see horseness. T h e story is told in a slightly different form o f D i o g e n e s the C y n i c ."<joj.Rhetoric and Philosophy t u o u s l y b y P l a t o in the Sophist (251b) as s o m e t h i n g that is seized o n b y ' y o u t h s and o l d m e n o f retarded i n t e l l e c t ' . H e also t h o u g h t it probable Xp. frr. 521) w a s one w h o t h o u g h t that Aristotle w a s crediting Antisthenes w i t h the proposition that none but identical propositions w e r e admissible. because he denied the existence o f those forms o r essences (εϊδη o r ο ύ σ ί α ι ) o f particular things. ( A n t i ­ sthenes lived till a b o u t 360. b u t o n l y m a n is m a n and g o o d is g o o d ' . x) that in the Sophist Plato does intend to designate Antisthenes as γέρων όψιμαθήί. .) A p a r t from the plural. ( w h i c h w e h a v e seen to be the same as that ascribed to Antisthenes at Metaph.' T h i s is told b y Simplicius. Isag. but rather a denial that a n y t h i n g can be predicated of the prime elements . w h i c h is b y n o means the same thing.. but had to admit ( o n p.' S i m p l .. It is n o t the same t h i n g as όνομα (a n a m e ) . h e e v i d e n t l y w e n t o n t o claim that s u c h a logos c o u l d o n l y s u b ­ stitute for the name o f the t h i n g a c o l l e c t i o n o f the names o f its elements.) T h e r i v a l r y b e t w e e n the t w o p h i l o s o p h i e s is s u g g e s t e d b y the anecdote that A n t i s t h e n e s said to P l a t o : Ί see a horse. T h e opinion quoted. In Porph. t o w h i c h P l a t o r e p l i e d : ' N o . is not a denial o f predication. 201 d ff. 50 A and c ) . naturally e n o u g h considering that he w a s Antisthenes's pupil and Antisthenes himself came to be regarded as the founder o f the C y n i c 1 214 . Cat. if properly examined. 526) that in that case the doctrine w h i c h Aristotle attributes to ot Άντισθένειοι at Metaph. A m m o n . ' w h o object that it is i m p o s s i b l e for m a n y things to b e one or one m a n y . Contrast C a m p b e l l . such commentators i g n o r e the fact that the theory is ascribed equally to ol νέοι. j 043 b 23 is n o t in h a r m o n y w i t h that w h i c h h e ascribes to Antisthenes himself. and e n j o y insisting that w e m u s t n o t say a m a n is g o o d . . x x x i x : the doctrine o f Theaet.

Urb. Stud. i.3 P r e d i c a t i o n is n o t i m p o s s i b l e . concluded that 'there i'. t h e y are n o t names.r. 202b). for w h o m it meant the ability to g i v e a logos o f the essence o f the t h i n g k n o w n . ob dort Antisthenes personlich oder allein gemeint ist oder nicht' ( p . no real evidence for associating him with either v i e w ' (P.ic. .Antisthenes a Nominalist ? I f h o w e v e r n o m i n a l i s m is the doctrine that assumes. See a l . 5) that realism and nominalism can be recognized as variants of the nature-theory and the convention-theory of the Cratylus. 1. against w h o m he w r o t e a dialogue under the opprobrious name of Sathon. He does not seem to have i i a l i / . . Ii. C a i z z i is right in s a y i n g that A n t i s t h e n e s ' s t h e o r y o f ' o n e . in whose name is included all that is proper to it.t h e o r y o f C r a t y l u s a c c o r d i n g to 2 1 w h i c h names h a v e a natural affinity w i t h their objects (or.' 1 1 3 « 215 G S P . 168). A c o m p l e x object can b e analysed b y n a m i n g its elements. so m u c h as the n a t u r e . w h o like the fifth-century philosophers saw a close connexion between names and t r u t h : ' the first truths were arbitrarily made b y those that first of all imposed names upon t h i n g s ' . and o n l y o n e . is therefore to be resolved on this plane. A similar conclusion w a s reached b y von Fritz in Hermes.orcnz and Mittelstrass (Mind. it is certainly bien trouve.uninatical study the one word όνομα had to do d u t y for both ' n a m e ' and ' n o u n ' . ) Lorenz and Mittelstrass. . I f w e m a y j u d g e b y the criticisms o f P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e . . i f t h e y d o not.e. and he w h o k n o w s the names k n o w s the things also (43 5 d ) . for Aristotle] the object of definition is not 11 ιι· particular but the u n i v e r s a l . in a carefully reasoned account. 1 9 2 7 : it is Antisthenean doctrine. cf. the denial of ττοιάτης implies also the denial 1 if the definition of what a thing is. ofLogic. 1967. T h e y themselves add ( p . T h e y are g r a s p e d b y intuition o r perception ( Ί see a h o r s e ' . Theaet. one might add. Kneale. According i n l. not o n l y for e v e r y • l . 2.t h e o r y o f names maintained b y H e r m o g e n e s in P l a t o ' s Cratylus. ) : they ' r e v e a l the t h i n g s ' (433d). b u t it m u s t school. but the elements can o n l y b e named o r des­ cribed analogically (silver like tin). Dev. 3 1 : ' T h e problem of predication. b e l o w . Whether historically true or not. ( T h e confusion w o u l d be facilitated b y the fact that at this primitive stage of )'. See W . (See p. Field. 34. It might b e interesting to compare the latter w i t h the conventionalist theory of neces­ sary truth as it appears in Hobbes. ' t h a t l a n g u a g e i m p o s e s its o w n structure u p o n a reality w h i c h b y itself lacks a n y s u c h d i s t i n c t i o n s ' . T h e r e f o r e . 5. 1967. 4 2 9 b f f . 3 2 : ' F o r Plato [and.) Cf. 311 f. o r k n o w n as k n o w l e d g e w a s u n d e r s t o o d b y Socrates and P l a t o . Akad. and the m a n w h o utters them ' s a y s n o t h i n g ' . n.rssence seemed to have rendered impossible. Mind. 310. it d o e s n o t appear that A n t i s t h e n e s w a s its a d v o c a t e . 462). According to Antisthenes w e not o n l y see but k n o w the individual horse. which the thesis that only names can expiess 1111. however. H i s teaching does n o t resemble the c o n v e n t i o n . it persists in the Cratylus and throughout Plato's waitings. ' glcichgultig.illy the descriptive. as a recent definition has it. o Dummler. 5). p r o p e r logos for each t h i n g ' is based o n a lack o f the distinction b e t w e e n essential and accidental predication plus a c o n f u s i o n b e t w e e n p r o p e r and c o m m o n names. b u t c a n n o t be explained. Other stories w e r e also current testifying to the ill will between h i m and Plato. c d that this would i m p l y the necessity of a name for e v e r y single thing.i'. and Contemps. and M. i A n d on p.

2 1 . 1 1 Simplicius (Phys. not in D K ) . Socrates. I f L y c o p h r o n t h o u g h t it a d m i s ­ sible t o s a y ' w h i t e Socrates' he c a n n o t . and p s e u d o . Actually Σ. 7 . i 8 5 b 2 j . D K . 49. as if the ί σ η were expressly inserted. one word in Greek]. a n y m o r e than A n t i s t h e n e s . T h e copula frequently was omitted in speech and w r i t i n g . b u t i f it did not. he a d d s . 435. It w a s t o a v o i d the ' o t h e r s ' ( w h o m neither he n o r A r i s t o t l e identifies) tried u s i n g other v e r b s instead o f the offensive c o p u l a . (h) a philosopher. s a y i n g ' w h i t e S o c r a t e s ' 3 for ' S o c r a t e s is w h i t e ' . and (c) an Athenian w o u l d be to m a k e the one subject. Lycophron was a little naive if he thought that those w h o omitted it were correcting a logical fault. so that Σ. as Lycophron did. h a v e b e e n o n e o f those at w h o m P l a t o is tilting i n the Sophist (251b). 3 1 3 ^ below. Phys. So A r i s t o t l e p u t s it (Metaph. as if O n e ' or ' b e i n g ' had only one sense. For L y c o p h r o n see pp. paraphr. Phys.Rhetoric and Philosophy b e assumed that w h a t e v e r f o l l o w s the c o p u l a is essential to the subject (a part o f ' w h a t it i s ' ) .A l e x a n d e r . and i f a n y o f the elements n a m e d is inapplicable to the subject the w h o l e logos m u s t b e dismissed as meaningless. Simplicius (Phys. λευκόξ is as much a complete sentence. lest b y adding ' i s ' they should make the one many. with T h e o n l y other thing k n o w n a b o u t his t h o r y o f k n o w l e d g e is that he described k n o w l e d g e as ' a n intercourse ( σ υ ν ο υ σ ί α ) o f the psyche the act o f k n o w i n g ' .) On those w h o denied the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r e d i c a t i n g o n e t h i n g o f another. 1 7 ) . F o r this reason some abolished the w o r d ' i s ' . AEWKOS in the Greek. 91) explains that L y c o p h r o n s i m p l y o m i t t e d the v e r b ' i s ' . meaning ' S o c r a t e s i s w h i t e ' .A l e x a n d e r explains (563. ( H e was misled. One cannot folly understand these people without reference to current idiom. Themistius's comment on his procedure w a s κακω τ ό κακόν Ιώμενος (Phys. 1045 b 9ff. T o s a y that Socrates is (a) white. as copula.). 1. as i f t o state the attribute i n this w a y did n o t i n v o l v e the addition o f a n y t h i n g r e a l . saying not 'the man is w h i t e ' but 'the man has-been-whitened' [λελεύκωται. 9 1 ) adds that L y c o p h r o n allowed its existential use. then there w o u l d b e n o consequence that no significant statement w a s possible difference that the b e t w e e n s a y i n g ' S o c r a t e s ' and ' w h i t e S o c r a t e s ' . 2 Schenkl. 83. m a n y (Philop. 1 ) : ' L y c o p h r o n w h e n Sc. s a y s p s e u d o . b y the fact that a false logos is n o t absolutely o r primarily ( μ ή α π λ ώ ς μηδέ κυρίως) the logos o f a n y t h i n g into s a y i n g that it w a s n o t h i n g at all. not 'is w a l k i n g ' but ' w a l k s ' . 1 3 1 2l6 . In Metaph. not XEUKOS Σ. while others altered the form o f the expression. A r i s t o t l e has this t o s a y : T h e more recent o f previous philosophers were disturbed b y the thought of making the same thing one and many.

T h i s . or This 'intercourse' ' c o e x i s t e n c e ' o f the m i n d w i t h k n o w l e d g e s u g g e s t s a v i e w like that o f Antisthenes. w h e n n o one had s u g g e s t e d that a w o r d c o u l d h a v e m o r e than one sense o r had distinguished essence f r o m accident. M e n e d e m u s h a v i n g b e e n a pupil o f Stilpo. 380 and the Eretrian s c h o o l w a s P l a t o ' s death.v. defining one b y another. n o t scepticism b u t b e l i e f in k n o w l e d g e b y direct acquaint­ ance. ' g o o d is g o o d ' . A doctrine w h i c h c o u l d lead t o the same c o n c l u s i o n as that i n the Sophist is ascribed t o t h e m b y Simplicius (Phys. and impossible that the latter. and that different things were divided from each other. b u t one experiences ' w h i t e S o c r a t e s ' as a unitary essence. and for the Eretrians Simpl. Adv.d . I quoted b y Moore as the motto of Principia Ethica. and more literally. J7ff. Plato stayed w i t h E u c l i d e s at M e g a r a after the death o f Socrates. Col. appears to rule out I not o n l y a definition of ' g o o d ' (the 'naturalistic f a l l a c y ' ) . 1 In ordinary l a n g u a g e συνουσία meant intercourse or association. on the grounds that they must be the result of confusing two properties. See L S J s. ' For Stilpo see Plut. n i 9 c . or substituting one for another. 9 1 . but all definitions of a n y term w h a t ­ soever. and the Eretrian w a s c l o s e l y linked w i t h it. c o u l d h a v e been Plato's target. and t h e y m a y w e l l h a v e differed and had l i v e l y discussions o f these questions. the verb συνουσηόομαι is used to express the idea of being essentially united. See the discussion b y Frankena reprinted in the Foot essays. Phys. pp. A f t e r q u o t i n g from E u d e m u s that the mistakes o f P a r m e n i d e s w e r e excusable o w i n g t o the inchoate state o f p h i l o s o p h y at his time.g. e.Impossibility of Predication asked w h a t it w a s that caused k n o w l e d g e and the psyche w o u l d reply that it w a s their i n t e r c o u r s e ' . It m i g h t b e interesting to compare their doctrine with that which has been derived in modern times from a strict interpretation of Bishop Butler's d i c t u m : ' E v e r y t h i n g is what it is and not another t h i n g ' . founded b y M e n e d e m u s w h o w a s b o r n after 2 Since Stilpo w a s p r o b a b l y b o r n c. 217 8-a . B u t Euclides w h o f o u n d e d the M e g a r i a n s c h o o l w a s a friend o f Socrates. 1 to b e one. O n e c a n n o t say ' S o c r a t e s is w h i t e ' (himself p l u s w h i t e n e s s ) . and so thought to prove that everything is divided from itself. 120). etc. the logos o f 'educated Socrates' is different from that o f 'white Socrates'. but it could also. therefore Socrates is divided from himself. 28. In the late commentators.) are Stilpo the Megarian and the Eretrians. it is i m p r o b a b l e that the former. it has been claimed. T h e o n l y p e o p l e specifically m e n t i o n e d as q u a l i f y i n g for P l a t o ' s c o n d e m n a t i o n b y confining speech t o identical p r o p o s i t i o n s ( ' m a n is m a n ' . he g o e s o n : / \ ) ) t \ O u t o f ignorance o f this even the philosophers k n o w n as Megarians assumed as an obvious premise that things having a different logos were different. be understood as 'co-being*.

Halfte. el. T h e t h o u g h t o f Socrates a n d P l a t o . since s o m e o f the possible authors are n o w little m o r e than names. T h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g is t o k n o w that i n the lifetime o f Socrates and Plato these questions o f l a n g u a g e a n d its objects w e r e b e i n g zestfully thrashed o u t b y a g r o u p o f c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w h o in the course o f their debate t h r e w u p a n u m b e r o f related o r rival v i e w s w h i c h w e r e all ultimately the result o f w r e s t l i n g w i t h the c r u d e b u t effective l o g i c o f the Eleatics. w h e r e the relevance of Arist. ( P r o t a g o r a s . 1 In the f o r e g o i n g a c c o u n t an attempt has b e e n m a d e to attach the v a r i o u s theories to i n d i v i d u a l authors. 2 .8 . therefore Coriscus is different from himself. m u s t b e seen against this b a c k g r o u n d . Syllogistik. A n t i s t h e n e s . and it is suggested that in Aristotle's time the eristic of Antisthenes and the Megarians w a s u n d e r g o i n g a certain fusion. T e i l . S u c h assignment has been the subject o f intensive research in the past. D u r i n g the lifetimes o f Socrates and P l a t o the Euthydemus Sophist) d i a l o g u e s like the following p o s i t i o n s w e r e h e l d . 1. 7f7. 2l8 . N a m e s o f s o m e w h o held t h e m are given in b r a c k e t s w h e r e either certain o r p r o b a b l e . (i66b28ff. as an integral part o f the debate a n d an attempt to find a definitive s o l u t i o n to its p r o b l e m s . 2. A n t i s t h e n e s . 1 right to contradict another. n o r is the matter o f great i m p o r t a n c e for the h i s t o r y o f thought. Metaph. Summary of results. Γ 4 is discussed. T h a t in P l a t o ' s hands it became o n l y an element in a great m o r a l a n d metaphysical synthesis does not alter this fact. ) 2. ) See on this Maier.' It bears a resemblance to the ' o n e logos to each t h i n g ' o f A n t i s t h e n e s . and what is n o t cannot b e uttered. b u t the e v i d e n c e is n o t a l w a y s sufficient for certainty. b u t w a s b r o u g h t to a m o r e radical conclusion. T h e thesis depends o n P a r m . " m a n " is different f r o m " C o r i s c u s " . 2.Rhetoric and Philosophy T h e same doctrine is o p p o s e d b y A r i s t o t l e in Soph. w h i c h a r e a d i n g o f the Cratylus and alone (not t o m e n t i o n m o r e important puts b e y o n d all d o u b t . for that is to s a y w h a t is n o t . n o o n e has a (Protagoras. A s a c o r o l l a r y . 7 . fr. It is i m p o s s i b l e to speak falsely. w h o s e influence on the subsequent h i s t o r y o f p h i l o s o p h y has b e e n p r o f o u n d ..) without a t t r i b u t i o n : ' C o r i s c u s is a m a n [but n o t e that G r e e k has n o indefinite article].

h o w e v e r . A name w h i c h has n o such affinity is n o t w r o n g . t o w h i c h o u r terms should c o r r e s p o n d u n i v o c a l l y . h a v i n g n o natural c o n n e x i o n w i t h the objects to w h i c h they are applied. G o r g i a s .) 6. ' H e r m o g e n e s ' in Plato. w h i c h are k n o w n b y direct c o n t a c t o f m i n d w i t h object as in sense-perception (αϊσθησις). N a m e s are labels arbitrarily c h o s e n . L y c o p h r o n . w h e t h e r o f the p h i l o s o p h y o f l a n g u a g e o r o f rhetorical practice.) 9.Language and its Objects. ( A n t i s t h e n e s . W e use w o r d s inconsistently and w i t h n o c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to reality. T h e aim w a s n o t in fact scientific. N a m e s h a v e a natural affinity w i t h their objects.) 7. n o t b e i n g subject t o further analysis. (Antisthenes. T o e v e r y object b e l o n g s o n e and o n l y one p r o p e r logos. should m a k e it clear that in Protagoras o n w a r d s .) 10. T h e use o f ' i s ' to join subject and predicate is illegitimate because it m a k e s one t h i n g m a n y . t h o u g h one m a y p e r c e i v e and speak o f a subject and its attribute ( e .) 5. g . for there is a reality (δν. and can o n l y b e described a n a l o g i c a l l y . and p r o b ­ a b l y others. w h i c h says w h a t it is b y n a m i n g the elements o f w h i c h it is c o m p o s e d . b u t practical. O n the same Eleatic g r o u n d s that a thing c a n n o t b e b o t h o n e and m a n y . ( D e m o c r i t u s . there is n o logos. to 219 . T h e f o r e g o i n g sections. A n t i p h o n . parts o f speech and so forth). ( L y c o ­ phron. ' C r a t y l u s ' in Plato. (Socrates. w h i t e Socrates) as a u n i t y . probably Lycophron. for one can o n l y list its elements and t h e y themselves.) 8. φύσις) and there are natural k i n d s (είδη). o f w h i c h there are traces from these topics themselves. (Antisthenes. ) 4. o n l y identical predication is possible. ( P r o t a g o r a s . H i p p o c r . to sort o u t and c o d i f y existing u s a g e . (Megarians. as w e l l as the treatment o f contemporary m i n d s they w e r e n o t d i v o r c e d from w i d e r questions. T h i s is w r o n g . T r u t h is relative to the individual. Definition o f the essence o f a thing is impossible.) (6) GRAMMAR T h e intense interest in the possibilities and limitations o f l a n g u a g e led t o the b e g i n n i n g s o f grammatical s t u d y (distinction o f g e n d e r s . I f a n y o f them d o n o t a p p l y to it. b u t n o name at all. are indefinable. Summary 3. De arte.

g o d d e s s ' . ' A n c i e n t G r e e k grammatike w a s a τέχνη. n e g a ­ tion. and e l s e w h e r e (Crat. w a s the first t o d i v i d e speech (logos') i n t o four basic k i n d s (πυθμένες λ ό γ ω ν ) : request ( o r p r a y e r ) .53 f. so w a s p r o b a b l y m a d e earlier b y P r o t a g o r a s o r s o m e other Sophist. that i n the Sophist t h e y are carefully defined and illustrated b y examples. c o m m a n d . A (logos)J combination o f noun w i t h verb yields a statement Rhema is here defined as ' w h a t signifies a c t i o n s ' . w h i c h precedes it at 424 c. 9. δ ν ο μ α ρ η κ ρήμα = λ ό γ ο . question. an art o r craft. and so H i c k s translates. m o d e r n p h i l o l o g y is n o t a τέχνη b u t a physical science. a s t u d y a i m i n g at practice. c o m m a n d . L . It w a s the Logos' D . and a n a m e o r n o u n is contrasted w i t h it as that o f w h i c h things are said. . and is concerned m e r e l y t o ascertain and co-ordinate the facts. Crat. b u t at this early stage t e r m i n o l o g y is b y n o m e a n s fixed. q u e s t i o n and address. n o t P r o t a g o r a s . and it is difficult to see o n w h a t g r o u n d s . E v e n A r i s t o t l e w i t h his m o r e technical v o c a b u ­ lary. T h e second list l o o k s d u b i o u s . Unfortunately there is n o m o r e nearly c o n t e m p o r a r y authority. ' d e a r t o Z e u s ' ) it b e c o m e s a rhema instead o f a n a m e . "Theaetetus sits' is an example o f the simplest λόγος.Rhetoric and Philosophy reform l a n g u a g e and increase its effectiveness b y a closer c o r r e s p o n d ­ ence w i t h r e a l i t y . ί answer. Stud. narration. w h i c h seems 399 a . in such a general classification.). Cratylus 307). o r a c c o r d i n g t o other authorities r e p o r t . n e v e r ­ theless. T h e distinction b e t w e e n n o u n and v e r b (rhema) and as C o r n f o r d r e m a r k s (PTK. H i s w o r d s m i g h t mean that others. L i t e r a l l y rhema o n l y a ' t h i n g s a i d ' . It takes the w o r l d w i d e p h e n o m e n o n o f h u m a n speech as its object. 262cff. but into A little later A l c i d a m a s said that the four logoi w e r e affirmation.b ) w e find P l a t o s a y i n g that i f the means definite e n o u g h . is ascribed t o οΐ δεινοί περί τούτων. q u e s t i o n . for w h o m rhema is m o s t often a v e r b a n d is so defined (De 1 int. sonants and mutes. 307. w e are t o l d . it is i n t r o d u c e d in the (425 a) w i t h o u t explanation as s o m e t h i n g familiar. in w h i c h he also points o u t the e n o r m o u s difference resulting from the fact that γραμματική w a s concerned solely w i t h G r e e k s p e e c h : ' T h e p h e n o m e n o n that l a y before the G r e e k grammatikoi w a s n o t all human l a n g u a g e . request. PTK.' T h i s is from M u r r a y ' s h i g h l y readable essay o n The Beginnings of Greek Grammar (in Gk. o c c u r s in P l a t o . seven: summons. 4 3 > Soph.3 It is true. 425a. ' because this w a s to c o m m a n d w h e n w h a t w a s w a n t e d w a s a p r a y e r . T h e classification o f letters as v o w e l s . 3 4 I D _ C 1 220 .* T h i s c o m e s f r o m a late s o u r c e . A r i s t o t l e refers to the d i v i s i o n w h e n in the Poetics (1456b 15) he J records that P r o t a g o r a s criticized H o m e r for w r i t i n g ' S i n g . d i v i d e into seven. διήγησις w a s separated from απαγγελία. O n these t w o parts o f speech as the sole essentials o f a λόγος see the c o m m e n t s o f C o r n f o r d . 1 P r o t a g o r a s . n a m e D i p h i l u s is split i n t o its c o m p o n e n t parts (Διϊ φίλος. a n s w e r .

u n d e r the name o f Socrates. el. w e m u s t bear i n m i n d that his c o n c e r n is n o t i n fact w i t h the grammatical f o r m b u t w i t h such questions as h o w . 1 4 0 7 0 7 . i f P l a t o ' s definition o f a statement b y its simplest grammatical f o r m seems p r i m i t i v e . T h i s G r e e k attitude t o L o g o s (in s o m e c o n t e x t s the capital letter seems t o i m p o s e itself) m u s t n e v e r b e f o r g o t t e n w h e n as c o l d ­ b l o o d e d grammarians o r logicians w e find ourselves g r o w i n g exaspera­ ted b y the looseness and a m b i g u i t y w i t h w h i c h it appears t o b e used. and his use o f the masculine article w i t h n o u n s w h i c h h a v e w h a t is u s u a l l y a feminine e n d i n g . feminine and n e u t e r . Soph. w h o has c o m e to Socrates t o learn the unjust a r g u m e n t in order t o a v o i d p a y m e n t o f his debts. just as a l i v i n g figure is c o m p o s e d b y the art o f the p a i n t e r ' . Stenzel n o t e d (RE. Poet. 20b 1-2). i o i o f .G r e e k s ) t o distinguish animals o f different sex b y different terminations. x x v . the Logos. 425 a. 1 7 3 b 19. 1 4 5 8 3 9 . H i s failure (in c o m m o n w i t h all his f e l l o w . el. A r i s t o t l e tells u s that it w a s he w h o d i v i d e d n o u n s into masculine. H a l b b . 166 b 1 2 . T h e exalted p o s i t i o n o f the logos in a G r e e k m i n d is w e l l b r o u g h t o u t b y the b u i l d . T h e w o r d ουδέτερο» (Lat. ) that. S o m e have supposed that this w a s on account of the w a r l i k e or 'unfeminine character' ( M u r r a y ) of the conceptions which the words signified. ' T h e a e t e t u s flies'). N o u n s and v e r b s are constructed o u t o f letters and syllables. uses it also t o m e a n an adjective (ibid. and formed b y the art o f n a m i n g o r rhetoric o r w h a t e v e r it b e . Aristotle himself called them μεταξύ (Rhet. and this is reflected in the Clouds o f A r i s t o p h a n e s . P r o t a g o r a s ' s interest in the g e n d e r o f n o u n s is v o u c h e d for b y a c o n t e m p o r a r y . and from n o u n s and v e r b s w e c o m p o s e ' s o m e t h i n g great and beautiful c o m p l e t e . Arist. T h e p l a y contains. and the w i d e r term ' p r e d i c a t e ' m u s t s o m e t i m e s b e the best translation. w h i c h o f them are m a s ­ culine and w h i c h f e m i n i n e ' . More probably 1 221 . Soph. w h i c h are feminine. T h i s castigation o f the g r a m m a r o f o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e as illogical or imprecise appears again in P r o t a g o r a s ' s c o n t e n t i o n that the G r e e k w o r d s f o r ' w r a t h ' a n d ' h e l m e t ' . neuter) came into use w i t h later g r a m m a r i a n s . 1 1 2 O r things (σκεύη).u p w h i c h P l a t o g i v e s it at Crat. o f t w o g r a m m a t i c a l l y e q u a l l y correct p r o p o s i t i o n s ( ' T h e a e t e t u s s i t s ' .Grammar i 6 b 6 ) . is d i s m a y e d t o d i s ­ c o v e r that he m u s t first learn ' a b o u t names. an attack o n P r o t a g o r a s ' s claim t o m a k e the w e a k e r ( ' u n j u s t ' ) a r g u m e n t the stronger. o n e can b e true and the other false. and Strepsiades. 1 7 3 b 28). A r . o u g h t t o be masculine. earn h i m a sharp r e b u k e from ' S o c r a t e s ' .

Top. — Hermias. 93) that these allusions cannot be dismissed as jokes without any historical foundation. Crat.3 Perhaps the m o s t interesting t h i n g a b o u t all this is the e v i d e n c e for a personal relationship b e t w e e n P r o d i c u s and Socrates. Gr. 1959. b e t w e e n c o u r a g e and fearlessness. for u s i n g an expression (deinos. Classen thinks that e\'en Aristotle has confused Prodicus w i t h Platonic διαίρεσίξ. See T . Meno 75 ε. a criticme of the opening lines of the Iliad.A. and is defined as the enjoyment resulting from exercising the intellect. 4 2 2 2 . which Socrates there calls the first stage o f initiation into the mysteries o f the Sophists. the a r g u m e n t about κάρδοττος at Clouds 670ff. His speciality w a s precision in the use o f l a n g u a g e and the accurate distinction o f the m e a n i n g o f w o r d s c o m m o n l y r e g a r d e d as s y n o n y m o u s . esteem and praise. delight and gladness as s u b d i v i s i o n s o f pleasure. See Fehling's i m a g i n a t i v e reconstruction. and see on this Classen in Proc. Gomperz. below. 444f. on Phaedr. Sof. Gomperz (S. 3 1 See pp. cf. 1 6 3 d . see p . 1 1 2 b 2 2 . shows once again the normative rather than descriptive character of this kind of teaching. 39f. 214. Cf. 3 4 0 a m . Ar. ) : Prodicus τ η ν τ ώ ν ονομάτων εδρεν άκρίβειαν. if really Prodicus's. τέρψις. schol. disease o r w a r . as ' t h e best o f the S o p h i s t s d r a w i n g such d i s t i n c t i o n s ' . Rh. for his conclusions from this. 2 In at the Laches (197 d ) he is m e n t i o n e d . and indeed his criticism of the concord μηνιν ούλομένην belongs to the same context as that of the mood of άειδε. 384b. 275 f. A c c o r d i n g to the scholiast. ibid.4 P r o d i c u s ' s insistence o n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p r e c i s e l y b e t w e e n w o r d s o f c l o s e l y related Protagoras w a s moved b y purely morphological considerations connected w i t h their termina­ tions. χαρά pleasure of the mind. and. 173 f . Charm. says Socrates in the (341a). for it hardly corresponds to o r d i n a r y usage. and Fehling. a somewhat p o m p o u s speech in w h i c h he distinguishes b e t w e e n d i s ­ cussion and dispute. Alex. 11. w h o refers t o himself several times i n P l a t o as P r o d i c u s ' s p u p i l or friend. Th.) T h e scholiast. Afr. 1965. R. εύφραΐνεσδαι is contrasted with ήδεσθαι. Note that once again his target is Homer. viz. like things Protagoras 'Terrible' poverty. For Prodicus in general see pp. I agree w i t h H. 1 Other Platonic references to P r o d i c u s in this connexion are Prot. 2 1 5 . 84 A 19. p .Rhetoric and Philosophy P r o d i c u s is m e n t i o n e d in the Euthydemus sisted o n the p r i m a r y importance o f 'the 1 (277 ε) as o n e w h o i n ­ correctness of names'. and cf. (In Prodicus's speech in the Protagoras. Tipyts w a s pleasure through the ears. I . 283 Couvreur (not in DK but added b y Untersteiner. T h e same d i a l o g u e contains a p a r o d y o f his t e a c h i n g . pleasure and e n j o y m e n t . however. u. in DK. below. χαρά and ευφροσύνη. H e r e b u k e s m e . a classification w h i c h . 205 above. p. in c o n n e x i o n w i t h the distinction A r i s t o t l e s h o w s h i m listing e n j o y m e n t . Mus. and in c o n n e x i o n with this a late c o m m e n t a t o r credits h i m w i t h t h e ' i n v e n t i o n ' o f ' v e r b a l accuracy'. and ευφροσύνη visual p l e a s u r e . C. 32) m u s t qualify like ' t e r r i b l y unpleasant clever'. 274 ff. has v e r y l i k e l y introduced a Stoic classification.

Ethics. 41 f. virtue. h o w e v e r . i. For some further assessments of the value of Prodicus's linguistic w o r k see Grant. Hipp. 2 ADDITIONAL NOTES ( i ) Prodicus and Thucydides. and other authorities referred to in Untersteiner. above. H. is a question that w i l l b e taken u p later. a time to hear h i m ! — y e t ' aus der Bedeutungslehre des Prodikos ist die Begriffsphilosophie des Sokrates e r w a c h s e n ' ) . It is l i k e l y therefore that his insistence o n precise l a n g u a g e occurred in the context o f rhetorical instruction.6 (the aim of his instruction w a s rhetorical—otherwise y o u n g men w o u l d not have paid 50 dr. o r w h a t e v e r b e the subject o f their discussion. as W . It is n o t easy to see in G o r g i a s a teacher o f ' S c h a r f e u n d P r a g n a n z ' . H . Untersteiner is not quite correct in saying on p . Maj. W h e t h e r . and fixing a nomenclature'. 282c. P r o d i c u s ' s art o f d i v i s i o n w a s a 'scientific fertilization o f the Socratic sphere o f t h o u g h t ' and ' h i s attempt to sharpen and regularize the use o f l a n g u a g e t h r o u g h l o g i c a l demands an u n d o u b t e d l y v a l u a b l e preparation for the conceptual clarification o f literary l a n g u a g e ' . the ' S c h a r f e u n d Pragnanz' o f T h u c y d i d e s ' s style is a inheritance from G o r g i a s ' s antitheses and P r o d i c u s ' s ' S y n o n y m i k ' . Prodikos. ' t h e difference b e t w e e n the t w o approaches is v e r y s h a r p ' . and the teaching o f P r o d i c u s m a y w e l l h a v e been an influence directing his t h o u g h t a l o n g these lines.Prodicus on Precise Diction m e a n i n g has o b v i o u s affinities w i t h the Socratic habit o f p i n n i n g d o w n an interlocutor and m a k i n g h i m say precisely w h a t c o u r a g e . 3?.s y n o n y m s See pp. M a y e r . (See D K . 84 A 9. G o r g i a s and P r o d i c u s w e r e 61. R. 225. and see pp. n. 66. like P r o t a g o r a s . temper­ ance. ( ' W e must acknowledge the merit of this first attempt at separating the different shades of language. and also. Rep. i24f. b u t in a n y case I d o n o t w i s h t o enter here o n a discussion o f influ­ ences o n T h u c y d i d e s i n general b u t s i m p l y to f o l l o w M a y e r in d r a w i n g attention to s o m e places w h e r e the distinction b e t w e e n n e a r . S c h m i d has it.) In M a y e r ' s o w n o p i n i o n combined all m e n t i o n e d in late antiquity as teachers or m o d e l s o f T h u c y d i d e s . Sophs. 1 O n e m a y a d d here. 275 fT. Gomperz. is—what as is its f o r m or b e i n g . u. 3 1 . P r o d i c u s c a r i n g o n l y for ' c o r r e c t s p e a k i n g ' and Socrates interested i n ' the real t h i n g ' or w h e t h e r . 600c. that P r o d i c u s like other Sophists h a d a h i g h reputation as a political o r a t o r and g a v e paid p u b l i c displays o f e l o q u e n c e . 215 that ' a l l scholars are a g r e e d ' on the question. C a l o g e r o has w r i t t e n . 1 2 4 . ) . e t c . S. A n t i p h o n . * Plato. u n d e r t o o k to teach the art o f success in politics and the m a n a g e m e n t o f private estates.

T h e Mytileneans are ' n o t so much revolutionaries—a w o r d which applies to people w h o have suffered harsh treatment—as deliberate insurgents plotting with our enemies to destroy u s ' . but a proper disdain comes from reasoned confidence in one's superiority over the enemy. ' A n y coward can be boastful out o f ignorance and luck. M o m i g l i a n o has an interesting t h e o r y be o f the possible b e a r i n g s o f P r o d i c u s ' s discrimination o f s y n o n y m s o n b o t h p h i l o s o p h y o f l a n g u a g e and ethics. αμάρτημα and τταρανομία. O n the e v i d e n c e that w e h a v e . T h e y can i n d e e d r e m a r k a b l y effective.98.2. 84.69. D e m o c r i t u s h a d Not all the examples cited b y M a y e r seem relevant.53. In 1. A t ι .' 2. but rather confidence in our o w n superior planning. έτταναστηναι and άττοστήναι.Rhetoric and Philosophy is d r a w n in a w a y so s t r i k i n g l y reminiscent o f P r o d i c u s in the that t h e y must s u r e l y o w e their inspiration to h i m . direct o r r e p o r t e d .' 1 Protagoras A l l b u t o n e o f these instances o c c u r in a s p e e c h . Remonstrance (αιτία) is what one employs against friends w h o have erred.36. It is as f o l l o w s QnAtti 1 Torino. and at 1. accusation (κατηγορία) against enemies w h o have w r o n g e d one. 1929-30.' 6 . (2) Synonymic and philosophy. io2f. 6 .4.3 the rhetorical effect is gained b y u s i n g αΙδώς and αισχύνη indistinguishably rather than differentiating between them.23. έτταίρεσθαι and Θαρσεϊν. not under the pressure o f circumstances.62. for M o m i g l i a n o presents his c o n c l u s i o n s as certain. 224 .' 3. 'Involuntary faults [the Athenians claimed] earned sanctuary at the altars o f the g o d s . αίτια and κατηγορία.39. and the use m a d e o f t h e m b y T h u c y d i d e s is further e v i d e n c e o f the rhetorical p u r p o s e o f such nice distinctions. T h e w o r d s ' t h e o r y ' and ' p o s ­ s i b l e ' are m y o w n . 4. 'Please do not think that our remon­ strance arises out o f any hostile feelings. Nor is a n y difference of meaning between Ισος and Kotvos suggested at 3. b u t e v e n o n a m o r e c a u t i o u s v i e w the interpretation is t o o interesting to b e passed o v e r .1-2.6 w e have the famous distinction between the true but dis­ guised cause (ιτρόφασις) o f the war and the reasons (αίτίαι) which were openly given. it is difficult t o b e so confident. 1. 1 1 .).6. αϋχημα and καταφρόνηση. ' W h a t matters is not to feel elation at any chance setback o f our enemies. and the name crime should be reserved for wrongful acts committed gratuitously.6.1 φοβούμαι and δέδοικα seem to be used s i m p l y to avoid c l u m s y repetition.

T h e art o f distinguishing s y n o n y m s had important bearings o n ethics. H e thus (concludes M o m i g l i a n o ) o c c u p i e s a special place a m o n g the Sophists. i. since theoretical scepticism led to practical relativism. i n v o l v i n g the separation o f αγαθός from κ ρ ε ί τ τ ω ν . δίκαιον from συμφέρον. b e l o w ) . o c c u r in the s u r v i v i n g record o f P r o d i c u s ' s activity. O n the d a n g e r o u s subject o f the g o d s he w a s b o t h b o l d and original (see o n this p p . 238 ff. ( T h e s e particular examples d o n o t . 11. W h a t P r o d i c u s is d o i n g w i t h his apparent p e d a n t r y is to o p p o s e the prevailing scepticism. he is equally in reaction against ' t h e a r m y o f T h r a s y m a c h u s e s and Callicleses'. so far as I a m a w a r e .) T h e o n l y w a y to refute h i m w a s to s h o w that it did. 225 . 277 f. P r o t a g o r a s and T h r a s y m a c h u s . continues M o m i g l i a n o . y e t he felt the need o f u p h o l d i n g s o u n d m o r a l principles in daily life. b e l o w ) . and o n the other from A n t i p h o n and Hippias w i t h their antithesis b e t w e e n natural and c o n v e n t i o n a l morality. A n d . πέρας. that o f so-called s y n o ­ n y m s (like τ ε λ ε υ τ ή . ε σ χ α τ ο ν . Meno 75 ε) each has in fact its o w n separate object.e. is the m o r e interesting for not b e i n g simply a defence o f traditional beliefs. different o n the o n e hand from the scepticism o f G o r g i a s .) H i s reaction. T h i s explains h o w P r o d i c u s the hair-splitter is also the author o f the m o r a l i z i n g fable o f the C h o i c e o f Heracles ( p p .Additional Notes on Prodicus said that w o r d s d o n o t reflect reality because ( a m o n g other reasons) n o t e v e r y w o r d has an object c o r r e s p o n d i n g to it. (See v o l .475.

and later. and substituted a n o n . che\ les Grecs.a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c monotheism o r pantheism. for it is held that absolute standards c l a i m i n g supernatural For a general apercu of the criticism of traditional religion in Greece. M o r a l i t y is identified w i t h the amelioration o f h u m a n life and the elimination o f cruelty. o f a single M i n d separate f r o m the matter o f the u n i v e r s e and the cause o f the rational o r d e r w h i c h it displays.s t u f f described v a g u e l y as g o v e r n i n g or steering the m o t i o n s o f the c o s m o s and e v e r y t h i n g in it.IX RATIONALIST THEORIES OF R E L I G I O N : A G N O S T I C I S M AND ATHEISM 1 (i) CRITICISMS OF TRADITIONAL RELIGION T h e Presocratic p h i l o s o p h e r s . La critique des trad. w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y retained a b e l i e f in a d i v i n e force o r forces. 1 22(5 . all alike p r o m u l g a t e d c o n c e p t i o n s o f r e l i g i o n w h i c h w e r e far r e m o v e d f r o m the a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m o f the p o p u l a r o r state cults based o n the H o m e r i c p a n t h e o n . Decharme. X e n o p h a n e s o p e n l y attacked t h e m . injury and all forms o f exploitation o f h u m a n b e i n g s b y their f e l l o w s . and s e c o n d l y a g e n u i n e c o n c e r n w i t h m o r a l i t y . and is based o n p u r e l y humanistic and relative standards. see P . rels. first. W e h a v e seen Heraclitus c o n d e m n i n g phallic and other cults for their unseemliness and D e m o c r i t u s (doubtless u n d e r the influence o f already e x i s t i n g e v o l u t i o n a r y theories) c l a i m i n g that it w a s o n l y the a l a r m i n g nature o f thunder. A s ' e n l i g h t e n m e n t ' g r o w s . w h i l e others tacitly a b a n d o n e d t h e m in favour. l i g h t n i n g and similar p h e n o m e n a that m a d e m e n think t h e y w e r e caused b y g o d s . in A n a x a ­ g o r a s . the determination to b e l i e v e o n l y w h a t is reason­ able and a t e n d e n c y t o identify reason w i t h p o s i t i v i s m and the p r o g r e s s o f natural science. o f an e v e r . a subject w h i c h far exceeds the scope of this history.l i v i n g w o r l d . it s h o w s itself u n d e r t w o main aspects ( w h e t h e r in ancient G r e e c e o r E u r o p e since the R e n a i s s a n c e ) : first.

w h i c h m o r e o v e r differ f r o m place t o place a c c o r d i n g t o the agreement made b y each g r o u p w h e n t h e y laid d o w n their l a w s ' .) See also p.D. 2 1 2 cultu p i o c o n t i n e t u r ' (N. T h e conventional attitude is exemplified b y the reply of Socrates in X e n o p h o n (Mem. it a l w a y s r e p l i e s : ' F o l l o w the nomos of y o u r c i t y ' . n. b u t it must h a v e been as o b v i o u s to an A t h e n i a n traditionalist as it w a s t o C i c e r o ' s C o t t a that those w h o d e n y o u t r i g h t that the g o d s exist ' n o n m o d o superstitionem t o l l u n t . 4 . Disc. T h e Greek gods were very vulnerable in b o t h these aspects. T h e g o d s themselves. 26. to cruelty. 2 below. T h e attack o n religion w a s indeed closely b o u n d u p w i t h nomos-physis antithesis. he says. 23). which means propitiating the g o d s with sacrifices just as far as is in y o u r power. 237. 'Even if w e concentrate on the religious controversy which occasioned the trial [of Socrates]. and that t h o u g h t w a s f r e e . When (nomisma.117). . and also that A t h e n i a n officialdom w a s n e r v o u s and t o u c h y a b o u t it. and as s o o n as c o n v e n t i o n a l piety b e g a n to yield to a m o r e thoughtful a t t i t u d e — w h e n nomos in all its aspects w a s n o l o n g e r taken for granted b u t rather contrasted w i t h w h a t w a s natural and u n i v e r s a l — s c e p t i c i s m and m a k e themselves felt in increasing v o l u m e . 1 6 ) to Euthydemus. b u t m u s t i n e v i t a b l y lead. The A r i s t o p h a n i c Socrates rejected the g o d s as an out-of-date currency p . T h e cult o f the g o d s w a s integral to the life o f the state and a p o w e r f u l c o h e s i v e force. intolerance and other evils. 3 . of Mind. Such an answer would scarcely satisfy the more pro­ gressive and inquiring spirits of the fifth century. the problem of faith never became an issue.Criticism of Religion in the Fifth Century authority n o t o n l y h a v e led in the past. for whenever the Delphic oracle is approached with this problem. w h o acknowledges divine providence but is worried b y the thought that no adequate return can ever be made to the g o d s b y men.42. h a v e provided the answer. 56 a b o v e ) . quae d e o r u m and c o s m i c speculation. 1. and in Euripides H e c u b a calls nomos superior t o the g o d s because it is b y nomos that w e believe in them as w e l l as in standards o f right and w r o n g ( p . It m a y be claimed that all that w a s necessary w a s c o n f o r m i t y w i t h cult-practices. P l a t o w r o t e . T h e r e is p l e n t y o f e v i d e n c e that the h o l d o f religion o v e r m e n ' s m i n d s w a s w e a k e n i n g in the intellectual ferment o f the Periclean a g e . H e n c e the i m p i e t y trials and the decree o f D i o p e i t h e s against atheism 227 . Plato (Laws the 889 c ) c o m p l a i n s o f p e o p l e w h o 1 disapproval began to claim that ' t h e g o d s are h u m a n contrivances. . such contentions were nothing new.' (Snell. t h e y d o n o t exist in nature but o n l y b y c u s t o m and l a w . sed etiam r e l i g i o n e m .

