in The Sophists, ed. P.F. O’Grady (Duckworth, 2008) 21. The Caseagairust Teach.ing Virtue for pay purview of relativistic sophistry wherein virtue ought to be concervedas somethingartificial and subjective(a nomos).My stfigestion r. tt ut some_ thing natural 2l needstc.be acquiredorganicalv u"a'o"".; i;"g period time' whereas of somethingartificial might be constructe* ana conveyed much more easily.If the sophist seesviitue as artificial, he alsosees it as The Case against Teaching Virtue for Pay freely.and quickly distributabre for a fee. Finaily, I want to suggestthat there is a deeperphilosophicar argument that slggests,in a-way that GeoffBoute consistent is if not commensuratewith the foregoin!'corrrid"rutio.r.r,p..di- lections and prejudices, that forced attempts to suppry rhetorical skills to those not naturally disposeclto virtue, is seenby plato and lsocrates One point that scholars unfailingly make in talking about the sophists is have to monstrous results, resurts that harm both pupil and that they took pay for instruction.' Plato himself refers to the earnings of' sophistic teacheralike. The sophistwho must sacrificehis freeiom the sophists no less than thirty-one times (Harrison 1964, Ly accepting 191n.44). whoeverpays the fee also sacrificeshis soul. Xenophon and Aristotle also make frequent reference to the fact that tho sophists take pay. At his trial and elsewhere in Plato and Xenophon, it is emphasised that Socrates did not, and it would seem that the practice of' Culture, context and citizenship taking pay for teaching is regarded with a disdain meant to separate Somescholars have suggestedthat the invidiousremarks aboutteaching Socrates from the sophists. This is significant, for one may weII questiolr pay do not represent a successfulcritique of the .dh^; (see precisely how Socrates differs from the sophists, especially when we recall lor c)orey 2002). while such defencesmay serve to exculpate t"u"rri"g that both the sophists and Socrates are interested in questions of virtr-re. io. puy i., somecontexts, I think that they do not adequatelyaddress the"philosophi_ both have youthful followers, and that Socrates was tried and executed on cal opposition to the practice of sophistry in the ancient Greek charges that certainly associated him with the practice of sophistry. context. one of the things that I have in mind hereis Xenophon's,"po.ior Is there anything more to sophistry than merely teaching for pay? Long ^ socrates, claim that teaching for pay imposedupon one,sfreedom: ago the utilitarian philosopher Henry Sidgwick asked of the sophists most familiar to us from Plato: Nor again, did [Socrates]encourage love of money in his companions.For while he checkedtheir other desires,he would not make -o""f t i-""rr u.,t What is the commoncharacteristic of these persons,as presentedby Plato? of their desire for his companionship.He herd that this serfienying. orar- -besidesthat ofreceivingpay, which must surelybe consideredan accident nance insured his liberty. Those who charged a fee for their society he rather than a property of any classof teachers(Sidgwick \872,294). denounced for selling themselvesinto bondage;since they were bound to converse with all from whom they took the fee. He ma.veiled that anyone Despite the obvious motivation of people like Plato and Xenophon tcr gnoyla make money by the professionof virtue, and shourdnot reilect that his establish a distinction between Socrates and the sophists, the question highest reward would be the gain of a goodfriend (Xenophon, Memora 'what, remains: philosophicalLy, is wrong with the practice of teaching bilia L2.5-7). for pay?' what I take ,sel-ling In this chapter I will focus on several factors that have contributed tcr to be the philosophical import of the sophists them- selves-into the pejorative light that has been cast upon the sophists' practice of bondage' will be the focus oi th" last pari of this chapter, but initially, teaching for pay. These factors include certain cultural and contextual and in order to make sense of the contexlual implications of this remark, some prejudices regarding wage earning and citizenship, as well as moralistic background work is necessary. We may bfgin with a pas_ s_agethat arguments that levy the charge of charlatanism against the sophists. This overlaps to some degree with the one just quoted.In what follows Xenophon tells charge of charlatanism relies heavily on the claim that the sophists of Socrates' rejoinder to the sophist a.rlipnorr'" scoffing criticism that attempt to teach something that cannot be taught, namely virtue, but it is socrates does not take pay. socrat""' .""fi.rre bears out important to see why and in what context virtue is thought not to be several relevant cultural attitudes: teachable in the manner of the sophists; this context ultimately amounts Antiphon, to the philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle, whereby virtue is seen it is commonopinion among us in regardto beautyand wisdom that there is as something natural and objective (a physi.s) and hence outside the an honourableand a shamefurway of bestowingthem. For to offer one's bcauty for moneyto all comersis calledprostitutio;; but we think

