OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, B.C. 665 



cpuivofxevr] crcxpia ovcra oe fir/ Ka\ 6 aocpicrT^ ^ptj/maTicrT']? airo (paivo/nevrj^ cro(j)las aXX ovk 

 >i ■<> 



OVCT}]?. 



The evidence of Socrates and Xenophon need not be specified here in detail. 

 They will be found below in a note, and have been admirably handled by Mi- 

 Cope in the Essay to which I previously alluded.* Only to the witness of 

 Isocrates I call particular attention, as that of a man who was by the general 

 bent of his mind not at all inclined to sympathise with any transcendental notions 

 of high-strung intellectualists like Plato, and who as himself one of the most 

 reputable of the class of Sophists to whom Gorgias belonged, would naturally 

 feel no inclination to bring a charge against any large section of the fraternity, 

 which might serve to increase the natural odium that in not a few quarters had 

 always attached to the name. His words are as follows : — 



" T /? yap ovk av fxicrfjueiev afxa /ecu KctTctcppovqcreie irpwTOV fxev twv irep\ tu$ epioug 

 ma.Tpi(36vTwv, ol irpocriroiovvTai jiiev T*]v aXfjQeiav QjTeiv, evOvg o'ev dp-^rj twv e7rayyeX/udTwv 

 ■^/evSij Xeyeiv e-inyeipov<Tiv\ otfxai yap airacnv elvai (pavepdv, otl tu /xeXXovTa irpoyiyvuxriceiv 

 ov Trj$ fifj.eTepas (bvaewg ecrTiv, aXXa toctovtov aire-^o/Jiev TavTt]? Ttjg cbpovijcrews^ wcrO' ' O/utipos 

 6 fJLeyi(TTr]V e7ri crod)ia o6'£av eiXtjCpws /ecu tows Oeovg ireirolr\Kev ecrTiv ore (3ovXevo/uL£VOvs virep 

 olvtoov, ov ty]v eKe'ivwv yvwp.r\v eiSw? ctAA.' fjiJ.iv evSel^acrOai (3ovX6fxevo$, otl tol<s dvOpwirois e v 

 tovto twv dovvaTwv ecrTiv. 



" (Jvtoi to'lwv elg tovto ToX/mrjs eXrjXvOacriv, wctts ireipwvTai ire'iOeiv tovs vewTepov?, coy, 

 f]v avTOig irXr]criaCwcriv, a Te irpaKTeov ecrTiv e'icrovTou kcu Sid TavTrjg t^? e7ricrTt)/ui.r]$ evSai/moves 

 yevfjcrovTai. kcu tyjXlkovtwv dyaOwv civtov? SiSacricdXovs /ecu Kvplov? KaTacrTrjcravTes ovk 

 UKT^yvovTai Tpeis r\ TeTTapas /ULvag inrep tovtcov cutovvt€$. aXX ei fxev ti twv aXXwv KTtjfia- 

 twv ttoXXocttov /uepovg t*?? a^iag eirwXovv, ovk dv fi [xcnicrfifiTrjcrav, co? ovk ev (ppovovvTeg Tvy- 

 yavovcri, crv/unracrav oe Tt]v dpeTrjv koi ty\v evoai/xoviav ovtw? oXlyov Ti/mwvTe?, wg vovv ery_oi>Te? 

 oioacTKaXoL twv dXXwv dPiovcri yiyvecrOcu. kcu Xeyovcri /uev, w$ ovoev oeovTou ^rjfxaTWv, 

 dpyvplSiov koi -^pvcriSiov t6v ttXovtov diroKaXovvTes, /xiKpov Se KepSovs opeyo/xevoi jxovov ovk 

 aOavciTOv? inricry^vovvTai tov$ crvvovTag iroifjcreiv" 



(4.) With regard to the moral teaching of the Sophists, Mr Grote is quite 

 right when he says that such an unblushing assertion of the doctrine that might 

 is right, as is propounded by Callicles in the Gorgias, however welcome to 

 Dionysius in his rocky hold at Syracuse, would have been anything but agree- 

 able to the Athenian democracy. But it is not necessary for those who consider 

 that the Sophists were bad, and sometimes very bad moral guides, to maintain 

 that they went about everywhere advocating despotic principles. Protagoras, 



* The contrast between the doctrine of Socrates and that of the Sophists, in reference to the 

 origin of moral distinctions, is shown distinctly in the discussion between the former and Hippias, in 

 Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 13; and in the same work, i. 2, 6, the well-known objection to receiving ijjcOog for 

 teaching morality, is stated by Socrates exactly as in Plato. Xenophon's own opinion is expressed 

 very strongly in the last chapter of the treatise De Venations: ''Oi fa gofmsrai cV itl rw i^ccvaTav 

 "ksyoudi, %a\ ygdtpovaiv i<ri rw savruv xigfai, xai ovdhu ovdh o<peX2ai, % r. X ' 



VOL .XXIV. PART III. 8 S 