45ff. ) . d i s s o l v i n g d i v i n i t y i n t o Protagoras causes. Birds 988). declarations that g o d s exist " μετΕωρολέσχα.g a z i n g ' and immoral sophistic teaching Clouds 1283 (pp. It n e e d e d n o scientific speculation o r l o g i c a l subtlety t o b e scandalized b y Z e u s ' s castration o f his father o r his m a n y a m o u r s . coupled with the adjective ά χ ρ η σ τ ο υ . In the a g e o f e n l i g h t e n m e n t w e find E u r i p i d e s e v e r y w h e r e g i v i n g rein to s u c h criticism. T h e w o r d occurs in Plato (Rep.. lit. 2 ) . 30 a b o v e ) . adulterers. Not much i s k n o w n about the appropriately named Diopeithes. see Lobeck. . N o distinction w a s drawn b e t w e e n the scientific writers and the paid teachers w h o m w e call Sophists. to illustrate the k i n d of abuse that w a s levelled at philosophers. t h o u g h i n fact h e h a d n o c o n c e r n in s u c h m a t t e r s . The m o t i v e s m i g h t b e political. 3 9 . M y t h s in w h i c h the g o d s appeared as thieves. For the connexion of the Sophists w i t h the natural philosophers cf. T h e y shared the same religious scepticism. Criticism o f the g o d s o n m o r a l g r o u n d s c a m e early. Wasps 380.g a z e r s . T h e prosecution of 'Anaxagoras the S o p h i s t ' is mentioned ( b u t not Diopeithes or his ψήφισμα. j u s t b e f o r e t h e o u t b r e a k o f t h e P e l o p o n n e s i a n War] Aspasia w a s prosecuted for i m p i e t y . 'chatterers about things in the s k y ' .) b y D i o d o r u s ( 1 2 . was as t h e y c a l l e d t h e m . and P h r y n i c h u s 9 K. a 3. the thefts and deceit o f Hermes.Rationalist Theories of Religion T h e y d i d n o t t o l e r a t e [ s a y s P l u t a r c h (Nicias 23)] and s t a r . o r the j e a l o u s y o f Hera and the malicious and v e n g e f u l charac­ ter o f the immortals in general. pp. and Socrates. a n d at the time the w o r d sophistes w a s applied as naturally to A n a x a g o r a s as to P r o t a g o r a s o r Hippias ( p . T h e name is mentioned several times in Aristophanes (Knights 1085. b l i n d f o r c e s a n d n e c e s s a r y p r o p e r t i e s .. and D i o p e i t h e s * introduced a bill for the i m p e a c h m e n t o f t h o s e w h o d e n i e d the g o d s or t a u g h t a b o u t c e l e s t i a l p h e n o m e n a . It can take different f o r m s — reproach o f the g o d s for their b e h a v i o u r . seducers and g l u t t o n s w e r e already rejected by X e n o p h a n e s and Pindar.. 981). And in his life o f Pericles (32): A b o u t this t i m e [sc. H 4 f . A n a x a g o r a s p u t u n d e r restraint and w i t h difficulty s a v e d b y Pericles. 489 c). b u t the state o f o p i n i o n w a s s u c h that imputations o f atheism and natural science w e r e a sure w a y t o secure a prosecution. Fragments of other comic poets depict h i m as a fanatic and as a drummer in the C o r y b a n t i c rites (Ameipsias 10 K. Teleclides 6 K. w h i c h for the Sophists w a s often the result o f r e a d i n g the w o r k s o f the scientists. but all that emerges i s that the holder of it w a s a soothsayer. l o s t h i s life through his d e v o t i o n t o p h i l o s o p h y . d i r e c t i n g s u s p i c i o n at P e r i c l e s t h r o u g h A n a x a g o r a s . above. as Socrates's accusers k n e w w e l l . . Aglaoph. 1 the natural philosophers irrational banished.28 . and for the supposed connexion between ' s k y . .

T h e Heracles contains a v e h e m e n t denial that the g o d s c o u l d b e h a v e w i c k e d l y ( i 3 4 i f f . 286): T h e r e are n o g o d s in h e a v e n . ' T h a t the example o f the g o d s c o u l d b e i n v o k e d t o excuse h u m a n failings is also pointed o u t b y Euripides. T h e same p o i n t is m a d e in c o m i c v e i n b y A r i s t o p h a n e s . to bring out the inherent absurdity of the situation. w h o could never resist love or w o m e n . Y o u h a v e o n l y to l o o k a r o u n d y o u . lacks nothing. 7 ) : ' I f g o d s act basely. for instance w h e n Phaedra's o l d nurse c o n d o n e s her illicit passion b y r e m i n d i n g her. o r assertions that. w i t h the examples o f Z e u s and E o s . is v o i c e d in a passionate outburst in the Bellerophon (fr. See L e s k y . if he be truly g o d . nor that one is lord over another. that A p h r o d i t e is a p o w e r t o o s t r o n g for the other g o d s themselves t o resist. y o u will say.Criticism on Moral Grounds b u t d o n o t and cannot b e h a v e like that. M o r e in the v e i n o f the Heracles passage is the line. r o b . ) : I do not believe that the gods take pleasure in unlawful intercourse. has been the victim. and point to Zeus.f e a r i n g states are o v e r w h e l m e d b y the military m i g h t o f those larger and m o r e w i c k e d . cheat and r a v a g e . but L e s k y (probably r i g h d y ) sees it as a product of the tension b e ­ tween the subject-matter. a mortal. In the Ion w e see the disillusionment o f a p i o u s y o u n g a c o l y t e w h o learns that the g o d he serves has s t o o p e d t o seduce a mortal w o m a n . w h e n the Unjust A r g u ­ m e n t claims that w i t h o u t his rhetorical skill a sinner w i l l b e lost. w h o speaks these w o r d s . again from the Bellerophon (fr. T o b e l i e v e in such o l d w i v e s ' tales is folly. show greater strength than a g o d ? Yet so strong w a s the force of tradition that the w h o l e plot of the Heracles depends on the jealous wrath of Hera. G o d . t h e y are n o g o d s . 1 C o m p l e t e disbelief in the g o d s . T y r a n t s m u r d e r . 382. 948). and again b y H e l e n in extenuation o f her o w n c o n d u c t (Tro. These are the wretched tales o f bards. and the intellect of the dramatist. y o u will argue that y o u have done nothing w r o n g . imposed b y tradition and m y t h o l o g y . b u t w i t h it he w i l l c o n f o u n d his accusers (Clouds 1079): Suppose y o u are caught in adultery. 1 229 . could y o u . HGL. 2 9 2 . Small g o d . nor have I ever thought nor can be persuaded that they load each other with fetters. H o w . A s a dramatist Euripides c o u l d reflect all points o f v i e w t h r o u g h his v a r i o u s plots and characters. based o n the p r o s p e r i t y o f the w i c k e d and the sufferings o f the just. Some have thought that the paradox w a s deliberate. since these are the g o d s w e are t a u g h t to b e l i e v e in. either t h e y d o n o t e x i s t — i t is all l i e s — o r t h e y are heedless o f h u m a n affairs and d o n o t merit o r need o u r w o r s h i p . and are happier than the p i o u s and peaceful. of whose unspeakable cruelty the hero himself.

. ' l i s ne crurent point que les dieux eux-memes eussent ete les auteurs de leur theologie. A l l foolish acts are called A p h r o d i t e b y m a n k i n d . Euripides. 23. in Euripides. the reason referred to in δια τοΟτο is u n k n o w n . and an u p h o l d e r o f the official cults.) But whereas H o m e r accepts. . ' M y s o n w a s h a n d s o m e . o r e v e n the established state-religion. 2. 344. δείται cf. criticizes. n. Besides m o r a l p r o b i t y . n o r d o e s he e x p e c t a n y t h i n g f r o m a n y b o d y . and neither Euripides nor Antiphon need have said it first. n. 987). b u t is infinite and all-sufficient. 254 N . and w a s n o t t h o u g h t o f at the t i m e . in his edition. ou ils virent seulement l'ceuvre des poetes. O n e o f its m o s t v i g o r o u s e x p o n e n t s w a s P l a t o . 'and at s i g h t o f h i m y o u r m i n d b e c a m e C y p r i s . . w h o in the Republic firmly accused H o m e r and H e s i o d o f l y i n g . v i i ) has pointed out a reason w h y no suspicion of impiety attached to this purgation. p. ' T h e k i n d o f criticism w h i c h s o u g h t t o a b s o l v e the g o d s f r o m the unethical b e h a v i o u r attached t o their n a m e s in the m y t h s m u s t n o t b e t h o u g h t of. Since context is lacking. the moralist c o u l d claim that a g o d m i g h t be s i m p l y the p r o d u c t o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l transference: m e n g a v e the name to their o w n e v i l passions. 259. and blame the g o d s . B. also fr. οΰδενό. Often the g o d s lead mortal men astray. the rationalism o f the time s a w the g o d h e a d as ' l a c k i n g n o t h i n g ' .222. T h e s e w o r d s o f E u r i p i d e s ' s Heracles can h a r d l y b e u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h the p r o n o u n c e m e n t 3 2 1 of A n t i p h o n : ' F o r this reason he has need o f n o t h i n g . as an attack o n r e l i g i o n as such. 286. (For the consensus of scholarly opinion on this point see Untersteiner. n.Rationalist Theories of Religion In contrast t o the h o m e l y traditionalism o f the nurse. 2.' ( a ) Fr. See his From Anxiety to Method. Devereux has pointed out that Helen's defence i s anticipated b y what Penelope says about her at Od.. δεϊται γ ά ρ ό θ ε ό . 10.' Belief i n the Cf. ( T h e comparison is made b y Stan­ ford ad loc. : A . self-sufficiency w a s b e i n g d e m a n d e d as an essential p r o p e r t y o f deity. W i t h Antiphon's ούδενό. Tro. A i d e d perhaps b y X e n o p h a n e s and Eleatic notions o f G o d as ' u n m o v e d ' and ' i m p a s s i b l e ' . ' says H e c u b a to H e l e n ( E u r . but this is a dangerous criterion. Such statements as ' G o d lacks n o t h i n g ' could b e common to more than one writer of the time.) 2 3 1 230 . Sophs. 10. G. . Fundamentalism w a s a phenomenon u n k n o w n to the Greeks because there w a s nothing in their religious literature corresponding to the ' w o r d of G o d ' . y e t w a s an implacable o p p o n e n t o f u n b e l i e f either in the g o d s o r in their p r o v i d e n t i a l care for m a n k i n d . S o m e have used ' e c h o e s ' of Antiphon in Euripides as actual evidence of his date. b e l o w ) that it i s impossible on external grounds to s a y whether Euripides is c o p y i n g this passage from the "Αλήθεια or not. Y o u take the easy line. (b) There is so much uncertainty about the date of Antiphon's w r i t i n g s (see p. It is not even stated (but can scarcely be doubted) that the subject is θεό. in the person of Hecuba. (c) T h e quotation i s g i v e n in a lexicon (the S u d a ) to illustrate the meaning of άδέητο. Decharme {Critique.

n. See Sophs. 264. 1 1 and T h r a s y ­ m a c h u s s a w i n the prevalence o f w i c k e d n e s s e v i d e n c e that the g o d s 265. he t h o u g h t it w a s t o o g r e a t to need his service. w h o traversed the s k y e v e r y d a y in his flashing chariot and w a s the awful witness o f m e n ' s m o s t sacred oaths.Divine Self-sufficiency and Providence self-sufficiency o f the d e i t y leads naturally to d o u b t s a b o u t the reality o f a n y divine p r o v i d e n c e o r care for m a n k i n d . Schmid (Gesch. 3 among his r e f 8 r e n c e s w i t h o u t comment. M o r e important t o his contemporaries than the existence o f this M i n d w a s his reduction o f the all-seeing H e l i o s . T h e rationalism o f the natural philosophers w a s n o t c o m p l e t e l y atheistic (as w e s h o u l d use the w o r d ) b u t n o n e the less destructive o f the traditional and official p a n t h e o n . T h e idea w h i c h P l a t o d e p l o r e d . u n ­ k n o w n or untried). the second meaning is active (ignorant. are blind to w h a t g o e s o n a m o n g m e n ( p . 260. Personally I think even Xenophon's Socrates w a s capable of a bit of raillery. 1 2 . Mem. b u t they take n o t h o u g h t for h u m a n affairs' (Laws (Mem.4. and Untersteiner has followed h i m (Sophs. W h a t he says i s : ' Y o u seem to imagine that happiness consists i n l u x u r y and extravagance. 1 3 a . 263. 1 . to the status o f a lifeless l u m p o f g l o w i n g stone. that far from c o n t e m n i n g the d i v i n e . n. 91. 4 2 Q thinks X e n . I l l . s l y l y b r i n g i n g up his o w n w o r d s against him. A n t i p h o n is said t o h a v e denied p r o v i d e n c e in the same w o r k On Truth in w h i c h he declared the self-sufficiency o f G o d and s p o k e o f the advisability o f c o n f o r m i n g t o c o n v e n t i o n a l m o r a l i t y o n l y w h e n under o b s e r v a t i o n . n. n.890 a reproduces the doctrine of Antiphon. 885 b . 97 a b o v e ) . For references to modern opinions about this see Untersteiner. 1 . 1 . But in the passages which he cited as parallel (Plato. 7 4 . 6 . 1 3 ) . n. inexperienced). and m o r e o v e r that the g o d s c o u l d h a v e n o t h o u g h t for m a n k i n d . (e) Untersteiner (Sophs. 6 . and Sof. 1 0 i s proof that Antiphon w a s not g i v i n g his own v i e w but one that he w a s opposing. that ' t h e r e are g o d s . Sophs. In the Ionian tradition d i v i n i t y for l o n g w a s identified w i t h the l i v i n g physis o f the w o r l d . 3 . 1 7 ε and Tim. Euripides w a s b o l d e n o u g h t o i n t r o d u c e this description into his tragedies and it m a d e s u c h a d e e p l y u n f a v o u r a b l e (</) I h a v e translated άπειρος b y infinite. It should be noted that Untersteiner is one of those who believe that the w h o l e passage Laws 888 d . w a s current in the fifth c e n t u r y . ( i i ) untried. 1 . I78ff. 888c). έ γ ώ δέ νομί3ω τ ό μέν μηδενός δεϊσθαι θείον είναι'. Luria suggested that there w a s a double m e a n i n g : (i) infinite. I V . nor do I k n o w of any. T h e reader m a y take his choice. i v . Phil. 259. from Origen.10) represents a man called A r i s t o d e m u s as p r o t e s t i n g to Socrates. 2 3 1 . n. 1 6 0 ) takes the fr. 1 7 . at its face value and includes Mem. X e n o p h o n 1. Sof. 5 5 d ) . w h e n taxed w i t h refusing to g i v e the g o d s their c u s t o m a r y m e e d o f sacrifice and p r a y e r . 70. until A n a x a g o r a s separated it as a r e m o t e M i n d w h i c h started the c o s m i c p r o c e s s in the b e g i n n i n g . L S J g i v e no example of the passive sense (unexperienced. Fr.

w h e n the w a s first p e r f o r m e d . Zeus trag. I I . naturally) best r e g a r d e d .. δέ γ η . as truth itself has said 'J A similar phrase. 941 it is αίθήρ w h i c h ' h o l d s the earth in its b u x o m a r m s ' . 1 6 .c ) says that. 11. n o w g e n e r a l l y attributed to Critias (Eur. H e speaks t h r o u g h his characters. Ζευς Ιστιν αίθήρ. p. T h e r e m a y be a flavour of Democritus in Tro. but the idea w a s widespread. 480. Melanippe 7 5 6 b . P l u t a r c h (Amat. τ ή ν γ η ν μετέωρον. fr. 9 D K ) . I . chapter v n . 269 and 323.3 It is h a r d t o arrive at the m i n d o f Euripides himself. Ζεύ. and vol. Apol. r e v i v e d as a scientific t h e o r y at this time b y D i o g e n e s o f A p o l l o n i a and easily absorbed b y p o p u l a r t h o u g h t o w i n g t o its affinities w i t h ancient b e l i e f s . and the identification o f air o r aither w i t h Z e u s in the p r a y e r o f H e c u b a in E u r i p i d e s ' s Troades. esp. the line (fr. See vol. also Euripides's αίθήρ Ιμόν βόσκημα at Frogs 892. T h e expressions of Euripides show a quite different spirit from some in A e s c h y l u s w h i c h superficially might b e thought to resemble them. measureless A i r ' in the Clouds. = Critias fr. ' I n his tragedies he persuades m e n that the g o d s d o n o t e x i s t ' ) . 11. 4 N . and γ ή ξ όχημα at Tro. It is curious that the same line occurred in the Peirithous. 307. 5 9 1 . 480) ' Z e u s . B u t the m o s t p o p u l a r p h i l o s o p h i c t h e o l o g y w a s that w h i c h identified d i v i n i t y w i t h the air o r aither.. z6d.3101". of the Heliades (fr. 4 1 . 884 must b e the same. 941 and fr. ' w h a t e v e r the g o d s m a y b e ' . quotes both fr. and Eur. Its familiarity is s h o w n b y the i n v o c a t i o n o f Socrates to the ' L o r d and Master. 480). A w o m a n in the Thesmophoria^usae accuses h i m r o u n d l y o f atheism (450f. 4 5 6 ( i ) T h e famous fr. "Αήρ and αίθήρ were interchangeable in these contexts (vol. T h e atomic g o d s o f D e m o c r i t u s w e r e e v e n farther r e m o v e d f r o m official religion. Aither also takes the name o f Z e u s in t w o other places in E u r i p i d e s . 1 1 3 6 See v o l . 232 . Zsus τοι τ ά ττάντα. for I k n o w n o t save b y h e a r s a y ' caused s u c h an u p r o a r in the theatre that for a s e c o n d p r o d u c t i o n he altered it t o ' Z e u s . I . and it is as s u c h a mirror o f his time that he is (for o u r present p u r p o s e s . w h o e v e r Z e u s 4 2 1 m a y b e . whereas in fr. not b o u n d b y the exigencies of the dramatic situation. b u t the c o m i c p o e t has h a r d l y m a d e her an impartial w i t n e s s . 70). o c c u r s in the Orestes (418) in a c o n t e x t o f o u t s p o k e n criticism o f d i v i n e p o w e r s .Rationalist Theories oj Religion impression o n the A t h e n i a n m i n d that n o t o n l y w a s it said to h a v e been the o c c a s i o n o f A n a x a g o r a s ' s banishment b u t Meletus t h o u g h t it w o r t h w h i l e t o t r y to implicate Socrates in it at his trial. For Democritus v o l . 11. frr. i28ff. n . T h o u g h Lucian. n . 886. Plato. In the Clouds it is αήρ w h o έχει. 877. 941 (quoted from u n k n o w n p l a y s and without c o n t e x t ) . χ ώ τ ι τ ώ ν δ ' ύπέρτερον. b e y o n d s a y i n g that he w a s intensely interested in the m o s t a d v a n c e d t h i n k i n g o f his d a y . Ζευς δ' ουρανό. w h o mirror almost e v e r y p o i n t o f v i e w . 478 m . 480 as places where Euripides is speaking his real mind. Vol.

910 w h e r e h e speaks o f the happiness o f a m a n w h o has learned the w a y s o f scientific i n q u i r y and o b s e r v e s ' t h e ageless o r d e r and beauty 1 {kosmos) o f i m m o r t a l nature. 913 c a n stand beside the air. h e says. w h e r e ό -πάντων μεδέων is addressed w i t h the w o r d s Ζευς ε ί τ ' 'Αίδη. It is deeply felt pantheism—the poet is conscious of a living spirit in earth and s k y and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e — a n d something more besides. B u t e v e n a m o n g these the keener m i n d s suspected that does not reflect a n y rationalistic theories about an air-god. a s in the Heliades fr. b u t for a w i s e m a n the ageless kosmos w h i c h she reveals c a n o n l y lead to the c o n c l u s i o n that there is a g o d . and especially celestial.' T h e complex force of kosmos cannot be rendered b y one w o r d . an intelligent orderer.o r aither-god o f the Troades and frr. 369). b u t . and. * 6tou ουχί vo«I. 913 : ' B e h o l d i n g these things. the lesson o f the passage is the same as P l a t o ' s in the Laws (9673-0): understanding o f the taxis ( o r d e r l y arrangement) o f the stars d o e s n o t lead t o atheism b u t t o an awareness o f the m i n d that b r o u g h t a b o u t this kosmos. For the meaning of voslv see v o l . it is far from b e i n g atheism. y e t nought have I found save Zeus. 1 . (ii) A t Ag. ττοτ' εστίν. the feeling expressed seems to be that Zeus is omnipresent: ' A l l things have I measured. fr. earth.J o n e s in JHS. I I . Cf. the air w h i c h is also a c o n s c i o u s p l a n n i n g m i n d ( v o l . Comparison with the last lines of Sophocles's Trachiniae ( L l o y d . ονομαζόμενος στέργεις).. b a b b l e at r a n d o m o f matters u n k n o w n ? ' M i s g u i d e d p r o b i n g into the secrets o f nature has b r o u g h t s o m e t o atheism. the sight o f w h i c h m a k e s o n e a w a r e o f the d i v i n e . I . w h o s e m i s c h i e v o u s t o n g u e s . Astronomers (says Plato) g o t the n a m e o f atheists because s o m e o f the earlier ones t h o u g h t that the h e a v e n l y b o d i e s w e r e mere dead masses carried r o u n d b y necessity. but clearly conveys the idea that Zeus is present in all the manifestations of nature and at the same time transcends them. but the following w o r d s show that this is the familiar case of a piety apprehensive lest it offend b y addressing a g o d b y the w r o n g name or one that is displeasing to h i m ( a s in Euripides himself. vol. L a c k i n g the c o n t e x t . v o i d o f sense.Euripides A striking c h o r i c passage w h i c h m u s t surely express his o w n o u t l o o k is fr. and h o w it w a s p u t t o g e t h e r ' . I f it d o e s n o t preach the O l y m p i a n religion. F r . 17"!. and the g o d o f D i o g e n e s f r o m w h o m t h e y doubtless d e r i v e . 11. i f w e assume t h e m t o b e natural. s k y and all t h i n g s ' . 9 1 2 . not to 'aither. ό σ τ ι . 160 the chorus i n v o k e Ζεύς. 1956. w h o is W h o does n o t cast far from h i m the deceitful wiles o f the star-gazers. n o and 206. in o r b e h i n d it. 55) misses the mark b a d l y . S u c h a m a n . w e d o n o t k n o w for certain w h a t ' t h e s e t h i n g s ' are. 877 and 941. T h i s praise o f historia is n o t necessarily inconsistent w i t h the dis­ p a r a g e m e n t o f meteorologoi not conscious o f g o d ? 2 in fr. p h e n o m e n a . w i l l h a v e n o part in w i c k e d o r injurious deeds. for τ ο ύ τ ω ν there refers to the changes and chances of human life.

that ' e v e r y man's truth is the truth which appears to h i m ' . he. a n d s o . the truth a b o u t the g o d s . Cf. b u t for P r o t a g o r a s h i m s e l f s u s ­ pension o f j u d g m e n t w a s the o n l y possible c o u r s e . 189. as Plato said he did. 1 1 7 . for there are many hindrances to knowledge. T h i s disposes satisfactorily of T . N. 1 . It is also referred to b y T i m o n of Phlius (quoted b y Sextus. 1 1 1 234 . that n o m a n has seen. w h o i n the Theaetetus objecting t o the i n t r o d u c t i o n (i02d) i m a g i n e s the great S o p h i s t as o f g o d s into the discussion. S o m e b e l i e v e d i n g o d s a n d s o m e did not. B u t the classic case o f a n agnostic in this c e n t u r y is his c o n t e m p o r a r y P r o t a g o r a s . the Eleatic p h i l o s o p h e r M e l i s sus said that it w a s w r o n g t o m a k e a n y p r o n o u n c e m e n t a b o u t the g o d s . 1 0 . a n d decided that. Gomperz's contention (GT. w h o w a s famous for h a v i n g w r i t t e n : Concerning the g o ds I am unable to discover whether they exist or not. them (2) AGNOSTICISM: PROTAGORAS According to D i o g e n e s Laertius (9. ' ) contrasts significantly w i t h an expression like that of X e n o p h a n e s fr. 2 . there w a s a m i n d b e h i n d directing their m o v e m e n t a n d the w h o l e c o s m i c order. ibid.D. 2 .3 T h e sentence is said t o h a v e s t o o d at the o p e n i n g o f a w o r k ( o r section o f a w o r k ) See Protagoras fr. g o d s existed for s o m e a n d n o t for o t h e r s . 4 2 . Soph. 6 3 ) . 2 9 and 2 3 .24). 1 . b u t C i c e r o carefully distinguishes them. because k n o w l e d g e o f t h e m w a s impossible. cit. ' w h o s e 1 existence o r n o n . 1 .e x i s t e n c e I expressly refuse to discuss in m y speeches and w r i t i n g s ' . 1 . 2 = A 2). . 457) that if Protagoras had believed. a n d the major part b y S e x t u s . 2 3 .Rationalist Theories of Religion their perfectly calculated m o v e m e n t s c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d without intelligence. T h e f o r m o f the statement as o n e o f personal opinion (Ί a m unable . ' D u b i t a r e se Protagoras. I . T h e full text is q u o t e d b y D i o g e n e s Laertius a n d E u s e b i u s . a n d m u c h nearer his o w n time it is referred t o by P l a t o . Jaeger. Philostratus (V. nullos esse omnino D i a g o r a s Melius et T h e o d o r u s Cyrenaicus putaverunt'. Cicero (N. a l t h o u g h the stars themselves might b e lifeless c l o d s a n d stones. . or what they are like in form. he could not have said what he did about the g o d s .). i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the ' m a n the m e a s u r e ' principle. n o r w i l l a n y m a n e v e r know. 1 2 . Cf. 2 Sextus a n d the Epicurean D i o g e n e s o f O e n o a n d a indefensibly ranked h i m w i t h the atheists. 1 . 34. 6 3 . 4 and A 12 DK.D. TEGP. and Diogenes of Oenoanda ( A 23). the obscurity o f the subject and the brevity o f human life.

5 2 and 54. 65 a b o v e . vol. and indeed necessity. 1967. 919. 7 = Prot. 145. C .L. T h i s interpretation. when stripped of mythical clothing. W e shall n e v e r k n o w . u. Earlier conjectures w e r e collected b y Nestle. no more than ' V e r m u t u n g ' . (See C . as in this case. he says. consisting in the denial o f e v e r y k i n d o f super­ natural p o w e r . and he adduced in support the official anger which there is some evidence that it aroused at Athens. 1 4 . PLATO'S PRODICUS. 1 4 3 ^ ) offers a n e w and subtle interpretation of Prot. 1 and scholars h a v e naturally w o n d e r e d w h a t c o u l d h a v e f o l l o w e d o n such an u n p r o m i s i n g b e g i n n i n g . C i c . Gomperz. atheism has n o t often been seriously maintained at a n y p e r i o d o f civilized t h o u g h t . RE. in Hastings. VM^uL. Muller. 10 and 1 1 ) . Eus. b u t also the instinct for w o r s h i p w a s p r o b a b l y in his v i e w an original and ineradicable trait o f h u m a n n a t u r e . P. Muller (Hermes. 1 1 4 Muller (Hermes. like everyone else's. 88f. 18) w a s that the w o r k w a s directed against popular proofs of the existence of g o d s and their care for men. ' A t h e i s m (Greek and R o m a n ) ' . von Fritz. but it has its attractions nevertheless. 11. Untersteiner {Sophs. ' S o A . ) 3 2 (3) ATHEISM: DIAGORAS. TWO T Y P E S OF ATHEIST ' A s a d o g m a t i c creed. that the g o d s are s i m p l y projections or reflections of humanity. 322a. he w a s firmly c o n ­ v i n c e d . Nestle's idea (see also his edition of the Protagoras. T h e r e is first the need to distinguish a rejection o f traditional p o l y t h e i s m f r o m denial o f the w h o l e idea o f d i v i n i t y . 6 . . and thirdly the t e n d e n c y to use a c h a r g e o f atheism as a w e a p o n against a n y p u b l i c D. s e c o n d l y the fragmentary and s o m e t i m e s u n t r u s t w o r t h y character o f our authorities for this p e r i o d . 1967) also thinks Nestle's suggestion neither demon­ strable nor probable. Hermes. 23. 278—82. 1967. above and m y In the Beginning. X L V . R. 1 8 4 ^ 4 3 235 . removes the objection to regarding the Platonic passage as genuinely Protagorean. partly because it does not fit his o w n conviction that ττ. ό άνθρωπος θείας μετέσχε μοίρας κτλ. 78. p. ERE. N o t o n l y w a s this an integral part o f the life o f the polis. that civilized social and political c o m m u n i t y o f w h o s e v a l u e . Halbb. W. For σύγγραμμα applied to part of a w o r k see Untersteiner. 9 . in a b r i e f article w h o s e main merit is t o demonstrate the difficulty o f establishing b e y o n d d o u b t that a n y G r e e k thinker w a s an atheist in the full s e n s e . b u t ' t h e r e is n o t h i n g against s u p p o s i n g ' (to a d o p t a phrase from the latest c o m m e n t a t o r ) that it upheld r e l i g i o u s w o r s h i p and cult a c c o r d i n g t o the ancestral nomoi. p . Muller. of the opening w o r d s . is a mythical reversal of the ' h o m o m e n s u r a ' d i c t u m : man's ' k i n s h i p w i t h the g o d s ' means. W . p. n. S. C . and I 4 i f . T h e ' t i t l e ' of a prose w o r k at this rime often consisted. I doubt if it is necessary for that purpose (cf. CRITIAS. 1. ( C f . 38.63 (without title).) ' N i c h t s spricht g e g e n die V e r m u t u n g ' .D. fr. Pearson. θεων w a s part of the Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ι (in which he follows H. but his own is of course.E.Agnosticism of Protagoras called ' O n the G o d s ' . 3 . 1 3 1 ) . 4. N. nn. 47) criticizes Nestle's. Sof.

see vol. 1 7 8 . 1 2 7 a. 4 1 ο . Perusal of the different a r g u m e n t s and conclusions of J a c o b y and W o o d b u r y will tell a reader all he needs to k n o w about Diagoras-problems. D i a g o r a s in particular n e v e r appears w i t h o u t h a v i n g ' the atheist' t a c k e d o n to his n a m e . For Hippon. 2 . T h e b o o k .η. as o u t . w h o later b e c a m e c o n v i n c e d o f the non-existence o f g o d s b y the spectacle o f successful and u n p u n i s h e d w r o n g d o i n g . or one called Φρύγιοι λόγο» ( w h i c h m a y be the same). 3 8 A 8 ) . VM^uL. that is. Besides his unbelief. A s the case o f Socrates s h o w s . . 3 5 4 f f . Phoenix. but beyond the meagre w o r d s of the Suda we have no clue as to its contents. Schule des Ar. of the Academic C l i t o machus (second century B . 1 9 6 5 . (Aet. ι. where h e carefully distinguishes t h e m f r o m those w h o h o l d ( a ) that g o d s exist b u t h a v e n o interest in h u m a n c o n d u c t . (He is omitted from D K .. Dox. ) For modern literature see ibid. is more significant than the fact that Aristoxenus wished to athetize it. His book w a s already k n o w n to Aristoxenus in the fourth century (ap. 5 1 . the o n l y other fact r e c o r d e d a b o u t h i m b y c o n ­ temporaries is that he w a s c o n v i c t e d o n a c h a r g e o f i m p i e t y b y the T h e y φασι μή είναι θεού. vol. (Abh. which.H. ibid. T h a t s u c h atheists (' c o m p l e t e disbelievers in the existence o f the g o d s ' . 2 1 8 ) and w i t h D i a g o r a s in Plutarch.o u t atheists seem n e v e r to h a v e b e e n b r o u g h t to trial. N. Y e t .ϊ) or ' o m n i n o deos esse n e g a b a n t ' ( C i c . is mentioned in a number of late sources. A l l the sources of information on D i a g o r a s are printed in full b y J a c o b y . 4 2 . i i 7 f . the theory of Critias. w h o appears by name in Sextus's list (P. C i c . cit. T h e Suda ( J a c o b y .f e a r i n g d i t h y r a m b i c p o e t . Diagoras ό άθεο. Bert. 5 8 f . 2 1 1 2 236 . i f he defended his atheism b y a n y p h i l o s o p h i c a l a r g u m e n t s . k n o w n as άθεο. Alex. 1 . 908b) w e r e c o m m o n b y P l a t o ' s time is certain from his m e n t i o n s o f them in the Laws. 5 ) m a k e s him out to h a v e been a φυσικά. 1 . Critias and ( o f a later date) E u h e m e r u s o f T e g e a and T h e o d o r u s o f C y r e n e . ) . 2 0 7 ) . W e h r l i . I I . 1 1 8 adds. and that i n late sources.5 . describing his abandonment of religious belief.a n d . 5 = Aristoxenus fr. J e r o m e (see W o o d b u r y . and c o n v e r s e l y o n e o r t w o o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w h o m later antiquity r e g a r d e d . t h o u g h without naming him. 1 9 5 9 ) . p. t h o u g h its nature is v a r i o u s l y r e p o r t e d . 5 ) calls h i m a philosopher (as well as a lyric poet) and says that he wrote a b o o k .8 . is m o r a l : he is said t o h a v e b e g u n as a g o d . w i t h a following. w e m u s t b e careful a b o u t a c c e p t i n g such an i m p u t a t i o n at its face v a l u e . (b) that t h e y can b e b o u g h t off b y offerings. Math. pace W o o d ­ b u r y (p.D. J a c o b y . (DK. ) see Diels. X. See also Sext. and occurring in the list of C l e m . λ ό γ ο ι . On the origin of the list in the ιτερί άθεάτητο. n. and Nestle. T h e o n l y reason alleged for it. w i t h the unintelligible title of Άττοττυργί^οντε. Philodemus. P r o d i c u s o f C e o s . w i t h s o m e reason. 3 . those w h o denied o u t r i g h t the existence o f the g o d s . n. 31 f. 3 .Rationalist Theories of Religion figure w h o m o n o t h e r g r o u n d s it w a s desired t o discredit. 1 7 1 c. n. in this case a specific injury d o n e to himself. De superst. C . and W o o d b u r y . w e k n o w n o t h i n g at all o f w h a t t h e y w e r e . p . It i n c l u d e d D i a g o r a s o f M e l o s . p. 1 7 8 . 9 . 1 9 8 ) . op. In later writers w e find a k i n d o f s t o c k list o f atheists.

cit. e . an atheism radical. and J a c o b y ' s attempt to make D i a g o r a s a victim of the decree of Diopeithes in 433/2 has been countered b y W o o d b u r y in his Phoenix article. ) does n o t specify the c h a r g e . w h e n nerves w e r e taut and the c i t y p r o n e t o take instant alarm at a n y t h i n g w h i c h m i g h t offend the g o d s o r b e o f evil o m e n . because the point w a s demonstrated. and usually (as in the same sen­ tence of the Apology) νομ<3ειν and νομί^ειν είναι are used interchangeably. Laws 885c. or cite once again examples like Hdt.a n d . it is to be hoped finally. 4 . T h i s g o e s b a c k t o his c o n t e m p o r a r y A r i s t o p h a n e s . 2 1 Since n o t h i n g is k n o w n o f D i a g o r a s ' s m i n d save the fact o f his dis­ b e l i e f in the g o d s . T h e e v i d e n c e o f A r i s t o p h a n e s s u g g e s t s that his trial t o o k place a b o u t the same time. W o o d b u r y (op. to the g o d s ' (as at Aesch. for w h o m (and for his audience) Socrates c o u l d b e i m m e d i a t e l y branded as an atheist b y calling h i m ' Socrates the M e l i a n ' . T h i s is n o t the same as a c h a r g e o f intellectual atheism. 4 9 7 . 4) w i t h the w o r d s TTJSE θήμέρα έτταναγορεύεται. or custom­ ary worship. and the Birds w a s produced in 414. Pers. N o r can W o o d b u r y ' s argument from the u s e of νομΐ3ειν be allowed. There i s no need to g o into this.8 . Later writers say that he insulted the g o d s b y m o c k i n g and d i v u l g i n g the Eleusinian mysteries. 5 9 . does not ' s h o w the transition from one meaning to the other'. M o r e interesting are those w h o are k n o w n t o h a v e h e l d a * A t Birds 10711".o u t atheism c a n n o t b e d o u b t e d . but this is not so. s h o r t l y before the l a u n c h i n g o f the Sicilian expedition. 193G and 1937. though even here the meaning ' b e l i e v e i n ' w o u l d be e q u a l l y appropriate). h e c a n n o t claim m u c h space in a h i s t o r y o f p h i l o ­ s o p h y . and p s e u d o L y s i a s (Andoc. A r i s t o p h a n e s {Birds i o y i f f . N e v e r t h e l e s s . and a price p u t o n his head in his absence from the c i t y . he s h o w s that άθεος already means ' n o t believing in the existence of the g o d s ' . It may occasionally be possible to translate ν ο μ φ ι ν θεούς as ' p a y respect. p . b u t puts h i m m o r e in line w i t h A l c i b i a d e s and his friends w h o parodied the mysteries. 208) contends that before the Hellenistic a g e ( i . at the time w h e n the label w a s first attached to D i a g o r a s ) άθεος d i d not mean ' a t h e i s t ' but only ' g o d l e s s ' or 'god-forsaken'. Plato. 1 or Plato.The Atheists: Diagoras A t h e n i a n s . Apol. t h o u g h it m a y h a v e b e e n s o m e such irreverent frivolity that led t o his actual p r o s e c u t i o n . like the vortex of the atomists and others. 2 2 37 . Aristophanes introduces a quotation from the actual decree outlawing D i a g o r a s (which is k n o w n also from other sources: see Jacoby. b u t never of course with είναι. W h e n Socrates says καΐ αυτός ά ρ α νομίζω είναι θεούς καΐ ούκ είμΐ τ ό τταράτταν άθεος. T a t e in CR. T h e allusion would h a v e had little point if it w e r e not topical. b y J . 2 6 c . o r w i t h the u n k n o w n mutilators o f the H e r m a e . for g o d s . the fact o f his o u t . 17) says m e r e l y that h e ' c o m m i t t e d i m p i e t y against the rites and festivals in w o r d s ' . T h e ousting of Zeus b y D i n o s does not mean that Socrates is here accused of introducing δαιμόνια καινά. J a c o b y is right w h e n h e s a y s that all witnesses alike attribute t o h i m ' a repudiation p u r e and simple o f the w h o l e c o n c e p t o f g o d s . but that he agrees with those w h o were substituting natural ( α ν α γ κ α ί α ) forces. I do not see that a n y other evidence can stand against this. extreme and u n c o m p r o m i s i n g ' .

is offered as a n alternative to P r o d i c u s ) a n d m o r e a Sophist. D e m o c r i t u s s a w it. a n d t h a t t h i n g s u s e f u l and salutary w e r e themselves called b y the names o f g o d s . ' Stoic and pupil of Zeno. poraries. n o t fear. D . ' (β) [break in papyrus] Sof. 1. 1 5 . 238 . c. N. i n fear o f t h e m o r e v i o l e n t f e s t a t i o n s o f n a t u r e ( v o l . D i o n y s u s and the .37. ' ( T h i s is r e p e a t e d i n s l i g h t l y different w o r d s i n c h a p t e r wine 52.18: ' P r o d i c u s o f C e o s says. like m a n y o f his mani­ contem­ cos­ in the origins o f things. 22): ' P r o d i c u s s a y s t h a t t h o s e w e r e a c c e p t e d as g o d s w h o i n t h e i r journeyings discovered n e w crops and so contributed to human welfare. o n t h e g r o u n d s (a) t h a t t h e a n c i e n t s c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n s o s t u p i d as t o a s c r i b e d i v i n i t y t o t h i n g s t h e y s a w p e r i s h i n g o r e v e n ate a n d d e s t r o y e d t h e m s e l v e s . π . o f divine w h e n in his b o o k o n the g o d s he declares n o t i m p r o b a b l e first P r o d i c u s w r o t e . T h i s included cosmogony o f the birds in Aristophanes. 354. s p r i n g s . w a s o f s e r v i c e . a n d after t h e m t h e d i s ­ c o v e r e r s o f f o o d s a n d s h e l t e r a n d t h e o t h e r p r a c t i c a l arts s u c h as D e m e t e r . ) . 478). ' (e) Sext.Rationalist Theories of Religion particular t h e o r y o f the natural and h u m a n origin o f the belief in g o d s . . h e s a w the o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f in g r a t i t u d e . ticularly.C.D. and Nestle. and all in Untersteiner. o m i t t e d b y D K b u t g i v e n in U n t e r s t e i n e r .' ( c ) C i c e r o . 39-41 c r i t i c i z e s ' t h o s e w h o s a y t h a t t h e w h o s a y t h e r e is n o g o d ' . n . c. 192. 9. a n d in g e n e r a l all t h e t h i n g s t h a t assist o u r life. 306-243 B.. fire H e p h a e s t u s . 51 i n c l u d e s P r o d i c u s i n a list o f a t h e i s t s ' (g) Ibid. r i v e r s a n d l a k e s a n d t h e l i k e ' . e d . 11. 5). " T h e ancients considered as g o d s t h e s u n a n d m o o n . ancients supposed that all t h e t h i n g s w h i c h b e n e f i t life are g o d s — s u n a n d m o o n .2 ( t e x t VM^uL. w h o said t h a t t h i n g s u s e f u l t o h u m a n life w e r e a c c o u n t e d g o d s ? ' (d) Ibid. 75: s h o w s himself destructive. W e h a v e the following reports: 1 (d) P h i l o d e m u s ( E p i c u r e a n o f first c e n t u r y B. . o n a c c o u n t o f t h e h e l p t h e y g i v e . Minucius Felix (second to third century A . a n d s o o n w i t h e v e r y t h i n g t h a t (/*) Ibid. Sof. " H e adds that for this reason bread w a s called D e m e t e r . 1 9 1 S . w a t e r P o s e i d o n . a n d (b) t h a t o n t h i s a r g u m e n t o n e o u g h t a l s o t o b e l i e v e 1 S o m e of the passages are in DK (Prodicus fr. 11. n a m e l y that the t h i n g s that nourish and benefit us w e r e the t o b e c o n s i d e r e d g o d s a n d h o n o u r e d as s u c h . anthropology. w a s interested mogony (for the comic P r o d i c u s . or utterly ignorant. Unlike as befitted Democritus. r i v e r s .118: ' W h a t sort o f religion did Prodicus o f C e o s says that those w e r e considered g o d s w h o had l e a v e u s . j u s t as t h e E g y p t i a n s d e i f y the N i l e . 3 8 : ' P e r s a e u s d i s c o v e r e d w h a t w a s e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l f o r c i v i l i z e d life. Math. par­ Birds 684 ff. Gomperz the what p .) D i o n y s u s . 9. Octavius 21. p a r t l y at least.C.) 'Persaeus 2 De piet.

w h o derived all religious practices. έγγενέσθαι. VM^uL. A s will appear. the s u p p o s e d discoverers o f the amenities and arts w h i c h raised m a n k i n d from the beasts to civilization. T h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g about the latter is n o t that he attributes the t h e o r y t o Persaeus (for w e k n o w f r o m P h i l o d e m u s that Persaeus accepted it) b u t that he puts b o t h h a l v e s t o g e t h e r as parts o f one and the same t h e o r y . T h e former n o t o n l y c o n f o r m s better t o the run o f the s e n t e n c e b u t also a c c o r d s w i t h M i n u c i u s F e l i x (passage b) and C i c e r o (</). 1 4 . temples.. I hesitate t o a d o p t Untersteiner's s o l u t i o n o f this difficulty. rather like s o m e in the nineteenth century. 1 2 T h e s e passages. It has b e e n disputed w h e t h e r the second h a l f o f the statement. for all these w o r k for us and improve our lot. 3 5 2 . D . θεών ίννοιαν i s probably right. the authors o f w h i c h range in date from 400 at o u r disposal for reconstructing the t h o u g h t s o f a to 800 years after P r o d i c u s . In the last phrase.s t a g e t h e o r y o f religion. about agri­ culture not only providing the means o f subsistence but being the mother of all civilized life. 62 with n. Diels. See Nestle. and even animals and inanimate utensils. exemplify the w r e t c h e d l y inadequate material fifth-century Sophist. 4 2 2 Dindorf) of ' the wisdom o f Prodicus. ridicules the idea that beneficial objects o r p r o ­ ducts w e r e e v e r deified o n the g r o u n d s ( a m o n g others) that it w o u l d b e as reasonable t o b e l i e v e in the deification o f m e n . B u t w e m u s t d o o u r best. peace. 9 . n. 2 above. n a m e l y that the ' d i s Paneg. ) is an encomium o f husbandry containing the kind of exaggerated claims that had been commonplace at least since the days o f Isocrates. or Sof. should b e credited t o P r o d i c u s o r o n l y t o Persaeus. P h i l o d e m u s presents a t h e o r y . are gods. 3 5 4 . (k) T h e thirtieth oration o f Themistius (fourth century A . n. Nestle. I I . cities. See p. Untersteiner prints the w i d e l y different conjecture of Kalbfleisch. and so the t w o . In the course of this he speaks (p. especially philosophers. supposed a lacuna after άσέβειαν. 28. justice. Sextus. it is true (passage g). though since it is a correction b y D i e l s of ευνοιαν (which Dindorf printed) it is misleading of DK and Untersteiner to adopt it w i t h no comment. mysteries and initiations from the benefits o f agriculture. VM^uL. the begetter o f laws.Prodicus on the Origin of Religion that men. 2 2 1 . 191 f. ' See Untersteiner. believing that the very notion o f gods came to men from this source and making it the guarantee of piety'. a point of some substance could depend on this. καΐ ττασαν εΰσέβειαν Ιγγνώμενος. o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f religion from the cult o f inanimate objects t o the deification o f c u l t u r e heroes. Sophs. 2 1 3 239 . philosophy and much else. followed b y Untersteiner.