226 227 GeoffBoute 21. The Case against Teaching Virtu,efor pay virtr,rouslo becomefriendly with a lover who is kuown lo be a tttatt of it thing that one would charge for, instead of being obligated to distribute is it with wisdom. Thosewho offer it to ali comersfor mouey are honour. So freely as a well-meaning citizen, must have been highly problematic known as sophists,prostitutors of wisdom,but we think that he who makes to Socrates. one suspects that there is a significant rhetorical move a friend of one whom he knows to be gifted by nature. and teacheshim ail being made here by stating the home states of these famous the goodlre can, fulfils the duty of a citizenand a gentlerllan... (Memorabili,a sophists. They are not Athenian citizens, 1.6.13). and as sr.rchhave neither the same investment in nor obligation to Athenian citizens as Socrat.eshas. Soclates'own refusal to leave his prison cell to - It is important to remember that Athenians of the late fifth and early roister up in Thessaly as he puts it tn crito - shows his deep respect for his fourth centuries did calry a prejudice against wage-earning in general, Athenian citizenship; he will not prostitute himself by living out his and as such the sophist would immediately be regarded with some disdain remaining days in a foreign land (plato, crtto 53d-54a).when, at his trial, as a wage-earner. The words of Gomperz are appropriate here: socrates asks Meretus who it is that instructs the young in virtue. one must assume that Meletus'answer is the one that Soclates The Greekview of life was at timesaristocratic. Their respectfor wage-earn- expects. and most likely agrees with: ing stoodeven lower than in other slave-owningcomntunities ... An especial reproachattached to the employmentof intellectual labour for the benefit of Tell me, my goodsir, who improvesour youngmen? - The laws. That someonewho paid for it; this was regarded as degradation. as a yoke of is not what I am asking,but what personwho has knowledgeof the laws to begin - jurl'men, servitudethat was voluntarily assumed(Gomperz 1901, 417). with? These Socrates. How do you meanMeietus? Are tl.reseable to educatethe youngand inprove 'a them?- Ce.rtninly. quite regarding yoke of Now it is likelv that Gomperz's observation All of them, or somebut not others?- All of then.r. verl' servitude that was voluntarily assulned' finds its impetus in the very good,by Helrl. You mention a great abundanceof benefactors.But what evidence that Xenophon here and elsewhere provides us with, that Socra- about the audience?Do they improve the young or not? - They do too. tes criticised the sophists as selling their freedom mLrch like a prostitute. What aboutthe membersof Council?- The Councillors.also. This however has the ring of sneer more than philosophical argument. But NIeietus,what about the assernbly?Do the rnembersof therassemblv corrupt the or do they - What I want to suggest later is that there is a deeper implicit philosophical ;.oung, all improve thern? They impi.ovethem. All the Athenians,it seems,make the younginto fine good*url ... orientation and rationale at work in Xenophon's observations, one that (Plato,Apology 24e-25a) takes on an important philosophical significance in light of the ethical approaches of Plato and Socrates. Before that, however, it is useful to The answers that Socrates expects and elicits imply that good citizens reflect a little more carefully on the last part of the Xenophon passage 'we imprclve the youth. Socrates is a citizen, not an itinerant for.eignerwho quoted above: think that he who makes a friend of one whom he knows takes money for teaching. At the same tirne we cannot ignore Socrates' to be gifted by nature, and teaches him all the good he can, fulfils the dutl' frequent critiques of Athens in the Apologj, and elsewhere despite his of a citizen and a gentleman ....' remarks in the same text as an appeal to the virtues of citizenship. In the The sophists, for the most part, were itinerant teachers - foreigners - same vain, despite his remarks on obligation to the laws of Athens in crllo, who did not hold citizenship in the cities where they taught. Xenophon's there is no doubt that Socrateswas as much a critic of Athens as plato was. comment about citizenship is borne out by the subtext of Socrates'relnalk Yet we must remember that while Plato may have been highly critical of in the Apology that young men will of their own choice ignore the free Athens and all of her institutions,' the fact remains that the rleepcultural company of their own citizens in order to interact with sophists: connections between virtue and citizenship are pointedly made by setting aside discussionswith foreigners in Book lof the Repubiicto set tie quesi Yet I think it is a fine thing to be able to teach peopleas Gorgiasof Leontini for justice on a new course with Plato's Athenian brothers, Glaucon and does,and Prodicusof Ceos,and Hippiasof Elis. Eachof thesemen can goto Adeimantus. The quest for virtue is any city