320 



SOPHISM SOPHISTS. 



Besides containing four colossal figures, which re- 

 present seraphim, the ceiling is gilt all over, but 

 defaced by time. The arrangement of the capitals 

 is not conformable to rule ; they belong to no par- 

 ticular style, and have no entablature. With the 

 principal dome are connected two half domes and 

 six smaller ones, which add to the general effect. 

 The form of the building is a Greek cross, inscribed 

 in a quadrangle ; but the interior area from east to 

 west forms an ellipse. The mass of the edifice is 

 of brick, but it is overlaid with marble : the floor 

 is of mosaic work, composed of porphyry and verd 

 antique. The great pillars which support the dome, 

 consist of square blocks of stone, bound with hoops 

 of iron. The gallery round about is formed by 

 sixty-seven columns, eight of which are porphyry 

 (from Aurelian's temple of the sun, at Rome). 

 Eight others, of green jasper, were taken from the 

 temple of Diana, at Ephesus. The vestibule has 

 nine bronze doors, ornamented with basso-relievos. 

 The interior of the mosque is 243 feet in width, 

 from north to south, and 269 in length, from east 

 to west. The exterior of St Sophia has many de- 

 fects and incongruous additions ; among others, 

 four minarets, made since it became the chief mosque 

 of the Turks (1453), have given it the appear- 

 ance of an irregular mass See Gibbon's Decline 



and Fall of the Roman Empire (ch. 40 and 68). 

 Grelot, Voyage de Constantinople (with engravings); 

 Banduris, Imper. Orient. (Paris, 1711, 2 vols., 

 folio) : and Mouradgea d'Ohsson's Tableau General 

 de I' Empire Ottoman contain representations of it. 



SOPHISM; a fallacy in reasoning. (See Soph- 

 ists.) Sophisms are usually divided by logicians 

 into those in the words (in dictione), and those in 

 the matter (extra dictionem'). Whately divides 

 them into those in which the conclusion does not 

 follow from the premises, and in which the reason- 

 ing is, therefore, false, or logical fallacies ; and 

 those in which the conclusion does follow from the 

 premises, or material fallacies. For the various 

 kinds of sophisms petitio principii, ignoratio elen- 



chi, paralogism, &c we must refer the reader to 



treatises on logic. 



SOPHISTS. This name of a peculiar class of 

 teachers of eloquence, philosophy and politics, 

 which flourished in Greece in the fifth century be- 

 fore the Christian era, signifies properly wise men 

 (roipoi, wise), and was assumed by them out of 

 learned pride. But as the later sophists strangely 

 perverted the science which they taught, made 

 themselves ridiculous by their arrogance, and drew 

 upon themselves the hatred and contempt of reason- 

 able men, by the pernicious and corrupt principles 

 which they advocated with the utmost shameless- 

 ness, the title became a term of reproach, and was 

 appb'ed to men who seek to confound the under- 

 standing by vain subtleties and false axioms, to 

 shake the force of the pure precepts of religion and 

 morals. We find the names of a considerable num- 

 ber of sophists, mentioned in Grecian history, differ- 

 ing not less in the kind and degree of their know- 

 ledge than in the places of their birth. The most 

 celebrated are Gorgias of Leontium, in Sicily, Pro- 

 tagoras of Abdera, Hippias of Elis, Prodicus of 

 Cos, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, in Asia Minor. 

 All these were contemporary with Pericles and 

 Socrates, and resembled each other in being teachers 

 of natural philosophy, geometry and arithmetic, 

 astronomy^ music, theology, morals, logic and elo- 

 quence. This variety of subjects, which they 

 taught among a people of the highest refinement, 



proves that they had cultivated their powers to n 

 certain degree; and, in fact, they rendered import- 

 ant services to learning, as they were the first cul- 

 tivators of rhetoric as well as of grammar and mor- 

 als. They taught all these sciences in attractive 

 language, both orally and in writing, and were 

 every where received with admiration. Besides, 

 they often distinguished themselves in the service 

 of their country. At least, it is certain that Gor- 

 gias, Prodicus and Hippias were employed in diffi- 

 cult negotiations. But brilliant as the sophists 

 appear when viewed as men acquainted with all 

 the learning of their age, and successfully extending 

 its limits, it is not to be denied, that, when viewed 

 on the dark side, they are deserving of abhorrence. 

 The unblushing effrontery with which they set 

 themselves up for the sole possessors of all wisdom, 

 human and divine, shows them to have been impos 

 tors or conceited pretenders. In the next place, 

 they abused knowledge to gratify the basest 

 passions avarice ; and, finally, they preached irre- 

 ligion and immorality, and attacked whatever was 

 held dear and sacred by the people. They denied 

 the existence of the gods, attributed every thing 

 to chance, and all religious ideas to the invention 

 of some artful individual, who, after men had long 

 dwelt in the woods like wild beasts, inspired bis 

 barbarous brethren, by the fiction of avenging gods, 

 with fear, and compelled them to submit to la better 

 state of things. They maintained that the right of 

 the strongest was the only law of nature, and that 

 all actions were indifferent neither good nor bad. 

 This distinction was first made by positive laws ; 

 and hence different nations form different estimates 

 of the morality or immorality of the same actions. 

 It is folly, they asserted, to point out what is good 

 or just ; for such a course of conduct would be con- 

 nected with so many disadvantages that no man of 

 common sense would adopt it. Proceeding on these 

 principles, they declared every species of fraud, rob- 

 bery and violence, innocent. They maintained 

 that moderation and self-denial were marks of a 

 weak mind, and that man's true happiness consists 

 in the gratification of all his desires. Such were 

 the infamous doctrines of the Sophists ; and they 

 appear still more hateful, when we remember that 

 they were adopted merely for the purpose of attract- 

 ing followers, and satisfying their own love of gain. 

 For the same men, who so shamelessly preached up 

 vice, were equally eloquent in praise of virtue, 

 when they were afraid of offending their hearers or 

 losing their wealthy disciples. If money was to be 

 got by sound precepts of morality, they made the 

 most florid speeches in praise of virtue. An exam- 

 ple of this is the beautiful story of Prodicus, called 

 the Choice of Hercules, one of the most elegant and 

 ingenious fictions of antiquity. It is preserved by 

 Xenophon, in his Memorabilia of Socrates (book ii., 

 chap. 1). From the Sophists, likewise, proceeded 

 the pernicious art of defending the most contradic- 

 tory opinions, and of making the most evident 

 truths appear uncertain, and the most extravagant 

 absurdities probable. They effected this by false 

 reasonings and captious questions, by which they 

 confused their opponents. This art was the more 

 dangerous in the hands of these corrupters of learn- 

 ing, as it enabled them to pass themselves off on 

 inexperienced young men as possessors of universal 

 knowledge, and to persuade them that they knew 

 all the secrets of heaven and earth. Many of their 

 arguments and conclusions were extremely absurd; 

 but at first sight they surprised and astonished the 