H e w o u l d k n o w .426). w e r e worshipped as g o d s . f r o m that o f E u h e m e r u s w h o b e l i e v e d i n the deification o f ' m e n o f p o w e r ' . 2 This however lands u s i n a further difficulty. 3 8 . H i s n. 210 and p . It m u s t b e said then that the e v i d e n c e o f Sextus is d e c i s i v e l y against a ' E u h e m e r i s t i c ' t h e o r y f o r P r o d i c u s . and I cannot reconcile p. / / . 1 . 2 1 1 and 222. 59f. T h e theory of t w o stages of religious development is claimed for Prodicus b y Nestle (VM^uL. 1 5 .). 1 O n the other h a n d . for there a r e traces of it in Herodotus. 1 7 . i n g C i c . 5 1 . 3J4f. 1 1 8 ) .) H e must also h a v e k n o w n that even man-made σκεύη.D. m o o n a n d rivers were g o d s . that the theory w a s older and w e n t back to Prodicus's time. because in chapters 51 a n d 52 P r o d i c u s ' s t h e o r y is n o t o n l y described (repeating chapter 18) as a t h e o r y o f the deification o f s u n . for i n h i s literature from H o m e r o n w a r d s h e w o u l d find the n a m e o f the appropriate g o d used for the substance itself. f o r Sextus w a s w e l l a w a r e o f the b e l i e f that g o d s w e r e deified m e n . 7 ) and Versenyi (Socr. 222 f. of Sophs. 353f. N. springs. None of these takes into account the w a y in w h i c h Sextus contrasts the theory. n. like the hearth (Hestia). 2 1 1 ) ? H i s l a n g u a g e here does not suggest that he thinks they w e r e p u r e l y mythical for Prodicus. T a k i n g all things into a c c o u n t ( i n c l u d ­ 1 . VMiuL. 34 (without n a m e ) .). 2. If the discoverers w e r e not o r i g i n a l l y men. H e speaks o f the t h e o r y o f E u h e m e r u s m o r e than o n c e . it m u s t at least b e a g r e e d that the feature o f P r o d i c u s ' s t h e o r y w h i c h m a d e the greatest i m p r e s s i o n w a s that t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n l a y i n the t e n d e n c y o f p r i m i t i v e m a n t o regard t h i n g s useful t o his l i f e — i n c l u d i n g s u n . 9 . too. ( S e e Nesde. h e is c a s t i n g his criticism in general f o r m . a n d t o a lesser extent that o f C i c e r o . a n d a l t h o u g h the u n e x p r e s s e d c o n c l u s i o n o f his a r g u m e n t m i g h t seem m o s t naturally t o b e ' a n d n o b o d y b e l i e v e s t h a t ' . a n d the s u n . Sophs. w i t h that of Euhemerus. 11. rivers. at least h e t o o k h i m i n this sense). m o o n a n d rivers as w e l l as b r e a d a n d w i n e — a s g o d s . I find v e r y obscure. 1 3 1 240 . 27 on p p . w h o m others follow including Untersteiner {Sof. a n d o t h e r beneficial o b j e c t s . t h o u g h that o f P h i l o d e m u s a n d M i n u c i u s F e l i x is i n f a v o u r o f it ( i f M i n u c i u s w a s o n l y paraphrasing P h i l o d e m u s . N. this is i m p o s s i b l e .Rationalist Theories oj Religion c o v e r e r s ' w h o m P r o d i c u s s u p p o s e d to h a v e b e e n deified w e r e n e v e r in fact m e n . as H e p h a e s t u s f o r fire (' T h e y spitted the entrails a n d held t h e m o v e r H e p h a e s t u s ' . 223 at all. because I a m n o t c o n v i n c e d that it is r i g h t o r e v e n that I understand it c o r r e c t l y . 3 T h i s t h e o r y w o u l d c o m e easily t o the m i n d o f a rationalizing G r e e k . Hum. w h a t were they before t h e y ' w e r e received a m o n g the g o d s ' ( p . b u t expressly distinguished. as that of the deification of useful objects. m o o n . Math. e v e n i f Sextus h a d P r o d i c u s chiefly i n m i n d . 92. 3 7 . as a different f o r m o f atheism.D.

(See Untersteiner. as the d i s c o v e r e r o f w i n e and the w i n e itself. one sentence to each. T h e perfect forms of γ ί γ ν ο μ α ι mean rather ' t o b e ' . Trach. haer. 2 1 (Dox. w h o discovered the flowing liquor o f the grape .) T h e y m a y be right. 2 2 1 . n. the Indian parallel in Dodds. In the pious p r o p h e t T i r e s i a s he w o u l d see a perfect e x a m p l e (and. Sof. He. as w e l l as the sun and m o o n . w i t h n o sense o f i n c o n g r u i t y . is the k e y to P r o d i c u s ' s doctrine. o r alternatively the b e i n g s w h o d i s c o v e r e d a n d p r o ­ v i d e d them. not in D K ) .g i v i n g o r life-enhancing things as g o d s . Nestle VM^uL. W a s P r o d i c u s an a t h e i s t ? 1 3 C e r t a i n l y all antiquity t h o u g h t so. and. Tiresias tells h i m that two things are primary in human life: first. 9). 11. ioof. the g o d o f w i n e . as w e l l as water. was a great goddess b y that name too].' In t r y i n g to reconstruct Prodicus's outlook on religion and human life. since Euripides is sure t o h a v e k n o w n his teaching.Prodicus on the Origin of Religion ' M y suitor w a s a r i v e r ' . and commits some glaring blunders. w a s to m a k e a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y unreal distinction. Bacch. E m p e d o c l e s g a v e the names o f g o d s t o the four elements. he t o o s a w an e x a m p l e ) o f the mentality o u t o f w h i c h r e l i g i o n a r o s e : to ask w h e t h e r m e n i m a g i n e d their f o o d . 194. . but the o n l y 3 241 . being a g o d . T h e Christian writer i s running hastily through all the philosophers. Hephaestus fire and the g i v e r o f fire. w h o quotes Sir Charles Eliot on V e d i c h y m n s addressed to S o m a : ' I t i s hard to say whether they are addressed to a person or a beverage. the earth. I have thought it best not to follow scholars like Cataudella and Untersteiner in using the Birds of Aristophanes as a source. H e r e . but call her b y which name y o u like [and o f course G e . 33. he c o u l d take a n y f o r m he w i s h e d — a b u l l . therefore. She gives men all nourishment that is o f a dry nature. * T h e r e i s no need to translate the perfect participle yeyebs as ' w h e n he had b e c o m e ' ( ' z u m Gott g e w o r d e n ' . 1 A remarkable passage in the Bacckae (274 ff. . and 223. is poured out to the g o d s . b e i n g a g o d . 591 and Untersteiner. For the g o d w h o is w i n e cf. 2 Here D i o n y s u s . T o o much attention should not b e paid to this. A t t e m p t i n g to soften the i m p i o u s hostility o f P e n t h e u s to D i o n y s u s . D i o n y s u s w a s at the same time w i n e and the g i v e r o f w i n e . 354) and so see two chronological stages. ' because the life o f e v e r y t h i n g d e p e n d s o n t h e m ' . Epiph..) s h o w s h o w easily the G r e e k m i n d c o u l d slip from the idea o f a substance as e m b o d y i n g a l i v i n g g o d to that o f the g o d as its i n v e n t o r or discoverer. T o balance this came Semele's son. d r i n k and other l i f e . is described at the same time. and (for w h a t it is w o r t h ) E p i p h a n i u s says that P r o d i c u s called t h e m g o d s . a serpent or a m a n . n. 3. in all p r o b a b i l i t y . says Deianeira quite naturally ( S o p h . the goddess Demeter—she is Earth. Sophs. 3 . Adv.

It is true that a modern Christian can accept such an origin 1 242 . a l o n g w i t h settled c o n d i t i o n s . Hum. is not tantamount to s a y i n g that religion has no legitimate b a s i s ' . T h e relevant passages in Sextus. 1 1 ) I quoted the case of Frederic Harrison. and then says that the reason w h y it can b e p u t in the m o u t h o f a p i o u s and b e l i e v i n g character is that P r o d i c u s ' s doctrine w a s n o t in fact atheistic. o f w h i c h D o d d s quotes o n e . 60 f. the b e l i e f already current that n o t o n l y o u r f o o d b u t all the benefits o f a settled and civilized life are o w e d to this source. as the passage f r o m T h e m i s t i u s s h o w s . the rule o f l a w and the a d v a n c e m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e . 239. but insisted on the human necessity of w o r s h i p ' . a b o v e ) . 1 certain inference from the mention of Prodicus at v. t h e o r y o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t ( p p . 60) points out that ' g i v i n g a psychological foundation to r e l i g i o n . 142. I h a v e already offered a different e x p l a n a t i o n : t o b e l i e v e that w i n e and bread are g o d s is o f c o u r s e n o t atheistic. n. n o t a ' d e g e n e r a t i o n ' . the b u i l d i n g o f cities. T o P r o d i c u s h i m s e l f t h e y w e r e just w i n e and b r e a d . and. he t h o u g h t o f religion. and the claim that the v e r y c o n ­ ception o f g o d s resulted from the practice o f agriculture d o e s n o t s o u n d as i f it came from a b e l i e v e r in t h e m . and s e c o n d l y the n u m b e r and v a r i e t y o f religious cults that in fact o w e their existence to the fertility o f the soil. P r o d i c u s . Versenyi (Socr. first. T h i s w a s entirely natural and reasonable w h e n one considers. D o d d s translates the last w o r d s o f the T h e m i s t i u s passage (h) as a claim that P r o d i c u s had 'put p i e t y o n a s o u n d f o u n d a t i o n ' . In this t h e o r y . 692 is that h e produced a c o s m o g o n y of some sort. and w r o t e o n c o s m o g o n y . T o h o l d these v i e w s it is n o t necessary t o b e l i e v e in the existence o f g o d s as the objects o f worship independently o f men's conception o f them. . as o n e o f the fruits o f civilization and essential t o its preservation. it need n o t m e a n that. w i t h a t h e o r y a b o u t the p u r e l y h u m a n o r i g i n o f b e l i e f in g o d s w h i c h w o u l d n o t h a v e disgraced the n i n e ­ teenth c e n t u r y . it is precisely the b e l i e f w h i c h P r o d i c u s said ' t h e a n c i e n t s ' had and from w h i c h r e l i g i o n arose. P r o d i c u s m a y b e justly hailed as one o f the earliest a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s . are offered as explanations o f his atheism.Rationalist Theories of Religion Dodds (ad loci) identifies Tiresias's speech w i t h the doctrine o f P r o d i ­ cus. n. but e v e n i f the v e r b is n o t c o r r u p t (see p . e v i d e n t l y subscribed t o a ' p r o g r e s s ' . a b o v e ) . 2. as w a s to b e expected o f o n e w h o w a s b o t h Sophist and natural p h i l o s o p h e r . w h o ' r e g a r d e d all religions as false. perhaps the v e r y latest. like P r o t a g o r a s . It m a y e q u a l l y be true that his name is simply being used to stand for a n y ικτεωροσοφιστής (Clouds 360): the birds can do better than a n y of these. . In m y In the Beginning (p. he laid especial stress o n the evidential v a l u e o f agricultural practices.

like Dodds and Versenyi. bearer o f a divine nature. pp. ) thought that in a n y case no Athenian archon w o u l d have allowed the p l a y to be performed. con­ cealing the truth with lying words. 773) is tempting. For the opposite one see Drachmann. I believe that a man of shrewd and subtle mind invented for men the fear o f the gods. 743 f. 1 1 3 4 2 . 2 1 8 . spoke or thought in secret. so that there might be something to frighten the wicked even if they acted. If y o u are silently plotting evil.) See below. El. 82 a b o v e ) . 3 . From this motive he introduced the conception o f divinity. n. w h o attributes it to Critias. 2.k n o w n punishment b y the end o f the p l a y . 3. He will hear everything spoken among men and can see everything that is done. a spirit enjoying endless life. S o m e ancient authorities g a v e Euripides as the author. 5 4 ) . On this. 4 3 f . in mind (quoted on p. hearing and seeing with his mind. it will not be hidden from the gods. 9 . 5 4 ) and Plutarch (De superst. y e t he shared the intellectual o u t l o o k w h i c h c a m e to be k n o w n as sophistic.H.3 It starts w i t h a b r i e f account. i 8 o f . It continues (fr. n. this is a fairly o b v i o u s d e v i c e o f the author's for p r o m u l g a t i n g an atheistic v i e w w i t h o u t g i v i n g t o o m u c h offence. (Drachmann (Atheism. whence. thought Prodicus believed in—indeed ' t o o k for g r a n t e d ' — t h e existence of g o d s . 1 he depicted religious b e l i e f as a deliberate i m p o s t u r e b y g o v e r n m e n t to ensure an ultimate and universal sanction for the g o o d b e h a v i o u r o f its subjects. 1 7 1 c ) . 45f. and Critias must have intended it o n l y for reading. T h o u g h he does not say so. Atheism. exceedingly wise and all-observing. he said. On the authorship see ZN. but this seems to m e to represent a stage of thought w e l l ahead of the pioneers of rationalism. 4 for human belief in God without abandoning his conviction of its truth. In his p l a y Sisyphus 7. two v i e w s are possible. ) . T h i s w e k n o w from other sources t o h a v e b e e n a seriously held current v i e w . and did not connect the question of their existence w i t h that of the origin of the conception of them. Math. 9 . Schmid (Gesch. W i t h this story he presented the most seductive o f teachings.Critias: Religion as a Political Device C r i t i a s w a s a w e a l t h y aristocrat w h o w o u l d h a v e disdained t o b e a professional Sophist. of course. w h i c h has already been quoted ( p . as he knew. punishment and justice. 2 5 . fears come to mortals and help for their wretched lives. O u r sole source for the extract is Sextus (Math. and Nauck's suggestion of κέρδισ-τον (TGF . ) : T h e n when the laws prevented men from open deeds o f violence. Nauck doubtless had Eur. 244.. b e l o w ) . the n o t o r i o u s sinner w h o n o d o u b t received his w e l l . For a dwelling he gave them the place whose mention would most powerfully strike the hearts o f men. that is. 1407. w h i c h goes against Sextus (P. so clever are they. o f the p r o g r e s s o f h u m a n life from lawless brutality to the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f l a w s . 2o8ff. but they continued to commit them in secret. There is. o f f . ήδιστον is strange in this context of fear. A l t h o u g h the speech is p u t into the m o u t h o f S i s y p h u s himself.

t h o u g h to say 'fear is c o n d u c i v e to w o r s h i p o f the g o d s ' is n o t the same as s a y i n g that w o r s h i p based o n fear is c o n d u c i v e t o g o o d b e h a v i o u r and w a s invented t o that e n d . 419). El. s o it m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n as original as it w a s d a r i n g . w h i c h w a s elaborately d e v e l o p e d b y P o l y b i u s at R o m e and r e v i v e d in 2 3 eighteenth-century G e r m a n y . T h e r e is n o other m e n t i o n o f it at this time. surely. n o t the M S στείχει. o f mortal life. and so b y his story give the godhead a fair home in a fitting place. De mundo (395 b 23) μύδροι διάπνροι are the stones t h r o w n o u t b y v o l c a n o e s . T h i s seems t o m e s l i g h d y o u t w e i g h e d b y the difficulty o f taking δθεν w i t h b o t h rain and s u n : rain comes from the s k y . ( H e g i v e s n o note. διάπνρο. and to express disbelief in the more incredible o f the m y t h s (λέγεται. and i n g e n i o u s in the w a y in w h i c h it s u b s u m e s u n d e r a m o r e general t h e o r y the teaching o f b o t h D e m o c r i t u s and P r o d i c u s that b e l i e f in g o d s w a s a p r o d u c t o f either the fear o r the gratitude p r o d u c e d b y certain natural p h e n o m e n a . 1 T h i s is the first o c c u r r e n c e in h i s t o r y o f the t h e o r y o f religion as a political i n v e n t i o n t o ensure g o o d b e h a v i o u r . B u r y in the L o e b Sextus (against D K ) in taking λ α μ π ρ ό . E u r .) See H . w a s w r i t i n g after A n a x a g o r a s had called the sun μύδρο. I h a v e hesitantly followed R . and the liquid rain descends on the earth. τάν δέ π ί σ τ ι ν σμικραν π α ρ ' έμοιγ* έχει ν. It is h o w e v e r n o t the same as theories o f the exploitation b y politicians o f already existing religious beliefs. o n s o m e O r the sun ( D K . current in and after the Renaissance and culminating in Marxism. this w o u l d obviate the difficulty o f δθεν. 737) a s certainly n o t atheism. it is true. . It w a s the d e m a n d for a supernatural in the first place. A t the same time the t h e o r y reverses the increasing v o l u m e o f criticism w h i c h attacked the g o d s o n m o r a l g r o u n d s . S o . n. W i t h such fears did he surround man­ kind. o r deserved the name o f g o d s . φοβεροί δέ βροτοϊσι μϋθοι κέρδος π ρ ό . ( I f W e c k l e i n ' s στίλβει. did someone persuade men to believe that there exists a race o f gods. 28.) Critias. 743 f. I think. άστέρο. μύδρος to refer to meteors or meteorites. 2. insisting that i f t h e y existed. 416) that D i a g o r a s ' s atheism w a s based on the same theory as that o f Critias. t h e y o u g h t t o b e the guardians o f the a p p r o v e d m o r a l c o d e . is w h a t Critias w r o t e . w h i c h b r o u g h t the g o d s into b e i n g 144 . and the starry face and form o f heaven fair-wrought b y the cunning craftmanship o f time. T r e v e l y a n . w h i c h are identified w i t h it b y N e s t l e (VMzuL.. and after all it w a s p r o b a b l y the fall o f the meteorite at A e g o s p o t a m i that g a v e A n a x a g o r a s the idea that sun and stars m i g h t also b e μύδροι. whence too the burning meteor makes its w a y . and w a s indeed its source. first o f all. but not.A r . T h i s exhausts the list o f those k n o w n t o h a v e a r g u e d . the sun. θεών θεραττείαν m a y e c h o it. G . In p s e u d o . 3 w J 1 sanction for m o r a l b e h a v i o u r . and sun and rain make a natural pair as t w o o f the όνήσει. . Untersteiner). Popular Background to Goethe's Hellenism.Rationalist Theories of Religion the vault above. where he perceived the lightnings and the dread roars o f thunder. says C r i t i a s . T h e r e is absolutely no evidence for Nestle's contention {VMruL. and extinguished lawlessness b y his ordinances .

T h e orator L y s i a s named h i m w i t h three others as f o r m i n g a k i n d o f ' H e l l . S u c h irreligion m u s t h a v e b e e n c o m m o n a m o n g the intelli­ gentsia o f the time. W o o d b u r y i n Phoenix. 1 A l l this m a y h a v e little direct c o n n e x i o n w i t h the history o f p h i l o s o p h y . w h o deliberately c h o s e u n l u c k y o r forbidden d a y s o n w h i c h t o dine t o g e t h e r a n d m o c k the g o d s a n d the l a w s o f A t h e n s .f i r e c l u b ' o r b a n d o f Satanists ( ' K a k o d a e m o n i s t s ' as t h e y called themselves). Maas in RE. a n d w h i c h m o v e d h i m t o construct i n o p p o s i t i o n a philosophical t h e o l o g y based o n a t h e o r y o f the o r i g i n and g o v e r n m e n t o f the w h o l e u n i v e r s e a n d o f m a n ' s place w i t h i n it. A n t i p h o n indeed. on the evidence. exhibits precisely the attitude w h i c h o n Critias's t h e o r y prevailed before the g o d s w e r e i n v e n t e d . But it i s also possible to commit offences which m i g h t bring d o w n the wrath of the gods. 330). u n c o n v e n t i o n a l music. A t h . a b u t t o f the c o m i c poets o f the time o n m a n y c o u n t s — his inflated verse. for o f H i p p o n ' s atheism w e k n o w n o m o r e than o f D i a g o r a s ( v o l . Medieval Satanists no doubt believed themselves to be g i v i n g allegiance to one of t w o opposed. held a n y sort o f religious beliefs. 2 1 0 . X I . B u t it is h a r d t o b e l i e v e that the immoralist u p h o l d e r s o f physis against nomos. I I .' T h i s can be so. where the scholiast s a y s Cinesias was the perpetrator. F o r the κ α κ ο δ α ι μ ο ν ι σ τ α ΐ see L y s i a s ap. that g o d s exist b u t h a v e n o interest i n h u m a n k i n d . W o o d b u r y (p. A n o t h e r instance was Cinesias. cf. 5 5 1 ε . i88f. if they existed. T h e profanation o f the mysteries a n d the m u t i l a ­ t i o n o f the H e r m a e w e r e n o t the w o r k o f believers. and Irrat. is more likely to be the explanation of the antics of Cinesias and h i s dining club. 199) makes the interesting point that such offences of sacrilege and blasphemy 'presuppose the authority of something holy. w i t h his a d v i c e t o heed nomos before witnesses. 1 9 6 5 . 4 7 9 . 355).Immoralism and Sacrilege k i n d o f theoretical g r o u n d . like Callicles and A n t i p h o n ( o r those w h o s e v i e w s he depicts). b u t disregard it w h e n u n o b s e r v e d . b u t t o g e t h e r w i t h the rationalism o f natural philosophers a n d Sophists it contributed t o the atmosphere i n w h i c h Plato g r e w u p . D o d d s . that the g o d s w e r e fictions o f the h u m a n m i n d . b u t it is u n l i k e l y that t h e y t h o u g h t there w a s m u c h difference b e t w e e n g o d s that w e r e t o t a l l y ineffective and n o g o d s at all. Eccl. A black mass implies the authority and validity of the sacrament. t h e y c o u l d h a v e subscribed t o Plato's s e c o n d t y p e o f error. Gks. F o r further information about them. 1 145 . and of die perpetrators of other outrages against religion at Athens. p h y s i c a l emaciation. A t the m o s t . H e w a s also said t o h a v e defiled a statue o f Hecate.8 1 . 1 2 . T h e defilement of the statue i s mentioned b y Aristophanes in the Frogs (366. powers. an exploit parallel t o that o f the mutilation o f the H e r m a e . a n d i m p i e t y o r ' a t h e i s m ' . T h i s . and equally real.. simply to demonstrate one's confidence that they do not.

and. h o l d i n g t h e same o p i n i o n s b u t w i t h t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f b e i n g a g i f t e d m a n . fr. T h e flames o f sacrifice. the saying became proverbial. 1 . H e admits that atheism d o e s not necessarily lead to i m m o r a l c o n d u c t . Div. he had a r r a i g n e d the p s e u d o . B u t this is n o t an attack o n the g o d s . vv. distinguishes t w o t y p e s o f atheist. b u t t h e o t h e r . B u t t h e r e are o t h e r s w h o i n a d d i t i o n t o their b e l i e f that t h e r e are n o g o d s a n y w h e r e are c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a lack o f self-control in pleasures and pains. Pyth. According to a late source Antiphon made a similar remark. and full o f l i e s ' . generals. 973 at Def. a n d b y r i d i c u l i n g o t h e r s m a y p e r h a p s m a k e s o m e c o n v e r t s i f h e is n o t r e s t r a i n e d b y p u n i s h m e n t . δ' ά ρ ι σ τ ο . G o o d sense and g o o d counsel are the best p r o p h e t s . and the cries o f birds. b u t t w o w h i c h d e s e r v e t h e attention o f the legislator. 1 (in DK. T h e relevant passage is Laws 908 b . c o m b i n e d w i t h a v i g o r o u s m e m o r y a n d k e e n i n t e l l e c t . or. (Gnomol. and the d e v i c e s o f those called s o p h i s t s . F r o m the messenger's speech in the Helena. A 9). A character in Euripides calls p r o p h e c y ' a t h i n g o f n a u g h t .e : T h o u g h a m a n m a y b e a c o m p l e t e u n b e l i e v e r in t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e g o d s . B o t h s o r t s h a v e in c o m m o n t h e m a l a d y o f a t h e i s m . that μαντική w a s ά ν θ ρ ω π ο υ φρονίμου είκασμό. Vindol. Earlier t o o . . contrivers o f private mysteries. h a v e n o t h i n g to teach us. 1 1 246 . demagogues. in the Republic (3640-6). μ ά ν τ ι . T h e attack on μαντική goes back to Xenophanes. 432 c ) . ό σ τ ι . ή τ ' ευβουλία cf. 21 A 52).p r i e s t s and phets w h o fleeced the gullible rich with spurious Orphic pro­ books p r o m i s i n g i m m u n i t y from d i v i n e p u n i s h m e n t t o all w h o w o u l d p a y for their rites and incantations. and r e c o g n i z e s a t y p e s o m e t h i n g like the ethical h u m a n i s t s o f o u r o w n d a y .Rationalist Theories of Religion It is o f interest that P l a t o . 5 . S o m e t i m e s a l s o it p r o d u c e s dictators. if he h a v e a naturally u p r i g h t character he w i l l detest evildoers. b u t t h e o t h e r s call f o r a d m o n i t i o n a n d c o n f i n e m e n t . b u t w i l l s h u n t h e u n r i g h t e o u s a n d b e d r a w n t o the g o o d . and o u t o f a r e p u g n a n c e to w i c k e d n e s s w i l l h a v e n o desire to c o m m i t w r o n g f u l acts. 744Ά W i t h 757 γ ν ώ μ η δ' ά ρ ι σ τ ο . T h e o n e w i l l n o d o u b t h a v e a v e r y free w a y o f s p e a k i n g a b o u t g o d s . DK. fr. T h i s is anecdote. 5 Aex. 3 . 1 . T h e r e are t h u s m a n y t y p e s o f atheist. c o m m o n l y r e g a r d e d as the m o s t b i g o t e d and ruthless o f theists. full o f craft a n d t r e a c h e r y — t h i s is t h e k i n d w h i c h b r e e d s y o u r d i v i n e r s a n d e x p e r t s i n all s o r t s o f q u a c k e r y . Or. T h e sins o f the h y p o c r i t e s deserve m o r e than o n e d e a t h o r e v e n t w o . In P l a t o ' s e y e s the first and greatest crime against religion is n o t o p e n atheism b u t the e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f superstitition. 973 μ ά ν τ ι . ε'ικά3ει κ α λ ώ . according to Plutarch. 399 a ( w h o also quotes Eur. o n e m u c h m o r e d a n g e r o u s than the other and d e s e r v i n g much more severe treatment. b u t in r e s p e c t o f i n j u r y t o o t h e r s t h e o n e d o e s far less h a r m t h a n t h e o t h e r . See C i c . s a c r i ­ fices a n d o a t h s . he thinks.

w a s breathed in a n d s o assimilated b y mortals. it More often ' t h e g o d ' . i n a h i g h e r o r l o w e r d e g r e e o f purity. b u t leave p r o p h e c y alone. w h o uses the e x p r e s ­ sion ' g o d ' 1 a n d ' t h e g o d s ' indifferently. for Greek regularly. and recently. but see especially vol. O n e form o f this belief w a s that the l i v i n g a n d d i v i n e aither. M a n y philosophers w e r e c o n v i n c e d o f the existence o f a single spirit o r intelligence in o r b e h i n d the universe. T h i s single g o d h e a d . In a climate o f t h o u g h t w h i c h s a w the p r o b l e m o f ' t h e o n e a n d the m a n y ' in these terms. a n d often i n the closest p r o x i m i t y . hardly t r o u b l e d the G r e e k s at all. c o u l d b e identi­ fied. i) 247 ο S P . especially the air o r aither. (4) MONOTHEISM: ANTISTHENES T o detect a n d isolate a n y expressions o f pure m o n o t h e i s m i n G r e e k w r i t i n g s is as difficult as t o p i n d o w n unadulterated atheism.C h r i s t i a n tradition. the flight o f birds. A n idea w h i c h came easily t o the G r e e k mind w a s that the d i v i n e spirit entered. 1 1 2 It lias occurred 1'requently. as w e h a v e seen i n m a n y authors.' N o r is P l a t o c o n d e m n i n g all p r o p h e c y alike.Plato s Two Types of Atheist for h e a d d s : ' L e t u s sacrifice t o the g o d s a n d p r a y f o r g o o d . into creatures o f a l o w e r o r d e r such as daimones. b u t t h e y w o u l d not necessarily d e n y that there w a s either practical v a l u e o r an element o f truth in the polytheistic beliefs a n d cults o f the cities a n d the o r d i n ­ ary m a n . c l a i m i n g t o tell the w i l l o f the g o d s from the appearance o f sacrifices. T h i s is manifest e v e n i n the w o r k s o f so p h i l o s o p h i c a l a t h e o l o g i a n as P l a t o . H e fully respected the D e l p h i c oracle. b u t the mantic art h a d its h i g h e r a n d l o w e r forms. uses the article. a n d there w a s a w h o l e tribe o f m e r c e n a r y d i v i n e r s . o r w r i t t e n collections o f f o r g e d oracles (such as are ridiculed b y A r i s t o p h a n e s in the Birds) w h o w e r e b r i n g i n g religion into c o n t e m p t . a doctrine shared b y religious m y s t i c s a n d p h y s i c a l p h i l o s o ­ phers from the time o f A n a x i m e n e s o r earlier. Plato g i v e s y e t further e v i d e n c e o f the need t o distinguish attempts t o purify religion from attacks o n religion itself. T h i s applies to the N e w Testament also. though not invariably. T h e question o f o n e g o d o r m a n y . which gives the word less of the character of a proper name than our ' G o d ' . s o central i n the J u d a e o . 128ff. I. in its less pure f o r m o f air. in these pages. w i t h a p h y s i c a l element. m e n o r e v e n animals. the m o u t h p i e c e o f A p o l l o himself. l i v i n g a n d intelligent.

It is that o f Socrates's disciple A n t i s t h e n e s . 134. i n the b o o k called Physicus. O n o n e point h o w e v e r the p h i l o s o p h e r s are a g r e e d : ' the d i v i n e ' itself is n o t a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c . b u t i n nature. the dative c o u l d b e either masculine o r neuter) a n d that for this 248 . c o u c h e d i n terms o f the current antithesis b e t w e e n nomos and physis. w h o s e t h e o r y o f the relation o f l a n g u a g e t o reality w e h a v e already examined. 1. N e v e r t h e l e s s i n the period o f the Sophists a n d Socrates w h i c h w e are n o w c o n s i d e r i n g there d o e s seem t o b e o n e unmistakable expression o f a m o n o t h e i s t i c v i e w .Rationalist Theories of Religion w a s n o t difficult for a p h i l o s o p h e r t o take the p o p u l a r g o d s u n d e r h i s w i n g b y s u p p o s i n g them t o b e g e n u i n e manifestations o f ' t h e d i v i n e ' ( τ ό θείον: the abstract expression is frequent) in different aspects. E m p e d o c l e s o n the other h a n d found r o o m f o r a n u m b e r a n d v a r i e t y o f g o d s i n his u n i q u e a m a l g a m o f p h y s i c a l science a n d r e l i g i o n ( v o l . b y s a y i n g that there are m a n y g o d s o f the p e o p l e . the g o d o f E m p e d o c l e s w h o is p u r e t h o u g h t a n d expressly denied all b o d i l y parts (fr. b u t his expression o f his o w n doctrine w a s e x t r e m e l y o u t s p o k e n a n d h i s p r o s e c u t i o n f o r i m p i e t y n o t surprising. there is o n e ' ( κ α τ ά δέ φύσιν έ ν α ) . the O n e g o d ' o f X e n o p h a n e s fr. 11. o r the original c o s m o p o e i c M i n d o f A n a x a g o r a s . 23 ( v o l . w h i c h t h o u g h m a d e u p f r o m G r e e k r o o t s w e r e alien t o the G r e e k s t h e m s e l v e s . e s p e c i ­ ally Heraclitus a n d X e n o p h a n e s w i t h their scathing attacks o n p o p u l a r beliefs a n d cults.f i r e o f Heraclitus. T h e Christian Lactantius adds that the o n e ' n a t u r a l ' g o d is the s u p r e m e artificer o f the w h o l e . N o s u c h attacks b y A n a x a g o r a s are r e c o r d e d . w h e t h e r it b e the L o g o s . S o m e o f these thinkers m i g h t b e classified. o r i n reality. 374) w h o is ' i n n o w a y like mortals either i n b o d y o r i n m i n d ' . S o P h i l o d e m u s the E p i c u r e a n reports. a n d as usual w e h a v e o n l y tantalizing little fragments o f indirect t e s t i m o n y . 256). a n d C i c e r o ' s E p i c u r e a n (all o u r other v e r s i o n s are i n Latin) puts it that ' A n t i s t h e n e s .). O n the w h o l e it is better t o a v o i d these labels. b u t o n l y o n e in nature (naturaliter unum). v o l . Said t o c o m e f r o m a w o r k o n N a t u r e . 257ff. d o e s a w a y w i t h the p o w e r o f the g o d s ' . i f w e w i s h e d . as m o n o t h e i s t s o r pantheists. a n d phrases it that h e alone exists a l t h o u g h nations and cities h a v e their o w n p o p u l a r g o d s . 11. Christian writers also q u o t e A n t i s t h e n e s as s a y i n g that the g o d is like n o other t h i n g ( o r p e r s o n . t h e y are t o the effect t h a t ' a c c o r d i n g t o nomos there are m a n y g o d s .

1 . inst. 1 . 7 1 .1 9 and De ira Dei 1 1 . T h e y are Philod. 1 2 T h e testimonies are collected b y Caizzi as frr. 39 A-E and 40 A-D. 7 5 . h o w e v e r . De piet.D.N. 3 5 . Div. 1 4 . P. Lact. Euseb. 1 . 1 0 8 . 1 3 . Felix 1 9 . Min.Monotheism reason n o one can learn o f h i m from an i m a g e . describes it cautiously as ' u n a fede monoteistica. Strom. Theodoret. the most recent scholar to make a special study of Antisthenes. 6 . 4 and Protr. then this is a r e m a r k a b l y early e x a m p l e in G r e e c e o f a pure m o n o t h e i s m . forse in g e r m e panteistica'. 1 . 1 3 . W i t h o u t this addition. 1 3 . cur. 5 .Cic. 1 4 . aff. 3 2 . C l e m . 249 9-2 . 7 . the emphasis o n the u n i t y o f G o d and the i m ­ possibility o f representing h i m b y a n y visible i m a g e is reminiscent o f X e n o p h a n e s and consistent w i t h a pantheistic. 1 8 . I f Lactantius is c o r r e c t in s a y i n g that for A n t i s t h e n e s the one g o d w a s the creator o f the w o r l d ( w h i c h in the absence o f better qualified witnesses cannot b e taken as certain). ' Caizzi. Grace. rather than a m o n o ­ theistic c r e d o . 5 . T h e contrast b e t w e e n the m a n y g o d s o f 1 nomos or p o p u l a r belief and the o n e real g o d is clear and emphatic.E. 7.

For other passages in Latin literature see S h o r e y in ΤΑΡΑ. the topic b e c a m e m o r e c o m m o n p l a c e still. c o u p l e d w i t h the qualities o f character native to a n y y o u n g m a n o f g o o d birth. 2 T h e o l d idea is typified b y T h e o g n i s in the sixth century. T o his I fear it is too late to kill off this u g l y and bastard term and replace it b y its legitimate halfbrother ' a x i o c r a c y ' . Odes 4 . . and b y association w i t h ' t h e right p e o p l e ' . o r natural aptitude or w h a t ? ' T h e u r g e n c y w i t h w h i c h this question w a s debated in the fifth c e n t u r y has b e e n m e n ­ tioned in an i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter (p. as a c o m m o n p l a c e o f the time. In general his article (Φύσι$. the question w h e t h e r it w a s a matter o f natural talent.m i n d e d p r o f o u n d l y shocking. Μελέτη. w h e r e the m e a n i n g o f arete w a s briefly outlined and it w a s s u g g e s t e d that it had p o w e r f u l social implications inclining a w r i t e r to a n s w e r in o n e sense o r another o n g r o u n d s n o t p u r e l y rational. 1909. o f course. 3 3 . instead o f b e i n g freely transmitted b y the precept and e x a m p l e o f family and friends. Socrates. w h o rather surprisingly does not mention this one. η . it w a s c a u g h t u p in the t h o u g h t o f Socrates and P l a t o . doctrina sed v i m promovet insitam'. T h e debate reflected the clash b e t w e e n older aristocratic ideals and the n e w classes w h i c h w e r e then rising t o p r o m i n e n c e u n d e r the democratic s y s t e m o f g o v e r n m e n t at A t h e n s and s e e k i n g t o establish w h a t w o u l d t o d a y b e called a m e r i t o c r a c y . w h o tried to a n s w e r it at a deeper l e v e l . 4 . w h e t h e r virtue can b e t a u g h t ? O r is it a matter o f practice. P h i l o s o p h i c a l l y . till w e g e t to H o r a c e ' s ' fortes creantur fortibus et b o n i s . . Έττιστήμη) should be consulted on this topic. w a s to the c o n s e r v a t i v e . 1 8 5 . Since the present s t u d y must be in part pre­ paration for m e e t i n g these t w o great figures w e m a y take a b r i e f l o o k at the k i n d o f answers offered in and before their time. is chiefly important because. o r c o u l d b e acquired b y either teaching o r assiduous practice. 25).χ CAN V I R T U E BE T A U G H T ? ' C a n y o u tell m e . 2 1 25Ο . A f t e r ­ w a r d s . 1 T h e claim o f Sophists that arete c o u l d b e imparted for fees b y travelling teachers. ι .

its c o n ­ n e x i o n w i t h social class b e c o m i n g m o r e t e n u o u s w i t h time. 7 1 a b o v e ) . o r physis and nomos. 2 and the c o n t e x t s in w h i c h he expresses it s h o w h o w the question w h e t h e r arete is teachable is a part o f the general antithesis b e t w e e n physis and art. but if y o u mingle with the bad y o u will lose what sense y o u have.' 1 3 1 25Γ . For an example of the antithesis in prose. Consort not with bad men. Drink. T h i s idea o f h a v i n g v i r t u e ' r u b off o n o n e ' t h r o u g h the right associa­ tions w a s still a c o m m o n p l a c e i n the fifth c e n t u r y and later. ' Pindar's exaltation o f natural gifts (φυά) is aristocratic. but those w h o learn. Ο I. vehement and garrulous as crows. but always cling to the g o o d . i . and take pleasure in their company. utter idle words. 1 . they cannot acquire b y teaching.' 3 See pp. For h i m it is a matter of chance (p. the rest o f his p o e t r y m a k e s it abundantly O f the right c l a s s ' ) : O u t o f the goodwill I bear y o u I will tell y o u what I myself learned from g o o d men when I was still a child. 2 . and a g o o d one similarly. 609) it s o u n d s m o r e like the m o r a l c o m m o n ­ place w h i c h it b e c a m e in Menander's ' E v i l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s corrupt g o o d m a n n e r s ' . A n t i p h o n (fr. but many have leaped to seize fame through accomplishments (aretai) g o t b y teaching. 38.' Virtue' and Social Class y o u n g friend C y r n u s h e writes (yv. a sentiment repeated in an actual Sophist. therefore y o u n g m e n should pursue g o o d c o m p a n y . In Euripides (fr. 4 (speech of the Corinthians at S p a r t a ) : ' The good qualities which w e possess b y nature.' Ol. s h o w s that b y the end of the fifth century an emphasis on φύσις had lost this association. 8 6 : ' W i s e are they to w h o m knowledge o f many things comes b y nature. 27 ff. A b a d c o m p a n i o n . and 39 a b o v e . eat and sit with the great and powerful. see T h u c . T h o u g h the A n o n . 9. η . Under­ stand this and consort with the g o o d . and some day y o u will say that I am a g o o d counsellor to m y friends. Iambi. for from noble men y o u will learn noble w a y s . 1 2 1 .100: ' W h a t is natural is always best. D i e h l . he says. It w a s as a c o n s e r v a t i v e m e m b e r o f the g o v e r n i n g democratic p a r t y 1 clear that for h i m ' g o o d ' and ' n o b l e ' mean that A n y t u s expressed his c o n t e m p t for the professionals and claimed that ' a n y A t h e n i a n g e n t l e m a n ' w o u l d fit M e n o for political life better than a Sophist. educates his f e l l o w s t o b e like himself. 62): Ά m a n necessarily c o m e s to resemble i n his w a y s w h o m s o e v e r he c o n s o r t s w i t h for the greater part o f the d a y .

b o t h in fleetness o f f o o t and in f i g h t i n g ' . 23) w r i t e s o f s o m e o n e w h o ' c o n q u e r i n g b y his hands o r the arete o f his feet w i n s the greatest prizes b y his d a r i n g and s t r e n g t h ' . Hieron 2. in w h i c h it s t o o d for the t y p e o f excellence m o s t v a l u e d in the p e r i o d o f its use. In the Iliad P o l y d o r u s as a swift runner ' d i s p l a y e d arete o f the f e e t ' (20. 6 . scholar o r carpenter. Pindar's p o e m s w e r e c o m m i s s i o n e d . In the Republic (353b ff. arete c o u l d b e qualified as e x c e l ­ lence in a particular a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o r art. fertility. and with no hint of i r o n y points to the y o u n g man's ability to throw a javelin while standing upright on horseback as proof that he w a s not lacking in natural talent. 1 1 252 . b u t needs t o b e said in v i e w o f the traditional b u t misleading E n g l i s h translation ' v i r t u e ' . 1 . Just as w e (and the G r e e k s ) speak n o t o n l y o f a g o o d m a n . 23.106. A r g u i n g in the Meno that arete cannot be taught.Can Virtue be Taught? T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n that native talent cannot b e i m p r o v e d b y training. Socrates (at 93 c . and as e x a m p l e s he m e n t i o n s p r u n i n g . 4 .e. and o f c o u r s e o f his o w n speciality ' p o l i t i c a l arete'. b u t also o f a g o o d runner. A s h e says in another O l y m p i a n o d e (10. w a s part o f the contract. In this sense horses t o o can h a v e it ( / / . and inanimate objects o r substances like soil (i. suitably qualified.20). e y e s and ears.) Socrates claims that there is a p r o p e r arete b e l o n g i n g to w h a t e v e r has a particular function or j o b t o p e r f o r m . Laws 7 4 5 d ) o r c o t t o n ( H d t . w h o m in this passage he has just m e n t i o n e d b y name. 1 6 ) . H e then g o e s o n t o m a k e his o w n p o i n t T h i s linguistic u s a g e could lead to what w e cannot but regard as a slightly comic confusion. P l a t o .2. 2 . 374. n a m e l y the c o n d i t i o n in w h i c h it w i l l b e best able to p e r f o r m that function. w h o in the tenth P y t h i a n (v. Critias n o e .641 f.h o o k s . X e n . Plato applies it frequently to particular skills. so (as his editor G i l d e r s l e e v e reminds us) s o m e praise o f the trainer. and Periphetes (15. s t o o d for excellence or proficiency in these and other pursuits. T h i s application persists in Pindar. as w h e n he m a k e s P r o t a g o r a s speak o f 'arete o f carpentry o r a n y other c r a f t ' (Prot. 3. T h i s is natural e n o u g h . the m a n b o r n to a c h i e v e ­ m e n t (φύντ' άρετα) is raised t o great g l o r y w h e n training has p u t a k e e n e d g e o n his arete and the g o d s are o n his side. T h u c . fighter. and just as he c o n f o r m e d to the aristocratic o u t ­ l o o k o f his patrons.411).) excelled his father in ' a l l k i n d s o f arete.d ) comments on the fact that Themistocles w a s unable to impart his statesmanlike virtues to his own son.2). 322d). T h i s o d e w a s in praise o f a b o y b o x e r .276. s o arete. w h i c h is a reminder that besides its general sense.