and persuadethe.v-oung, who can keepcompan,v with anyoneof their a task for kith and kin, not something to be purchased fellow citizensthey want without paving,to leavethe companvof these, to from those with no connection to or investment in the join with themselves,pay them a fee,and be gratefulto them besides(Plato' state. For Aristotle too, virtue is inextricable fi'om citizenship. an idea that Apology19e-20a). is borne out by his famous statement that a man with .to po1,r by nature and nct simply as a result of ill luck is either a beast or a god (poritics Note that Socrates mentions the cities from which these men hail, and 1253a)." note that none of them hails from Athens. The idea that virtue is sotne- A further point about the itinerant nature of sophists war.rants reflec-

228 229 Geoff Bowe 21. The Cose against Teaching \"irtue for Pct.t' tion. Isoci'ates, although his airn is to show that the life of Gorgias, his philosophvdiffers from the formerrin the nature of its capabilityand fi'em the one-time teacher, was f'ar from opulent, has indicated that the sophist latter in its outloolIsocrates, An,tidosis 155). This is ironic to say the least' insofar as Isocrates'remark comes up in his Antidosis. An anticlosis is a challenge Two things are important here. The first is that philosophy is whereby one tasked with financing and overseeing a state service as a super.iol tt, sophistry since sophistry pretends to be able to deliver what philosophy form of paying taxes may challenge another citizen to take on the burden, really can. The second thing to note is that Aristotle here identifie,s or exchange property with him (christ 1990, 147-69).Isocrates' Antidosis philosophy with a certain choice of life. while he says that is the author s own defenceof his life's work. one prompted b1'his surprise this is how philosophy' differs fi'om dialectic, the distinction may equally be at learning. as a result of such a contest, that his reputation among his saici to apply to the difference between philosophy and sophistry. For fellow citizens was not as honourable as he had thought. One can't help what Aris- totle is getting at is the idea that philosophy is a commitment to but think - although again this is not Isocrates' point - that Gorgias and a wav o{' living, and is not merely a way of eorning a living. Sophistrl, may other non-tax-paying sophists may have been perceived as parasitic upon appear to furnish a good life. but it is not as capable or as i'eai in the communities frorn which thel' obtained their weaith, whether that terms of its approach to virtue, or in terms of the nature of instruction that wealth was opulent oi' moderate. In short, the fact that the sophists were is bought and sold in the short term. men who had abandoned citizenship (that which Socrates would rather die' whether one should be able to charge for real instruction in the good than do (Plato, crito 54b-d)), intellectual freedom, and responsibility tcr life is a different question. Fees were not charged by Plato or Aristotle their state for a life of wage-earning itinerancy places them in a highlv in the Academv or the Lyceum, but of course questionable light. both of their founders were wealthy. we should bear in mind that Aristotle's remarks Much more may be said by way of the context and implications of above focus not on the selling of knowledge, but the pretension of knowledge. In some of citizenship. the possible perception ofthe sophists as parasites, their lack Plato's dialogues, socrates may be taken as impl5'ing that if someone of investment in the state and the general disdain for wage-earning. These coulcl impart knowledge, they ought to be able to charge for it. In the Gorgjas. speak to the cultural. not the philosophical. and while the two can hardly for example. socrates has no truck with selling knowledge of some things, be extricated one from the other, it is the charges that speak to differences br.rtnot virtue (519b-521a) (cf. Blank 1988, 10). In the cratylus Socrates in philosophical orientation with which I am primarily concerned in what claims that he himself even paid for a course from the sophist Prodicus on fbllows. I will treat of these charges under two main heads. the first being the nature of names (38ab-c).Now perhaps Socratesmerelv wanted to see the general charge of charlatanism. namely that the sophists teach little what Prodiclls was on about. Perhaps socrates was being ironical or even of real value, and the secondbeing what I consider the more philosophical condescending in paying for the lecture. One might even speculate that way of interpreting Xenophon's report of Socrates' claim that the sophists Socrates really did no such thing, but that his re.mark, to the effect that he are not free men. could only afford the cheap version of the course and thus is ill inforrnecl on the nature of names. is merely another rhetorical swipe at the sophistic Charlatanism practice of teaching for pay. If this is merely rhetorical sniping, we might read into the remalk the charge of charlatanism. Yet if Socrates did in fact attend As for the charge