THE SOPHISTA OF PLATO, &c. 165 



APPENDIX II. 



On the Earth-born (yriyevels) of Sophista, 246. 



Of the three contemporary sects professing some form of Materialism, I have singled out 

 the Cynic as that which alone answers the conditions of Plato's description. The following 

 extracts from the fragments of Democritus, and from Aristotle's notices of his opinions, seem 

 conclusive against his claim to a share in the Gigantomachy. 



1. The sect in question held that, tovto fxovov 

 eaTtv, o TTiipe^ei wpoajioXriv Kai firatprjv Tiva, 



2. -rau-roii (TiSixa koi ova'iav <ofji(^ovTO' they defined 

 " substance " to mean corporeal substance only. 



3. They despised tow? (pa<rKovra<; ftri (TWfxa ei^ov 

 eivai. 



1. Democritus, on the contrary, says, i/oV«) 

 Trai/TO TO uiirdrjra, £ t e j; aTOfxa Koi kcvov. — Frag. 

 ed. Mullach. p. 204. 



2. Democritus denies that the sense of touch 

 conveys any true knowledge. 'Hiuc?? tw /ueV 

 eovTi ovcev aroeKe? PvvUfxeVf jjieTairTirTop Sc KaTCt 

 T6 trwfxaTO^ oiaotyriv Kai twv eirttirtovTiav koi twv 

 ai/TiO'TrjfJtQoi/TOJv, 



3. Democritus held " on oidev iiaWov to on tow 

 fxrj oyTO? e<TTiVj on ovc€ to kcvov tov o"to/jtaTO?. — 

 Arist. Met. I. 4. In other words, that vacuum (his 

 nrj 6v) was in every respect as real as corporeal sub- 

 stance. 



The Cyrenaics are not the -yrf^evel^, for they admit nothing to be real except the affection 

 (tto^os), of which we are conscious in the act of sensation, an affection produced by some cause 

 unknown. The objects of sense are to them as unreal as they were to Berkeley. Sext. Empir. 

 adv. Matth. vii. igi : ^acrlv ol KvprndiKoi Kpirripia elvai ra TraOt], koi (xova KUTaXa/xfiavfa-Oai 

 Kat dSia'd/evaTa Tvyyaveiv' twv ce TreTroirjKOTWV ra Tradrj nrjhkv elvai KaTaXrjtrTov /xijce 

 aota\l/€V(TTov. 



The case of the Ephesian peovres is not worth considering, for they acknowledged no 

 ovaia, as the Earth-born know nothing of 'yevean, which they properly class with the aoparov. 



The view I have adopted, that the passages in the Thecetetus and Sophista both refer 

 to Antisthenes, and that the latter dialogue is in the main a hostile critique of his opinions, 

 occurred to me in the course of my lectures on the Thecetetus in 1839, as I find from MS. notes 

 in an interleaved copy. I mention this, because Winckelmann in his Fragments of Antisthenes, 

 published in 1842, observes in a note: " Omnino in multis dialogis ut in Philebo, Sophista, 

 Euthydemo, Platonem adversus Antisthenem celato tamen nomine certare, res est nondura satis 

 animadversa." Some of the allusions to this philosopher which Winckelmann detects in the 

 Thecetetus appear to me doubtful, but I observe with pleasure that he acknowledges the 

 double bearing of the epithet di'TjTi/Tro?, the perception of which first put me on the enquiry 

 of which I have given some of the results in the foregoing paper. 