*53 . 112) declared that ' t h e greatest arete is s e l f . on the Anon. 154. 1 9 6 1 . U s e d thus it w a s liable t o ' persuasive definitions' b y r e f o r m i n g spirits w h o claimed that excellence ' r e a l l y ' consisted in this o r that. t h o u g h w e m a y translate it ' v a l o u r ' . a slave. a child.46). B u t h e ' See also p. which however m a y have been influenced b y Socrates. Here h e w a s o n controversial g r o u n d . M e n o thinks it an easy question. w h i c h in his v i e w must b e c o m m o n t o them all t o justify calling them b y the o n e n a m e . L . for h e can s a y w h a t is the virtue o f a m a n . b u t it needs qualification. Cole in HSCP. the prerequisite o f a g o o d h u m a n life.c o n t r o l ' . Iambi. n a m e l y t o g o v e r n the l o w e r elements. and s o in M e n o ' s case it is. T . It is s o used in H o m e r . a l o n g ­ side its particularization b y means o f a genitive o r an adjective. virtue. It l o o k s like a lesson in elementary l o g i c . It m i g h t therefore b e said that it w a s Socrates w h o enlarged the m e a n i n g o f arete f r o m talent o r proficiency in a particular art o r function t o s o m e t h i n g like virtue in o u r sense. T h e general use is seen in the title o f a w o r k o f D e m o c r i t u s ' O n Arete o r M a n l y V i r t u e ' 1 1 (άνδραγαθίας. t o stand for w h a t its users t h o u g h t w a s h u m a n excellence in general. f o r m o r b e i n g o f the o n e thing.The Meaning of Arete b y c l a i m i n g that the psyche o f m a n also has its function. In his e y e s a general term w a s o n l y valid i f it c o r r e s p o n d e d t o a single ' f o r m ' o r reality w h o s e ' e s s e n c e ' c o u l d b e defined in a single verbal formula. T h e r e is s o m e justification f o r this. Connexion between this w o r k and Democritus m a y be more than fortuitous. that b e i n g the virtue m o s t prized in a heroic a g e . T h e originality o f Socrates did n o t lie in r e c o g n i z i n g the general u s e . as w h e n Heraclitus (fr.. 9. 71 with n. and that its o w n arete is t o b e identified w i t h justice o r righteousness. W h e n h e asks M e n o t o tell h i m ' w h a t arete i s ' . t o deliberate and in general to ensure a life l i v e d t o the best o f h u m a n capacity. 3. a w o m a n . rather than s i m p l y the prerequisite o f success. o r a n y o n e o r a n y t h i n g else. T h e absolute use o f the w o r d h a d a l w a y s existed. b u t in (a) the emphasis w h i c h he laid o n it as a m o r a l quality. See A. B u t he is p u z z l e d w h e n Socrates replies that he does n o t w a n t a list o f virtues b u t a statement o f the essence. a n d (b) his attempt t o g i v e it philosophical justification b y d e m a n d i n g a universal definition. for h e is n o p h i l o s o p h e r b u t an i m p e t u o u s y o u n g aristocrat w h o g e n u i n e l y d o e s not understand the difference between enumerating a string o f instances and d r a w i n g an i n d u c t i v e generalization f r o m t h e m . D .

his p o e m b e c a m e a part F o r the same v i e w in Isocrates see Helen i . 41 f. T h e o p e n i n g o f his Helen is a g o o d e x a m p l e o f his o w n practice. a n d w e k n o w from A r i s t o t l e that G o r g i a s d i d n o t a p p r o v e o f a t t e m p t i n g a general definition o f arete.e m b r a c i n g definition.b e i n g o f the s o u l " o r " right a c t i o n " o r the l i k e . appropriate. T o explain the m e a n i n g oikosmos. 166 f. w h i c h he feels is n o t a l t o g e t h e r parallel t o the o t h e r cases m e n t i o n e d b y Socrates (72 d. w h e r e Socrates w o u l d h a v e l o o k e d for an a l l . Hum. f o r a s o u l w i s d o m . 1260325): ' T h o s e w h o speak i n general terms.' 1 T o Socrates it is as legitimate t o a s k f o r a general definition o f v i r t u e as it is t o a s k f o r a definition o f a n insect a n d t o object w h e n a list o f insects is offered i n s t e a d . h e w r i t e s : ' Kosmos is for a c i t y the manliness o f its citizens. is m u c h nearer the m a r k than t o m a k e this k i n d o f definition. it is n o t l i k e l y that a n y o n e b e l i e v e d arete t o b e attain­ able solely b y the b o u n t y o f nature o r b y personal effort o r b y another's instruction. Nicocles 44. e t c . A f t e r m e n t i o n i n g Socrates b y name as h o l d i n g that self-control. ' Compare Protagoras's miniature lecture on the relativity of goodness in the Protagoras (pp. and M e n o is perhaps n o t altogether t o b e b l a m e d w h e n h e s a y s that h e can understand the question as applied thus t o a natural g e n u s b u t d o e s n o t g r a s p it s o easily w h e n it is transferred t o v i r t u e . w h o comments that ' i n Protagoras. for an a c t i o n v i r t u e . 1 254 . See his pp. On the difference between Socrates and the Sophists in this matter Versenyi is helpful. s a y i n g that v i r t u e is " the w e l l . Akosmia is the o p p o s i t e o f these. E v e n Pindar admitted that natural e n d o w m e n t c a n b e sharpened b y training. T o enumerate the v i r t u e s . 76 ff.Can Virtue be Taught? is i n t r o d u c e d as a n admirer o f G o r g i a s . c o u r a g e and justice are the same f o r a w o m a n as f o r a m a n . w h e n h e uttered his famous line a b o u t the g o d s p u t t i n g sweat o n the path o f a c h i e v e m e n t (Erga 289). G o r g i a s w o u l d n o d o u b t h a v e claimed that Socrates w a s t r y i n g t o extend a m e t h o d appropriate t o natural science b e y o n d its p r o p e r sphere. shared b y P r o t a g o r a s . ) ' . and cf. this reluctance leads not to the denial of the unity of virtue but to a formal rather than a material definition (the equation of the good with the useful. T h i s point is made b y Versenyi (Socr. as G o r g i a s d i d .). 2 A l t h o u g h M e n o puts his question t o Socrates i n the f o r m o f clearcut alternatives. a b o v e ) . a n d a l t h o u g h H e s i o d s p o k e as a peasant.' T h i s reluctance t o g i v e a general definition is a c o n s e q u e n c e o f the sophistic belief. f o r s p e e c h truth. A r i s t o t l e g o e s o n {Pol. for a b o d y b e a u t y . are w r o n g . 73 a ) . n o t an aristocrat. in the relativity o f values. fit.

αρετή 322c. in P l a t o . then from schoolmasters. w h o s e ' 322b and d.Nature. T h i s has been d o n e already ( p p . H e in the special technai. is alive t o d a y . 3 2 2 b . t o b e beneath h i m . 66. i . h e considers. G r a d u a l l y and painfully s o m e o f them learned t o exercise self-denial and fair p l a y sufficiently t o enable t h e m t o take joint action and s o s u r v i v e . T h e r e w a s nevertheless great difference in the emphasis laid o n the three elements o f natural e n d o w m e n t . and teaching respectively. practice o r personal effort. It w a s n o t . a subject practical and utilitarian and at the same time o b v i o u s l y suit­ able for a c o u r s e o f instruction. in the b e g i n n i n g . and n o o n e w a s s o unrealistic as t o s u p p o s e that greatness c o u l d b e a c h i e v e d w i t h o u t effort. and a brief s u m m a r y is all that is necessary here. s o as t o b e c o m e a m o s t p o w e r f u l speaker and m a n o f a c t i o n ' ( 3 i 8 d . T h a t ' v i r t u e ' c o u l d b e taught w a s the basis o f the S o p h i s t s ' claim t o a l i v e l i h o o d . t o ' the craftsman's techne ' a n d ' the s h o w that for h i m t h e y meant m u c h the same. 2 τέχνη 3 1 9 a . ) N e v e r t h e l e s s this political art is capable o f precise definition as ' prudence in personal affairs and the best w a y t o m a n a g e o n e ' s o w n h o u s e h o l d . . η . T h e y h a v e been acquired b y teaching since early c h i l d h o o d . therefore. for it has its r o o t s in the ethical qualities o f justice and a respect for o n e s e l f and others. and also in the affairs o f the State. w h i c h some h i m s e l f considers instruction 2 Sophists offered. and e v e n the m o s t v i l l a i n o u s characters in o u r civilized societies h a v e s o m e elements o f v i r t u e . W i t h o u t these. P r o t a g o r a s ' s v i e w o n w h e t h e r virtue is natural o r acquired can b e extracted from his l o n g a n d brilliant speech in the Protagoras w h e n its m y t h i c a l elements are t h o u g h t a w a y . and finally from the state. first from parents and nurse. p . 65 ff.).o p e r a t e sufficiently t o protect themselves w i t h i n w a l l e d cities from the attacks o f animals fiercer and m o r e p o w e r f u l than t h e y . 66 a b o v e . N o o n e c o m p l e t e l y w i t h o u t these virtues. See p. Teaching and Practice o f the G r e e k heritage. t h e y treated each other s a v a g e l y a n d c o u l d n o t c o . a l t h o u g h primitive m e n h a d the intelligence t o learn v a r i o u s arts s u c h as the u s e o f fire. life in an o r g a n i z e d s o c i e t y is impossible. P r o t a g o r a s ' s references. the w o r k i n g o f metals and s o forth. ( C f . a part o f h u m a n nature as such.e ) . H e n c e . a n d the ' p o l i t i c a l a r t ' o r ' p o l i t i c a l v i r t u e ' w h i c h is his o w n speciality is m u c h closer t o m o r a l virtue. and its justification l a y in the close c o n n e x i o n in the G r e e k mind b e t w e e n arete and the special skills o r crafts craftsman's arete' 1 (technai).

recalling w h a t seems t o h a v e been a c o m m o n p l a c e . o r s t u d y (μελέτη). because a m a n ' s nature is n o t i r r e v o c a b l y fixed at b i r t h : he can b e altered b y teaching. Democr. and he a d d e d that to learn o n e m u s t b e g i n y o u n g (fr. 592ff. W e h a v e seen it recurring in A n t i p h o n and the H i p p o c r a t i c Law ( p p . m a k e s h i m c o m p a r e the influence o f the orator o n cities and the Sophist o n individuals to that o f the h u s b a n d m a n on plants. Euripides in the Hecuba. A l l that the Sophist can claim is to c a r r y the teach­ i n g a little further and d o it a little better. w e r e inseparable. F o r all this w e r e l y o n P l a t o . It is an o b v i o u s fact that all m e n are n o t e q u a l l y e n d o w e d b y nature. fr. T h e t w o w e r e c o m p l e m e n t a r y . Hazel Barnes. that h u m a n nature cannot be changed b y circumstances. requires that the pupil contribute b o t h natural ability and assiduity in practice (άσκησις). 1 T h e claims o f training o r practice (άσκησις) w e r e preferred t o those o f nature b y D e m o c r i t u s (fr. and his c o m m e n t o n the relation b e t w e e n natural ability and teaching w a s less superficial than m o s t and in m o d e r n terms m i g h t b e said to h a v e an existentialist tendency. 10) that art and practice. w h i c h is therefore a factor in the formation o f his n a t u r e . speaks of Sartre's pronounce­ ment ' that human nature is not fixed. a n y m o r e than for mathematics o r p i a n o . 9) t o the effect that m o r e m e n b e c o m e g o o d t h r o u g h s t u d y (μελέτη) than b y nature.p l a y i n g . a g a i n {Theaet. 3). 33. P l a t o . he said. 190). 33 f. the c o m ­ parison b e t w e e n education and h u s b a n d r y in w h i c h the soil represents the natural capacity o f the pupil. An Existentialist Ethics. b u t it accords w e l l w i t h the m e a g r e quotations from P r o t a g o r a s h i m s e l f that h a v e a n y b e a r i n g o n the s u b ­ ject. so that his o w n pupils w i l l b e s o m e w h a t superior t o their fellow-citizens. uses this simile to make an entirely different point. 1909. f o l l o w e d A s Shorey pointed out (ΤΑΡΑ. a b o v e ) .c ) . Successful teaching. A d m o n i t i o n and punishment are o n l y appropriate in the absence o f such g o o d qualities as m a y b e acquired t h r o u g h ' c a r e . 242). practice and t e a c h i n g ' : t h e y are not e m p l o y e d against natural deficiencies w h i c h a m a n can d o n o t h i n g to alter. E l s e w h e r e he said (fr.. Iamblichus's a n o n y m o u s writer puts ' n a t u r e ' first. 2 1 2 256 . that man is indeed a creature w h o makes himself b y a process of constant change*. whether from bad to good or good to bad. A line o f Critias is also q u o t e d (fr.Can Virtue be Taught? system o f laws and punishments has an educative p u r p o s e . T h i s does not m e a n o f course that e v e r y o n e has an equal talent for learning political v i r t u e . i o y b . and this is n o less o r m o r e true o f v i r t u e than o f a n y other a c c o m p l i s h m e n t .. 168 f.

In the Euthydemus ridicules Plato t w o charlatans w h o claim t o teach it in the face o f Socrates's 1 d o u b t s w h e t h e r it c a n b e taught at all. y e t at the time it seemed o f p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e t o k n o w h o w arete w a s acquired. m u c h o f w h a t w a s said o n the subject w a s sententious and trivial.Importance of the Question b y sustained hard w o r k and w i l l i n g n e s s t o learn. T h e Meno is w h o l l y d e v o t e d t o the topic. see S h o r e y ' s article in ΤΑΡΑ. it must b e a f o r m o f k n o w l e d g e (Meno 87c). ' t h e originality of a w o r k so surpassingly rich i n suggestion as the Phaedrus does not depend on these links of commonplace l i g h t l y assumed in passing '. Isocrates s u m m e d u p the position. P l a t o joins in the a r g u m e n t at the same rather banal level as the rest. and P l a t o himself in the Phaedrus speaks o f it in m u c h the same v e i n . F o r S o c r a t e s — s u r e l y the m o s t u n c o m p r o m i s i n g l y intellectual o f all ethical t e a c h e r s — w h a t o n e m a n c o u l d g i v e t o another b y teaching w a s k n o w l e d g e . A s t o the teaching o f it. 3i7ff. a conclusion which m a y be unpalatable ' o n account of our natural tendency to regard Plato as the more original t h i n k e r ' . I n the Protagoras h e expresses the same d o u b t s . the relevant passages in Isocrates and Plato.w o r n theme o f w h e t h e r v i r t u e is teachable ( p p . A t other times h e m a k e s it the starting-point for d e v e l o p i n g his o w n o r the Socratic philosophy. Arete is o n l y t o b e acquired b y a p p l y i n g oneself diligently t o it o v e r a l o n g period o f time. as Shorey r i g h t l y adds. ) T h e ' D o u b l e A r g u m e n t s ' d e v o t e d a chapter t o the same w e l l . 71 a b o v e . O f certain passages in Plato and Isocrates. Shorey points out (op. 1 9 5 ) that ' t h e r e is nothing in either of which the sufficient suggestion is not found in the apologetic and protreptic literature of the d a y ' . S o m e t i m e s . 2 1 2 *57 . indeed s o similarly t o Isocrates that it is usually s u p p o s e d that o n e o f these w a s acquainted w i t h the other's w r i t i n g . cit. as in the dis­ cussion o f rhetoric in the Phaedrus already m e n t i o n e d . b u t that it w a s a f o r m o f k n o w l e d g e h e F o r references to. b e l o w ) . 1909. and the s u g g e s t i o n that n o teacher c o u l d c o m m u n i c a t e it w a s in Socrates's d a y an attack o n a large v e s t e d interest. In this discussion Socrates and P l a t o t o o k a v i g o r o u s part. I n the c o m p e t i t i v e society o f the d a y ambitious y o u n g m e n like M e n o a n d Hippocrates (in the Protagoras) w e r e w i l l i n g t o spend fortunes o n Sophists w h o m i g h t b e able t o impart the secret. but. b e g u n in early y o u t h . his a n s w e r w a s neither c r u d e n o r simple (see c o m p a n i o n v o l u m e o n S o c r a t e s ) . a n d P r o t a g o r a s counters t h e m w i t h skill a n d force. Plato m a y be summarizing the opinions of Isocrates. ( S e e p . I f then v i r t u e (in w h i c h h e certainly i n c l u d e d the m o r a l virtues) c o u l d b e t a u g h t . A s w i l l h a v e appeared b y n o w . and discussion of.

'that m o s t m e n d o n ' t b e l i e v e u s .' See De aud. m a k e s a n appearance o n c e again. that a m a n k n o w the g o o d but pursue it n o t . cit. h e s a y s . A g a i n (fr. Gks. others t h r o u g h c h o o s i n g s o m e pleasure rather than the g o o d . ( S e e p . 4 7 . 33e-f. ' Y o u k n o w ' . astonishing as it m a y seem. this is a heaven-sent curse for mortals. ' Since the s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n conscience and desire. g i o . quite p o s s i b l y in c o n s c i o u s contradiction o f Socrates. is essentially dramatic. ' ('Heaven-sent?' c o m m e n t s the m o r a l i z i n g P l u t a r c h . in his case it w a s true. ' Faced w i t h the p r o s p e c t o f k i l l i n g h e r o w n children. s o m e o f u s from idleness. 258 . ' b u t t h o u g h I k n o w it. ' N a t u r e w i l l e d it. ' N o r is the other parner o f the antithesis. T h e y maintain that there are m a n y w h o r e c o g n i z e the best b u t are u n w i l l i n g t o act o n it. B u t i f virtue is k n o w l e d g e . R i g h t action w i l l f o l l o w automatically o n k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t is r i g h t . n. 8 4 1 ) : ' A l a s . P l a t o m a k e s Socrates r e c o g n i z e the prevalence o f the opposite v i e w in the Protagoras (352d-e). poet. It m a y b e o p e n to t h e m .w i l l e d . but m y passions (θυμός) are s t r o n g e r than m y c o u n s e l . O'Brien. Paradoxes. v i c e o r w r o n g d o i n g c a n only b e d u e t o i g n o r a n c e and it f o l l o w s that ' n o o n e sins d e l i b e r a t e l y ' . 1 9 4 8 . ' N a y . T h i s has b e e n suspected o f Phaedra's w o r d s in the Hippolytas ι ' W e k n o w . b u t d o it n o t . w h i c h h e tossed off in c o m p l e t e confidence t h a t ' n o h a r m c a n come t o a g o o d m a n ' . op. Aristotle said b l u n t l y that it w a s ' i n flat contradiction t o e x p e r i e n c e ' (EN 1145 b 27). nature c o m p e l s m e . ' I n this c o n n e x i o n ' n a t u r e ' w i t h her ' n e c e s s i t y ' . Socrates w a s j u d g i n g others b y h i m s e l f for. l a c k i n g . and see D o d d s . that despairing resort o f the w e a k . w e r e c o g n i z e the right.Can Virtue be Taught? was c o n v i n c e d . & Irrat. 55. rather bestial and irrational. it is n o t surpris­ ing that s o m e o f the m o s t striking expressions o f the opposite p o i n t o f v i e w o c c u r in E u r i p i d e s . b u t t h e y d o o t h e r w i s e . S e e Snell in Philologus. H i s calm assurance that h e w a s f o l l o w i n g t h e right c o u r s e w a s u n s h a k e n b y the fact that its o u t c o m e w a s the c u p o f hemlock. S u c h heroic doctrine w a s n o t for m o s t m e n .) ' T o b e 38off.): Ί understand the evil I a m p r o m p t e d t o c o m m i t . 100 a b o v e . 187 with n. 1 1 1 2 Socr. passion w h i c h is the cause o f m e n ' s greatest c r i m e s . w h o cares n o u g h t for l a w ' is the e x c u s e o f an e r r i n g w o m a n : w o m e n w e r e m a d e like that. 78. D o d d s . nomos. ) ' A l l that y o u w a r n m e of I k n o w w e l l ' . 840). Fr. o r w e a k n e s s o f w i l l . 55. Medea cries (Medea io78ff. says another character (fr. 186 with n.

F o r h i m the natural c o u r s e w a s t o act as reason a n d k n o w ­ l e d g e dictated. 3 5 8 ) oi σώφρονες y a p ούχ έκόντες ά λ λ ' όμως κακών έρώσιν. w h e n t h e y h a v e turned o u t t o suffer e x a c t l y w h a t t h e y t h o u g h t t o inflict o n others. See the quotations in Untersteiner. which is indeed sufficiently remarkable. p p . ' W h o e v e r thinks he can injure his n e i g h b o u r s w i t h o u t suffering h i m s e l f is n o t a temperate m a n . sophrosyne. Sof. Euripides m a y have had Antiphon in mind. o v e r c o m e b y p l e a s u r e ' w a s a phrase o f the d a y . for there is n o t h i n g that h e has h a d t o o v e r c o m e in o r d e r t o s h o w h i m s e l f well-behaved (κόσμιον). seems unnecessary. ι ν . ' i s n o t temperate. i v . 4 3 0 6 . T h e r e is here at least the g e r m o f the ' h e d o n i c c a l c u l u s ' w h i c h Socrates a d v o c a t e s in the Protagoras and w h i c h o b v i o u s l y p l a y e d an important part in the formation o f his t h o u g h t .). w h e r e ' s e l f stands for the l o w e r self o r base d e s i r e s (fr. Sof. A full-scale study of the history of the concept has n o w been made b y Helen North (Sophrosyne. 1 3 1 3. 4 5 6 259 .' T h e r e f o r e think before y o u g i v e y o u r passions rein. I 4 4 f . 58 ad fin. 73 ff.Video Meliora. o r its adjective sophron. said A n t i p h o n (fr.): ' T h e best j u d g e o f a m a n ' s temperance is o n e w h o 5 m a k e s h i m s e l f a b u l w a r k against the m o m e n t a r y pleasures o f the passions and has b e e n able t o c o n q u e r and master himself.38. In the Gorgias Socrates calls it ' t h e popular notion' Scholars have made much of the moral tone of this. W h o e v e r c h o o s e s t o y i e l d t o his passions at e v e r y m o m e n t c h o o s e s the w o r s e instead o f the better. L y s i a s 2 1 . 1 9 . T h u c .g. 142 (where άλλον is presumably a misprint). w h a t is foul and e v i l ' . 491 d ) .4 3 1 a. E v e r y t h i n g d e p e n d s See e. W h e n Phaedra opposes Socratic doctrine in the w o r d s {Hippol. ' H e w h o has neither felt the desire for.' 3 1 1 A n t i p h o n also b r o u g h t in the idea o f 4 ' m a s t e r y o f s e l f ' . 59). adopted b y DK. w h i c h unfortunately c a n n o t b e fully c o v e r e d b y a n y single E n g l i s h o n e ) 6 consists in a d m i t t i n g the truth o f the o l d G r e e k a d a g e that the d o e r shall suffer. ( ώ σ π ε ρ οί πολλοί. H e has just said that ' t e m p e r a n c e ' o r selfrestraint (it is the same w o r d . J a c o b y ' s alteration of άλλος to άλλου. See Untersteiner's note. S u c h h o p e s h a v e b r o u g h t m a n y t o irre­ v o c a b l e disaster.7. See Socrates. t h o u g h it d o e s n o t f o l l o w (indeed there is s o m e e v i d e n c e t o the c o n t r a r y ) that h e w a s entirely w i t h o u t e m o t i o n s and w o u l d n o t h a v e qualified for A n t i p h o n ' s description o f a temperate ( σ ώ φ ρ ω ν ) m a n . a phrase w h i c h is subjected t o a critical investigation b y Socrates in the Protagoras (352d ff.' T h i s self-mastery h o w e v e r is n o t r e c o m m e n d e d b y A n t i p h o n o n a n y p u r e l y m o r a l g r o u n d s . A s is explained in the Republic. 1966). n o r c o m e in c o n t a c t w i t h . b u t rather as a piece o f calculated self-interest.

pp. n o t the b o d y o r appearances. 58. T h i s b r i n g s us close to Socratic intellectualism. i. t h o u g h t h e y m i g h t include p o v e r t y . o n the correct calculation and w e i g h i n g u p o f o n e ' s o w n interests. So K. ' 1 T h e difference b e t w e e n them is that for Socrates n o pleasure c o u l d e x c e e d that o f a g o o d c o n ­ science. for w h a t matters is the soul. It is better. t o suffer injury than to inflict it.Can Virtue be Taught? o n m a k i n g the right decision. an " a r t o f m e a s u r e m e n t " . See further on this Socrates. 3 5 6 d ~ 3 5 7 b . the psyche. and to p r o s p e r unjust and e n j o y w h a t are v u l g a r l y called pleasures b y selfish and means is t o m a i m and injure o n e ' s o w n 1 psyche. discussing Antiphon fr. Prot. 260 .e. d i s g r a c e . W h a t is w a n t e d for a correct c h o i c e o f pleasures is. Gantar in Ziva Ant. 142 ff. 1966. c o u l d o u t w e i g h it. His reference is to P l a t o . w o u n d s and death. and to the m a n w h o k n o w s less painful. in Socrates's phrase. 156. and n o pains.

XI THE MEN INTRODUCTION In the f o r e g o i n g chapters m a n y o f the v i e w s o f Sophists a n d their c o n t e m p o r a r i e s h a v e b e e n introduced in a discussion o f the main topics o f philosophical interest in the fifth c e n t u r y . A n attempt t o h a v e the best o f b o t h w o r l d s w i l l o b v i o u s l y increase t h e risk o f repetition. Stift. T h e p r i o r i t y g i v e n t o this discussion o v e r a treatment o f each thinker i n d i v i d u a l l y m a y b e justified b y the reflection that o n the w h o l e this w a s a debate o f c o n ­ temporaries e a g e r l y e x c h a n g i n g v i e w s a n d that the subjects o f p e r e n ­ nial h u m a n interest o n w h i c h t h e y argued d o n o t admit o f the same linear p r o g r e s s from o n e thinker t o the next w h i c h c a n b e detected in the m o r e scientific t h e o r i z i n g o f the Presocratics. n a m e l y that O t h e r ­ w i s e m u c h repetition w o u l d h a v e b e e n necessary a n d the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the great personalities. as I h a v e tried t o b r i n g o u t m o r e than o n c e d u r i n g the discussion. the interplay o f their m i n d s o n this topic o r that. it is nevertheless advisable t o attempt a short unified a c c o u n t o f each individual is that in scattering the v i e w s o f o n e m a n t h r o u g h several w i d e l y separated chapters—here his remarks o n l a w o r ethics. 1911. a p o i n t w h i c h m u s t b e b o r n e in m i n d . 131) that ' t h e picture o f the individual Sophists w h i c h w e construct o n the basis o f such o f their dicta as are p r e s e r v e d i s . T h e r e is the further consideration that. i f the a d v a n t a g e s o f arrangement b y subject seemed t o o great t o miss. O n e reason w h y . 261 . the result o f pure c h a n c e . s o far as possible. it is n o t a l w a y s possible o n the e v i d e n c e available t o assign a particular v i e w t o its author w i t h certainty. w h o s e unitary v i g o u r w a s i n fact responsible for the intellectual p r o g r e s s a c h i e v e d . S a l o m o n w e n t s o far as t o s a y (Sav. ' A t t h e same time there is s o m e t h i n g i n N e s t l e ' s reasons (in the preface t o Vom Mythos ium Logos) f o r c h o o s i n g an arrangement b y persons rather than b y subjects. It seemed best there­ fore t o r e p r o d u c e . i n s o far as it is determined b y the vicissitudes o f the tradition. w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s m e m b e r e d ' .

4 4 1 ) as his floruit. some said he lived till n e a r l y 90. and the continuous long syllables of Α β δ η ρ ί τ η . t o o . and g a v e Ol. _to. probably i n allusion to h i s drafting of the constitution of T h u r i i in 444-443. w i t h the briefest reference possible t o w h a t has already b e e n said. H i s death. b e f o r e a c o m p a n y w h i c h included Socrates. a n d at the same time there remains s o m e detail to b e filled in a b o u t t h e e v i d e n c e for the dates o f these p e o p l e . It w i l l b e salutary t o see i f t o g e t h e r t h e y a d d u p to a credible character. Abdera w a s colonized from T e o s ( H d t . T h e chronologist Apollodorus followed Plato ( D . T h i s s u g g e s t s a date o f n o t later than 490 f o r his birth ( w h i c h w o u l d m a k e h i m a b o u t t w e n t y y e a r s o l d e r than Socrates. P r o d i c u s and Hippias. Sophs. 1953. T h e r e w a s a s t o r y that he w a s a child at the time o f the i n v a s i o n o f X e r x e s (480). a n d in the Meno (91ε) h e is said t o h a v e died at the age o f a b o u t s e v e n t y after forty y e a r s as a practising Sophist. Hippias describes h i m s e l f as a m u c h y o u n g e r m a n than P r o t a g o r a s .50). F o r references to other discussions of his date see Untersteiner. 7. would h a v e been difficult to accommodate to the metre.168). (i) PROTAGORAS P r o t a g o r a s w a s a native o f A b d e r a . p r o b a b l y the eldest o f his auditors). D . Since for o u r p u r ­ poses relative dates are m o r e i m p o r t a n t than absolute.L. the e v e n t s o f their l i v e s . that he is o l d enough. I h a v e confined m y s e l f t o those w h o h a v e appeared in the p r e v i o u s chapters. w h o in return f o r his father's hospitality ordered the m a g i t o g i v e h i m A n isolated reference to h i m a s Π. I n w h a t f o l l o w s therefore I shall t r y t o s u m u p w h a t is k n o w n o f each i n d i v i d u a l . w e m a y n o t e first that Plato m a k e s h i m s a y . 9 . therefore. A c c o r d ­ ing to D. 1941 and Davison i n CQ. 1953. n. 84 ( 4 4 4 .. I n the Hippias Major (282ε). and o m i t t e d o n e o r t w o m i n o r figures a b o u t w h o m e v e r y t h i n g necessary has b e e n said there. ό Τήιο. b u t see on this Davison in CQ. L . the c i t y in the r e m o t e 1 north-east o f G r e e c e w h i c h also g a v e birth t o D e m o c r i t u s . 317c). 35. 6. m a y b e assumed t o h a v e o c c u r r e d a b o u t 420. 9.The Men and far r e m o v e d f r o m these a d i c t u m o n e p i s t e m o l o g y and another o n the g o d s — i t w o u l d b e all t o o easy t o o v e r l o o k inconsistencies a n d attribute t o the same p h i l o s o p h e r v i e w s w h i c h n o sane m a n c o u l d h a v e held simultaneously. a n d in s o m e cases aspects o f their teaching w h i c h in the p r e v i o u s general discussion h a v e been o m i t t e d o r dismissed w i t h a bare m e n t i o n . and for his life in general Morrison i n CQ. 1. 1 1 2 262 .bfiLthe father o f a n y o n e o f them (Prot. L . 5 6 ) . occurs in the comic poet Eupolis (ap.

11. Plato. 76. o f the professional Sophists. p . 2.Protagoras: life instruction. 1941. and cf. and perhaps the earliest. A 10). Sext. T h e best s u m m i n g . 1 T h e cause o f his death is said b y a n u m b e r o f late authorities ( w i t h s o m e differences in detail) to h a v e b e e n d r o w n i n g b y s h i p w r e c k after l e a v i n g A t h e n s w h e r e he h a d b e e n tried and banisKed (or alternatively c o n d e m n e d to death) for the i m p i e t y o f his a g n o s t i c assertion a b o u t the g o d s . 1 . and Eusebius (A 4) add the picturesque detail that copies of his books w e r e collected from their possessors and publicly burned. Per. ( T h e latter approved it. 36 ( D K . 3 4 ) . 9 . 35 and 37 above. w h o also says that h e w a s a pupil of . rejected b y Burnet. later than the dramatic date of the Protagoras. See pp. 4 H e w a s w e l l k n o w n in A t h e n s . In an athletic contest a m a n h a d b e e n accidentally hit and killed w i t h a javelin. P l a t o says in the Meno (91ε) that t h r o u g h ­ o u t his professional life. 80 A 2 ) .). For its evidential value see Davison. 370-2. See Demosthenes 23 ( / « Aristocr. to P. Hesychius ( A 3 ) .Democritus.L. and for the prevalence of the custom Frazer's long note. T h e whole story i s . and Eupolis in a p l a y produced in 422-421 spoke of him as then present in Athens. w h o thinks it compatible w i t h prosecution but not condemnation. 1 0 . T h i s m a y b e s o m e c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e for a date o f birth a b o u t 490. 386. t o the m a n w h o t h r e w it. 5 5 . n. 5 2 and Philostr. vol. See vol. whi ch in spite of one anachronism must h a v e been about 433.C. loc. See h o w e v e r Vlastos in Plato's Protagoras (1956). W a s his death t o b e attributed to the javelin itself. D. 6 263 .. 1953. Soph. a m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l question o f causation. 37. T h e reference to the Kolakes of Eupolis occurs in Athenaeus 2 1 8 c (A I I ) . XLV. 1 0 . On the philosophical character of the discussion see R e n s i and Untersteiner in the letter's Sophs.L. 5 7 . 9 .. his h i g h r e p u t a t i o n h a d b e e n c o n t i n u o u s l y maintained. A t Athens both animals and lifeless instruments w h i c h had been the cause of death w e r e tried in the court of the P r y t a n e u m . ι ( D K . 3 (A 2 ) . w h i c h is n o t necessarily inconsistent w i t h trial and c o n v i c t i o n : he w o u l d h a v e said the same a b o u t S o c r a t e s .5 and b ε c a m e a friend o f Pericles.. P l u t a r c h tells a s t o r y that the t w o m e n spent a w h o l e d a y discussing an interesting p o i n t o f legal responsibility i n v o l v i n g also. 5 6 (A 1 2 ) . perhaps rightly. Laws 873d ff. 2 3 4 5 1 6 Plut. 3of. n. T h e same story of education b y m a g i w a s told of DemocritusTIimself ( D . cit. Math. Pol. viii. H a l b b . and indeεd ενεΓ since. 34.1 1 . Philostr. 4 . D.L. 9 .u p of the evidence for the dates in Protagoras's life (not all mentioned here) is that of v o n Fritz in RE. whi ch is chrpnologically impossible.) Plato in the Protagoras (310 e ) mentions t w o visits. 5 4 . and Davison. V. 1 . Pausanias. 9 0 8 . CQ. CQ. ι . L . T h a t he w a s the first to demand fees for his teaching i s repeated b y D. mf. Ath. ί ο . i. on the sensible g r o u n d that w e v a l u e what w e pay for more than w h a t is free. T. 2 f. in all p r o b a b i l i t y . probably taken from the Persica of D i n o n in the late fourth century B. 3 3 P r o t a g o r a s w a s the m o s t f a m o u s . 4 . 9 . 6. 11. Aristotle. See Morrison. w h o trained others for the p r o f e s s i o n as w e l l as for p u b l i c l i f e .e. o r t o the authorities responsible for the c o n d u c t o f the g a m e s ? A m o r e practical Philostr. w h i c h he visited a n u m b e r o f times.

Sparta refused. h a v e dealt w i t h the v a l u e o f religious cults as a part o f civilized life. as already s u g g e s t e d (p. and a n u m b e r o f other titles. 9 .7 0 . w h e r e he m a d e a reputa­ tion in his profession ( P l a t o . 1 ) . 391 c. A l l this is told b y D i o d o r u s . Hipp. 1 ) . Math. It m i g h t . b u t m a n y o f the n a m e s w i l l h a v e b e e n arbitrarily attached in later centuries. 5 0 ) . 1 4 9 . Heracl. For the Α λ ή θ ε ι α in Plato see Theaet. (2) Antilogiae o r c o n t r a r y a r g u m e n t s . Π. Bas. 2) to be ' n o t merely possible but certain'. On the foundation of T h u r i i see Ehrenberg in AJP. νόμων. t h o u g h it is a little curious that D i o d o r u s does not mention Protagoras w i t h the others at 1 2 . T h e r e is little p o i n t in t r y i n g t o list the titles o f his separate w o r k s .L. at least in later times. and asserted b y Gigante (Nom. 1948. 168 f. T h e alternative tide Κατα{ϋλλοντε5 occurs in Sextus. b y a w r e s t l i n g term as the ' T h r o w s ' o r a r g u m e n t s t o floor an o p p o n e n t ) . 1 0 .55) g i v e s a c a t a l o g u e . 7 . fr. 150 W e h r l i (ap. 1 0 . On the Gods also s o u n d s like a separate w o r k . w h i c h m a y 2 D i o d . Pont. T h e r e w e r e at least t w o main treatises: (1) Truth ( k n o w n alternatively. 2 1 6 . T h e r e is also reference t o a ' G r e a t L o g o s ' . H e w ^ l T f a l r i i h ' a r figure to the W e s t e r n G r e e k s . In the fifth c e n t u r y the c u s t o m o f attaching titles t o p r o s e w o r k s w a s in its infancy. the s u r v i v i n g Sybarites appealed t o A t h e n s and Sparta to assist their return and share in the r e f o u n d i n g o f the c i t y .80 n. o r alternatively h a v e b e e n an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l treatise d e s c r i b i n g the f o r m s o f b e l i e f and w o r s h i p current b e the same as Truth. 161 c. Bacch. O n 1 264 .The Men o u t c o m e o f their relationship w a s the invitation to P r o t a g o r a s t o collaborate in an e x c i t i n g n e w enterprise. 282d-e). 4 . T h a t Eur. H e speaks of the part p l a y e d b y Protagoras on pp. 202 is an allusion proving that it w a s already current in the fifth century has been denied outright b y W i l a m o w i t z {Plat. Crat. w h i c h is cited as s u c h b y Plato several t i m e s . 1 1 among v a r i o u s p e o p l e s . and it is certainly ineffective t o a r g u e that after the a g n o s t i c first sentence there w o u l d h a v e b e e n n o t h i n g left t o s a y o n the subject. 6 0 (Prot. T h e r e seems no reason to doubt Heraclides's information. fr. Maj. 1 2 . it o p e n e d w i t h the ' m a n the m e a s u r e ' p r o n o u n c e m e n t . w h i c h thus b e c a m e a truly pan-Hellenic enterprise. 235). 1. b u t Heraclides P o n t i c u s in a s t u d y o f the l a w s o f G r e e k states a d d e d that P r o t a g o r a s w a s the m a n c h o s e n t o draft a legal c o d e for T h u r i i . for h e ^ l S o T I v e d for a time in Sicily. and i n v i t e d v o l u n t e e r s from a n y G r e e k city t o j o i n the n e w c o l o n y . A f t e r the sack and destruction o f Sybaris in S o u t h Italy b y the C r o t o n i a t e s . D i o g e n e s Laertius (9. D. b u t the A t h e n i a n s accepted w i t h enthusiasm. and for a l o n g time those w h o q u o t e d t h e m w o u l d attach a descriptive name to w h a t w a s o n l y a section o f a l o n g e r c o n t i n u o u s w o r k . n.

(4) on the A r t s (τέχναι. the arch-castigator o f P l a t o for h i s u n ­ fairness and a n i m o s i t y t o w a r d s the Sophists ( p p . the great S o p h i s t is certainly p o r t r a y e d as fully c o n s c i o u s o f his o w n merits. M a n y scholars h a v e joined in the debate. d i s p l a y i n g at the end. L . and cf. O n e t h i n g . Unterst. L . a n d leave n o d o u b t o f the h i g h esteem i n w h i c h P l a t o held h i m . Halbb. w h i c h contained four main sections: ( 1 ) on the Gods. o r u n w o r t h y . 3 . and π .. S e e Nesde. ' s tides is Π. ' s catalogue refer to s u b ­ sections of the Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ι . as V l a s t o s w e l l expresses it. his edition of the Prot. 3) w i t h the Π. w h i c h cannot b e argued against P l a t o ' s v e r a c i t y is that his a i m w a s t o b l a c k e n o r d e s t r o y P r o t a g o r a s ' s reputation. E v e n G r o t e .. (2) on Being. see p . D . πολιτεία. see p .Protagoras: Plato's Evidence M u c h o f o u r information a b o u t P r o t a g o r a s ' s t h o u g h t c o m e s from P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e s . 344. o n the part o f Socrates.t e m p e r e d l e g . T h e respect w i t h w h i c h h e treats his v i e w s is all the m o r e impressive for his p r o f o u n d disagreement w i t h t h e m . h o w e v e r . o n the e v i d e n c e o f the Protagoras itself. F r e y w i t h the Προστακτικό. as ' t o o sweeping to b e fully demonstrable') that all the titles in D . p. including π . H i s o w n c o n t r i ­ b u t i o n s t o the discussion are o n a consistently h i g h level b o t h intellec­ tually and m o r a l l y . and c o n c l u d e d that. 3 . h a d t o a g r e e that ' t h a t d i a l o g u e is itself e n o u g h t o p r o v e that P l a t o d i d n o t c o n c e i v e P r o t a g o r a s either as a corrupt. Sophs. Untersteiner (pp. 1 above. cit. Λ ό γ ο . 264 n . VM^uL. and c o m p l e t e agreement w i l l p r o b a b l y n e v e r b e reached. 5 7 ) that almost all of Plato's Politeia w a s to be found in the latter w o r k .p u l l i n g . i n c l u d i n g fallacious a n d u n s c r u p u l o u s argument. .) has an elaborate theory (charitably characterized b y L e s k y . w i t h a h a r m ­ less v a n i t y and l o v e o f admiration w h i c h amused Socrates and tempted h i m t o a little g o o d . 47 w i t h n. ioff. 920) thinks it an independent w o r k . 1 1 f. said G r a n t . 3 1 ) . V o n Fritz (RE. ' i s represented b y P l a t o t h r o u g h o u t the d i a l o g u e as e x h i b i t i n g an elevated standard o f m o r a l Π. the ethical c o d e o f P r o t a g o r a s appears as superior t o that o f the P l a t o n i c Socrates. o r i n c o m p e t e n t t e a c h e r ' . (3) on the L a w s and other problems concerning the polis. O n e of D . In the dramatic setting w h i c h is o n e o f the c h i e f charms o f the d i a l o g u e Protagoras. XLV. Nesde identified the Μέγα. 296 (but cf. 14. D K .c o n s c i o u s b u t n o t insincere'. 63 above. 265 . π ά λ η . Tfjs έν άρχη κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω . τ ώ ν μαθημάτων). 3 7 . (fr. c o m m o n l y assigned to the Ά ν τ ι λ ο γ ί α ι because of the scandalous story of Aristoxenus (αρ. 11. αρετών. F o r those interested in opinions on this minor and insoluble question here is a selection. b u t in the discussion h e remains consistently urbane in the face o f considerable p r o v o c a t i o n . HGL. a b o v e ) . F o r Π. D K a n d Untersteiner w i t h the Α λ ή θ ε ι α . τ ο ϋ όντο. and o u r assessment o f his p h i l o s o p h i c a c h i e v e m e n t therefore depends t o a considerable extent o n the historical v a l u e w h i c h w e are prepared t o grant t h e m . a m a g ­ n a n i m i t y w h i c h is ' s e l f . ' P r o t a g o r a s ' . L .