of charlatanism. we may start with a remark made by a course by Prodicus, wolrld he not implicate hirnself in perpetuating the Aristotle in sophisticaL Refutatiorus (165a). According to Aristotle, a soph- 'For practice of sophistry by paf ing for Prodicus' coulse? One is reminded of the ist is a quack who teaches apparent knowledge, passing it off as real: Etilhydemu,s.where Crito issues a veiled chastisernent of Socratesfor arguing the art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the realitl'. and with such men in public (305b). In other words if we are moralistically strict the sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom'. here, we might think that Socrates'paying a fee to Prodicus actually indicates one may further reflect on the following passage from the Metaphysics'. that he sees nothing morallv wrong in paying for some things. At the sarue time, the fact that Dialectici:rnsand sophistsweal the sameappearanc0 as the phiiosopher.for Socrates'ignolance about the nature of names is due to his poverty -he sophistrf is WisdomiD appearanceonly, and dialecticiansdiscr.rss all sub- could not afford entrance to Prodicus' full course. and would have - jects,and Being is a subjectcommon to them all; but clearlythey discuss been or was turned away from it due to lack of funds suggests that the th""" .or]."pts becauscthey appertain to philosophy.For sophistry and sophist is more interested in moneS' than education, and as such his clialecticare concernertwith the same class of subjectsas philosophy,but commitment to education is rendered suspect.

23r Geoff Boue 21. The Case against Teaching Virtue I'or Pay

The above remarks show what an interpretive landmine Socratic in- Such an intimate relationship is not likell' to be the kind that can be sinuation is, but also how useful it can be in parsing Socrates' reai developed or acquired through a course of paid instruction, but rather orientation. Consider another example of this kind of insinuation. In suggests a more attached and longer commitment than paid instruction Plato's Apology Socrates says he learned from Callias, a man who spent would furnish. Moreover, the contractual nature of teaching for pay does more money on sophists'than everyone else put together', that the sophist not seem to require any assessmentof'the capacity of the pupil. This would Evenus of Paros possessed the art of teaching virtue for a fee of only five seem to be Isocrates' primary concern. For while Isocrates 'I did take pay for minas. What Socrates then says needs to be parsed: thought Evenus a instruction, he emphasises that virtue can be taught only to those natu- happy man, if he really possessesthis art, and teaches for so moderate a rally predisposed to such instruction: fee. I would pride and preen myself if I had this knowledge, but I do not have it, gentlemen' (Apolo* 2Oc). I considerthat the kind of alt which can implant honestyand justice in Now it seems clear enough that Socrates is being sarcastic in the first depravednatures ha-* never existed and doesnot now exist.ar-rd that peoltle sentence, and that he does not believe that Evenus possessesknowledge who professthat power will grow weary and ceasefrom that vain pretensicrr-r of virtue, and again we see the sneer at teaching fbr pay. It seems fair to beforesuch an educationis ever found. (Isocrates.Anlidosis 271). say that Socrates does not really believe that the sophists have divine wisdom regarding virtue; they are human, and as Socrates famously Isocrates'charge here is that those who would profess to teach virtue to states in his trial, next to divine wisdom, human wisdom is all but the depraved are trying to teach something incapable of being received. worthless (Apology 23b).'Yet the second sentence is difficult. Is Socrates and as such those who take money for such teaching are charlatans. here saying that if one did possess knowledge, it would be acceptable to Isocrates' own approach involves the teaching of pupils with natural charge for it? Of course Socrates merely says that he would be proud to potential to speak well on pan-Hellenic themes worthy of discourse, possess such knowledge. But might not the implication here be that through which a virtuous character may be refined. One may also recall Socrates would do just what Evenus does in fact do, that is teach for pay. the diatribes in which Isocrates rails against those like Euthydemus and if he truly possessedknowledge? Socrates'own inabilitr- to teach, because Dionysodorus who clain to be able to teach virtue to all comers more he professes ignorance, is one thing that prevents him from teaching fol quickly than any other (Plato, Euthydemus 273d). Teaching virtue is not pay, but is it the only thing? I suspectthat helping others, where education as simple as teaching the alphabet. or providing specific responses to all is (as far as Plato is concerned) perhaps the greatest form ofhelp one could of life's contingencies, but rather the cultivation of a mind equipped with offer, ought not to be the sort of thing that is restricted by monetary certain natural abilities