^^oc~^^^ά). H a l b b . XLV. P r o t a g o r a s ' s i n n o v a t i o n w a s t o a c h i e v e a reputation as a political and m o r a l thinker w i t h o u t s u p p o r t i n g a n y political p a r t y . 1 F o r m a n y p e o p l e o n e o f the c h i e f obstacles t o b e l i e v i n g in P l a t o ' s v e r a c i t y has b e e n the speech in w h i c h P r o t a g o r a s g i v e s a brilliant a c c o u n t o f the o r i g i n s o f h u m a n s o c i e t y deliberately cast in the f o r m o f a m y t h (Prot. See pp. b u t w i t h this p r o v i s o . 408 f. L. so l o n g as w h a t he says is b o t h internally consistent and n o t in conflict w i t h the rest o f o u r scanty i n f o r m a t i o n (and this I b e l i e v e to b e true). T h a t P l a t o r e p r o d u c e d P r o t a g o r a s ' s t e a c h i n g w i t h c o m p l e t e a c c u r a c y is s o m e t h i n g w e shall n e v e r k n o w for certain. as he has said (32. a t t e m p t i n g political r e f o r m .T. t h o u g h . 235.m e a s u r e ' doctrine in the Theaetetus. η . 9 1 7 .The Men f e e l i n g s ' . 1.6 2 . 64.* W h a t sticks in their throats is the statement that m a n is the o n l y creature w h o b e l i e v e s in the g o d s and practises r e l i g i o u s cult ' b e c a u s e o f his k i n s h i p w i t h the d i v i n e ' . and n o unprejudiced reader o f the d i a l o g u e c o u l d disagree. I h o p e I h a v e disposed o f this o b j e c t i o n . v o n Fritz. a b o v e ) . 88 ff. P l a t o n e v e r accused h i m o r other Sophists o f flouting the established m o r a l r u l e s . ) . i v / i . that w e k n o w v e r y little indeed a b o u t this stimulating and influential figure. 3 1 3 266 . I . especially. T h a t the instinct t o b e l i e v e and w o r s h i p is fundamental t o h u m a n nature is plain fact. * For v i e w s on the authenticity of the m y t h see the references on p. in spite o f all his o p p o s i t i o n . W . has treated P r o t a g o r a s w i t h m o r e justice t h a n h a v e o t h e r o f his o p p o n e n t s . I shall prefer t o m a k e use o f it as I h a v e d o n e in the earlier part o f this b o o k rather than assume. a d d s : ' I n other w a y s also P l a t o . History (1888 e d . above. after p o i n t i n g o u t the fairness w i t h w h i c h Plato treats the ' m a n . 88 f. 5 9 . n. b u t s i m p l y b y l e c t u r i n g and s p e a k i n g and offering h i m s e l f as a professional adviser and e d u c a Grote. Havelock. 3. as w e s h o u l d h a v e t o d o i f P l a t o ' s t e s t i m o n y is rejected. o r s e e k i n g p o w e r for himself. for objectors to the mention of divine kinship. Miiller's ( p . Grant. it c o u l d e q u a l l y w e l l h a v e b e e n told as a rational logos w i t h o u t the m y t h i c a l accretions. and t o attribute it to d i v i n e kinship n o m o r e than is to be e x p e c t e d in an a c c o u n t c o n f e s s e d l y cast in the f o r m o f p o p u l a r m y t h o l o g y t o m a k e it m o r e entertaining (320c). V o n F r i t z .t h e . Ethics.0c). above and In the Beginning. VH. ' U n l i k e A r i s t o p h a n e s . If m y explanation is unsatisfying. w h o interpreted ' w e a k e r ' as ' u n j u s t ' in P r o t a g o r a s ' s claim to m a k e the w e a k e r a r g u m e n t p r e v a i l . readers have the choice of C . 1 4 4 .

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h this w a s his attack o n mathematicians for dealing in abstractions. i n c l u d i n g s t u d y and criticism o f the p o e t s (the S o p h i s t s ' predecessors in e d u c a t i o n for life). the prejudice against his professionalism. therefore. ( C f . and it w a s n o t l o n g before others f o l l o w e d his e x a m p l e . T h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t a k i n g either side in an a r g u m e n t a c c o r d i n g to circumstances w a s f o u n d e d o n theories o f k n o w l e d g e and b e i n g w h i c h constituted an extreme reaction from the Eleatic antithesis o f k n o w l e d g e and o p i n i o n . n o o n e n e e d e d t o c o n ­ sider. w h e t h e r or n o t he w o u l d b e persuading t h e m o f a truer state o f affairs. d e s c r i b i n g straight lines. and for the percipient. (See v o l . the attempt to c h a n g e another m a n ' s w o r l d m i g h t b e t h o u g h t n o t o n l y u n o b j e c ­ tionable b u t i m p o s s i b l e . n o r c o u l d a n y o n e contradict another o r call h i m mistaken. ) T h e aim o f his t e a c h i n g w a s a b o v e all practical. and analysis and criticism o f current forms o f speech. before a t t e m p t i n g t o m a k e an i n d i v i d u a l . t h e y d o n o t exist. T h e personal nature o f o u r sensations did n o t m e a n that all perceptible properties c o e x i s t in an external object b u t I p e r c e i v e s o m e and y o u others. reputation and the c o m p a n y o f his intellectual equals b u t c o u l d o n l y find them in the leading cities o f G r e e c e . p p . training his pupils t o argue b o t h sides o f a case and p r o v i d i n g examples to p r o v e his p o i n t that there are c o n t r a r y a r g u m e n t s o n e v e r y subject. Since there w a s n o absolute o r universal truth. H i s character e v i d e n t l y seemed to o v e r c o m e . It m e a n t rather that t h e y h a v e n o o b j e c t i v e existence. It w a s a brilliant s o l u t i o n for an able and a m b i t i o u s m a n b o r n in an u n i m p o r t a n t city in the remote north-east w h o l o n g e d for w e a l t h . T h i s difficulty is o v e r c o m e b y substituting a 267 . for a m a n w a s the sole j u d g e o f his o w n sensations and beliefs. 40 f. the one true and the other false. and in a c c o r d ­ ance w i t h the needs o f the d a y he b a s e d it l a r g e l y o n the art o f persua­ sive s p e a k i n g . w h i c h w e r e true for h i m so l o n g as they appeared t o b e s o .) I f each o f us lives like this in a private w o r l d o f his o w n . a j u r y o r a state c h a n g e its m i n d . 486. 11.Protagoras s Teaching tor t o m a k e others better and m o r e successful in b o t h their personal and political careers. a b o v e . in the m i n d s o f m a n y p r o m ­ inent A t h e n i a n citizens. T h e art o f logoi w a s acquired b y v a r i o u s exercises. T h e r e w a s n o s u c h t h i n g as falsehood. circles and so forth as n o m a n p e r c e i v e s t h e m and as. w h e r e his alien status debarred h i m f r o m active participation in political life. b u t c o m e t o b e as t h e y are p e r c e i v e d .

A t the r o o t o f this c u r i o u s a r g u m e n t is P r o t a g o r a s ' s invincible respect for the democratic virtues o f justice. and e x t e n d i n g b y a n a l o g y the case o f sensations in health and sickness. O n e w o u l d h a r d l y e x p e c t a religious spirit in a man o f these v i e w s . i f persuasion fails. for h i m . but the a g r e e m e n t w h i c h b r o u g h t them i n t o b e i n g w a s the fruit o f bitter experience. b u t o f a state he certainly said that w h a t e v e r c u s t o m s or policies it b e l i e v e d in and e m b o d i e d in its l a w s w e r e right for it so l o n g as it held t h e m t o b e right. W e h a v e n o r e c o r d o f h o w P r o t a g o r a s applied this doctrine t o individual m o r a l ­ ity. g . so also w h a t he believes to b e g o o d is g o o d for h i m . b y p r o m o t i n g a s o u n d e r e c o n o m y o r better relations w i t h its n e i g h b o u r s ) to a happier life for its citizens. for t h e y are essential to o u r p r e s e r v a t i o n . T h e doctrine b e c o m e s m o r e difficult w h e n applied to values in general. w i t h the patient's consent. administers treat­ m e n t w h i c h w i l l i m p r o v e the patient's c o n d i t i o n (cause pleasanter sensations b o t h to appear and b e for h i m ) . and P r o t a g o r a s confessed that o n the existence o f g o d s he p e r s o n a l l y 268 . p r o v i d e d that p u n i s h m e n t is designed to be o n e means a m o n g others o f education in v i r t u e . w i t h the c i t y ' s g o o d w i l l . w h i c h w a s that b e l i e f o r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n w h i c h will p r o d u c e better effects in the future. o r course o f action. b e g o o d for A b u t b a d for B. so a w i s e Sophist o r orator m a y . and those in w h o m it is i n a d e q u a t e l y d e v e l o p e d m a y b e punished. L a w and o r d e r w e r e n o t in o u r nature from the b e g i n n i n g . A s the d o c t o r . T h i s difficulty he g o t o v e r b y e q u a t i n g ' j u s t ' o r ' r i g h t ' w i t h ' l a w f u l ' b u t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g it from ' t h e e x p e d i e n t ' . P r o t a g o r a s m u s t h o l d an e x t r e m e relative t h e o r y o f v a l u e s a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h n o t o n l y m a y the same t h i n g . so l o n g as he b e l i e v e s it. T h e f o o d that t o a sick m a n tastes unpleasant is unpleasant. c o n v e r t it b y a r g u m e n t and n o t b y v i o l e n c e t o g e n u i n e b e l i e f i n the virtues o f a n e w p o l i c y w h i c h w i l l lead ( e . just as w h a t a m a n b e l i e v e s t o b e true is true for h i m . but also. and the necessity o f c o m m u n a l life t o the v e r y s u r v i v a l o f the h u m a n race. respect for o t h e r m e n ' s o p i n i o n s and the processes o f peaceful persuasion as the basis o f c o m m u n a l life. It f o l l o w s that all m e n n o w l i v i n g in s o c i e t y possess the capacity for m o r a l and intellectual virtue. T o b e consistent. b u t a d o c t o r can c h a n g e his w o r l d so that it w i l l b o t h appear and b e pleasant t o h i m .The Men standard o f a d v a n t a g e and d i s a d v a n t a g e for that o f truth and falsehood.

(2) GORGIAS T h e other great m e m b e r o f the first generation o f Sophists. H i s b r o t h e r H e r o d i c u s t o o w a s a d o c t o r . a n d all authorities . h e t o o w a s an Ionian. 24 ff. existed f o r those w h o b e l i e v e d in t h e m . 385 ( D o d d s . 221. c o n t a i n i n g c o m m e n t o n Iliad x x i . runs the c o m m e n t . A w o r d m a y b e a d d e d a b o u t P r o t a g o r a s as a literary critic. See Gudemann in RE. ( P l a t o . w a s Gorgias s o n o f Charmantides. s h o w s him as already a familiar figure i n Thessaly b y 402. Plato (Apol. Gorg. after all. 2. written probably c. A p a p y r u s o f a b o u t the first c e n t u r y A. T h i s w o u l d n o t preclude an interest in the p h e n o m e n a o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f a n d w o r s h i p . G o d s . II. 9 . 1 7 . h e p r o b a b l y b e l i e v e d that this nomos ( ' f o r ' . 1 2 269 . and from Pausanias ( 6 . ' P r o t a g o r a s ' . H e w a s b o r n a b o u t 490 o r a f e w years after. 19 ε ) speaks of h i m as still active in 399. a n d this is l i k e l y . Pap. and w i t h his c o n v i c t i o n o f the value t o s o c i e t y o f established c u s t o m and l a w . almost exactly contemporary w i t h Protagoras. . P l a t o (Meno 76 c ) connects his n a m e w i t h the E m p e d o c l e a n t h e o r y o f p o r e s . a n d h e claimed t o b e o f service t o m e d i c i n e b y b r i n g i n g his p o w e r s o f persuasion t o bear o n recalcitrant patients Oxy. A 7 ) it w o u l d seem that he e n d 8 d his d a y s at the court of Jason.) Athenaeus (505 d. t h o u g h h e c o u l d h a v e b e e n o n l y a v e r y f e w years y o u n g e r . ' i t is b y nomos that w e b e l i e v e i n the g o d s ' ) w a s t o b e e n c o u r a g e d as m u c h as others. n. s h o w s h i m e x a m i n i n g the p o e t ' s p u r p o s e a n d the structure o f the p o e m i n a surprisingly m o d e r n w a y . Gorgias c o u l d o n l y suspend j u d g m e n t . T h e r e is e v i d e n c e independent o f P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e that his criticism o f p o e t r y w a s n o t confined t o grammatical p e d a n t r y or moralizing. Reihe. T h o u g h a W e s t e r n G r e e k .. a n d h e w o u l d also o w e t o E m p e d o c l e s an interest in the arts o f persuasive speech a n d o f m e d i c i n e .Protagoras. ι are a g r e e d that h e l i v e d t o a g r e a t a g e : their reports v a r y b e t w e e n 11 105 a n d 109. * F o r the sources see Untersteiner. f o r his c i t y L e p n t i n i i n Sicily w a s a c o l o n y o f C h a l c i d i a n N a x o s i n the east o f the island. perhaps also t o g l o r i f y Achilles and . T r a d i t i o n says he w a s a pupil o f E m p e d o c l e s ( v o l . Halbb. 135).). 2. m .D. A 15 a ) tells a story which if true w o u l d mean that he lived long enough to read Plato's characterization of h i m in the Gorgias. D K . ' says that the p u r p o s e o f the episode i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the fight b e t w e e n the r i v e r X a n t h u s and mortal m e n is t o d i v i d e the battle a n d m a k e a transition t o the t h e o m a c h y . w h o became tyrant of Pherae i n Thessaly about 380. Meno 7 0 b . 97. 640. as Euripides said. Sophs. 11.

3 . 3 above). See Classen in Proc. A I ) . 93 w i t h notes.t u r v y idea that Empedocles o w e d h i s fame as a teacher of rhetoric (see vol. 2 above. 1 . w h i c h m a y h a v e consisted l a r g e l y o f m o d e l s t o b e learned b y 2 1 heart. 3 . 4 ) . introduction 3 T h e n there w e r e his o w n speeches. political a n d other. 5 a . A r i s t o t l e q u o t e s from the t o his O l y m p i a n oration. Sophs. Afr. 10. 456 b. Gorg. 4 . 11 and 11 a) w o u l d b e e x a m p l e s . 1 3 1 270 . the subject o f w h i c h w a s Hellenic u n i t y (frr. 58. CI. 59. 37f. Ass. 1 . h e w a s already a b o u t sixty.H e l l e n i c centres o f O l y m p i a a n d D e l p h i . L i k e other Sophists h e w a s an itinerant. practising in v a r i o u s cities and g i v i n g public exhibitions o f his skill at the great p a n . a n d the P y t h i a n oration is m e n t i o n e d b y Philostratus ( 1 . H i s w r i t t e n w o r k s included Technai. q u o t e d b y a late w r i t e r t o illustrate his rhetorical style (fr. as w e r e those o f P r o t a g o r a s and P r o d i c u s . A l s o in A r i s t o t l e is a b r i e f q u o t a t i o n f r o m an Encomium on the Eleans (fr. manuals o f rhetorical instruc­ tion. 135) to his brilliant pupil (Gesch. and his o w n o r a t o r y w a s o f the flowery Sicilian t y p e : his name is n o t c o n n e c t e d . 6).6). o n a n e m b a s s y frjDmJLfiOiitim. W h e n h e c a m e t o A t h e n s in I427. 15 and 16). 5 D K ) . w e h a v e paraphrases o f the a r g u m e n t o f the i r o n i c T h e r e is not the slightest evidence for S c h m i d ' s t o p s y . 192 with n. 267a). w i t h the linguistic studies o f orthoepeiajixia ' t h e correctness o f n a m e s ' ( p . A p a r t from the speeches. 7-8 a ) . 9 . 1 . See Untersteiner. w h i c h h e also t o u c h e d o n in his funeral oration for A t h e n i a n s fallen in w a r (frr. w h i c h A r i s t o t l e stigmatizes m o r e than o n c e as b e i n g in b a d taste (frr. and c h a r g e d fees for his instruction a n d p e r f o r m a n c e s . A special feature o f his displays w a s t o invite miscellaneous questions from the audience and g i v e i m ­ p r o m p t u replies. 1 . there are reports o f visits t o B o e o t i a and A r g o s ( w h e r e h e w a s b a d l y r e c e i v e d a n d his lectures balmecT). Gesch. n . and Schmid.The Men o f his b r o t h e r o r other p r a c t i t i o n e r s . n. as w e l l as e a r n i n g large s u m s b y special performances a n d classes for the y o u n g ( p p . n . N o r c o u l d h e h a v e failed t o b e i n t o u c h w i t h the S y r a c u s a n rhetoricians C o r a x a n d T i s i a s ( w i t h w h o m P l a t o associates h i m . and t o o k t h e c i t y b y s t o r m w i t h his n o v e l style o f o r a t o r y . 205 a b o v e ) . fr. Besides T h e s s a l y . 1959. o f w h i c h the extant Encomium of Helen and Defence of Palamedes (frr. epideictic. I On these two w o r k s see p . His interest in the πόροι theory is also mentioned b y Theophrastus (Gorg. 40 a n d 179. Phaedr. For Gorgias's assistance to the doctors b y his ' m a s t e r a r t ' of rhetoric see Plato. n. T h e o n l y considerable extant fragment is o n e from the funeral oration. 10).

Socrates's position w a s that w r o n g d o i n g can only be d u e to ignorance of the g o o d . and the same course o f action w o u l d in o n e set o f c i r c u m ­ stances exhibit arete a n d in another n o t . A l l the Sophists i n d u l g e d in disparagement o f their c o m p e t i t o r s . s o he supposes h e w i l l tell a pupil a b o u t t h e m ' i f h e h a p p e n s Calogero i n JHS.' I n a n y case there w a s n o o n e t h i n g . a n d s o . h e claimed. the truth o f w h i c h e m e r g e s n o t o n l y f r o m his criticisms b u t f r o m G o r g i a s ' s o w n s u r v i v i n g c o m p o s i t i o n s . as p o e t r y — e s p e c i a l l y t r a g e d y — s h o w s (fr. Sophist and Orator treatise On Nature or the Non-existent. after he has disclaimed responsibility f o r this. T h i s is the essence o f P l a t o ' s c o m p l a i n t . c o n c e r n e d w i t h m e a n s n o t e n d s . In his v i e w h i s j o b is t o m a k e c l e v e r speakers. 253 f. said G o r g i a s . for which the certain cure is k n o w l e d g e . 1957 even claims to have found the Socratic principle that n o o n e does w r o n g w i l l i n g l y . O f w h a t u s e w a s the s u r g e o n ' s skill i f the patient w o u l d n o t s u b m i t t o the k n i f e ? O f w h a t use w a s it t o k n o w the best p o l i c y f o r the c i t y i f the A s s e m b l y c o u l d n o t b e persuaded t o a d o p t i t ? Skill in logoi w a s the r o a d t o s u p r e m e p o w e r . A s to the former. P l a t o ' s Socrates is able t o force h i m into a contradiction. W h a t w a s v i r t u e in a slave w o u l d n o t b e v i r t u e in a statesman. arete. P r o t a g o r a s accused t h e m o f w a s t i n g their p u p i l s ' time o n useless specialization. b u t it m a y n o t . I do not see much resemblance. 23). a b o v e ) . a n d G o r g i a s ( n o d o u b t w i t h an e y e particularly o n P r o t a g o r a s ) disclaimed a n y intention o f teaching arete. It c a n b e . B u t i f his sole a c c o m p l i s h m e n t w a s t o m a k e his pupils masters o f the art o f persuasion. ' t h e o n l y p e o p l e w h o profess t o teach i t ? D o y o u think t h e y d o ? ' A n d the reply is (Meno 95 c ) : ' W h a t I particularly admire a b o u t G o r g i a s is that y o u w i l l n e v e r hear h i m m a k e this c l a i m . w h o w o u l d n o t w i s h t o see his instruction p u t t o a b a d u s e . It m a y b e an art o f deceit. Gorgias's. n a m e l y that the art o f G o r g i a s is m o r a l l y neutral.Gorgias. H e h i m s e l f w a s an u p r i g h t m a n . however unscrupulous. H e c a n n o t d e n y that right and w r o n g are part o f the subject-matter o f rhetoric itself. b u t deceit. c a n itself be e m p l o y e d in a g o o d cause. the Helen and Palamedes. 1 1 271 . this. " W h a t a b o u t the S o p h i s t s . in w h i c h he turned the Eleatic thesis u p s i d e . w a s the queen o f sciences and h a d all the rest in its p o w e r . that there is n o such thing as k n o w l e d g e and a m a n ' s conduct was i n the hands of the most powerful persuader. and the idea of the psyche a s seat of consciousness and moral principle. ' Socrates asks M e n o . in those e g r e g i o u s documents of the persuader's art.d o w n . w h o s e essence c o u l d b e k n o w n and defined ( p p . indeed h e l a u g h s at the others w h e n h e hears t h e m d o s o .

I said o n l y favourable things about the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t ' . o f c o u r s e .c o u r t s o r the political arena. 1909. w h e n he w a s on his w a y to China. and discovered in 1876). Gesch. 182). he continues ( p . VM\u L. Quoted b y Robert Blake. the r i g h t time o r o p p o r t u n i t y . w a s almost more than he could bear. Hal. 1 . 3 ( P r o t a g o r a s ) . 1 2 5 ) . Later in the same year. . H e w a s . 1 7 . Shorey. in which a m o n g other things they see medical influence. t h o u g h neither he n o r a n y o n e later had y e t d e v e l o p e d it as a techneA His rhetorical practices w e r e based o n . as Disraeli also k n e w . Some have made a great deal of this ' K a i p o s . H e s a w the I p o w e r o f persuasion as p a r a m o u n t i n e v e r y field. and justified b y . 3 i 6 f . τ ω κ α ι ρ ώ refers o n l y to his gift of improvisation—•' trusting to the inspiration of the m o m e n t ' . then n o d o u b t o n l y that truth. 6 . De comp. y e t in the same paragraph says that. arete. 266.L e h r e ' . He speaks of the utter horror w i t h which he observed the cruelty. A 7. in the s t u d y o f nature ! and other p h i l o s o p h i c a l subjects n o less than in the l a w . In Philostratus 1 . 24. Nestle. 1 . 669) d r e w attention not only to Plato. Schmid (Gesch. fr. T h e shock. J o e l (Gesch. o u g h t to b e conveyed. because he has b e e n d r i v e n into a c o r n e r . persecution and p o v e r t y . See Schmid. 2 1 T h e speaker m u s t adapt 3 his w o r d s to the audience and the situation. A t a n y rate. r e l y i n g on a h i g h . 65 with n. 4 272 . ' i n v i e w of the sort of people t h e y were. 66f. a relativistic p h i l o s o p h y similar t o that o f P r o t a g o r a s . forces this into agreement w i t h the disclaimer b y a ( f o r its time) rather artificial distinction between theoretical exposition and practical training. 5. 3 . 1 (A l a ) έφιεί. n. n. the English on the boat asked him to g i v e a lecture about Soviet Russia and. verb. 460a.). w h e r e a s rhetoric w a s in the c u r r i c u l u m o f e v e r y S o p h i s t . claims Gorgias believed α ρ ε τ ή to b e ' i m vollen und hochsten S i n n ' a gift of the g o d s . but also to the epitaph written b y his great-nephew Eumolpus for his statue at O l y m p i a (mentioned b y Pausanias. 3 1 Dion. 12 ( G o r g . and w e c a n n o t b e certain that he w o u l d h a v e said s u c h a t h i n g i n real life. O n e essential to the art w a s the sense o f o c c a s i o n . T h i s seems a g o o d illustration of the Gorgian attitude to truth and kairos. T h i s speaks of h i m as h a v i n g 'invented the best τ έ χ ν η f o r training the soul f o r the lists of v i r t u e ' ( α ρ ε τ ή ς ^ ά γ ω ν α . H e m a k e s it o n l y . as the L o e b translation has it. hairos. the s p y i n g and h y p o c r i s y that prevailed. In vol. Rensi. G o r g i a s m u s t h a v e put it m o r e p r o m i n e n t l y in his s h o p w i n d o w than a n y o f the others. 1 3 ) . quoted b y Untersteiner (Sophs.The Men not t o k n o w a l r e a d y ' — a n a d m i s s i o n w h i c h m a k e s nonsense o f his denial that he teaches arete. for. b a c k e d b y i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e e v i d e n c e . Gorg. II of his autobiography L o r d Russell describes his visit to R u s s i a soon after the First W o r l d W a r . I f there w e r e a n y u n i v e r s a l l y valid t r u t h w h i c h c o u l d b e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o another. whereas f o r Protagoras α ί δ ώ . ΤΑΡΑ. he says. ) . existed. * Gorgias's disclaimer has naturally aroused discussion. for Gorgias t h e y w e r e human and m u t a b l e ! W e r e t h e y not in his e y e s a p r r a l ? I have ventured to connect the disclaimer w i t h his denial that a n y single thing. said D i o n y s i u s ι o f Halicarnassus. ' t h e o p p o r t u n e in a p o p u l a r a s s e m b l y has s o m e t i m e s m o r e success than the weightiest efforts o f research and r e a s o n ' . 2. Disraeli.f l o w n bit of rhetoric in the Epitaphios. 58. the first t o w r i t e a b o u t this. 7 = DK. and δίκη w e r e part of a divine order.

A m o n g others w h o are said o r t h o u g h t t o h a v e b e e n either his pupils o r subject t o his T h e apodosis. i n P l a t o ' s e y e s . W e live in a w o r l d w h e r e o p i n i o n (doxd) is supreme. a conception o f what is happen­ ing at present and a foreknowledge o f the future . But as it is. T o express. §35. because i f t h e y are only o p i n i o n s the true o n e w i l l b e as vulnerable as the false t o the wiles o f the persuader. based o n u n s h a k e a b l e proof. w h e r e it w a s felt b y writers as diverse as the historian T h u c y d i d e s a n d the tragic p o e t A g a t h o n . . For different solutions see DK adloc. 1 1 . N e x t . O n l y k n o w l e d g e . h e m u s t restore the criterion o f j u d g m e n t a n d d e m o n ­ strate h o w o p i n i o n c a n b e c o n v e r t e d to k n o w l e d g e b y ' t h i n k i n g o u t the reason' (Meno 98a). because there is n o p e r m a n ­ ent a n d stable truth t o b e k n o w n . Symp. w i t h all t h e intellectual force at his c o m m a n d . a n d e v e n i f w e c o u l d . i n c o m m a n d o f the w h o l e field o f experience.Gorgias: the Philosophy of a Rhetorician If everyone had a memory o f all that is past. exists as at the same time an i m m u t a b l e reality and the object o f h u m a n k n o w l e d g e .h e r e s y w h i c h he m u s t d o his u t m o s t t o destroy. h e cast it into the p h i l o s o p h i c a l form o f a challenge t o the Eleatic assertion o f a single changeless b e i n g g r a s p e d b y an infallible reason as o p p o s e d t o the c h a n g i n g w o r l d o f appearance. . 273 1 . T h i s leaves the Sophist-orator. for o p i n i o n can a l w a y s b e c h a n g e d . there is no easy w a y o f either recollecting the past or investigating the present or divining the future. that i s . is uncertain i n text and meaning. a n d there is n o h i g h e r criterion b y w h i c h it can b e verified o r the reverse. this thesis that w e are all at the m e r c y o f o p i n i o n a n d the truth is for e a c h o f u s w h a t e v e r w e c a n b e persuaded t o b e l i e v e . that there is s u c h a t h i n g as true a n d false o p i n i o n . and opinion is slippery and insecure {Hel. first. a n d there is n o s u c h t h i n g . N o t h i n g is as P a r m e n i d e s u s e d the v e r b . w h i c h w a s unreal. the a r c h . quoted on p. that k n o w l e d g e is in general impossible and fallible opinion the only guide. It does not affect the main point. w e c o u l d n e v e r c o m m u n i c a t e o u r k n o w l e d g e t o others.) H i s m o s t famous pupil w a s Isocrates. fr. T h e influence o f G o r g i a s w a s considerable. 198 c. I f there w e r e such a reality w e c o u l d n o t grasp it. H e m u s t s h o w . 11 a. c o u l d withstand the attacks o f peitho. Sof. 101 f. so that on most subjects most men have only opinion to offer the mind as counsellor. especially o f c o u r s e o n literary style. 1 II). Cf. ( F o r A g a t h o n see P l a t o . omitted here. master o f the art o f persuasion b o t h private a n d public. o r o p i n i o n . T h i s w a s . 180 above. and Untersteiner.

1873. 339 ε ff. Critias. w e are free t o a c c e p t P l a t o ' s i f w e w i s h as a n o t u n k i n d l y e x a g g e r a t i o n (so at least it seems to m e ) o f g e n u i n e traits. then. t h e picture o f the u n h a p p y p r o f e s s o r . (3) PRODICUS T o a n y reader o f P l a t o the n a m e o f P r o d i c u s i n e v i t a b l y recalls.The Men influence are A n t i s t h e n e s and A l c i d a m a s . and a m o n g 1 active politicians Pericles. for the Protagoras tells u s that he w a s m u c h y o u n g e r than P r o t a g o r a s . since there is n o o t h e r e v i d e n c e for P r o d i c u s ' s personal idiosyncrasies. 3150-0!. could possibly have been the 1 author o f the h e r o i c fable o f Heracles at the c r o s s r o a d s . a w r i t e r a b o u t Heracles s h o u l d h i m s e l f b e w r a p p e d in l i o n ' s skin. 3) and others. n o t sheep's. T h e S u d a ( D K . I n Joel's p s y c h o l o g y . 6 8 . ' suffering g r i e v o u s p a i n s ' as the s o b r i q u e t T a n t a l u s s u g g e s t s . w a s an act o f 'refined denied that this miserable creature barbarity' o n P l a t o ' s part. t a k i n g P l a t o ' s picture for the truth. b e t w e e n 470 and 460. t h o u g h t S i d g w i c k . P r o x e n u s and M e n o . Gesch. P r o d i c u s . and H i p p o c r a t e s the great p h y s i c i a n . for w i t h G o r g i a s and Hippias he is m e n t i o n e d in the present tense at P l a t o Apol. b e f o r e a n y t h i n g else. A 1) calls h i m rather v a g u e l y a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f D e m o c r i t u s a n d G o r g i a s . w h e r e a s Joel. A l c i b i a d e s . Prot. Prot. and all that c a n b e said a b o u t t h e length o f his life is that h e o u t l i v e d h i m . the h o m e o f the p o e t S i m o n i d e s . a n d m o r e d o u b t f u l l y L y c o p h r o n . H o w e v e r that m a y b e .). b u t it m u s t h a v e b e e n nearer the s e c o n d . w i t h M a y e r (Prod. T o d r a w s u c h a picture. S i d g w i c k in J. Joel. h i s w o r d s d r o w n e d b y the reverberations o f his d r o n i n g v o i c e in the small r o o m in the h o u s e o f Callias w h e r e h e h o l d s forth t o a select g r o u p o f listeners. 1 9 c P l a t o says that he often came t o A t h e n s o n official missions f r o m C e o s . 689. a f e w years older than Socrates. O n e c a n n o t d o better than put it. a n d like G o r g i a s t o o k the o p p o r t u n i t y t o earn s o m e m o n e y b y d e c l a i m i n g h i s c o m p o s i t i o n s i n public a n d g i v i n g instruction t o the y o u n g m e n . 274 . w h i c h a l l o w s a n y t h i n g b e t w e e n 490 and 460 for h i s b i r t h . Philol. l y i n g o n his b e d w r a p p e d in sheepskins and b l a n k e t s ( ' a n d p l e n t y o f t h e m ' ) . I f ' Plato. H e w a s a native o f the I o n i a n c i t y o f Iulis o n C e o s in the C y c l a d e s . as Socrates reminds h i m w h e n that p o e t ' s w o r k s are u n d e r discussion ( P l a t o . H e w a s .

h e has passed m a n y o f t h e m o n t o P r o d i c u s a n d o t h e r ' w o n d r o u s l y w i s e m e n ' w h o are m o r e likely t o help t h e m . w h i c h h e thinks m a y b e 'ancient and g o d . are w i t h o u t a g o o d idea in their heads). Maj. a n d in the Charmides says h e has listened t o ' i n n u m e r a b l e d i s c o u r s e s ' o f P r o d i c u s o n the distinction o f names. w h o s e name is c o u p l e d w i t h that o f P r o t a g o r a s as teaching the art o f success in politics and private life.) calls h i m s e l f his p u p i l in this skill. g o i n g b a c k t o S i m o n i d e s o r e v e n earlier'. U n d o u b t e d l y Socrates t h o u g h t o f his o w n d i a 1 fifty-drachma Plato. Clouds 361 and Birds 692. p r e s u m a b l y . a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s c o u l d raise a l a u g h b y m e n t i o n i n g his name in 423 and 414. he a d d s that w h e n h e has j u d g e d that p e o p l e are n o t p r e g n a n t (that is. Hipp. T h e infer­ ence is n o t flattering. A r i s t o t l e (Rhet. Socrates ( o f w h o s e relations w i t h P r o d i c u s s o m e t h i n g has already b e e n said. In the Hippias Major h e calls h i m his friend o r c o m p a n i o n . 275 . and elsewhere in the d i a l o g u e speaks o f h i m as a m a n o f ' inspired w i s ­ d o m ' . and s o h a v e n o need o f h i m . T h e r e seems t o h a v e been a standing j o k e a b o u t the difference b e t w e e n his o n e .g i v e n . h e m u s t h a v e b e e n w e l l k n o w n in A t h e n s before the b e g i n n i n g o f the P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r . 1 H e w a s a Sophist in the full sense o f a professional freelance e d u c a t o r . says this is w h a t P r o d i c u s called ' s l i p p i n g in a b i t o f the w h e n the audience b e g i n s t o n o d ' .Prodicus w e accept the o b v i o u s dramatic date for the Protagoras. A s o n e o f those present at the g a t h e r i n g o f Sophists described in the Protagoras. 2 8 2 c .d r a c h m a lecture. w h e r e the main emphasis is o n a s o m e w h a t ironic treatment o f his insistence o n fine distinctions o f m e a n i n g b e t w e e n w o r d s c o m m o n l y regarded as s y n o n y m s .p a n g s o f m e n w h o s e m i n d s are b i g w i t h ideas. I n the (384b) Socrates says that i f h e c o u l d h a v e afforded the fifty drachmas he w o u l d n o w b e fully expert o n the ' c o r r e c t n e s s o f n a m e s ' . g i v i n g hints o n h o w t o recall the w a n d e r i n g attention o f a n audience b y s o m e striking p r o n o u n c e m e n t . 1415 b 12). p p . In the Meno also h e speaks o f h i m s e l f as h a v i n g been trained b y P r o d i c u s as M e n o b y G o r g i a s . b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y he h a d t o b e content w i t h the o n e . 222 f. Aristophanes.d r a c h m a lecture a n d his fifty-drachma Cratylus lecture ( o r c o u r s e ? See p . after e x p l a i n i n g his maieutic skill in a i d i n g the b i r t h . In the Theaetetus. n . h e takes part in the c o n v e r s a t i o n at v a r i o u s p o i n t s . 42. 1) o n semantics.

Prod. w h o thought that the Prot. a b o v e . T o extract from the nuances o f P l a t o ' s literary portraits a prosaic and agreed a c c o u n t o f the relations b e t w e e n the t w o m e n is practically impossible. Hipp. ) T o say that it led him to renounce the scepticism and relativism of his brother-Sophists is to pay h i m a compliment w h i c h I should be inclined to reserve for Socrates. it is Laches w h o . as the o n l y g e n u i n e l y p h i l o s o p h i c m e t h o d . since they come from Plato. 224f. 3 4 1 a . Laches ι<)η&.m a d e facts o r theories.c ) . o r at least v e r y m u c h at the m e r c y o f subjective impressions. 1 5 1 b . o n the other hand. 2 6 9 b . For a s u m m i n g u p of the Socratic-Platonic picture of Prodicus see also M a y e r . thus b r i n g i n g h i m much closer to Socrates. attended his lectures o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f u s i n g w o r d s precisely. in o p p o s i t i o n t o Socrates.2 2 . 1 O n e w o u l d s u p p o s e from P l a t o that the essence o f P r o d i c u s ' s teaching w a s linguistic. elsewhere Plato acknowledges the scientific v a l u e of Prodicus's procedure. as t o C o n f u c i u s (Socrates. and the i m p l i c a ­ tion is that sophistic e d u c a t i o n . ' T h e correctness o f n a m e s ' w a s the f o u n d a ­ tion o f all else (Euthyd. t h o u g h his linguistic teaching u n d o u b t e d l y included semantic distinctions b e t w e e n ethical terms. 1 6 3 d . M o m i g l i a n o does g o further than I have ventured to g o here in attributing to Prodicus an awareness of the consequences of his semantic teaching as it affected both ethics and epistemology. and that b y teaching t h e m t o others t h e y h a v e g i v e n t h e m c o m p l e t e instruction in r h e t o r i c ' (Phaedr. gives distortion. However. B u t P r o d i ­ cus. i ) . on h o w one chooses to interpret the m a n y refer­ ences to their relations which. Theaet. 104) that the ' m y t h ' of Prodicus as master of Socrates is C y n i c in origin depends. T h e S u d a h o w e v e r (A 1. had stopped at the threshold. ' t h e rectification o f n a m e s ' . treats the pupil rather as a passive receiver o f r e a d y . η . Maj. disparages P r o d i c u s ' s a c c o m p l i s h m e n t as ' the sort o f c l e v e r ­ ness that befits a Sophist rather than a statesman'. 168. as exemplified b y P r o d i c u s . correct l a n g u a g e . Meno 96c!. and it m a y w e l l b e that this truth first d a w n e d o n h i m w h i l e listening to the o n e . w a s the prerequisite for correct l i v i n g and e v e n efficient g o v e r n m e n t . W h e t h e r or not one agrees with Joel and M o m i ­ gliano (see the latter in Atti Torino. T o Socrates. D K ) classifies ' Other references for this p a r a g r a p h : Plato. 1929-30. 277ε). 1 8 . I n the Laches. H e w a s like the orators w h o ' w h e n t h e y h a v e learned the necessary p r e ­ liminaries t o rhetoric think t h e y h a v e d i s c o v e r e d the art itself. 3 1 5 ε . 282c. are free from suspicion of such an origin. T h e r e is n o d o u b t that Socrates had close personal relations w i t h h i m . 276 . of course. and (I s h o u l d s a y ) felt a certain affection for his d o n n i s h g u l l i b i l i t y .The Men lectic. Charm. Prot. T h e c o m p l e t e art o f logoi embraces n o ­ t h i n g less than the w h o l e o f p h i l o s o p h y . w h e r e b y o n e m a n helps another t o mature and formulate his o w n ideas. ( F o r m o r e on this see pp. p . caricature and i r o n y .d r a c h m a discourse o f P r o d i c u s .

G o r g i a s ' a n d all the rest'. c o n v e y i n g elementary m o r a l c o m m o n p l a c e s t h r o u g h the easily absorbed m e d i u m o f a fable a b o u t one o f the m o s t p o p u l a r figures o f l e g e n d . 1 9 5 Helmreich (Prodicus fr. w h o in the Clouds (360) calls h i m μετεωροσοφιστήξ. in w h i c h he b r o u g h t his linguistic interests t o bear on p h y s i o l o g i c a l terms. I m p e c c a b l e as are its sentiments. 177b). ( S e e Socrates. E m p e d o c l e s . Galen adds a reference to his l i n ­ guistic innovations as described b y Plato. and G a l e n (see D K . 1 1 1 enthusiastic 277 . w i t h Melissus. 100 ff. as h a v i n g written etiam de natura rerum.20. It is p r e s u m a b l y the w o r k re­ ferred t o b y P l a t o w h e n he speaks o f ' the g o o d P r o d i c u s ' as h a v i n g w r i t t e n a p r o s e e n c o m i u m o f Heracles (Symp. 4). f e w w o u l d n o w a d a y s a c c o r d it the eulogy of Grote. X e n o p h o n describes it as ' t h e c o m p o s i t i o n a b o u t Heracles w h i c h he delivered before the largest c r o w d s ' .) For Cicero's reference to Prodicus. see p. beginning: W h o is there that has not read the well-known fable called ' T h e Choice o f Heracles' ? W h o does not k n o w that its express purpose is to kindle the O n e cannot altogether discount this on the ground that h e applied the same w o r d to Socrates. G a l e n m e n t i o n s a w o r k ' o n the nature o f m a n ' . together with other Sophists. Galen. i f n o t the actual w o r d s .Prodicus h i m as 'natural p h i l o s o p h e r and S o p h i s t ' . o f an epideixis o f P r o d i c u s . 3 . t h o u g h he clothes its sentiments in e v e n m o r e magnificent w o r d s than I h a v e n o w ' . w h i c h seems to guarantee its genuineness b y b e i n g exactly the sort o f t h i n g that one w o u l d expect a S o p h i s t to c o m p o s e for recital before a p o p u l a r audience. insisting that the w o r d phlegm should b e applied t o the h o t h u m o u r because o f its e t y m o l o g i c a l c o n n e x i o n w i t h the v e r b ' t o b u r n ' . A 8). A t the end Socrates says that w h a t he has g i v e n is ' a p p r o x i m a t e l y P r o d i c u s ' s s t o r y o f the e d u c a t i o n o f Heracles b y V i r t u e . phys. for there is e v e r y likelihood that Socrates's earlier years w e r e in fact marked b y an interest in natural philosophy sufficient to g i v e some factual basis to the description. an ' a s t r o n o m i c a l e x p e r t ' . Its influence has b e e n surprisingly great. A l c m a e o n . T h i s finds s o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y confirmation in A r i s t o p h a n e s . Parmenides. and a s s i g n i n g the name blenna t o the c o l d h u m o u r c o m m o n l y called phlegm? W e possess at least the content. De virt. DK. and in the Birds (692) implies that he p r o d u c e d a c o s m o g o n y . 24 A 2) includes h i m in a s o m e w h a t indiscriminate list o f ' writers o n n a t u r e ' . and puts the report in the m o u t h o f Socrates as a c o u n t e r w e i g h t t o the h e d o n i s m and sensuality o f A r i s t i p p u s . not a physicus (15 . 46 above. Gellius on the other hand contrasts h i m w i t h A n a x a g o r a s as a rhetor.

Mem. G r o t e t h o u g h t . her b o d y c l o t h e d in p u r i t y and her e y e s in m o d e s t y . (See liis Gesch. especially its relation to the Y symbol as ( a ) crossroads and (J>) tree of life. see his n. the primrose path and the arduous climb to virtue. Idleness.The Men imaginations o f youth in favour o f a life o f labour for noble objects.. and the pleasure and ease that she p r o m i s e s c a n b e i m a g i n e d . O n e m i g h t rather say that i f all sophistic t e a c h i n g w e r e like this it w o u l d confirm the v i e w expressed b y P l a t o in the Republic (493 a ) that the so-called w i s ­ d o m o f the Sophists b o i l s d o w n t o a rehash o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l o p i n i o n s o f the c r o w d . which has not been generally followed. from X e n . i f he w i s h e s it. as Schmid calls it. 1909. 2 of Prodicus in DK. She speaks first. 57. V i r t u e h a n d s o m e a n d n o b l e in m i e n . History (1888 e d .1 0 1 . E a c h is suitably described. a tide of dubious meaning which if it w a s the author's o w n ( L e s k y . 9 7 . when set off b y the oral expansions o f the author? H j It is. S. he is a c c o s t e d b y t w o tall w o m e n representing V i r t u e and V i c e . h o w much more powerfully must it have worked upon the audience for whose belief it was specially adapted. 1 . w h o c o m p e t e for his allegiance. HGL. 1. V i r t u e b y contrast p r o m i s e s a life o f severe training. w h e r e a s i f h e has f o l l o w e d virtue he can b a s k in the m e m o r y o f past g l o r i e s and e n j o y the happiness that his efforts have merited. Its basic idea of the choice of t w o w a y s in life. J o e l took the extreme v i e w . w i t h a c o m p l e x i o n n o t left t o nature. w h i c h c a n o n l y be w o n b y toil and s w e a t . a v i n d i c a t i o n o f P r o d i c u s and a w a r n i n g against p u t t i n g confidence in the sarcastic remarks o f P l a t o . pleasure and v i c e o n the other hand w i l l w e a k e n his b o d y and d e s t r o y his m i n d . On this w o r k see especially Nestle in Hermes. her w h o l e appearance s u g g e s t i n g self-control. is printed as fr. T h i s i s not to d e n y that it m a y have become.l i t e r a t u r e ' (Gesch.) T h i s is refuted b y the reference to it in a scholion 1 278 . 1936 and H. but an Antisthenean w o r k C y n i c in character. 2 . ' One of the most influential pieces of w o r l d . that the fable w a s not b y Prodicus at all. V I I . H i s later y e a r s w i l l b e a b u r d e n to h i m . and a dress r e v e a l i n g rather than c o n c e a l i n g her c h a r m s . R. u. 4 1 . w h i c h w i l l h o w e v e r b e r e w a r d e d w i t h h o n o u r . Schultz's article Herakles am Scheidewege. 686-9. For a more balanced criticism see Grant. w h o makes some telling points. and against a life o f indulgence? If it be o f striking simplicity and effect even to a modern reader. It appeared in a w o r k called Horai. hard w o r k and simplicity. W h e n Heracles as a y o u n g m a n is p o n d e r i n g w h i c h path o f life to take. and V i c e p l u m p a n d soft. 2 1 . g o e s further into the mythical affinities of the tale. in Philol. Gomperz.3 4 . true friendship and. a w a n d e r i n g e y e . 9 for b i b l i o g r a p h y ) . w e a l t h and p o w e r . ) . Ethics.145 f. 1 2 Grote. was already in Hesiod (Erga 287—92). 348) w a s doubtless explained somewhere in the w o r k itself. T h e full text. 1 T h e r e is n o need to repeat e v e r y detail o f the w e l l - k n o w n tale.

αποβλέπει ν) neither have nor appear intended to have the same meaning. i ) . T h e first set quoted (κατασκοπείσβοη. Grant and Untersteiner (Sophs. 207) also regard it as authentic in substance. T h i s t h e o r y w a s n o t o n l y remarkable for its rationalism b u t h a d the additional merit o f discerning a c l o s e c o n n e x i o n b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n a n d agriculture. u. 2 3 8 ff. as Gomperz frankly says (S. 1 to Aristophanes (Prodicus fr. T h i s w o u l d be difficult to substantiate. and he t o o k a p u r e l y naturalistic v i e w o f religion ( p p . 7 4 . u. Grote. a p a n e g y r i c o n agriculture l e a d i n g t o t h o u g h t s o n m o r a l virtue a n d the e d u c a t i o n requisite to attain it. S. His t h e o r y w a s that p r i m i t i v e m a n . i o o f . and Horai. since fertility-cults are n o t o n l y w i d e s p r e a d at an early stage o f civilization b u t w e r e especially c o m m o n in G r e e c e . in which the cycle of things and the ethical l a w which g o v e r n s all found one of their unifying v i s i o n s ' . 2 6 4 ) a b o u t the d u b i o u s a u t h o r i t y o f such titles i n general. M a y e r in Prod. 8 f . 10 f. w a s s o impressed w i t h the gifts that she p r o v i d e d for the furtherance o f his life. For Untersteiner the Horai w a s ' h i s greatest w o r k . a n d a b o u t these w e m u s t remind o u r s e l v e s o f w h a t w a s said earlier ( p . Schacht. 1 0 1 . A l t h o u g h such arguments can never lead to certainty. θεασθαι. R. n . έπισκοπείν. There is of course n o means of k n o w i n g how close Xenophon has kept to the original. to w h o m m a n y aspects o f nature m u s t h a v e appeared hostile. T h e o n l y recorded titles o f w o r k s b y P r o d i c u s are On Nature. 2 2 5 . w h o insisted that no t w o w o r d s o u g h t to be used as if they had identical meanings. M a y e r . Sophs. 207 and (for Nestle's reconstruction) 225. which are not in Xenophon. h i s t h e o r y o f the o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n . 10 279 G S Γ . See Spengel i n Gomperz. assuming that much in Xenophon's description of it as an epidcixis is fiction.Prodicus P r o d i c u s ' s o u t l o o k . a n d e v e n the doctrine o f s y n o n y m s . ) . Blass. S o m e h a v e t h o u g h t that the Horai w a s a universal w o r k i n c l u d i n g as internal sections his v i e w s o n nature. ) suppose h i m to h a v e handled the tale v e r y freely. T h i s w a s based o n o b s e r v e d fact. h u m a n and o t h e r w i s e . foodstuffs a n d the v i n e — t h a t he b e l i e v e d them either t o b e the d i s c o v e r y a n d especial benefaction o f d i v i n e b e i n g s o r t h e m s e l v e s t o e m b o d y the g o d h e a d . but it i s plain from Plato that instruction in the subject was given in an independent lecture or course of lectures. w a s humanistic. In this connexion attention has been drawn to the use of w o r d s of c l o s e l y related meaning which some have connected w i t h Prodicus's ' s y n o n y m i c ' w h i l e to others they have appeared as mere stylistic variations a la Gorgias and entirely unlike Prodicus. Prod. air and fire. but g i v e the i m ­ pression of being carefully chosen for their context. a b o v e ) . w h o s e independence seems assured b y its mention of the title and final choice of Heracles. I have ventured what can be n o m o r e than an opinion. T h e inclusion of the Heracles fable involves. n. ' See Untersteiner. others ( W e c k l e i n . like that o f other Sophists. earth a n d w a t e r . On the Nature of Man. H i s insistence on the correct use of w o r d s naturally permeated all h i s w o r k . there is more to b e said for Spengel and Gomperz. welfare a n d e n j o y m e n t — s u c h as the sun. w h e r e m o r e o v e r it w a s c u s t o m a r y to trace all the benefits o f civilized life t o an o r i g i n in the i n v e n t i o n o f agriculture. R.

3. h e w a s r e m a r k a b l y in h a r m o n y w i t h Socrates. 102-10. t h o u g h the a u t h o r o f the Eryxias makes h i m take part in the d i s c o m ­ fiture o f the Sophist.e . Maj. give vent to s u c h d e p r e s s i n g l y pessimistic c o m m e n t s o n the worthlessn8SS o f life that h e h i m s e l f felt a s t r o n g u r g e for death. w h o . 226. w h o argues for it i n the Meno (87 ε ff. w h o s i m p l y s a y s that Ιιε w a s m u c h y o u n g e r than P r o t a g o r a s . i n a n epideixis dεlivεred at the η ο ^ ε o f Callias. n. T h e o n l y a u t h o r i t y f o r his date is P l a t o . says that Ιιε has heaxA h i m . R. h e says. c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h Socrates rather than w i t h P r o t a g o r a s a n d G o r g i a s . a n d s o m e ­ t h i n g v e r y like it appears in the ' A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i ' ( D K . 4 (a) Hippias wrote an inscription for the statues b y 1 3 1 2 3 280 . u. h o w e v e r . I f h e d i d s a y this. n. H i s w i d o w e d daught8r m a r i ^ d Isocrates in the latter's o l d a g e . T h e i r date is uncertain. because according to Pausanias 5 . W h e n all is said.) h e is reported as s a y i n g that w e a l t h . B u t the thesis itself w a s perhaps a c o m m o n p l a c e . a n d implies that he w a s alive H.) Untersteiner also claims that he is the A n o n y m u s of Iamblichus and wrote T h u c y d i d e s 3 . 82. Prot. β ε ε π ^ t o e v e r y b o d y t o b e t a l k i n g nonsense. 401.) ' S o c r a t e s ' . Hipp. m a y s u g g e s t that he w a s inclined t o a g l o o m y v i e w . I cannot follow h i s argument (Sof.). a n d the allusion t o P r o d i c u s as T a n t a l u s in the Protagoras. i n . * n t n e Axiochus (366cff. 76) that. F o r authorities see DK. T h e m e n t i o n o f an epideixis is circumstantial. the o n l y facets o f his teaching a b o u t w h i c h w e k n o w e n o u g h t o m a k e it o f p h i l o s o p h i c interest are his passion for the exact u s e o f l a n g u a g e a n d his t h e o r y o f the o r i g i n o f religion. Untersteiner's belief that he w a s not born until about 443 depends on his theory that he w r o t e the proem to Theophrastus's Characters. (See Sophs. 11. 2 5 . after s o m e b o o r i s h and ill-phrased criticism o f P r o d i c u s ' s g r e e d for fees. (4) HIPPIAS 1 Hippias s o n o f D i o p e i t t ^ s w a s another o f the y o u n g e r gen8ration o f Sophists. 272 and 274. a n d the v i e w s attributed to h i m cannot b e regarded as certainly authentic. A 3 and 4. I n the Eryxias (397 d ff. t o g e t h e r w i t h h i s b ε d r i d d e n stat8 (until Ιιε w a s hauled o u t o f it b y the others). 16-19). like e v e r y t h i n g else. b u t a curse t o the i g n o r a n t a n d e v i l . 282 d . is a b l e s s i n g t o a g o o d m a n w h o k n o w s h o w t o use it p r o p e r l y . Sophs. Gomperz has a long discussion of both these passages in S. 4 (on events in C o r c y r a ) .The Men F i n a l l y o n e m a y m e n t i o n references t o P r o d i c u s i n t w o p s e u d o Platonic d i a l o g u e s . see also the references in Untersteiner. 317 c. F o r the first.

d ) . w h e r e b y the real o n s l a u g h t o n w h a t t o P l a t o w e r e the dis­ astrous effects o f his teaching w a s reserved for other. h e w a s . 101 with 316 n. but tlic difficulty seems to be of his o w n making. and e v e n his m i l d l y ironical attitude t o the pedantic side o f P r o d i c u s ' s semantic distinctions. though (Nestle admits) Plato does take h i m more seriously in the Protagoras. 360). ' a t the festival o f all H e l l a s ' . W h e n o n e thinks o f the respect w h i c h he accords t o P r o t a g o r a s . less s y m p a t h e t i c characters. the picture of h i m in the Hippias dialogues is just a caricature. 1. and o f the vast sums o f m o n e y w h i c h he has earned o n these visits b y his o u t s t a n d i n g v i r t u o s i t y as a Sophist. 281b) b u t also t o Sicily (ibid. 7. I w i l l not at this point enter into the question of the genuineness of the t w o Hippias dialogues. 1 10-2 . 6. A t O l y m p i a . P.t a k i n g remarks like ' I h a v e n e v e r f o u n d a n y m a n w h o Calon of the drowned Messenians which w a s later than the statues themselves. makes Hippias's character the most difficult to grasp of a n y Sophist's.x v i i (she believed it to be probably b y a pupil of P l a t o ) and E. and for the major D . Maj. the inscription on the base of a different statue b y Calon (which has been excavated) s h o w s lettering of 420-410. i x . For modern authorities pro and con see Friedlander. therefore the inscription b y Hippias is to b e assigned to that decade. T h i s is not the inference of Frazer. 282 ε ) . n . T h e minor is quoted b y Aristotle. C o m i n g from Elis. m o s t often t o Sparta ( P l a t o . to w h o m Untersteiner refers. T h i s . X u. 363 c .Hippias i n 399. 24. Plato. Edelstein. T a r r a n t ' s ed. w h i c h he also displayed at A t h e n s and O l y m p i a and n o d o u b t elsewhere. * Nestle drew a different conclusion from the variety of treatment (VM^uL. the consistency w i t h w h i c h h e m a k e s b r o a d fun o f Hippias surely justifies a suspicion that h e w a s in fact a s o m e w h a t b o m b a s t i c . H e boasts (in P l a t o ) that the Eleans a l w a y s turn t o h i m as the ideal m a n t o represent t h e m abroad. pp. O n the other hand there is a m a r k e d difference b e t w e e n his treatment o f them as individuals. T h o s e therefore w h o are c o n v i n c e d that Plato w a s possessed b y a hatred o f the Sophists w h i c h blinded h i m to their real character m a y i g n o r e it and c o n c l u d e that w e k n o w little o r n o t h i n g a b o u t h i m . unlike m o s t Sophists in b e i n g a D o r i a n . Min. M o s t o f o u r information a b o u t Hippias c o m e s from P l a t o . Metaph. 2 1 H e is g i v e n t o b r e a t h . as Nestle has p o i n t e d o u t (VM^uL. his tactful h a n d l i n g o f G o r g i a s . n. Bild. though without mention of its authorship. and hence travelled m o r e t o D o r i a n cities than t o A t h e n s . Hipp. he offered b o t h prepared discourses and e x ­ t e m p o r e a n s w e r s t o questions p u t t o h i m o n the spot (Hipp. he thought. 146 with 326 n. 1025 a 6. w h o in t w o d i a l o g u e s m a d e h i m the o n l y interlocutor o f S o c r a t e s as w e l l as i n c l u d i n g h i m in the Protagoras. h u m o u r l e s s and thick-skinned character. 3 6 0 ) : because Plato liked Protagoras but felt a deep antipathy for Hippias.

and his astonishing versatility. a n d the u n s u s p e c t i n g i n n o c e n c e w i t h w h i c h h e laps u p the m o s t blatantly ironical flattery from Socrates is almost attractive. 178 a. H e w a s e v i d e n t l y o n e o f those w h o a b s o r b learning easily a n d q u i c k l y . Subjects that h e w a s prepared t o teach included a s t r o n o m y . T h a t he h a d s o m e t h i n g t o boast a b o u t is e q u a l l y certain. 315 c. 1965. .) A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l interests are s u g g e s t e d b y a w o r k called Nomenclature of Tribes. 402b and Symp. have deduced that for this and all his other references to Thales Aristotle made use of the w o r k of Hippias mentioned b y C l e m e n t in fr. C e r t a i n l y h e is a m a n w i t h w h o m it w o u l d b e difficult t o b e a n g r y . s p o k e o f L y c u r g u s ' s military talent. 2 4 ) attributes the information to both Aristotle and Hippias. M o s t o f his subjects are listed b y P l a t o w i t h o u t a n y illustrations. Symp. Prot. 405 a 19 i n the f o r m : ' T h a l e s too seems to have supposed. H e s p o k e o f T h a l e s d r a w i n g from the b e h a v i o u r o f a m b e r and the loadstone the c o n c l u s i o n that inanimate objects h a d s o u l . See Classen in Philol. and D.L. g e n e a l o g y . 2850-6. i n c l u d i n g the h i s t o r y o f p h i l o s o p h y and m a t h e m a t i c s .. g r a m m a r . Snell. 4. a n d p u b l i s h e d a list o f O l y m p i c v i c t o r s . Aristotle introduces this cautiously at De an. 6. r h y t h m . 2 and o f M a m e r c u s . b r o t h e r o f t h e p o e t Stesichorus. T h e o n l y astronomical p r o n o u n c e m e n t that has c o m e d o w n is that h e p u t the X e n . a n d at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the Hippias Minor h e has just finished an epideixis o n H o m e r . W e l l m i g h t X e n o p h o n call h i m a p o l y m a t h . A s a historian h e n o t e d that the w o r d tyrannos w a s n o t used before the time o f A r c h i l o c h u s . w h i c h in the hands o f a S o p h i s t w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o deal w i t h m o r a l questions than w i t h w h a t w e s h o u l d call literary criticism. from w h a t is reported about h i m . ( 1 . s o m e o f it s u c h as t o demand h i g h intellectual gifts. Plato speaks o f his M a c a u l a y . of which they have detected further traces in Plato Crat. I n the Protagoras (347 a) h e lays claim t o a logos o n Simonides ( w h i c h h e w i l l recite t o the c o m p a n y i f requested). Plato. a f e w o f w h i c h h a v e c o m e d o w n in later writers. 2 1 282 . and following h i m Classen. I n m y t h o l o g y h e differed from P i n d a r o v e r the n a m e o f P h r i x u s ' s s t e p m o t h e r and claimed that the continents o f A s i a a n d E u r o p e w e r e called after O c e a n i d s o f these names. 1 H e also w r o t e declamations o n the p o e t s . Hipp. arithmetic. as a successor o f T h a l e s in g e o m e t r y . m u s i c . 3 1 8 ε .62. ' .l i k e m e m o r y . Maj. . w h e r e b y h e c o u l d retain a list o f fifty names after a single hearing. as A r i s t o t l e did later o f the P y t h i a n v i c t o r s . g e o m e t r y . ( O l y m p i a w a s o f c o u r s e o n his h o m e territory. m y t h o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y .The Men w a s m y superior in a n y t h i n g ' .

Even if. D K ) that h e set u p self-sufficiency as the g o a l o f life. Hipp. 4 . ) . ( H i s object is to prove that Greeks are incorrigible plagiarists. 1 6 . 1 3 1 283 10-3 . 'differentiates h i m ' . λέγοντα. fr. perhaps from Hecataeus it challenges the oft-repeated but improbable claim that Greek w r i t e r s k n e w n o language but their own. 13 (schol. as Nestle thought (VM^uL. F r e e m a n s a y s (ComMamercus. Hippias o n l y k n e w the latter at second hand. fr. Maj. R h o d .351—4. Strom. Anim. fr. but g i v e s it as a direct quotation. 9 (schol. H e w a s an o m n i v o r o u s reader. a ' w i s e and beautiful w o m a n ' w h o h a d fourteen husbands. that i s . oil-flask a n d strigil (Hipp. see X e n . 3 i t r u n s : It may be that some o f this has been said b y Orpheus. 2 1 N o t content w i t h all this he w r o t e tragedies and d i t h y r a m b s as w e l l as prose. b y Musaeus. 12 ( P r o c l u s ) . Besides the reference to h i s μνημονικών τέχνημα in Hipp. c o l l e c ­ tion o r miscellany. fr.86. a n d this passage w o u l d certainly bear it o u t i f it is n o t in fact the basis o f the tradition. 6 2 (Callias learned τ 6 μνημονικών from Hippias). from C l e m . ) . O n e mathematical d i s c o v e r y is attributed t o Hippias w h i c h . some b y Hesiod and some b y Homer. 2. Diss. I have collected from all these writers what is most important and belongs together to make this n e w and composite w o r k . Min. 608 f ) . n o t o n l y c l o t h e s b u t also a r i n g . S o p h o c l e s ) . 8 .The Versatility of Hippias n u m b e r o f stars in the H y a d e s g r o u p at s e v e n .) Fr. 6. here and there. 9 ( D K . 14 (schol. fr. 368d. fr.) T h e phrase έν σ ν γ γ ρ α φ α ΐ ς τ ά μέν "Ελλησι τ ά δέ βάρβαροι. Symp. as K . the first to evolve a mnemonic technique w a s Simonides. fr. Hipp. ) . Log. T h e S u d a says (A I .10 and A m m . A r a t . i f the attribution is correct. Min. a n d incorporated the results o f h i s reading in a c o m p r e h e n s i v e w o r k called the Synagoge. 6. xxvii. 364). T h e title is m e n t i o n e d b y A t h e n a e u s . P i n d . H e and Hippias are mentioned together b y Aelian. T h e o n l y b i t o f its contents v o u c h s a f e d t o u s c o n c e r n s a certain T h a r g e l i a o f Miletus. 1 5 (11.d ) . both quoted b y Tarrant. 4 1 6 ) m a y b e an echo of Hippias. De or. Hist. and w a s as c l e v e r w i t h his h a n d s as his brain. ) . L y c u r g u s . 6 . a c c o r d i n g t o the s t o r y in Plato that h e appeared at O l y m p i a w e a r i n g n o t h i n g that h e h a d n o t m a d e himself. F o r m y part. 3 ( P l u t . 434 S t . ) . and a n inter­ esting q u o t a t i o n in C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a (the o n l y o n e extant w h i c h claims t o g i v e a n y t h i n g like Hippias's o w n w o r d s ) m u s t s u r e l y b e his o w n description o f this w o r k . tyrannos. some briefly. His p r o d i g i o u s m e m o r y w a s cultivated b y a deliberate technique o f m n e m o n i c s w h i c h he also taught t o o t h e r s . 368 b . (According to Cicero. ) . is interesting. 2 (schol. Apoll. H y a d e s . Ε θ ν ώ ν όνομασίαι. 11. Clement commits himself to n o more than ώ δ έ π ω . For the title see fr. 1 1 ( P l u t . Marcell. 5 . O l y m p i c victors. some in other poets and some in prose-writers both Greek and foreign. 4 (Ath. Phrixus.

H e held a f o r m o f the social-contract t h e o r y o f l a w : positive l a w . F o r details of the quadratrix see Freeman. v m . and i f he n o w meant a different m a n w o u l d h a v e said s o . T h i s is the c u r v e called quadratrix (τετραγωνί1 ·$ουσα). n. Bjornbo in RE. v n . Comp. w h o at Phys. a n d also for trisecting an angle o r d i v i d i n g it a c c o r d i n g t o a n y g i v e n r a t i o . 2 1 284 . and says nothing of Hippias. whose source is Eudemus. T h i s might be thought significant. g r o u n d s . Math. ' f r o m all other S o p h i s t s a n d places h i m in the ranks o f the scientific d i s c o v e r e r s ' .). Eucl. 385). t h i n k i n g it scarcely credible that o u r universal v i r t u o s o c o u l d h a v e a c h i e v e d such original w o r k in a n y single field. o f p r e a c h i n g ' a l o w o r c o r r u p t m o r a l i t y ' . and finds none of them c o g e n t . 2 1 ) and 556 Friedlander. fr. 1. mentions four objections to the attribution to Hippias. 1) and Schmid (Gesch.. 136. 2 G r o t e r e m a r k e d (History. b u t m o s t m o d e r n o p i n i o n is in f a v o u r o f the attribution t o the Sophist. 63 f. for all his ' s n e e r and c o n t e m p t u o u s b a n t e r ' . toe. b u t in a n y case Hippias has better claims t o b e accepted as a serious ethical thinker. and since the name is n o t u n c o m m o n (there are eighteen in the RealEncyclopadie) s o m e h a v e b e e n sceptical. Gr. pp. but he makes no reference to the silence of Simplicius. w h o has asked h i m (as G r o t e puts it) ' w h a t w a s the p l a n o f life i n c u m b e n t o n a y o u n g m a n o f h o n o u r a b l e aspirations'. A m o n g the sceptics were W i l a m o w i t z (Platan.The Men panion.. 23. and G r o t e s u g g e s t s that for h i g h m o r a l p u r ­ p o s e it w a s p r o b a b l y n o t u n w o r t h y to be set beside P r o d i c u s ' s Choice of Heracles. T h a t m a y o r m a y n o t b e s o ( w e k n o w n o t h i n g o f its c o n ­ tent). n o t selfish and a m b i t i o u s . I . n e v e r accuses Hippias. 1888 ed. In the Hippias Major (286 a) Hippias mentions a Trojan Discourse w h i c h h e has recited at Sparta and intends t o repeat at A t h e n s . 272 ( = Hipp. 386-8. Hist. i7o8f. b e i n g a matter o f h u m a n a g r e e m e n t and frequently T h e sole authority is Proclus. w h i c h as its name implies w a s used for s q u a r i n g the circle. T h e authorship of Hippias w a s accepted b y Heath. 546°. In m e n t i o n i n g it as H i p p i a s ' s w o r k P r o c l u s d o e s n o t a d d ' o f E l i s ' . Its t h e m e is a discourse b y N e s t o r in r e p l y t o N e o p t o l e m o s . seems to be g i v i n g as complete an account as he can of attempts to square the circle. 54 f. as h e did s o m e other Sophists. H e w a s o n e o f those w h o contrasted l a w and nature and u p h e l d the latter o n m o r a l and humanitarian. cit. O t h e r s a r g u e that P r o c l u s h a d earlier in his w o r k attributed the remark a b o u t M a m e r c u s t o Hippias o f Elis. or Bjornbo. T h i s is n o t v e r y cogent (particularly as the M a m e r c u s passage c o m e s nearly 200 T e u b n e r p a g e s b e f o r e the earlier o f the t w o references t o the quadra­ trix').) that P l a t o .

Its u n d e r h a n d nature m a k e s it w o r s e than o p e n v i o l e n c e . w h o found them in a w o r k of Plutarch On Slander. w h o s e divisions are o n l y a matter o f nomos. p o s i t i v e l a w and established. a right and a w r o n g . O f slander h e said that it is a curse because the l a w prescribes n o punishment for it as it does f o r r o b b e r y . n o w lost. said Hippias. 1 T h e r e are. T h e main question is w h e t h e r he is the same m a n as the orator A n t i p h o n o f R h a m n u s w h o figures in T h u c y d i d e s as a m e m b e r o f the F o u r H u n d r e d a n d w a s the author o f an extant c o l l e c t i o n o f oratorical exercises called the Tetralogies and three forensic speeches. b u t mistaken. 16 and 17. vol. I.) distinguishes six i n addition to the orator (summarized in Loch Plut. 1 2 1 285 . w r o n g w h e n they g o to g o o d . Here is a c o n ­ crete instance o f his censure o f nomos.Hippias on Mathematics and Morals altered. W i t h b e l i e f in universal. c o n c e r n i n g s u c h things as the w o r s h i p o f the g o d s and respect for parents. T h e position is further complicated b y references t o A n t i p h o n as a Frr. It c o u l d b e ' a tyrant d o i n g v i o l e n c e t o n a t u r e ' . 163 a b o v e ) . Blass {Ait. like all m e n . A c t u a l l y w e have them from Stobaeus. H e b e l i e v e d h o w e v e r that there w e r e u n w r i t t e n l a w s . has b e e n the subject o f endless s c h o l a r l y c o n t r o v e r s y . b y their o w n troubles. For instance Plato had a half-brother called Antiphon. and in this respect at least h e w o u l d regard t o d a y ' s l a w s as an i m p r o v e m e n t . t w o sorts o f e n v y . n a m e l y friendship o r g o o d w i l l (philid). b u t also b y the g o o d fortune o f others. Bereds. d i v i n e i n o r i g i n and universal in application. w h o m he introduces a s narrator of the dialogue Parmenides. t h o u g h in fact it is r o b b e r y o f the best t h i n g in life. finally. 346 note d~). 93 ff. natural l a w s (and for Hippias natural and divine appear t o b e the same) w e n t b e l i e f in the fundamental u n i t y o f the h u m a n race. w h o s e v i e w s h a v e b e e n discussed in earlier chapters o f this b o o k . It is right t o feel e n v y w h e n honours g o to bad men. w a s n o t t o b e regarded as p r o v i d i n g fixed a n d universal standards o f c o n d u c t .* especially in A t t i c a . A s witness t o his ethical v i e w s w e h a v e . More­ o v e r the e n v i o u s h a v e a d o u b l e share o f suffering: t h e y are g r i e v e d . x . i.e. (5) ANTIPHON A n t i p h o n w a s a v e r y c o m m o n name. and the identity o f A n t i p h o n t h e Sophist. s o m e remarks o n e n v y and slander w h i c h w e r e q u o t e d b y P l u t a r c h . c o n v e n t i o n s o r habits ( p .

Attempts h a v e been made to date the Sophist's w r i t i n g s . όμ. 134) p r o n o u n c e d : ' I t m u s t b e t a k e n as certain that the Sophist. T h u s H e i n i m a n n (N. A b o u t the external circumstances o f the S o p h i s t ' s life ( i f he is different f r o m the orator) n o t h i n g is k n o w n . has been put close to 440 on the rather s h a k y g r o u n d of ' e c h o e s ' in Euripides ( A l t w e g g and J . ' It has e v e n b e e n s u g g e s t e d that the w o r k s On Truth and On Concord are b y different m e n . w h i c h m a y b e thankfully o m i t t e d b y all b u t classical specialists. fr. that the author of Concord is not the Sophist. and to h a v e b e e n a little y o u n g e r than G o r g i a s . w h o w r o t e Truth. o n e t h i n g m u s t b e b o r n e in m i n d t h r o u g h o u t : references in o u r a u t h o r i ­ ties t o ' A n t i p h o n the S o p h i s t ' d o n o t suffice t o distinguish a S o p h i s t f r o m an orator. as the a u t h o r o f a w o r k o n dreams. H e rejects the idea (see p . in the twenties. about a decade later also on echoes of his ethical doctrines in drama plus A l y ' s analysis of the relation of his mathematical w o r k to that of contemporaries. and this certainly d o e s n o t militate against their i d e n t i t y . I n a n y case O r i g e n says that the A n t i p h o n w h o w r o t e On Truth w a s k n o w n as an orator ( A n t i p h o n . Antiphon w a s not of course 'the Sophist against w h o m Aristophanes is especially t i l t i n g ' . ' E s spricht daher die grosste Wahrscheinlichkeit dafur'. T w e n t y . Π.P l u t . T h e orator is said ( p s e u d o . 292-4 b e l o w ) . T h e r e is a n o t h e r p r o b l e m t o b e faced. t h o u g h he w a s o b v i o u s l y a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Socrates. puts Π. Vit. but says w i t h a choice of phrase that is s u r e l y deliberate. F i n l e y ) . 159) s a y s that the conversation of Antiphon with Socrates in Xenophon is to be dated in the last decade of the century (i. 1 1 1 2 286 . W h a t e v e r the a n s w e r .). p o s s i b l y because.n i n e fragments are g r o u p e d b y D K u n d e r the title On Concord. Moira. 141 f. the o l i g a r c h i c orator and the tragedian are three different p e o p l e . 100) said ' D i e grosste Wahrscheinlichkeit spricht dafur' that the Sophist w r o t e both. A n t i p h o n n e v e r appears in P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e s . P l a t o t h o u g h t h i m o n l y second-rate. ά λ . u. but the orator. and Π. 94.The Men tragic p o e t . 1942. but that he as well as Protagoras (and perhaps others) contributed to the Sophistic morality w h i c h is the target does seem at least l i k e l y . 3 8 7 ^ ) does not mention Schmid.e. 832 f ) t o h a v e b e e n b o r n a b o u t the time o f the Persian W a r s . H. as S c h m i d s u g g e s t e d {Gesch. since in ancient times the w o r d sophistes w o u l d b e applied e q u a l l y t o b o t h . 1 1 4 a b o v e ) that it i s satirized in the Clouds in 423. 7 4 and 236 with n. 232 w i t h n. adding to the other arguments one from the style of the p a p y r u s fragments. Ph. a n d dis­ c u s s i o n o f it has b e e n relegated t o a n o t e ( p p . 12). n o r is there a n y precise information a b o u t his date. See Greene. Ph. or. Heinimann (N. 159). and as a s o o t h s a y e r . w h o e v e r w r o t e t h e m . b u t f e w o f t h e m are Schmid (Gesch. are n o t o u r present c o n ­ c e r n . after the orator's death) and his w r i t i n g s should b e put no later than the thirties. u. Nesde (VM^uL. ά λ . Schmid (Gesch. T h e oratorical w o r k s . T h e question is o f m i n o r interest for the h i s t o r y o f p h i l o s o p h y .

P . and (as Havelock also notes) remarkable coincidences w i t h frr.) is illusory. 4 . but w e must remind ourselves at some stage. that the titles of pre-Platonic w o r k s w e r e probably bestowed not b y the author but b y Alexandrian scholars w i t h the conceptions of the A c a d e m y . Stob. cit. but this does not deter him from dissecting the passage in confidence that w e k n o w the mind of the Sophist well e n o u g h to sift the true from the false. 5 4 28 7 .3 W . as Havelock (op. and appears to Havelock to b e compatible w i t h the o u d o o k of Antiphon. b u t in fact the genuineness o f these snippets from J o h n o f S t o b i ' s a n t h o l o g y (there are t w e l v e o f them. while Praechter ( U e b e r w e g . 1 3 1 T h a t there w e r e two separate w o r k s i s undoubted. 418) pertinendy does. thinks H a v e l o c k (L T. m a k e s their rejection inevitable. G r e e n e . 395.5 T h r e e o f t h e m (frr. each headed s i m p l y 3 1 'from A n t i p h o n ' ) has b e e n c h a l l e n g e d . 2 . 11. as Freeman does (Comp. 3 8 1 ) . T h i s fragment deals with the cares of marriage. v o l . 49. 45-7) refer t o m y t h i c a l tribes. i v . It does indeed contain phrases reminiscent of both these w o r k s (some have thought Euripides w a s influenced b y A n t i p h o n ) .7 ° f D e m o ­ critus. 4 M o s t o f the ' f r a g m e n t s ' expressly attributed t o Concord c o m e from the l e x i c o n o f H a r p o c r a t i o n and consist o f single words. Compare the case of Democritus. the S c i a p o d s . E v e n i f w e c o u l d . A n astounding amount has been built on the entries in Harpocration. αρ. especially frr. and sense-experience (sight. 40f. Λ«/>/ΙΛ. w i t h the partial e x c e p t i o n o f fr. C . 419). suppl. C o m p a r i s o n w i t h the p a p y r u s frag­ m e n t s . 489 ff. therefore w e m a y safely assign these fragments t o the Sophist's w o r k o f that n a m e . because s o m e o f t h e m (those in Stobaeus) are in the form o f m a x i m s . cf. 239). Unter­ steiner. n. 163. w h i c h w i t h fr. Nestle denied this (VM^uL. called τ η ν ενός έκαστου ττρά. and Philostratus s a y s in his life o f A n t i p h o n ( o f Rhamnus) that his work on concord included collections o f m a x i m s (gnomologiai). T h e strength o f the case for s o a s s i g n i n g them m a y b e j u d g e d f r o m S c h m i d ' s contention (Gesch. the w o r d gnomologia d o e s n o t g i v e m u c h e n c o u r a g e m e n t t o suppose that t h e y express his original t h o u g h t . 5). provided w e assume that a later writer has contaminated w h a t he w r o t e with 'moralizing reflections borrowed from the Medea and the Phaedo'. s a w n o real i n c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n the ethical doctrines in the s u p p o s e d fragments o f Concord and those o f Truth as seen in the p a p y r i . 258. L y c e u m and other schools in mind. and w i t h Plato behind him. 2 7 5 . See Stenzel in RE. o n the other hand (Moira. smell etc. 1) that.8 . Macrocephali and dwellers u n d e r the earth o r T r o g l o d y t e s .Anttphons Writings e x p l i c i t l y attributed t o that w o r k . 48 ( ' m a n calls h i m s e l f the m o s t g o d l i k e o f a n i m a l s ' ) s h o w an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l S o m e have thought Antiphon intended the word (which does not occur at all in the frag­ ments) in the sense of inner harmony ( w h a t Iamblichus m a n y centuries later. and n o n e o f t h e m deal w i t h the subject o f c o n c o r d . 3 3 · Ι5)> w h i c h they equate w i t h his emphasis on σωφροσύνη and self-mastery. εαυτόν άμογνωμοσύνην. w h i c h afford no justification at all for crediting Antiphon with an Eleatic belief that all things are one. 129) thought to h a v e it both ways. n.

in c o n ­ j u n c t i o n w i t h certain fragments o f the Truth. n. 78) they were ' t y p e s of man's wretchedness'. Sof. (Both v i e w s existed earlier. i v . m u s t b e distinct f r o m the s u p r e m e l y self-sufficient b e i n g m e n t i o n e d in fr. . ) M o m i g l i a n o ' s c o n c l u s i o n is that A n t i p h o n s a w a single active rational principle at w o r k in b o t h m a n and nature. 49 θεειδέστατον. he thought. and in fr. arrangement) t h e y l i s t e n ' .) Bignone (Studi. 2 1 others c o m m e n t in a c o m m o n p l a c e v e i n o n misplaced hesitation (55) and o n c o n s o r t i n g w i t h flatterers instead o f true friends (65).P. F r . 1 4 : ' D e p r i v e d o f material she w o u l d o r d e r (διαθεϊτο) m a n y g o o d things b a d l y . n. 129) t h o u g h t that in 4 5 . (1930) built o n this. ' ( T h e subject is g e n e r a l l y taken to b e nature. an interesting a n d v e r y p r o b a b l e reconstruction o f a basic tenet u n d e r l y i n g and u n i t i n g A n t i ­ p h o n ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f the u n i v e r s e and o f m a n . In the second b o o k o n T r u t h h e also uses it f o r the o r d e r i n g o f the u n i v e r s e ( δ ι α κ ό σ μ η σ η ) ' . an idea w h i c h h e c o u l d w e l l h a v e taken from the Nous o f A n a x a g o r a s . 1 3 1 . Momigliano (Riv. 86) connected them w i t h Antiphon's assertion in O. Antiphon's interest in c o s m o l o g y and natural philosophy has already been noted ( p .7 Antiphon w a s g i v i n g examples of those l i v i n g closest to the state of nature. 233. VM^uL.The Men interest. 24a w e r e a d : ' A n t i p h o n applied the w o r d diathesis t o m i n d ( γ ν ώ μ η ) o r i n t e l l i g e n c e . 10. and it is just c o n c e i v a b l e that this p o s s i b i l i t y m a y c o n c e a l (for o n e c a n n o t s a y it reveals) the s o l u t i o n . F r o m Harpocradon. 203 above). 382. 50. three express d e e p pessimism. and M o m i g l i a n o in his article in Riv. diβίοι. F r . di βίοι.' W i t h these g o e s fr. in v i e w of Photius's lemma. 3 3 1 3 288 . Nestle. 63 reads ' W h e n t h e y k n o w the diathesis (setting in order. 2 : ' F o r all m e n m i n d (γνώμη) c o n t r o l s their b o d y in matters o f health and disease and e v e r y t h i n g else. b u t from such s o r r y fragments w e c a n n o t h o p e for a n y t h i n g like a c o m p l e t e insight i n t o his t h o u g h t s . M o m i g l i a n o h i m s e l f thinks this active principle. . 1364 that there w a s n o difference between Greeks and b a r b a r i a n s : Antiphon's purpose. O f the S t o b a e u s extracts. 52 m a k e s the ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' o b s e r v a t i o n that y o u can't take b a c k y o u r life like a m o v e at d r a u g h t s .f e a r i n g ' ) . h i s ideal. In fr. whereas for A l t w e g g (see Greene. T h e names in Harpocration afford not the slightest evidence for a n y of these conjectures. w a s probably to bring out that among the most barbaric peoples there were traces o f humanity and social life. w h i c h o t h e r w i s e w o u l d b e a c o m p l e t e l y a u t o n o m o u s natura naturans. b u t c o u l d n o w e q u a l l y b e m i n d o r γ ν ώ μ η . F r . Moira. not θεαιδέστατον ( ' g o d . 1930. T h e w o r d i y anthologizer Stobaeus quotes a longer version of the same sentiment under the name of S o c r a t e s ! See Untersteiner. 12). 382). I feel s o m e difficulty in r e c o n c i l i n g this w i t h his alleged denial o f p r o v i d e n c e (fr. must s u r e l y be correct (pace Nesde VM^uL.

Ant. 61 is the strongest card in the hand o f those w h o w a n t to a r g u e that the teaching o f On Concord (from w h i c h t h e y assume it t o c o m e . for a g o o d e n d i n g depends o n a g o o d b e g i n n i n g . know. T w o m o r e are m e r e l y c o m m o n p l a c e s . he says in fr. Life. I f a wife p r o v e s unsuitable. as w e l l as the u r g e to assault a n e i g h b o u r . that a m a n c a n n o t b e called self-controlled i f he has n e v e r b e e n tempted. H e n c e the i m p o r t a n c e o f education (fr. b u t pain lurks r o u n d s the corner. and so let the time slip b y (and ' t i m e ' . 62 (character f o r m e d b y the c o m p a n y k e p t ) and 64 (old friendships m o r e necessary than n e w ) .l i v e d and shot t h r o u g h w i t h g r i e v o u s pains. b u t k e e p i n g her is painful. b u t care is d o u b l e d w h e n there are t w o . It is b a d e n o u g h to h a v e to l o o k after o n e ' s o w n health. 287. t h o u g h S t o b a e u s d o e s n o t s a y so) is irreconcilable w i t h that o f the Truth. 50. 77. and fr. n. d i v o r c e is tiresome and m a k e s enemies o f friends. ' i s the m o s t c o s t l y t h i n g that o n e e x ­ p e n d s ' ) . 672. b u t it is h a r d l y a t r u m p . to save t h e m from g e t t i n g t o o great a s h o c k w h e n t h e y g r o w t o m a n h o o d and find t h i n g s v e r y different. W e shall never 289 . w i t h its w a r n i n g that i n d u l g e n c e in the i m m e d i a t e i m ­ pulse m a y g e t o n e i n t o greater trouble than self-mastery. 60). and s o o n take the spring out o f y o u r step and the b l o o m from y o u r c h e e k s . has m o r e individuality. daily needs and g o o d name. 259 a b o v e ) . 51 abuses it r o u n d l y : it has n o greatness or n o b i l i t y . F r . 53 and 53a attack misers and those w h o l i v e in the present life as i f p r e p a r i n g for another. n o t h i n g b u t w h a t is small. C h i l d r e n b r i n g n o t h i n g b u t w o r r y . a b o v e ) . 1 140) thought Sophocles dependent on Antiphon. It b e g i n s b y paraphrasing a line o f S o p h o c l e s w h i c h says that there is n o greater evil than a n a r c h y .Antiphon s Moral Aphorisms is o n marriage (see p . Fr. says fr. 58. then w e hand it o v e r to o u r suc­ c e s s o r s . already noted (p. ( A y o u n g m a n ' s u r g e to m a r r y m i g h t be an e x a m p l e o f this. s h o r t . and 54 s i m p l y retells a fable o f A e s o p o n the same t h e m e and c o n c l u d e s that i f G o d g i v e s a m a n w e a l t h b u t n o t sense he in fact deprives h i m o f b o t h . ) It c o u l d w e l l h a v e s t o o d in the same c o n t e x t as 59. 3. Bignone (Studi. w e a k .d u t y — just a single d a y t o l o o k at the l i g h t . 1 but g o e s o n to a p p l y this s o l e l y to the u p b r i n g i n g o f c h i l d r e n : it is the reason w h y ' t h e m e n o f o l d ' a c c u s t o m e d children f r o m the start to s u b m i t t o c o n t r o l and d o as t h e y are told. A g o o d wife b r i n g s j o y . is like a d a y o n w a t c h .

x . (Cf. T o a c k n o w l e d g e this is n o t t o d e n y that (as he says in fr. and in Plato (Symp. I confess that in this comparatively unimportant matter I thought readers might like to k n o w the titbit about the storks without caring too much about the verification (no longer possible) of Cicero's remark. 232). 44 A) l a w s are artificial a n d often b a d . o n e t h i n g that seems certain a b o u t A n t i p h o n is that. and this c o u l d n o t b e a c h i e v e d in a c o m p l e t e l y anarchic s o c i e t y . . especially p o p u l a r w i t h the intelligentsia o f the 1930s. also in a life of the Rhamnusian.The Men I f w e m a y assume the fragments t o b e g e n u i n e .) Morrison (Proc. Ph. in w h i c h i f o n e d o e s n o t submit t o the discipline i m p o s e d b y the c o m m u n i t y o n e is in for s o m e harsh experiences (fr. ομονοίας ( ' i r r i g ' Stenzel. It is in this p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n n e x i o n that o n e m u s t see the ' a r t o f painless l i v i n g ' ( τ έ χ ν η άλυττίας). f r o m the strictest standards o f s c h o l a r l y c r i t i c i s m ) that the s t o r y in the Lives of the Orators ( p s . 347 n . άλυτΚας to h a v e been used in the sense of a written w o r k . Soc. 833 c. as an occasional l u x u r y . h e w a s a considerable p s y c h o l o g i s t . There is n o other authority except that Philostratus. σ υ ν ε σ τ ή σ α τ ο in pseudo-Plut. which A l t w e g g even identified w i t h Π. ) and most others have supposed that the Sophist is meant. but the context makes this h i g h l y improbable. 57) conjectures that the ' c l i n i c ' w a s originally a comic invention like the phrontisterion of the Clouds. as t o w h i c h I s h o u l d like t o g o o n the assumption ( d e v i a t i n g perhaps. N . w h e r e e v e r y o n e w a s free t o act o n the impulse o f the m o m e n t . H e w a s certainly ahead o f the a d v o c a t e s o f the ' d o . A 6) is f o u n d e d o n fact and refers t o the same A n t i p h o n w h o w r o t e On Truth? I f there w e r e several A n t i I w a s seriously taken to task b y a reviewer of v o l .l i k e ' t h e o r y o f education. Moira. o r at least those w h i c h bear an individual stamp. * Η . D K . Fowler (Loeb Plut. and suggesting that he might have done it b y a method still employed (according to The Times) in modern Greece. S u c h b e h a v i o u r w o u l d v e r y s o o n b r i n g its o w n nemesis.P l u t . ι for reporting without comment Cicero's statement that Anaximander g a v e the Spartans warning of an earthquake.y o u . ' Consolationliterature' later became a regular genre (cf. 61). 1 1 290 . Camh. s a y s that he 'announced a course of sorrow-assuaging (νηττενβεϊς) lectures. and assaulted his n e i g h b o u r at e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y . i 8 6 e ) συνέστησεν τ ή ν ήμετέραν τέχνη ν means 'founded our (the physicians') a r t ' . ' h a l d o s ' D K ) . and m a n y have supposed the w o r d τέχνη in τ . H i s p h i l o s o p h y o f life is a refined and intellectual h e d o n i s m .a s . Greene. for his time. O n e m u s t plan t o g e t t h e m a x i m u m o f pleasure and the m i n i m u m o f suffering from o u r b r i e f a n d imperfect existence. claiming that no one could tell h i m of a grief so terrible that he could not expel it from his m i n d ' . in realizing that this w a s n o preparation for adult life. o r that w h i l e l i v i n g in s u c h a w a y as n o t t o d e s t r o y their f r a m e w o r k a m a n m a y disregard t h e l a w for his o w n ends w h e n e v e r h e c a n d o so undetected and w i t h i m p u n i t y . 1961.

N a t u r e c o m p e l s us t o a v o i d pain a n d seek the m a x i m u m o f pleasure. 57). perhaps at a different stage o f life. the attested fragments o f this w o r k .) M o r e o v e r nature k n o w s n o distinctions o f class o r race. f o r pain is harmful a n d pleasure beneficial. after s a y i n g that sixty orations are ascribed t o h i m . o r testi­ m o n i e s t o its contents. after all. It is in k e e p i n g w i t h A n t i p h o n ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f the h e d o n i c calculus. f r e e d o m f r o m pain. his a d v o c a c y o f selfm a s t e r y and deprecation o f y i e l d i n g t o the pleasures a n d impulses o f the m o m e n t . S o far as w e k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t Concord. ( T h e r e is n o s u g g e s t i o n o f d e s t r o y i n g t h e m b y o p e n rebellion. w h i c h h a v e b e e n e x p o u n d e d in earlier chapters a n d o f necessity referred t o i n the present a c c o u n t . b u t in the m o d e r a t e form u p h e l d b y these t w o other p h i l o s o p h e r s . O n e s h o u l d therefore f o l l o w the d i c ­ tates o f c o n v e n t i o n a n d the l a w s o n l y i n s o far as flouting t h e m f o r o n e ' s immediate pleasure w o u l d b r i n g m o r e pain i n the f o r m o f p u n i s h ­ m e n t o r disgrace. i n spite o f m a n y attempts. w e need o n l y remind ourselves that t h e y w e r e based o n a sharp c o n ­ trast b e t w e e n physis a n d nomos t o the a d v a n t a g e o f the former. the w r i t e r h a s p r o b a b l y confused them. In C o r i n t h he fitted u p a r o o m near the a g o r a a n d advertised that he c o u l d cure the distressed b y w o r d s . are insufficient t o p r o v i d e the basis o f a n y c o n ­ tinuous a r g u m e n t . a n d . he adds that h e also w r o t e tragedies a n d ' invented an art o f painlessness c o m p a r a b l e t o the m e d i c a l t h e r a p y o f the diseased. H i s subject is A n t i p h o n o f R h a m n u s . O f the ethical doctrines o f the Truth. g . W h a t h e d i d w a s t o b r i n g c o n s o l a t i o n t o those in t r o u b l e b y q u e s t i o n i n g them as t o the causes. H e k n e w . B i g n o n e (Studi. h e adds. 83) justly c o m p a r e s this state o f c a l m c o n t e n t (alypid) w i t h the euthymia o f D e m o c r i t u s and the ataraxia o f Epicurus. b u t i n ­ v o l v i n g n o c o n v e r s i o n t o c o n t r a r y c o n v i c t i o n s . A utilitarian h e d o n i s m . e . that the ideal s o u g h t s h o u l d b e a n e g a t i v e o n e . that the r o o t s o f p h y s i c a l illness w e r e t o b e s o u g h t i n the m i n d (fr. b u t n o t h i n g t o m a k e o n e s u p p o s e that it w a s n o t w r i t t e n b y the same m a n . I n fact. it m a y seem t o s h o w a different emphasis.' T o s u g g e s t that A n t i p h o n set u p the first p s y c h i a t r i c clinic is at a n y rate n o m o r e i m p r o b a b l e than s o m e p r o p o s e d explanations. w a s u n d o u b t e d l y the basis o f A n t i p h o n ' s ethics. fr. 2) a n d that it c o u l d sometimes b e explained as an escape-route f r o m active life (praxis. that the techne in this case w a s a w r i t t e n w o r k .Antiphon as Psychologist p h o n s . 291 . h o w e v e r .

he said. There were several o f the name. 220b 14). for that ascribed to A r c h y t a s (Iambi. seem t o h a v e b e e n based o n the nomos-physis antithesis ( p . H e says i n agreement with Antiphon that time i s a measure ( ' t h e measure of motion and rest'. D K A 2) is the first extant writer to distinguish t w o Antiphons. In any case he thinks it necessary to treat the t w o as separate. w o u l d be a little later. to w h o m are ascribed On Truth. Menex. 1 8 5 3 1 4 . mentions Antiphon o f Rhamnus as a teacher o f rhetoric) he is again thrown into doubt. yet he finds T h u c y dides's style more like that o f the Truth. which is the fullest and most judicious. but ' t w o w h o practised sophistry'. O f the many modern discussions. political speeches. he remarks that it is strange that n o contemporary distinguishes between t w o such famous men living in Athens at the same time. It is explained in detail b y Simplicius (Phys. Phys. and nothing can be numbered or counted if there is no one to count.). Many call Thucydides a pupil o f the Rhamnusian. I summarize Bignone's. ibid. like his ethics a n d doubtless n o t u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e m . 2 2 3 3 2 1 ) also doubted whether there could be time w i t h o u t thinking beings. 2 2 i b 2 2 ) . 2 1 5 ^ 2 ) .. After citing Hermogenes. and suchlike logoi. 292 . 202 f. see Antiphon fr. 3 J 1 54. though he says that D i d y m u s did so some 200 years earlier. 1 1 ) . 204) a n d linked w i t h an o n t o l o g y a l l o w i n g a place t o b o t h reality a n d appearances ( p p . 9). whose description is summarized b y Freeman. Comp. and a Politicus. oratore ed A . but when he reads what Plato and others say (Plato. principles. Phys. On Concord. because they are defined b y each o t h e r ' (ibid. (b) the one w h o is also said to have been a diviner and interpreter o f dreams. is not s i m p l y succession but 'succession i n so far as it is n u m b e r e d ' (ibid. that it has n o substantive existence b u t is a mental c o n c e p t o r m e a n s o f measurement. sofista'.The Men T h e r e is n o need t o repeat his v i e w s o n l a n g u a g e . for time. in Studi. (a) the orator. Simpl. 13 D K ) . 2 1 a n d his attempt t o square the circle b y a m e t h o d o f exhaustion w h i c h A r i s t o t l e criticized as n o t based o n g e o m e t r i c a l ADDITIONAL NOTE: THE IDENTITY OF ANTIPHON Hermogenes (3rd century A. Aristotle (Phys. ' A . 2 2 o b 3 2 . b u t also that the relations between time and motion are reciprocal: ' w e not o n l y measure motion b y time but also rime b y motion. 1 6 1 ^ 7 4 . Moreover w e are told the orator's deme 3 T h i s is d i e earliest extant Greek definition of time. A s y e t u n n o t i c e d are his interesting o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t time (fr. because the difference between the t w o groups o f writing is so great. w h o m he k n o w s as the author o f the forensic speeches. w h i c h . 397. ap. cited as author o f speeches on homicide cases. 236a. 786. Hermogenes himself is convinced on grounds o f style that these are different people.D. even if genuine.

8. A l . REG.. and Gnomol. Aristotle always refers to ' A n t i p h o n ' simply. T h e chronology o f both is about the same.). t h o u g h W i l a m o w i t z felt this no objection (Platon. of w h i c h Antiphon the Sophist w a s such an enthusiastic exponent (fr. Marc. without feeling the need for a distinguishing title. S.The Identity of Antiphon and his father's name. but w e k n o w nothing of h o w l o n g the Sophist lived if he is a different man. there is also a strong historical argument. and pseudo-Plutarch. 236a. T h e orator was a pugnacious aristocrat and oligarch ( T h u c .68. w h o became Socrates's follower after this date. Att. 1. 365. as is shown b y many passages in his speeches. Menex. r . whereas fr. D i o d . 1. A 6 and 9 D K ) . A l s o the orator was an emphatic upholder o f the laws. 1909. and both o f them taught the y o u n g and had schools (for the orator o f Rhamnus see Plato. T h e Rhamnusian w a s killed in 4 1 1 . pseudo-Plut.) T h e oratoi shows marked sophistic characteristics. 84. which some have thought puts h i m later than the Sophist (Vit. However.6) and took fees. 8. Bignone says that the papyrus fragments.] T h e orator was born c.) and probably wrote the extant orations late in life. C l e m . ap. 4 N a u c k : τέχνη κρατοϋμεν ώ ν φύσει νικώμεθα).68). 480 (Blass. . 2. because Plato. A s to the tragedies. and it is interesting that one line e m p l o y s a form of the νόμος-φύσις antithesis. 1 293 . because they show the influence o f Gorgias. 1. A m m . n.). 58). w h i c h again contrasts strongly with the Sophist. i . the most extensive that w e have o f the Sophist. O n the argument from style. Arist. but not those o f the Sophist (Gomperz. [I should not attach much weight to this argument. Vindob. 833 [doubtful?]. and the dis­ pute with Socrates in Xenophon is probably earlier than this. 32). do in fact suggest that he was not also the orator. and the Sophist rebuked Socrates for taking no part in politics 1 2 (Xen. it i s b y no means impossible that a Sophist should write them. Ath. Pol. 44 Β o f the Sophist expresses extreme democratic sentiments. 89. Bignone's final conclusion therefore was that orator and Sophist were different persons (though he thought that the Sophist could well be the diviner and writer on dreams). ibid. 90.66 D . writing about the Rhamnusian orator (832c). u.4 and the papyrus o f Antiphon's Apology published b y Nicole. after 427. Mem. cit. On the other hand the tradition associates the tragedian ( a s the R h a m n u s i a n ) w i t h D i o n y s i u s I of Syracuse. already used b y Hermogenes. but on the other hand this is a somewhat subjective criterion and the same man might have changed his style during his lifetime. C o u l d he not have been Sophist-philosopher first and orator later? (Croiset thought it probable. says nothing about it. R.) T h e orator had an active political life. for the Sophist X e n . says that he had conversations with Socrates as recorded b y Xenophon. That X e n o p h o n called him 'Antiphon the Sophist' is not against the identity. Bereds. 30. T h e orator died in 411 ( T h u c . and Croiset supposed him to be distinguishing the orator-cum-Sophist from others including the tragedian. loc. (Bignone's references for this are X e n . or. 94ft. 55.

he continues. a c o l o n y o f M e g a r a . but I find n o evidence i n them that Antiphon is simply setting forth the ideas of others for examination. as a Sophist from the orator o f Rhamnus'. F o r further references see Morrison. 394) adopted an unusual division. 1 294 . 228 f. and for an excellent brief s u r v e y . and maintained that the orator whose speeches w e possess w a s identical with the Sophist w h o wrote the Truth and the Concord and is shown arguing with Socrates in the Memora­ bilia o f Xenophon. if Kerferd w e r e right i n supposing that the v i e w s expressed in the p a p y r u s fragments w e r e not A n t i p h o n ' s at all ( p . 6. ' I t does not d o ' . p r o d u c e d i n 427. w h o m Thucydides (8. so that Stenzel could begin his article in the RE (suppl. 1 (6) THRASYMACHUS T h r a s y m a c h u s came f r o m C h a l c e d o n o n the B o s p o r u s . L e s k y . A 4). These are b y one w h o rejects the laws in favour o f 'nature'.90. S. and see whether he is setting forth the matter rightly and lawfully. w h o quoted freely from the speeches to show that the orator. and all the better for having lasted through centuries unchanged (Or.2). T h e r e is an o b s c u r e hint that he m a y h a v e Morrison in PCPS. 2) w h i c h s h o w s it t o h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n d u r i n g the rule o f A r c h e l a u s o f M a c e d o n o v e r T h e s s a l y (413-399). praising the gods and exhorting to worship and sacrifice in terms impossible (says Luria) for one w h o denied divine providence as did the author o f Truth (fr.' T h e speech-writer is moreover an enthusiastic sup­ porter o f the traditional religion.1) named as an extreme oligarch. ' t o start from the accuser's speech and ask whether the laws are well founded or n o t . This provoked a sharp retort from S. 1. loc. T h e o n l y fixed points f r o m w h i c h t o j u d g e his date are (1) The Banqueters o f A r i s t o p h a n e s . (2) a sentence f r o m o n e o f his speeches (fr.The Men This is the conclusion which has found most favour. i v . and singled out among the Four Hundred as one w h o w a s particularly strongly opposed to democracy. n. 5. and is a fervent preacher o f egalitarianism. 1961. o f Athens. O f course. 33) 'Antiphon. N e s d e (VMiuL.14. w h o upholds the laws in the traditional manner as sacred. and Concord to the R h a m n u s i a n . and Untersteiner (Sophs. L u r i a i n Eos 1963. cit. T h e speeches reveal an ultraconservative.) simply refer to Bignone and add Ί do not think that there is any occasion to re-examine the question'. and Kerferd seems sometimes t o raise i m a g i n a r y difficulties in order to dispose of them b y this hypothesis (especially on p . most of L u r i a ' s argument w o u l d fall to the g r o u n d . Luria. 12). as is n o w generally recognized. 50. HGL. attributing Truth and the tetralogies to the Sophist. culminating in a non liquet. 28). to be dis­ tinguished. J. 108 a b o v e ) . w e must rather judge the accuser's speech b y the laws. 353 f. However. could not possibly have held the left-wing views expressed in the papyrus fragments o f the Truth. Morrison in 1961 reopened it. i n w h i c h he is m a d e fun o f ( D K .

204). In this imperfectly preserved clause I have followed Havelock's rendering. H i s teaching o n justice seems to h a v e b e e n w e l l k n o w n . and t h o u g h specializing in rhetoric w a s prepared to a n s w e r ethical questions also. 3. T h e o n l y considerable fragment o f his w r i t i n g w h i c h has s u r v i v e d w a s preserved b y D i o n y s i u s o f Halicarnassus solely as an e x a m p l e o f his s t y l e . 1 ) . v o l . cit. h e thinks. Arist. b u t those for w h o m the prosperity o f the c i t y is o n l y hearsay and its disasters their o w n e x p e r i e n c e — d i s a s t e r s m o r e o v e r w h i c h c a n n o t b e b l a m e d o n h e a v e n o r chance b u t o n l y o n the i n c o m p e t e n c e o f those in c h a r g e — m u s t speak o u t . 348) states this as a fact. b u t it depends on a corrupt line of J u v e n a l ( 7 .frr. in which some editors prefer the reading ' L y s i m a c h i ' .A Speech by Thrasymachus c o m m i t t e d s u i c i d e .r h y t h m s . 1) is the o p e n i n g o f a speech t o the A t h e n i a n A s s e m b l y .) he claims a fee for it. T h e speaker feels it necessary to b e g i n b y a p o l o g i z i n g for his y o u t h . H e c a n n o t submit to deliberate m i s m a n a g e ­ m e n t o r c a r r y the b l a m e for the unprincipled p l o t t i n g o f others. H e w a s k n o w n primarily as a teacher o f rhetoric. H e w a s a Sophist in the full sense. and T h e o p h r a s t u s named h i m as the i n v e n t o r o f the so-called ' m i d d l e s t y l e ' (fr. 1 In the Republic (loc. 2 a 2 2 a n < 3 1 2 3 295 . v . w h o . T h e rule that y o u n g m e n should k e e p silence w a s a g o o d o n e s o l o n g as the older generation w e r e m a n a g i n g affairs c o m p e t e n t l y . E l s e w h e r e it is p r o s Nestle (VMtuL. and m o s t o f the extant references to h i m are c o n c e r n e d w i t h his style. and in the Clitophon the y o u n g m a n threatens to desert Socrates for T h r a s y m a c h u s . I n w r i t i n g his h a n d ­ b o o k s and m o d e l speeches he paid great attention t o the technical details o f the art. is better informed o n this subject. w h i c h seems to combine Blass's τάς μέν Εΰττραξίας with the ττάσχειν of Diels. travelled t o f o r e i g n cities. T h a t the prooimion should engage the audience's s y m p a t h y w a s a textbook maxim. 267c). w h o charged for his instruction (Rep. Berlin ed. 1499 7 3 > l Arist. 183 b 31) called h i m a successor o f Tisias. 337d). W e h a v e seen. A r i s t o t l e (Soph. in w h i c h he w a s s o m e t h i n g o f a n i n n o v a t o r . b u t it reads like a g e n u i n e contribution to a debate held in the later stages o f t h e Peloponnesian w a r rather than a m e r e s c h o o l piece.. as w e l l as d e v e l o p i n g the appeal to the e m o t i o n s o f an audience ( P l a t o . with the comment of the scholiast 'rhetoris apud Athenas qui suspendio periit' ( D K . el. 85 A 7 ) . h e says. Phaedr. T h e s u r v i v i n g passage o f his w o r k s (fr. A s a foreigner h e c o u l d n o t h a v e delivered it himself. chapter 1 4 . t h e c i t y pass from peace to w a r a n d peril a n d from internal h a r m o n y t o quarrelling a n d confusion. See Theodectes in Rose. Rket. a n d experimented w i t h the use o f p r o s e . T h i s makes g o o d sense.

but T h u c y d i d e s would not have agreed w i t h the speaker. depends o n w h a t v i e w w e T h i s accords w i t h the common Greek v i e w that κέ-pos breeds ύβρις. W h a t .p a r t i s a n quality. 2 : 'In peace and prosperity cities and indi­ viduals behave more sensibly because they are not forced to act against their w i l l . concord or consensus. and the reference t o the 'ancestral c o n s t i t u t i o n ' s u g g e s t s that it w a s w r i t t e n b y an o l i g a r c h .' ομόνοια. It m a y fairly be s u p p o s e d that he c o u l d o n l y p u t the a r g u m e n t in so c o n v i n c i n g a form i f his o w n m i n d w a s b e h i n d it. p r e s u m a b l y w i t h his o w n c o m p a r a t i v e y o u t h still in m i n d . learn direct from t h e m . i f n o t a t h e o r y o f p o l i t i e s ' . and sees in it ' a serious 1 position. pp. T h e n i n the last sentence o f the extract. T h e speech is m a i n l y o f political interest. E v e r y t h i n g . 233—9. Cf. w h e n t h e y are w i t h i n the m e m o r y o f older m e n .The Men perity that leads to a r r o g a n c e and f a c t i o n . b u t w e k e p t o u r heads in the g o o d times and h a v e lost them in adversity. are b o t h sides l o o k i n g for? In the first place it is the q u e s t i o n o f the 'ancestral c o n s t i t u t i o n ' w h i c h t h r o w s t h e m into c o n f u s i o n . t h o u g h it is the easiest t h i n g to grasp and m o r e than a n y t h i n g else the c o n c e r n o f the w h o l e citizen b o d y . 2 and for reconciliation b e t w e e n the Its counsel w o u l d b e n o less useful t o d a y . T h e parties are s i m p l y fighting mindlessly for p o w e r . 2 1 296 . a b o v e ) . 3 . its air o f o b j e c t i v i t y . a rationale o f political b e h a v i o u r and m e t h o d .T. 149 f. but w a r w h i c h deprives them of their daily cheer is a harsh schoolmaster and reduces the temper of most men to the level of their circumstances. the speaker s a y s that for matters g o i n g b a c k b e y o n d o u r experience w e m u s t r e l y o n the accounts o f former generations or. parties t o that e n d . H a v e l o c k h o w e v e r is impressed b y its ' n o n . and the point that p a r t y s t r u g g l e is based o n the thirst for p o w e r rather than o n fundamental differences o f p o l i c y has an u n c o m f o r t a b l y familiar sound. its intellectual plea for clarity o f t h i n k i n g ' . but let us g i v e T h r a s y m a c h u s the credit for n o t w r i t i n g a n y ­ t h i n g that w a s against his o w n principles. i f o n e g o e s b a c k to first principles. 8 2 . T h e y m a y think their policies are o p p o s e d but in fact there is n o real difference b e t w e e n them. above. T h e speech is c o m p o s e d for a client to deliver. 88 ff. t o r l l a v e l o c k ' s analysis and appraisal of the piece see his L. On the importance of this concept cf. o f course. T h i s is the o n l y independent passage b y w h i c h w e can h o p e t o j u d g e the fairness o r o t h e r w i s e o f P l a t o ' s sketch o f T h r a s y m a c h u s in the Republic ( p p . C e r t a i n l y its main plea is the timeless one for efficiency and principle in g o v e r n m e n t . ' s o m e y o u n g aristocrat o f Spartan s y m p a t h i e s ' .

i f a subject seek p o w e r for himself. the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y b e t w e e n the d i a l o g u e and the speech is at least mitigated. w h a t he sees a r o u n d h i m . d o e s n o t p a y . 90 a b o v e ) . Justice. says T h r a s y m a c h u s . that he speaks there in a m o o d o f bitter dis­ illusionment as w e l l as o p p o s i t i o n to w h a t in his v i e w is the facile o p t i m i s m o f Socrates.Plato on Thrasymachus take o f the scene in the Republic. b y acting o n the b e l i e f t h a t ' the o n l y l a w in earth o r h e a v e n is that the s t r o n g s h o u l d s u b d u e the w e a k ' ( T h u c . Rhet. as it b r o k e d o w n . as T h u c y d i d e s c o n s t a n t l y reminds u s . ' Just as in the Republic he calls injustice ' g o o d counsel'. and. W h a t ' s the reason? For if it prosper. and y o u c a n n o t g e t a w a y from them. e v e r y o n e w i l l flatter rather than blame him. T h e s e . ευβουλία ( p . w i t h c y n i c a l realism. he declares in the former. are the facts. this is injustice. T h e p o l i c y o f d o m i n a ­ tion and oppression n o l o n g e r w o r k e d to the a d v a n t a g e o f A t h e n s . indeed he calls it sophrosyne —'in 1 1 2 the g o o d times w e k e p t o u r h e a d s ' — b u t it no Arist. none dare call it treason. then. internal faction and struggles for p o w e r o n l y m a d e things w o r s e . I f h o w e v e r his ' i n j u s t i c e ' is successful and he b e c o m e s a ruler and l a w g i v e r h i m s e l f (and the tyrant. rule for their o w n a g g r a n d i z e m e n t and justice is the name g i v e n to o b e d i e n c e t o their l a w s : it means s e r v i n g the interests o f others.2). and the m a n w h o o b s e r v e s it is n o b l e b u t a simpleton (348 c ) . H e is o n l y describing. and e n d e a v o u r e d to maintain it. G o v e r n m e n t s . 5. 297 .105. reached the h e i g h t o f her p o w e r . T h e T h r a s y m a c h u s o f the political speech d o e s n o t d e n y that the earlier p o l i c y w a s right for its time. A t h e n s . is the s u p r e m e e x a m p l e o f injustice). the pursuit o f this p h i l o s o p h y in external relations and domestic politics w a s threatening t o lead t o defeat from outside and internal disintegration. A c c o r d i n g t o his a n g r y l o g i c . and if w e a l l o w for a certain e x a g g e r a t i o n due t o P l a t o ' s desire to present t w o h u m a n characters in dramatic contrast. he says brutally. 1400b 19 and 1 4 1 3 3 7 . T o b e just. he s h o u l d o b e y the l a w s w h i c h the rulers h a v e laid d o w n in their o w n interests. B u t . Treason doth never prosper. b y the later y e a r s o f the P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r . I f h o w e v e r m y interpre­ tation has b e e n correct. T h a t P l a t o disliked h i m is plain e n o u g h f r o m the outbursts o f rudeness and bad temper in w h i c h he m a k e s h i m i n d u l g e ( t h o u g h his p u g n a c i t y and sharp t o n g u e are almost the o n l y other things i n d e p e n d e n t l y recorded o f h i m ) .

. . 97 a b o v e ) . p . an o l i g a r c h like h i m s e l f and a personal friend. t o q u o t e a final bit o f i n d e p e n ­ dent e v i d e n c e (fr. 1902—12. VM^uL. seem to be rejected. affirmed that the g o d s t o o k n o h e e d o f h u m a n affairs. In the e y e s o f the d e m o c r a c y the fact that Socrates had associated w i t h m e n like Critias told s t r o n g l y against W h e r e references to authorities are not g i v e n in the following paragraphs they can be found in the accounts of Critias given b y Diehl. W e a l t h y . H e w a s p e r s o n a l l y responsible for the d e a t h o f T h e r a m e n e s .The Men l o n g e r w o r k s .p o l i t i c s and ended u p as the m o s t b l o o d t h i r s t y and u n ­ scrupulous m e m b e r o f the T h i r t y . m a d e themselves tyrants instead and massacred their o p p o n e n t s . 1 298 . T h e s e m e n . T h e y cannot afford the l u x u r y o f an internal s t r u g g l e for p o w e r . n o r w o u l d the m a n w h o . and b y sophistic t e a c h i n g w i t h its emphasis o n the attainment o f p o w e r and indifference to the m o r a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f rhetorical and debating skill. Traditional piety. h i g h ­ b o r n and h a n d s o m e . elected at the e n d o f the w a r to d r a w u p a constitution. and. RE. o r t h e y w o u l d n o t a l l o w justice t o b e set aside as it is. w h o w a s u n w i l l i n g t o g o to such extremes. b u t w e need feel n o d o u b t that it w a s o n e side o f the real m a n . . H e is n o less o f a realist. (7) 1 CRITIAS C r i t i a s w o u l d seem t o p r o v i d e P l a t o w i t h the perfect example o f a fine nature ruined b y the s o c i e t y o f his d a y .Γ. H e assumes that prosperity and disaster are not g o d . 8. this is the criterion b y which it should be j u d g e d . he w a s also r i c h l y e n d o w e d w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c and literary gifts and an eager listener t o Socrates. but the A t h e n i a n s must learn to adapt themselves t o c h a n g e d circumstances.g i v e n but man-made. x i . T h e character depicted b y P l a t o w o u l d n o t h a v e quarrelled w i t h these assumptions. y e t deserted h i m t o p l a y p o w e r .234): T o begin with. 400—20. . he assumes that the purpose of government is to be successful and efficient. and the archaic fatalism o f the Greek temper. perhaps r e l y i n g o n things that he said o r w r o t e w h e n A t h e n s w a s at the h e i g h t o f her p o w e r and a r r o g a n c e (the m o s t l i k e l y dramatic date for the Republic is a b o u t 322). secondly. and Nestle. T o q u o t e H a v e l o c k a g a i n (Ζ. that it is the purpose o f any government to preserve the one and avoid the o t h e r . Plato has s h o w n his w o r s t side.

H e seems e x a c t l y to fit the role o f a Callicles. w h o s e father G l a u c o n w a s Callaeschrus's brother. 1949. T h e family w a s an old and distinguished o n e . A r i s t o t l e w a s o f the same m i n d . be the cause o f his falling a w a y . Levinson. 1 T h e r e is a m y s t e r y here w h i c h the e v i d e n c e does n o t a l l o w us t o s o l v e c o m p l e t e l y . 1 has a part in the Charmides and Protagoras. In the Constitution of Athens (3 5 if. Defense. 3 5 9 ^ . . ) . and family feeling w o u l d b e s t r o n g . B u t does P l a t o speak o f h i m like this? O n the contrary. I 2 4 f . he s h o w s h i m o n l y as an intimate m e m b e r o f the Socratic circle. i f w e b e l i e v e w i t h Sir K a r l P o p p e r that P l a t o ' b e t r a y e d Socrates. O n the same one or his grandfather see Diehl in meyer in AJP. o f course. and R o s e n add that in Plato's picture of h i m in the Charmides more concerned with honour than w i t h t r u t h ' (Socr. and e v e r y indication o f a g e n u i n e interest in p h i l o s o p h y . i f the Apology and the S e v e n t h Letter (3240-d) are a n y e v i d e n c e at all. b e g i n n i n g w i t h their relationship.The Enigma of Critias h i m . be designed to p r o v e P l a t o ' s point in the Republic ( 4 9 i d ) that ' t h e finest nature g i v e n the w r o n g nurture w i l l turn o u t w o r s e than the c o m m o n e s t ' and that (495a) ' t h e v e r y qualities w h i c h m a k e a p h i l o s o p h i c nature w i l l .) he frankly Besides the Timaeus and Critias. It is lessened. i n c l u d i n g S o l o n a m o n g its earlier generations. w i t h b a d u p b r i n g i n g . o n e w o u l d think. x i . T h e r e are h o w e v e r certain points to take into a c c o u n t . Plato w o u l d also b e attracted b y his brilliant intellect and literary and artistic gifts. P l a t o still thinks o f his uncle Critias w i t h respect and affection. It is o n l y fair to M. n o less than w e a l t h and other external a d v a n t a g e s ' . In the Timaeus and Critias he has a leading role. he in the pseudo-Platonic Eryxias. J . O'Brien sees ' a self-assertive man Parad. or m i g h t .S. done' 194). W e cannot decide that here. and w h e n G l a u c o n died her brother Charmides became Critias's w a r d . and also question whether the speaker in the Critias w a s the RE. i o o i f . w i t h n o hint that he w a s w o r s e than the rest. and u n d o u b t e d l y t h e y shared the c o n ­ v i c t i o n that unbridled d e m o c r a c y w a s the ruin o f the state. and the w h o l e s t o r y o f A t l a n t i s is told t h r o u g h his m o u t h . T h o u g h w r i t i n g years after his death. but in a n y case n o o n e w o u l d accuse Plato o f c o n d o n i n g the m u r d e r o u s excesses o f the T h i r t y . 299 . n o r did he. just as his uncles had (O. Critias w a s the s o n o f Callaeschrus and c o u s i n o f P l a t o ' s m o t h e r Perictione. and there is a curious discrepancy b e t w e e n his references to Critias and the T h i r t y and the a c c o u n t o f X e n o p h o n in his Hellenica w h i c h is o u r sole c o n t e m p o r a r y source for the leading part p l a y e d b y Critias.

happier years o f h o p e and p r o m i s e . w i t h the r o o t s o f p h i l o s o p h y in h i m and an i m m e n s e c a p a c i t y for g o o d b u t also for harm i f his e n v i r o n m e n t c o r r u p t e d h i m . U n f o r t u n a t e l y it did. and as w e learn from P l a t o ' s o w n v e r s i o n o f his Apology (32 c ) . because e v e r y o n e k n o w s t h e m . T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n true. ) is that he and A l c i b i a d e s w e r e c o n s u m e d w i t h a m b i t i o n .o r a t o r y p r e v a i l i n g u n d e r the d e m o c r a c y and the rhetorical 1 See Diehl in RE. W h e n the T h i r t y came t o p o w e r . deliber­ ately d i s o b e y e d an o r d e r from t h e m w h i c h w a s designed to implicate h i m in their g u i l t . i . he w a s in t r o u b l e w i t h Critias and C h a r i c l e s for his o u t s p o k e n criticism o f their c o n d u c t . a n d in the Politics (1305b 26) he names C h a r i c l e s as their leader. P l a t o o n this h y p o t h e s i s w i l l h a v e concentrated o n the earlier. H e reserved his attack for the c o r r u p t i n g forces w h i c h he considered responsible for the d o w n f a l l o f s u c h p r o m i s i n g y o u n g m e n . o n the subject o f e u l o g i e s . T h e y had n o desire t o b e c o n v e r t e d to his w a y o f life. T h e b r e a k c a m e w h e n Socrates p u b l i c l y reprimanded Critias for t r y i n g t o seduce a y o u t h i n their circle. b u t in praising Critias y o u m u s t . 2 . I n the Rhetoric ( i 4 i 6 b 2 6 ) . In spite o f this. and the s t o r y o f his e v i l latter d a y s w a s o n e v e r y o n e ' s lips. he s a y s . t h o u g h t that his t e a c h i n g w o u l d help t h e m to g a i n their e n d s . said Xenophon's that his p h i l o s o p h y w a s n o t taken seriously b y the G r e e k s because his w o r d s w e r e difficult t o reconcile w i t h his character.The Men relates the atrocities o f the T h i r t y and the e x e c u t i o n o f T h e r a m e n e s for a t t e m p t i n g to c u r b t h e m . a c c o u n t o f his relations w i t h Socrates (Mem. w i t h s e e m i n g l y deliberate intent. and o u t o f regret for o n e w h o w a s his relative and at one time a c o m p a n i o n o f his master Socrates. and left h i m as s o o n as t h e y t h o u g h t t h e y had learned e n o u g h t o attain their political a m b i t i o n s . because t h e y are little k n o w n . 1 Philostratus. C o n s i d e r i n g all this. b u t w i t h n o m e n t i o n o f Critias. x i . and. P l a t o m a y indeed h a v e t h o u g h t o f h i m as the t y p e o f brilliant y o u n g m a n w h o m he describes in the Republic. T o redress the balance. that i f y o u w a n t t o praise A c h i l l e s y o u need n o t r e c o u n t his deeds. the licence and m o b . 300 . ic>iof. a h u r t for w h i c h Critias n e v e r f o r g a v e h i m . w r i t i n g in the time o f the ' s e c o n d S o p h i s t i c ' . such w a s Socrates's influence that s o l o n g as t h e y w e r e w i t h h i m their w o r s t passions w e r e held in c h e c k . i 2 f f . k n o w i n g Socrates's m a s t e r y o f a r g u m e n t .

Critias w a s n o t o f c o u r s e a S o p h i s t in the full sense o f a paid teacher. Philostr. Α ι ) . w o r k i n g in g o l d and b r o n z e .67. the p o t t e r ' s w h e e l and ( c u r i o u s l y e n o u g h ) the g a m e o f Kottabos (fr. T h e y i n c l u d e chariots. w h i c h he interprets as a concession to the demos to facilitate Alcibiades's return. n o t for the e n l i g h t e n e d ruler. See Diehl in RE. chairs. Critias learned from Gorgias but turned his teaching to his o w n purposes. P e r h a p s for this reason. that he t h o u g h t o f l a w s as neither inherent i n h u m a n nature f r o m the b e g i n n i n g n o r a gift o f a n y g o d s . and m a y z for have c o m p l i c i t y in the mutilation o f the H e r m a e . ships. But Philostratus concluded {V. 2 1 301 . Meno 70a—b. ] 58. 1 . 1 Critias died in civil w a r against the d e m o c r a t s in 403. Nestle speaks of his ' s t r i k i n g reserve' vis-a-vis the Four Hundred. H e first appears in politics in 415. Cf.Critias: Character and Beliefs teachers w h o claimed that the art o f s p e a k i n g had n o t h i n g to d o w i t h moral standards. 357). b e d s . VMiuL. Plato. w h e r e i f he did n o t c o n s o r t w i t h G o r g i a s p e r s o n a l l y the intelligentsia w e r e steeped in his teaching.S p a r t a n . w h e n he is g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d to h a v e b e e n a b o u t fifty.S. 401. 1 6 ( C r i t . h e w a s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y exiled after their fall. b u t it has b e e n fairly said t h a t ' in his personality w e find a u n i o n o f all the impulses o f the sophistic m o v e m e n t . Later the d e m o c r a c y did exile h i m and he w e n t t o T h e s s a l y . ep. 2 . w h o s e p e r i o d o f Sturm und Drang reached a s y m b o l i c end in his dramatic d e a t h ' ( L e s k y . 1 . 1 6 ) that it w a s rather Critias w h o corrupted the Thessalians. and w a s elected o n e o f the c o m m i s s i o n o f T h i r t y . H e w a s b o t h a bitter b e e n . x i .3 A f t e r the capitulation o f A t h e n s in 404 he returned. 2 4 ) claimed that it w a s the Thessalians that corrupted him. Xenophon {Mem. Nestle. t o ensure his o b e d i e n c e .S. V. 73 (Critias A 1 7 ) . W e h a v e seen that he shared w i t h P r o t a g o r a s . w h e n w i t h others o f his persuasion he w a s i m p r i s o n e d o p p o n e n t o f d e m o c r a c y and v i o l e n t l y p r o . a m e m b e r o f the F o u r H u n d r e d in 4 1 1 . and o f r e l i g i o n as a p u r e l y h u m a n i n v e n t i o n a i m e d at p r e v e n t i n g lawless b e h a v i o u r . 2). HGL. H o w e v e r . Plato's opinion of the country w a s that it w a s full of α τ α ξ ί α καΐ ακολασία (Crito 5 3 d ) . H i s interest in technical p r o g r e s s c o m e s o u t also in a set o f elegiacs in w h i c h he assigns i n v e n t i o n s t o particular p e o p l e s o r c o u n t r i e s . 1903. w i t h his father. and h e l p e d t o e n g i n e e r the recall o f A l c i b i a d e s . D e m o c r i t u s and others a b e l i e f in the p r o g r e s s i v e e v o l u t i o n o f m a n k i n d b y their o w n efforts. w i t h the c o n s e q u e n c e s that h a v e b e e n m e n t i o n e d .. w r i t i n g . 1 . T h e o n l y evidence is [ D e m . R e l i g i o n w a s for the subject. c o u p l e d w i t h the close relationship According to Philostratus. 3 Syopylajov tv ΘετταλΙα μικραί καΐ μέλους ττόλει.

6 . T w o b o o k s o f Homilies m u s t h a v e been m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c in c o n t e n t . T h e manuscripts g i v e the author's name as Cratinus. 3 w h e r e he m e n t i o n e d their e x t r a v a g a n t w a y s . H i s p o e m in praise o f A l c i b i a d e s r e v i v e s the political e l e g y o f his ancestor S o l o n and o f T h e o g n i s . and a q u o t a t i o n from the first t o u c h e s o n the relation b e t w e e n the m i n d and the senses. 1) and his prose w o r k s . 45 and 52. VM^uL. so called. ' T h i s c o m e s in a passage w h e r e G a l e n is q u o t i n g e x a m p l e s to p r o v e his p o i n t that gnome in earlier times w a s used w i t h the same m e a n i n g as other w o r d s for m i n d o r t h o u g h t . H e adds t w o m o r e q u o t a See pp. o f w h i c h the o n l y extant fragments d o n o t deal w i t h their constitution b u t w i t h their w a y o f life. See Diehl i n i ? £ . i n c l u d i n g b o t h p o e t r y and prose. (Frr. 40): 'If you y o u r s e l f s t u d y to b e c o m e s t r o n g in intellect.) 2 3 1 3 302 . 2 . 44 he takes A r c h i l o chus t o task for e x p o s i n g his h u m b l e birth and w e a k n e s s e s in his v e r s e . 3 i ) . and Nestle. h e substituted an i a m b i c for the c u s t o m a r y pentameter. and o n e o n the Spartans. Critias characteristically gives the exact amount of the fortunes made out of politics b y Tliemistocles and Cleon. T h e p r o s e set included o n e o n the Thessalians (fr. his 1 aristocratic s y m p a t h i e s did n o t p r e v e n t h i m from s a y i n g that m o r e m e n b e c o m e g o o d b y practice than t h r o u g h natural e n d o w m e n t . d a n c i n g . His literary o u t p u t w a s large and diverse. 1 and 256 above. y o u w i l l be least w r o n g e d b y t h e m .8 ) . x i . since the n a m e o f A l c i b i a d e s resisted inclusion in dactylic verse. H e m e n t i o n s their d r i n k i n g habits and c u p s (made suitable for use o n c a m p a i g n s ) . L i t e r a r y interest is s h o w n in his hexameters o n A n a c r e o n (fr.The Men b e t w e e n arete in g e n e r a l and the craftsman's skill. and praises the e u g e n i c effects o f the h a r d y r e g i m e i m p o s e d o n m e n a n d w o m e n alike (frr. and the precautions w h i c h t h e y take against the H e l o t s . b u t H e r m o g e n e s (see A 19) m e n t i o n s a collection o f ' p r o o e m i a for p u b l i c s p e a k e r s ' . H i s p o e m o n the Spartans also deals m a i n l y w i t h their d r i n k i n g habits. but the alteration has been accepted since Casaubon. furniture. T h e r e is n o r e c o r d o f his speeches. A prose 'Constitution of A t h e n s ' has been inferred as the likeliest home for two unassigned quotations. e m p h a s i z i n g their m o d e r a t i o n . o n e in p r o s e and o n e in v e r s e . and in the other he has the effrontery to criticize C i m o n lor his pro-Spartan policy. 405. 32-7). dress. W e h a v e fragments o f t w o sets o f Politeiai. and attribut­ i n g t o C h i l o n the s a y i n g ' n o t h i n g t o o m u c h ' (frr. A t least the c o n t e x t in G a l e n m a k e s it fairly certain that ' t h e y ' are the senses in the sentence (fr. It is c o m b i n e d w i t h aristocratic pride w h e n in fr. 1908. t h o u g h w i t h characteristic b o l d n e s s . In one.

w h i l e l i g h t and darkness. 2. 1908. Lyr.. Health is missing. 5 7 . T h e reader should be warned that all were commonly attributed to Euripides in antiquity. 166. the Tennes. 243 ff. though the Vita Eur. 229 w i t h n . rejected the tragedies (Critias fr. Hermes. 105. A r i s t o t l e (De an. and w e h a v e . H e m a y h a v e learned o f E m p e d o clean t h e o r y f r o m G o r g i a s . 10). and the innumerable h o s t o f stars. distinguished thought f r o m sensation. Cf. t h e y believed that it w a s d u e t o the nature o f the b l o o d . and Analecta Eurip. ) In fact E m p e d o c l e s . T h e speaker then declares that his o w n c h o i c e is t o h a v e a fine reputation. Diehl. W e h a v e excerpts from three tragedies. 1 in-d. N. Anth. Job. A 23.3) w h i c h says that ' t h e b l o o d a r o u n d the heart is t h o u g h t ( ν ό η μ α ) ' . T h e y w e r e rescued for h i m b y W i l a m o w i t z .) Critias also w r o t e dramas. the p o w e r and audacity t o persuade o n e ' s n e i g h b o u r s o f w h a t is u n s o u n d . ( S e e o n this v o l . n . 291 f. 2 1 T h e Rhadamanthys (fr. 405 b 5) says he w a s o n e o f those w h o identified the psyche w i t h b l o o d : r e g a r d i n g sensation as the m o s t typical characteristic o f psyche. and e v i d e n t l y also Critias. the sclinlion on the good things of life. 7 (11. T h e Hippocratic treatise o n the heart uses the w o r d gnome w h e n it declares that the m i n d rules the rest o f the psyche and resides in the left ventricle. (See Critias. 39): ' N e i t h e r w h a t h e perceives w i t h the rest o f his b o d y n o r w h a t h e k n o w s w i t h his m i n d ' and ' M e n h a v e awareness w h e n t h e y h a v e a c c u s t o m e d themselves to b e healthy in their m i n d ' . and in fr. F r . Rhadamanthys and Peirithous. P h i l o p o n u s in his c o m m e n t a r y (after i d e n t i f y i n g Critias as ' o n e o f the T h i r t y ' ) attributed t o h i m the line o f E m p e d o c l e s (fr. ! 1 303 . T w o c h o r i c fragments o f the Peirithous are c o s m o l o g i c a l . t h o u g h c o n s i d e r i n g b o t h t o b e equally corporeal p h e n o m e n a . and the l o n g passage from the satyr-play Sisyphus c o n t a i n i n g the t h e o r y o f the o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n . t o o k ' t h e P p . 19 the epithet ' s e l f . 15) contains a list o f the v a r i o u s objects o f b u t Critias's has s o m e touches o f the sophistic a g e . Schmid still had reservations about Critias's authorship (Gesch. and the Sisyphus is g i v e n to Critias b y Sextus. perform their endless dance a r o u n d h i m . 1927. above. Similar lists w e r e c o m m o n p l a c e . besides h i g h birth a n d w e a l t h . 1 7 6 ) . no. w h o quotes the passage. m e n ' s l o n g i n g . 18 speaks o f u n w e a r i e d T i m e endlessly b r i n g i n g itself t o birth in unceasing flow. C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a .Critias: Writings tions w h i c h he says are f r o m the Aphorisms o f Critias (fr. 183) with the various a u t l i o i n i c .b o r n ' s u g g e s t s that it is again T i m e that is addressed as e m b r a c i n g all nature in the h e a v e n l y w h i r l .

w a s d e e p l y i n v o l v e d in the a r g u m e n t a b o u t the use o f l a n g u a g e and the possibility o f contradiction w h i c h f o r m e d part o f the theoretical b a c k g r o u n d o f and 1 1 fifth-century rhetoric. and death i n civil strive. p r o b a b l y a little older than P r o d i c u s and Hippias. cruelty. 23 ' B e t t e r n o t to live at all than to l i v e m i s e r a b l y ' . Since this Strom. ' liven if w e ignore our complete ignorance of the dramatic context and the speakers. 1 n o d o u b t w i t h Plato rather than A n a x a g o r a s in m i n d . where Chronos ( T i m e ) appears as a p r i m e v a l creative p o w e r . E v i d e n t l y Critias (assum­ i n g that he and n o t Euripides is the author) shared Euripides's interest in c o s m o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n . O. 3 2 nomos (8) ANTISTHENES A n t i s t h e n e s is o n e o f those interesting bridge-figures w h o s e r v e to remind us h o w m u c h h a p p e n e d in a short space o f time b e t w e e n the m a n h o o d o f Socrates and the death o f P l a t o . fr. 21 ' H e had n o unpractised m i n d w h o first said that fortune fights o n the side o f the w i s e ' . the p r o d u c t o f generations o f politicians and p o e t s . Ret. M o r e p r o m i n e n t is the effect o f Orphic cosmogonies or o f Pherecydes o f Syros. b u t m o s t scholars h a v e seen a s u g g e s t i o n o f A n a x a g o r a s in the passage as a w h o l e . 5 9 3.b o r n ' to b e ' t h e d e m i u r g i c nous'. A s a pupil o f Socrates. 69 a b o v e ) . quoted b y Nauck on Eur. h e a d s t r o n g and unstable character. to lead h i m a w a y from the w i s d o m o f Socrates to v i o l e n c e . A f e w further quotations from this p l a y in Stobaeus's a n t h o l o g y are easy to reconcile w i t h Critias as w e k n o w h i m : fr. 22 o n the superiority o f character t o (p. and fr. after an a c c o u n t o f Socrates himself.The Men s e l f . as w e h a v e seen. has 85-91 in w h i c h P r o t a g o r a s p l a y e d a leading part. & Gk. fr. and reputed teacher o f D i o g e n e s and founder o f the C y n i c s c h o o l . 56. 4 0 3 . 304 . 2 . B u t s o m e o f the headier theories conspired w i t h his o w n a m b i ­ tious. p l u n g i n g e a g e r l y into the philosophical discussions o f his time. For Chronos in Orphic cosmogonies and Pherecydes see Guthrie. his p r o p e r place in the h i s t o r y o f t h o u g h t m i g h t s e e m t o b e as a ' S o c r a t i c ' . 1 4 Staehlin. all the m o r e so as m a n y o f them had a direct b e a r i n g o n political life. W e are left w i t h the picture o f a m a n o f brilliant intellectual and artistic gifts. and. Y e t he l i v e d in the h e y d a y o f the Sophists. and Kirk in KR.

o f Theaet. that there has b e e n ' an i m m e n s e a m o u n t o f conjecture and h y p o ­ thesis about h i m ' (Plato and Contemps. trusting thereby to seize upon the essence o f his master. and a certain a m o u n t o f h i n d s i g h t may 1 1 h a v e crept into accounts o f his teaching w r i t t e n after these T h e source-material is collected in Caizzi's Antisthenis Fragmenta. r e l y i n g o n X e n o p h o n and A r i s t o t l e . he ' seems t o h a v e b e e n the b u t t o f the Socratic s c h o o l . In recent times he has b e e n the subject o f v e r y v a r i e d j u d g m e n t s . he w a s h i m s e l f a rhetorician and pupil o f G o r g i a s . K a r l Joel's v e r d i c t is also interesting (E. 5 0 5 ) .S. a basis for variety and an artificial product. to w h o m he stood in the relationship o f flagellants imitating a genuine saint. .x l i ) . x l . his o w n p h i l o s o p h y w e n t the w a y o f an u n ­ disciplined free-thinking against w h i c h P l a t o had t o b e e m p h a t i c a l l y o n his g u a r d ' (Gesch. was foreshadowed G r o t e : ' A n t i s t h e n e s . by 1 9 4 ) .S. w e r e in m a n y i n . or better o f the Romantics—the poet o f Lucinde—to Goethe. a sort o f mixture o f A j a x and T h e r s i t e s . He copied the Socratic mode o f life and fanaticized the Socratic teaching. ) . 1 6 0 ) . S c h m i d considered that ' i n spite o f his enthusiasm for Socrates in Socrates's last y e a r s . the last o f the ' G r e a t G e n e r a t i o n ' (O. ' V e r y little is k n o w n a b o u t A n t i s t h e n e s from first-rate 2 7 7 ) . P o p p e r ' s v e r d i c t . After the title ' F r a m m e n t i ' the passages are numbered continuously throughout.Antisthenes. S. T h e r e is also a full bibliography. O n the other hand respects closer a p p r o x i m a t i o n s to Sokrates than either P l a t o o r a n y other o f the Sokratic c o m p a n i o n s ' (Plato. i — 1 2 1 ' are the testimonia and actual fragments (or w h a t are reckoned as s u c h ) . 2 7 2 f . H e f o l l o w e d rather the form than the spirit o f the Socratic t e a c h i n g ' (ed. that s o u r c e s ' . M o s t o f o u r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t his life and circumstances c o m e s f r o m m a n y centuries later. 122-44 e 'notizie biografiche' and 145-95 anecdotes. it seems appropriate to m a k e s o m e general o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t h i m n o w . 2 5 7 ) : W h a t in Socrates was an unconscious miracle o f his nature became in Antisthenes a set purpose. und X. . and m u s t be treated w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e s e r v e . and to C a m p b e l l . and his disciple D i o g e n e s . a Bridge-figure b r o u g h t h i m into o u r discussion already. Before c o m i n g u n d e r the influence o f Socrates. It w a s b e l i e v e d that he had f o u n d e d the C y n i c s c h o o l and t h r o u g h it influenced the Stoics. that h e w a s the o n l y w o r t h y successor o f Socrates. the arrangement of w h i c h is unusual. but divided into three p a r t s : ' F r r . a r 305 . P e r h a p s the truest statements are those o f P o p p e r (O. and F i e l d .

H e w a s a rhetorician a n d p u p i l o f G o r g i a s . 7 6 ) speaks o f h i m as still alive in 366 and Plutarch (Lycurgus 30) quotes a remark w h i c h h e m a d e o n the battle o f L e u c t r a (371). L y c e u m and S t o a w e r e s c h o o l s . Athen. 158. 6. and D . 182. L . F o r Protagoras and the impossibility of contradiction see p . ( S e e frr. Aeschines and the rest. X e n o p h o n (Symp. 138 A .C. H e w a s especially attracted b y the ascetic side o f Socrates's life and his independence o f w o r l d l y g o o d s . 9 1 ) . 139 C a i z z i . 194) argued that Antisthenes's denial that one can call a statement false originated w i t h Gorgias (MXG 980a 10).1. Diimmler (Akad. b u t D . or men of mixed descent (Demosth.L. 2 . o r at least a g r o u p o f pupils w i t h a fixed place o f m e e t i n g . 256. L . D i o d o r u s ( 1 5 . T h a t at least is certain. ) N o w a d a y s it is g e n e r a l l y held that the C y n i c s o w e d their m o s t distinctive features. sap. w h o m he afterwards attacked. a n d hence n o t an A t h e n i a n c i t i z e n . 3 1 . 4. 22od (from the Archelaus of Antisthenes). above. 2 3 . But D. 3 . immediately g o e s on to s a y that Antisthenes himself w a s called Άττλοκύων (just as he w a s also called Κύων b y Herodicus in the first century B. 2 3 1 1 2 3 306 . D . 1 6 1 . 274)· T h i s w a s the g y m n a s i u m assigned to bastards. and claimed also to see the influence of Prodicus and Hippias (ibid. and P l a t o (Phaedo 59b) m e n t i o n s h i m a m o n g the f e w intimates w h o w e r e w i t h Socrates in p r i s o n i n the last h o u r s o f his life. But Field notes (Plato and Contemps. i ) . 1 . as w e l l as their name. L . 1 8 . 6. Later h e b e c a m e a friend a n d fanatical admirer o f Socrates. H e w a s said to b e the s o n o f an A t h e n i a n and a T h r a c i a n s l a v e . 5 . 2 1 3 and later sources). 2. introduces the fact to g i v e point to t w o probably apocryphal anecdotes. D . which tallies with the report of his half-foreign origin. n. Seneca Deconst. and carried this t o such l e n g t h s that in later antiquity h e w a s c o m m o n l y r e g a r d e d as the f o u n d e r o f the C y n i c s c h o o l . ) t h a t in the Phaedo Plato speaks of h i m as an ίττιχώριος with no hint that he w a s different from Crito. t o D i o g e n e s . s o ( a l t h o u g h w e h a v e n o certain i n f o r m a t i o n ) a b o u t 455-360 w i l l n o t b e far o u t f o r the span o f his l o n g life. ' C y n o s a r g e s ' is brought in as an alternative origin for the name.l o v e r Callias t o P r o d i c u s and Hippias. and t o h a v e f o u g h t at T a n a g r a ( D .13) says that h e u s e d t o c o n v e r s e ( o r ' u s e d i a l e c t i c ' ) in the g y m n a s i u m o f C y n o s a r g e s . L .The Men s c h o o l s b e c a m e f a m o u s . for D i o g e n e s Laertius (6. T h e r e n e v e r w a s a C y n i c s c h o o l in the literal sense in w h i c h the A c a d e m y . w i t h D i o g e n e s ' t h e D o g ' f o r his pupil. 6 . or his source is t r y i n g b y e v e r y means to represent h i m as the founder of C y n i c i s m . L . a n d s o m e h a v e seen i n h i m the influence o f other Sophists as w e l l .F . w h i c h m u s t refer t o the battle there in 426 ( T h u c . a n d speaks o f h i m i n general as a n o l d e r m a n t h a n h i m s e l f a n d P l a t o . A n t i s t h e n e s h i m s e l f m a y h a v e h a d a sort o f s c h o o l .62) says that h e i n t r o d u c e d the S o p h i s t . Antisthenes and Gorgias. i 6 o n .

Antisthenes and the Cynics
this certainly d o e s n o t b r i n g h i m closer t o the C y n i c s , w h o n e v e r a d o p t e d such m e t h o d s . A n t i s t h e n e s w a s p r o b a b l y horrified at s o m e o f D i o g e n e s ' s principles a n d b e h a v i o u r . T h e r e is e v e r y reason t o think that t h e y w e r e acquainted, and t h e stories a b o u t t h e m are all t o t h e effect that D i o g e n e s w a s far from a favourite o f his, b u t w o n h i m o v e r b y sheer i m p o r t u n i t y a n d persistence. Nevertheless the portrait o f Antisthenes in X e n o p h o n ' s Symposium does show traits
1

which,

d e v e l o p e d t o a n extreme, w e r e characteristic o f the C y n i c s . H e called h i m s e l f the richest o f m e n , because w e a l t h resided i n m e n ' s s o u l s , n o t in their p o c k e t s , a n d equated p o v e r t y w i t h independence. M e n w h o w e n t t o all l e n g t h s t o increase their fortunes he pitied as diseased. T h e y suffered as m u c h as m e n w h o s e b o d i e s w e r e n e v e r satisfied h o w e v e r m u c h t h e y ate. Happiness lies n o t i n h a v i n g great possessions b u t i n l o s i n g the desire f o r t h e m . A l l this he claims t o h a v e learned from Socrates. T h e r e is a specially C y n i c t o u c h in his reference t o s e x as a p u r e l y b o d i l y need, f o r w h o s e satisfaction a n y w o m a n w i l l d o (Symp. 4.38). C y n i c also w a s his anti-hedonism. Later sources m a y perhaps b e suspected, because t h e y had already adopted h i m as the f o u n d e r o f the sect, w h e n t h e y report h i m as declaiming that h e w o u l d rather g o m a d than e n j o y pleasure (frr. 108 A - F ) ; b u t the bias is already there i n X e n o p h o n (Symp. 4.39), w h e n i n s p e a k i n g o f the appetite f o r s e x — w h i c h h e regards as a natural o n e like that for f o o d — h e s a y s that h e w o u l d prefer t o satisfy it w i t h o u t pleasure, since t h e intense pleasure derived f r o m it is harmful. Similarly o n e should eat a n d drink s o l e l y t o banish h u n g e r a n d thirst. T h e o n l y pleasure t o b e r e c o m m e n d e d is that w h i c h f o l l o w s f r o m hard w o r k (fr. 113) a n d w h i c h b r i n g s n o
ap. A t h . 2 1 6 b ) , whereas there can be little doubt that the original D o g w a s Diogenes. Aristotle already k n e w him b y that name (Rhet. 1 4 1 1 3 2 4 ) , but spoke of the followers of Antisthenes as Άντισδένειοι. T h e story i n D . L . (loc. cit.) that he h a d few pupils because as he said he ' d r o v e them a w a y with a silver r o d ' , if it has a n y basis i n fact, implies that in spite of his Socraticism h e charged h i g h fees which m a n y w e r e u n w i l l i n g to pay. H e w o u l d h a v e learned to d o so as a rhetorician and pupil of Gorgias. Cf. Socrates, p . 2 1 . ( C y n i c s w e r e notoriously 'difficult' characters.) T h i s h a s been most r e c e n d y argued b y Caizzi, Stud. Urb. 1964, 73 f. W i l a m o w i t z made a v i g o r o u s protest against the ' l e g e n d ' of Antisthenes the C y n i c in Platon, 11, 1 6 2 - 4 , and rm> y followed h i m , e.g. T a y l o r , Comm. on Tim. 306, D u d l e y , Hist, of Cyn. 1 ff., Field, Plato and Contemps. 162 £., and the references collected in Burkert, Weish. u. Wiss. 197, n. 69. But see also Popper, O . S . 277, and, for an older v i e w on the other side, Ueberweg-Praechter, 160 n. For Zeller too Antisthenes w a s ' t h e founder of C y n i c i s m ' (PA. d. Gr. 2 8 0 - 1 ) . Chroust in h i s Socrates Man and Myth speaks of a unitary philosophy which he calls ' A n t i s t h e n e a n - C y n i c ' , but not e v e r y o n e w o u l d follow h i m .
n n a v e 1

307

The Men
repentance (fr. n o ) . T h e virtues o f hard w o r k he
1

recommended

t h r o u g h the e x a m p l e s o f Heracles and C y r u s i n b o o k s called after them (frr. 19-28). T h r o u g h the C y n i c s he w a s s u p p o s e d also to h a v e b e e n a founder o f Stoicism before Z e n o , and the succession-writers, represented for u s b y D i o g e n e s Laertius, assumed a direct line o f master and pupil: A n t i s t h e n e s - D i o g e n e s - C r a t e s - Z e n o . If, as is g e n e r a l l y s u p p o s e d n o w ­ a d a y s , this is n o t strictly historical, it is p r o b a b l y true that he g a v e the impulse t o an o u t s t a n d i n g characteristic o f e a c h : that is, as D i o g e n e s Laertius puts it, ' t h e indifference o f D i o g e n e s , the self-control o f C r a t e s , and the endurance o f Z e n o ' — a l l traits w h i c h he h i m s e l f w o u l d claim t o h a v e found in Socrates. In his doctrine o f virtue as the e n d o f life (fr. 22) he certainly anticipated Z e n o . V i r t u e can b e t a u g h t and o n c e acquired c a n n o t b e lost (frr. 69, 7 1 ) . It needs a Socratic strength, is taught b y d e e d and e x a m p l e rather than a r g u m e n t and erudition, and is sufficient in itself t o ensure happiness (fr. 70). E d u c a t i o n is necessary (fr. 68), but it is the k i n d o f education that Chiron g a v e Heracles (fr. 24). V i r t u e has n o use for l o n g speeches (fr. 86). T h e sage is self-sufficient, for his w e a l t h includes that o f all other m e n (fr. 80, a particularly Stoic t o u c h ) . S o far as o u r e v i d e n c e g o e s , it seems that his ethical t e a c h i n g w a s p u r e l y practical. T h e r e is n o trace o f systematic t h e o r y n o r o f a n y c o n n e x i o n w i t h his l o g i c a l doctrine such as w e h a v e f o u n d in s o m e o f the Sophists. T h e nomos-physis antithesis (also t o b e found in his t h e o l o g i c a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t , p . 248 a b o v e ) is e c h o e d i n the d i c t u m that the w i s e m a n acts n o t a c c o r d i n g to the established l a w s b u t t o the l a w s o f virtue (fr. 101, p . 117 a b o v e ) . O t h e r w i s e all that o n e can say o f his political v i e w s is that he w a s n o egalitarian, as appears from his reference to w h a t the lions t h o u g h t w h e n the hares m a d e p u b l i c speeches in f a v o u r o f equal rights for all. ( T h i s c o m e s f r o m A r i s t o t l e , Pol. 1284315.) H i s Politikos Logos, w e
2

are t o l d , attacked ' a l l the d e m a g o g u e s o f A t h e n s ' ,

and he m a d e a

special target o f A l c i b i a d e s (frr. 43, 29, 30). H i s Archelaus attacked his former master G o r g i a s , a natural c o n s e q u e n c e o f his c o n v e r s i o n t o
" For Antisthenes's v i e w s on pleasure Caizzi has collected references in her notes to 108-13. * Compare his advice that they o u g h t to vote asses to the position of horses, p. 212, n. 1, above. frr.

308

The Teaching of Antisthenes
S o c r a t e s . H e m a y h a v e a r g u e d that rhetoric w a s n o t s i m p l y the creator o f persuasion, b u t the criterion and v e h i c l e o f t r u t h .
2 1

T h e f o r e g o i n g a c c o u n t has m a d e use o f late as w e l l as early s o u r c e s , b u t the result is a consistent ethical standpoint. A p a r t from this, o n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l side w e k n o w o f his l o g i c and his assertion o f the u n i t y o f G o d , w h i c h h a v e b e e n discussed in an earlier chapter. T h e r e is n o t h i n g else s a v e the report o f a Johnsonian riposte t o P a r m e n i d e s ' s assertion o f the i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f m o t i o n : n o t b e i n g able to c o u n t e r the a r g u m e n t s in w o r d s , h e s i m p l y s t o o d u p and w a l k e d . T h e interpretation
3

o f p o e t r y , u s u a l l y for its ethical lessons, w a s

part o f the business o f a G r e e k teacher, and A n t i s t h e n e s w a s n o e x c e p t i o n . A n u m b e r o f quotations from his studies in H o m e r h a v e s u r v i v e d , m a i n l y ethical i n t e n d e n c y a n d sometimes trivial, as w h e n he said that the reason w h y o l d N e s t o r w a s the o n l y m a n w h o c o u l d raise the c u p ( / / . 1 1 . 6 3 6 ) w a s n o t that he w a s e x c e p t i o n a l l y s t r o n g b u t that he w a s the o n l y o n e w h o w a s n o t d r u n k . In a l e n g t h y analysis o f the epithet polytropos applied t o O d y s s e u s , he said that it applied b o t h to character a n d t o speech, w h i c h g a v e h i m the o p p o r t u n i t y o f i n t r o ­ d u c i n g the c o n t e m p o r a r y definition o f a sophos as a c l e v e r speaker, a n d h e n c e polytropos because master o f m a n y tropoi o r turns o f speech a n d a r g u m e n t . H e also b r o u g h t H o m e r u p to date b y i n t r o d u c i n g into the p o e m s the distinction b e t w e e n truth a n d o p i n i o n . It w o u l d appear that his H o m e r i c interpretations w e r e set as squarely in the a m b i t o f the fifth-century e n l i g h t e n m e n t as the a r g u m e n t o v e r S i m o n i d e s i n the Protagoras, t h o u g h h e d i d n o t agree w i t h P r o t a g o r a s a n d G o r g i a s that o p i n i o n w a s e v e r y t h i n g a n d there w a s n o o b j e c t i v e criterion o f truth. D i o C h r y s o s t o m , o u r a u t h o r i t y here, does n o t enlarge o n the distinc­ tion b e t w e e n truth a n d o p i n i o n in H o m e r , indeed h e s a y s that A n t i ­ sthenes did n o t d e v e l o p it a n d it w a s o n l y w o r k e d o u t i n detail b y Z e n o . In X e n o p h o n ' s Symposium (3.5) h e is made t o l a u g h at the claim o f
Fr. 42. T h i s Archelaus w a s the tyrant of Macedon w h o m Gorgias's pupil Polus held u p to Socrates in Plato's Gorgias ( 4 7 o d ff.) as a man w h o w a s both w i c k e d and supremely happy. H e w a s a r g u i n g against the Socratic teaching that i t is better to be the victim of w r o n g than to commit it. ( D u m m l e r , in quellenkritisch vein, claimed to have discovered the content of the Archelaus in the thirteenth speech of D i o Chrysostom. See his Akad. 1-18.) See Cai/./.i, Stud. Urb. 1964, 54. Fr. ι ή ο . This seems w o r t h mentioning, though it is attributed to Diogenes b y D.L., 9 . 3 9 . Probably the a m ilmtinn of some other ' f r a g m e n t s ' is equally open to doubt. T h o u g h a few are assigned m 11.111 H d « 1 iiίιψ.·.nl Antisthenes, many in Caiz/.i's collection are simply given a s ' s a y i n g s ' .
1 3 1

309

The Men
N i c e r a t u s that he is a better m a n because he k n o w s the H o m e r i c p o e m s b y h e a r t : so d o e s a n y r h a p s o d e , he retorts, and there is n o m o r e foolish set o f m e n than the rhapsodes. A h , says Socrates, b u t Niceratus has b e e n t o s c h o o l w i t h the allegorizers and k n o w s all the hidden m e a n i n g s . Later (4.6) A n t i s t h e n e s asks N i c e r a t u s ironically i f he c o u l d take o v e r a k i n g d o m because he k n o w s all a b o u t A g a m e m n o n . T h e s e e x c h a n g e s are in a light post-prandial v e i n , b u t it does n o t l o o k as i f in his refer­ ences t o H o m e r as w r i t i n g n o w ' o p i n i o n ' and n o w ' t r u t h ' he w a s b e g u i l e d either b y the craze for finding allegorical m e a n i n g s o r b y the current idea that H o m e r w a s a practical g u i d e to all the subjects m e n ­ tioned in the p o e m s .
1

M a n y scholars, particularly in G e r m a n y , h a v e claimed t o d i s c o v e r v e i l e d attacks o n A n t i s t h e n e s in v a r i o u s d i a l o g u e s o f P l a t o , s o m e t i m e s u n d e r other n a m e s , and b y this means t o reconstruct m u c h o f his t e a c h i n g . G r e a t l a b o u r and considerable i n g e n u i t y h a v e b e e n e x p e n d e d in this attempt, and there is g o o d reason t o assume hostility b e t w e e n the t w o . A p a r t f r o m anecdotes, A n t i s t h e n e s w r o t e a d i a l o g u e a b u s i n g P l a t o u n d e r the o p p r o b r i o u s n a m e o f S a t h o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s the results are in n o case certain, and in recent times a m o r e cautious attitude has prevailed.3 T h e same m a y be said o f K . Joel's t h e o r y that X e n o p h o n ' s p o r t r a y a l o f Socrates had n o historical v a l u e because it m a d e h i m into an essentially A n t i s t h e n e a n and C y n i c figure. In Joel's b o o k the i m ­ p o r t a n c e and influence o f A n t i s t h e n e s g r o w t o e n o r m o u s p r o p o r t i o n s , and P l a t o h i m s e l f is p u t h e a v i l y in his d e b t . S o l o n g as w e k n o w n o
T h e Homeric interpretations are in Caizzi's frr. 5 1 - 6 2 , and discussed b y her in Stud. Urb. 1964, 51 ff. T h e r e has been controversy over the question whether Antisthenes was an a l l e g o r i s t : see the references i n Caizzi, loc. cit. 59, n. 47. * See Antisthenes frr. 36—7. Its second title w a s ' On contradiction' ( D . L . 6 . 1 6 ) , lending colour to the anecdote that h e w r o t e it as a counterblast to Plato's criticism that his denial of contradic­ tion could be turned against itself. Σάβων, applied to babies, w a s a diminutive of σάθη meaning penis. See e.g. Field, Plato and Contemps. 160. S u c h speculation w e n t v e r y far. In 1894 Natorp could claim it as ' p r o v e d r e p e a t e d l y ' that the Theaet., Euthyd., Crat. and probably also Hipp. Maj. and Min., Ion and Euthyphro, w e r e chiefly devoted to polemic against Antisthenes, either a n o n y m o u s l y or under another name. O n the Ion see n o w Caizzi, Antisth. Frr. p . 109. O n Theaet., Crat. and Soph. pp. 2 1 3 - 1 5 above, and for Crat. v o n Fritz in Hermes 1927. Rep. 495 c - d w a s supposed b y D u m m l e r to refer to him, but see A d a m ad loc. For the same possibility elsewhere in the Rep. Popper, O.S. 277. For Socrates's ' d r e a m ' in Theaet. Gillespie in Arch.f. G. d. Phil. 1913 and 1 9 1 4 . Joel, Der echte u. d. Xenoph. Sokr. J o e l held the remarkable theory that Prodicus in both Xenophon and Plato w a s not Prodicus but a m a s k for Antisthenes, to w h o m even the fable of 3ΙΟ
1 3 1

2

4

Antisthenes in Plato ? His Writings
m o r e t h a n w e d o a b o u t A n t i s t h e n e s from independent sources, the o n l y t o p i c o n w h i c h such theories can claim a n y t h i n g like a firm basis is his l o g i c . P l a t o s a y s n o m o r e o f h i m than the bare m e n t i o n o f his name a m o n g the intimate friends w h o w e r e present w i t h Socrates in prison u p t o the m o m e n t o f his death. H e w a s a prolific w r i t e r , b o t h rhetorical and philosophical. D i o g e n e s Laertius lists a b o u t s e v e n t y - f o u r titles d i v i d e d into ten v o l u m e s . In his rhetorical period, like his teacher G o r g i a s he c o m p o s e d declamations
1

o n m y t h i c a l themes, t w o o f w h i c h h a v e s u r v i v e d , in w h i c h A j a x a n d O d y s s e u s defend i n turn their claims to the arms o f A c h i l l e s . A defence o f O r e s t e s is also m e n t i o n e d . A c c o r d i n g t o D i o g e n e s Laertius ( 6 . 1 ) , his rhetorical style o v e r f l o w e d into his d i a l o g u e s , and A r i s t o t l e g i v e s an e x a m p l e o f his s o m e w h a t extravagant m e t a p h o r s .
2

O f the d i a l o g u e s ,

s o m e , t h o u g h n o t all, w e r e Socratic ( D . L . 2.64). T h e Heracles a n d Cyrus w e r e ethical in content, e x t o l l i n g the virtues o f hard w o r k , a n d the Aspasia contained scurrilous attacks o n Pericles a n d h i s s o n s . T h e Sathon, Archelaus and Politicus h a v e already b e e n m e n t i o n e d , a n d w e hear o f a Physiognomonicus and a Protrepticus, as w e l l as the w o r k s o n Nature, w h i c h contained the statement o n m o n o t h e i s m ,
3

and ' O n

E d u c a t i o n o r o n N a m e s ' ( p p . 248, 209 a b o v e ) .

(9)

ALCIDAMAS

A c c o r d i n g t o the Suda, A l c i d a m a s w a s a native o f the A e o l i a n c i t y o f Elaea, the p o r t o f P e r g a m o n . 4 T h e o n l y indication o f his date is that, like A n t i s t h e n e s a n d L y c o p h r o n , he w a s a pupil o f G o r g i a s . 5 G o r g i a s
the choice of Heracles must be transferred. (See on this H. M a y e r , Prod. 120.) T h e b o o k has been criticized b y m a n y , including J o e l himself (see his Gesch. 7 3 1 , n. 3 ) , and a reappraisal of the question has n o w been undertaken b y Caizzi, Stud. Urh. 1964, 60-^76. T h e i r authenticity has been queried, but see Caizzi, loc. cit. 43. Arist. Rhet. 1407a 10. H e compared a likeable but thin and w e a k l y man to frankincense, which g i v e s pleasure as it i s c o n s u m e d ! I have mentioned some which occur outside D.L.'s comprehensive list. References w i l l be found i n C a i z z i ' s Fragmenta. A c c o r d i n g to the list, the Physiogn. w a s g i v e n the subtitle ' on the Sophists'. F o r general information about h i m see Brzoska in RE, 1, 1 5 3 3 - 9 . T h e s u r v i v i n g remains a r e in Baiter—Sauppe, Orat.Att. pt. n (1850), 1 5 5 - 6 2 , and Radermacher, Artium Scriptores, 1 3 2 - 4 7 . S h o r e y (ΤΑΡΑ, 1909, 196) discussed the possibility of dating h i m through coincidences between his w o r k on the Sophists, Plato's Phaedrus, and Isocrates's Panegyricus, but concluded that 'these facts hardly suffice to date Alcidamas relatively to either Plato or Isocrates'.
1 1 3 4 5

•5TI

The Men
himself had dealt b o t h in carefully prepared w r i t t e n declamations and in i m p r o m p t u speeches, b u t h i s ' s c h o o l ' e v i d e n t l y d i v i d e d itself o n this point, w i t h A l c i d a m a s as the c h a m p i o n o f i m p r o v i s a t i o n , e m ­ phasizing G o r g i a s ' s d o c t r i n e o f kairos o r the o p p o r t u n i t y o f the moment, and Isocrates o f the w r i t t e n speech. W e still possess a short piece b y A l c i d a m a s entitled ' o n those w h o c o m p o s e w r i t t e n speeches, or o n S o p h i s t s ' , in w h i c h h e b e g i n s b y attacking s o m e o f those called Sophists for n e g l e c t i n g research a n d culture ( o r education) and h a v i n g no technique o f public s p e a k i n g . T h e y parade their cleverness in written w o r d s a n d think t h e m s e l v e s masters o f rhetoric w h e n t h e y possess o n l y a small fraction o f the art. H e w i l l censure t h e m n o t because the w r i t t e n w o r d is alien t o o r a t o r y b u t because it should b e n o m o r e than a parergon, n o t a t h i n g t o pride o n e s e l f o n , and those w h o spend their lives o n it i g n o r e a great deal o f rhetoric a n d p h i l o s o p h y a n d d o not d e s e r v e the n a m e o f S o p h i s t s . W h e n this is taken w i t h passages from Isocrates's w o r k s it is e v i d e n t that t h e y are c o n s c i o u s rivals and foes. H i s little treatise s h o w s that w e are a m o n g the epigoni, a n d that Sophists h a v e c h a n g e d their m e t h o d s since the great d a y s
2 1

when

Protagoras a n d G o r g i a s w e r e in their p r i m e .

A l c i d a m a s has acquired great, and perhaps justifiable, fame a m o n g the m o d e r n s for his b o l d assertion that ' G o d has set all m e n free, Nature has m a d e n o m a n a s l a v e ' ( p . 159 a b o v e ) . H e w a s h o w e v e r primarily an orator a n d a faithful pupil o f his master in defining rhetoric as ' t h e p o w e r o f the p e r s u a s i v e ' . D e m o s t h e n e s is said t o h a v e studied his s p e e c h e s . A p a r t f r o m the o n e c o m p l e t e p a m p h l e t against w r i t t e n speeches* a l m o s t all o u r quotations from h i m o c c u r in the Rhetoric o f Aristotle, w h o cites m o s t o f t h e m n o t for their c o n t e n t b u t as e x a m p l e s of faulty style.5 A s an instance o f inappropriate m e t a p h o r he m e n t i o n s
F o r their opposition see the references in L e s k y , HGL, 353, n. 4. Cf. Morrison i n D.U.J. 1949, 56. Plut. Demosth. 5, 7 (Radermacher, p . 154) and [Plut.] Vic. orat. 844 c. T h e r e is also a speech against Palamedes, one of those exercises on mythical subjects w h i c h the teachers of rhetoric provided for their pupils to learn, but its authenticity is doubtful. It is a poor thing, and bears n o relation to the Palamedes of Gorgias. A n exception i s the sentence about slavery in the Messenian oration, introduced to illustrate the difference between legal and natural justice. ( T h e actual quotation w e o w e to the scholiast.) He also gives at 1 3 9 7 3 1 1 and 1398 b 10 examples from Alcidamas of types of argument (argument from the opposite and inductive a r g u m e n t ) a s used i n oratory. Elsewhere he castigates h i m for his use of poetical compounds (1406a 1 ) , of exotic vocabulary (1406a 8), of redundant epithets or descriptive phrases (e.g. ' d a m p s w e a t ' , ' l a w s the monarchs of cities', i 4 o 6 a i 8 f f . ) and in1 3 4 5 1

3

312

Alcidamas:

Lyophum
(numoi)' (A'/ny. I-|OOIIII),

' p h i l o s o p h y , a b u l w a r k against the l a w .

and w e m a y take this, t o g e t h e r with ι lie* d e i l a i a i i o n ili.il »ilavery is against nature and the plea that Sophists six>ιil«I return in p h i l o s o p h y , as indications that A l c i d a m a s aspired to be .1 Sophist o l the old s c h o o l , in w h i c h rhetoric and p h i l o s o p h y weni Ii.iucl in k i n d , and was c o m ­ parable to A n t i p h o n as a c h a m p i o n o f n a i u i e against c o n v e n t i o n . O f his other w o r k s w c hear o l a MoiiM-inn
1

o r miscellany, w h i c h

i n c l u d e d a contest b e t w e e n H o m e r and I lesiod and perhaps also the ' e n c o m i u m o f d e a t h ' mentioned by C i c e r o as c o n t a i n i n g a c a t a l o g u e o f the ills o f h u m a n life. T h e w h o l e collection was p r o b a b l y a s o u r c e ­ b o o k o f material for o r a t o r s . A t h e n a e u s (592c) mentions an e n c o m i u m o f a hetaera called Nats, and a c c o r d i n g to D i o g e n e s Laertius (8.56) he also w r o t e a w o r k o n natural p h i l o s o p h y c o n t a i n i n g historical assertions w h i c h , for a c h a m p i o n
of
1

historia and paideia, h a v e g e n e r a l l y b e e n
1968, 95 f.

t h o u g h t rather w i l d , unless they h a v e b e e n m a n g l e d in transmission. O n this h o w e v e r see n o w D . O ' B r i e n in JHS,

(10)

LYCOPHRON

L y c o p h r o n has already f o u n d m e n t i o n in these p a g e s for his t h e o r y that l a w w a s a means o f g u a r a n t e e i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s rights against his fellow-citizens b u t had n o c o n c e r n w i t h p o s i t i v e m o r a l i t y , his dis­ p a r a g e m e n t o f n o b l e b i r t h , and his t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e and e p i s t e m o l o g y . T h o u g h the c h a l l e n g e to aristocracy w a s c o m m o n e n o u g h at o r b e f o r e his time, as w e see from A n t i p h o n and Euripides, these dicta are c o l l e c t i v e l y sufficient t o m a k e h i m appear a h i g h l y interesting
3

figure,

and it is unfortunate that w e k n o w scarcely a n y t h i n g else a b o u t h i m . A r i s t o t l e referred to h i m as a S o p h i s t , and he is g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d to
appropriate metaphor ( 1 4 0 6 b n ) . Cicero thought better of him, calling his r e d u n d a n c y ulertas and j u d g i n g him rhetor antiquus in primis nobilis, w h i l e admitting that the subtleties of philosophic reasoning were b e y o n d him (Tusc. 1 . 4 8 . 1 1 6 ) . Nestle (VM\uL, 344f.) constructs a theory of the relation between politics and philosophy in A l c i d a m a s b y translating a p o o r l y attested reading νομίμους for νόμους in A r . Rhet. 1406323. No editor prints this, and it w o u l d weaken Aristotle's point about redundancy, but Nestle adopts it without comment or hint of another reading. (He has in fact silently taken it over from Salomon in Savigny-Stift. 1 9 1 1 , 154.) C i c . Tusc. 1 . 4 8 . 1 1 6 . See Radermacher, 1 5 5 . Pol. 1 2 8 0 b : 1. T h i s is presumably w h y D K include him in the Vorsokratiker but not A l c i ­ damas with his striking statement about slavery. T h e testimonies occupy just a page ( D K no. 83, vol. 11, 307 f.).
1 3 3

313

D K s a y 'vielleicht Gorgiasschuler' ( n . 11. 261. 75 ff. and this w a s demonstrated by Friedrich Blass in 1899. νόμων' enough has been said above.The Men h a v e b e e n a pupil o f G o r g i a s . ττ. w h o frankly admits that all this. chapter 20.p u p i l A l c i d a m a s . Cataudella s a w the w o r k as a collection o f extracts from an ethico-political treatise o f D e m o c r i t u s . Protr. 307η. as also that he w a s r o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h his f e l l o w . Of the 'Anon. w h i c h . 3 Text. w e m a y take as e x t r e m e l y p r o b a b l e . VMiuL. b u t this w a s d i s p r o v e d b y the later d i s c o v e r y o f the p a p y r u s fragments o f A n t i p h o n ' s Truth. 400 ff. as h e did A r i s t o t l e ' s ) . w h o s e a c u m e n detected their o r i g i n in the p e r i o d o f the Aufklarung. 3. t h o u g h that is n o t t o s a y that the paragraphs in question f o r m either o n e c o n t i n u o u s extract o r the w h o l e o f the w o r k . 1 (il) ANONYMOUS WRITERS 2 (a) The 'Anonymus Iamblichi ' 3 O f the content o f this w o r k I h a v e s p o k e n a b o v e ( p p . W i l a m o w i t z surprisingly t h o u g h t Critias ' n o t i m p o s s i b l e ' ( t h o u g h he had earlier considered P r o t a g o r a s ) .). must be h i g h l y speculative. 1323. Joel h e w a s Antisthenes (and it is true that A n t i s t h e n e s w r o t e a which Iamblichus could have plundered Protrepticus. See ZN. first thought o f A n t i p h o n the Sophist. date and life-history n o t h i n g w h a t e v e r is recorded. in DK.f o r . 343. O. n. as o n e m a y see from its i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f w o r d . It is universally agreed (however much o p i n i o n s m a y differ in detail) that B y w a t e r w a s correct in detecting in it considerable portions o f the lost Protrepticus o f A r i s t o t l e . 71 ff. M a n y attempts h a v e been m a d e t o assign the fragments t o a k n o w n author. pp. F o r K . Blass. b u t n o n e has w o n general assent. T h e Protrepticus o f Iamblichus is a c e n t o o f u n a c k n o w l e d g e d b o r r o w i n g s f r o m earlier p h i l o s o p h e r s . O n his date and relation to Alcidamas see Popper.w o r d extracts from the Phaedo.S. T h e r e is then n o a priori difficulty in s u p p o s i n g that other parts are taken straight from an o t h e r w i s e u n k n o w n w r i t i n g o f the late fifth o r early fourth c e n t u r y . O f L y c o p h r o n ' s birthplace. T h e argument for placing him in the school of Gorgias (and it is a strong one) depends on Aristotle's criticisms of his style.). and Nestle. 3 1 3M . A r i s t o t l e criticizes all three for similar faults o f style. t h o u g h it is n o w h e r e expressly stated. from Iambi. like a n y t h i n g to do with the circumstances of L y c o p h r o n ' s life.

ιη. Untersteiner. 197. ι . D o d d s . t o s o m e time i n the first h a l f o f the fourth c e n t u r y ..1 nunlrm w o u l d admit that w e c a n n o t n o w In >pe i n |>ni Ι mi linger on the aullinr. T . m a k e s a similar g u e s s ) . In m a k i n g u s e o f the extracts earlier I h a v e tried t o confine m y s e l f t o i n d u b i t a b l y fifth. 11.ΐΊ.tinted . ( w i t h the Nachtrage i n later e d i t i o n s ) . i n Untersteiner's (Contrast Nestle. yn l. ιΙιοιψ. D K . A .n im l i m d m i h h view hut o p i n i o n . G o m p i r / . I I . and N e s t l e (op. il. G i g a n t e . and Irrat. a n d claimed t o see e c h o e s o f P l a t o here and there in w h a t remains. 177) t h o u g h t o f it as h a v i n g already a S o c r a t i c .n rnnii|'. It. 2.V. n. ' on later philosophy. cii. 11 o f .Ιιι he was o n e (. Bas. Bas. H e c o u l d w e l l b e s o m e pupil ο! ΙΊηΐ. 1 11 315 GSP . u.il-.P l a t o n i c basis. 1 7 7 . T . that the author is Hippias. b u t o n s h a k y g r o u n d s . much m o r e influ­ enced than his master b y late fifth-century rhetoric \ His article is especially interesting about the influence of the ' A n o n .P e r i c l e a n extreme d e m o c r a c y ' (Nestle. T h u s G i g a n t e (Norn. Norn.'Anon.ΙΐΙ··. cit. 424) i h o u g h t o f h i m as an educated l a y m a n like C r i i i a s . and admit the h y p o t h e s i s that w h a t remains c a m e t o I a m b l i c h u s t h r o u g h an intermediate fourth-century matter.. P a u l S h o r e y s t r u c k a note o f caution in ΤΑΡΑ. 79). 111. according to w h i c h the writer is ' a n Athenian follower of Democritus. 430. C o m p e l / . ciitii'-i h o w e v e r with the ' i n evident o p p o s i t i o n reo^zoj-doctrine o f Hippias*. to the V M { u L . 1961) argued strongly for a modificadon of Cataudella's v i e w . .and F o r b i b l i o g r a p h y o n the subject see Z N . Sof. . n .ιηιΙ p r o b a b l y not himsell a professional S o p h i s t .κ'ψι. P l a t o n i z i n g source. in ρπινίιιμ. 27.) M0.Ι Ihiw b ι nnviiurd N e s t l e t h o u g h t o f A n t i p h o n o f Rhainmr. Cole has recently (in HSCP. and the notes t o A . H e p o i n t e d o u t that since Blass's time the fragments h a v e b e e n p r u n e d b y the rejection o f s o m e material taken from P l a t o and Isocrates. 192. H . H e t h o u g h t therefore that w e s h o u l d limit the a m o u n t o f directly q u o t e d fifth-century p r o s e still further. the time o f the ' p o s t . 1 Estimates o f the d a t e o f the w o r k o n w h i c h Iamblichus d r e w h a v e v a r i e d from the later years o f the Peloponnesian W a r . Gr. Wh.il makes il especially u n l i k e l y that he w a s a Sophist is his l o w opinion o ! rhetoric. 1328. 1909.400 n . op. . lamblichi': Authorship . I inirnii-itn-ι did n o t . C o l e ' s article in HSCP. η .ΨΗΙ. t e a c h i n g o f other Sophists a n d wiih ΝΗΐΊ. 1961.h 4 3 0 : 111»· U I I I < T v.

T h u s in chapter 1. Attempts to assign the w o r k to a particular author have not been successful. i . o r justice a n d injustice. . see Untersteiner. 96. 9 1 . n. P r o t a g o r a s . ' 2 It has n o literary o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l merit. ' O n G o o d and E v i l ' . r e c o n c i l i n g the o p p o s i n g v i e w s o r justifying o n e against the other.