to have sound judgment and persuasive speech considerations.o (Isocrates, Against the Sophists 10). Plato would say that the kind of Might not part o{'this outlook also explain the disdain for teaching for character formation and education extends to an internal psychic har- pay? Might not that outlook also incorporate a disdain for money as an mony and life-long commitment to education within a correctly ordered important part of the true account of virtue, and of the obligation of a state, and that not merely education, but every aspect of the state must be citizen and a good man to converse and exemplifv virtue as a matter of reformed. In other words, for both Plato and Isocrates, though they differ course? In other words a friend or citizen gives freely what a merchant in many tespects, acquiring virtue is not like acquiring fast food but rather charges for. A friend cares for his friend whereas the merchant (qua akin to a lifelong regime of diet and exercise. merchant) is indifferent to an;-one but a potential or returning paying customer. Friendship and citizenship are lifelong endeavours, but itiner- Relativism ant sophistical teaching is touted as a short-term business transactiou. Grote's reflections on philosophical friendship and teaching are worth The prerequisite ofnatural dispositions to virtue espousedby Isocrates, or recalling here, to the effect that Socrates: integrative approaches to virtue like Plato's. point in the direction of a conception of virtue as something natural, objective and fixed. One might assimilated the rerlationbetween teacher and pupil to that between two intuitively observe that while the sophists are often associated with loversor two intimnte friends, which was thoroughly dishonoured.robbed of relativism, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were concerned with a its charm and reciprocity,and prevcnted from bringing about its legitimate quest for a higher truth. The idea of a relativistic sophist charging for reward of attachmentand devotion,by the interventionof moneypayment teaching virtue would certainly have been troublesome to philosophers (Grote 1907.315). who believed virtue to be natural. not artificial. The artificial nature of justice, conceived b5' Thrasymachus as the will of the stronger party

232 233 Geoff Bowe 21. The Case agairust Teaching Virtue for Pav

(Plato, RepubLic:J38c),stands in sharp contrast with the Platonic/Aristo- contrastive outlook of Thlasymachus whose offer of pouring an argullrent teliarr pelspective. where justice is a p/ri'sls. not a nomos." Plato. who into Socrates' soul at Republic 345b is pointedly contrasted with the believes that moral education of citizens is the responsibility of philoso- assessmentof education as turning the mind in the right direction at the pher-kings who know the true nature of virtue and have no interest in beginning of Republic VII (581b-d): taking pay, fears a relativistic sophistry that runs so counter to the core of his own approach to education and virtue. Aristotle's approach to Educationisn't what somepeopie declare it to be,namely, putting knowledge practical virtue involves imitation of the virtuous and the formation of into soulsthat lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes... educationis the habit in virtue of that imitation; in so far as practical virtue is relative to craft concernedwith ... this turning around,and with how the soulcan most the situation, practical wisdom is needed to determine the golden mean, easilyand effectivelybe madeto do it. It isn't the craft of putting sight intrr the the appropriate response to a given situation. For Plato. to be virtuous is soul. to hnotu virtue, to imitate the Form of virtue. For Aristotle. to be virtuous Now there is to ftnoro the exemplar of virtue. to imitate the virtuous man. To this we ma1.'have bee. sophists who could in fact teach, ancl in sorne casesthel'are actually defendedto a degreeby Plato and by Isocrates.This may also add the position of Isocrates that the cultivation of a persuasive 'defence'nonetheless speaker requires virtuous behaviour on the part of that speaker, so that leads to my secondpoint about the deeper philosophi- cal meaning men will respect what he has to say. In all three approaches, there is an in Socrates'claim that the sophists'freedom is restricted. In order to underlying assumption that one must either know virtue as form or illustrate what I take to be that deeper meaning, we ought to consider exemplify or emulate virtuous activity in word and deed in order to be Socrates' assessment of the career of Protagoras in the Meno and Plato's famous assessment virtuous. The charge of charlatanism against the sophists would then of sophists in the Protagoras. What Socrates says more specifically lie in the fact that they are neither exemplars nor do they about Protagoras at Meno 91dff. is instructive. Protagoras made a great deal know or believe in a fixed or objective form ofvirtue. As such they cannot of money, and no one ever complained that his teaching was faulty. just teach it. Isocrates rhetoricallv suggests: Socrates implies that as a cobbler would be put out of business ifhis work were unsatisfactory, Protagoras could not have been successful for forty years if his work were unsatisfactory. But what is mostridiculous of all is that [sophists]distrr"rst those from whom they are [to receivernon€'y for instruction in virtr"re]- they distrust, that is Isocrates nakes a similar claim about his own teaching in theAnfrc/osls. to say,the very men to whom they are about to deliver the scienceofjust in a passage heavily indebted to Plato's Apology (33d-Bab): dealing - and they lequire that the fees advanced by their students be entrusted for safekeeping to thosewho have never beenunder their instruc- I am far from being a corrupter of our youth. For if I were guilty of this ... lion (lsocrates.Agcri ns/ tiic Sopftisls5t.' you would see the fathers and relatives of my pupils up in arms. framirrg writs and seekingto bring me to justice. But instead they bring their sonsto Isocrates, like Plato, believed that education is not that easy, and that it me and are ready to pay me money,and are rejoicedwhen they seethem is not simply a matter of imparting knowledge from teacher to student. spendingtheir tirnein my company... (Antidosls240-1). One must be working with a student of the right natural endowment and capacitl'for virtue, and even then. for Isocrates, there is no guarantee of In these passages dealing with corrupting pupils; there is no complaint how the student will turn out. about the selling of knowiedge at all, simplv the denial that thele were in fact pupils who were corrupted. Now whether or not the former pr.rpils of sophists should have sought tutelage from sophists and be satisfied with Psychic health, freedom and harm their purchases is a wholly different question, and one that Socrates I turn now to what I believe to be the deeper philosophical case against the addresses with a great deal of eloquence in the Protagoras. When the sophistic practice of teaching for pay, and where I think the real harm lies young Hippocrates kicks at Socrates' door early in the morning begging for regarding the practice. In what follows I will attempt to suggest that the Socrates to introduce him to the great sophist of Abdera, Socrates offers harmful effect of teaching those who are not predisposed to virtue but may this warning: nonetheless requisition such instruction with a fee, is an effect harmful we must not only to the pupil, but to the teacher as well. That Plato did not conceive take care. m1'goodfriend, that the sophist,in commendinghis wares,does not deceive ofour of teaching as the mere imparting of knowledge from teacher to student, us.as both merchantand dealerdo in the case bodily food.Fol amongthe provisions, know, in which thesemen deal. is borne out in a wealth of passages in Plato's dialogues. Consider the )'ou not only are they themselvesignorant of what is goodor bad for thc body',

234 GeoffBowe 21. The Case against Teaching Virtue for Pay

since in selli.ng they commend them ai1, but the peopie who buy from them Now Isocrates had maintained that a little bit of instruction in disputa- are so too, unless one happens to be a trainer or a doctor. And in the same tion or even captious argument might aid to sharpen the mind, but is way, those who take their doctrines the round of our cities, hawking them serviceable only as a propaedeutic to thinking well and more clearly about about to any odd purchaser who desiresthem, commend everything that lhey more important practical matters, matters about how to live a life of sell, and there may well be some of these too, my good sir, who are ignorant excellence (Antidosis 266). To substitute philosophy for one of its sparring which of their wares is good or bad for the soul; and in just the same case are techniques is dangerous, and it is the youth who imitate without under- the people who buy from them, unless one happens to have a doctor's standing who are most unable to recognise knowledge here also, but of the soul. So then, if you are well informed as to the difference. The problem what is good or bad among these waros, it will be safe for you to buy doctrines about teaching for pay, it would seem, is that the sophist may have to from Protagoras or from anyone else you please: but if not, take care, my de'ar accept youths who have the money to pay for his tutelage, whether the feliow, that you do not risk your greatest treasure on a toss of the dice. For prospective student has the maturity or intellectual capacity to learn from I tell you there is far more serious risk in the purchase of doctrines than in him or not. This recalls Isocrates'position that natural capacity for virtue that of eatables. When you buy victuals and liquors you can carry them off is a prerequisite for instruction. Grote quite rightly points out that it was from the dealer or merchant in separate vessels, and before you take them not the sophist who implanted corrupted morality. into your body by drinking or eating you can lay them in your house and take the advice of an expert whom you can call in, as to what is fit to eat or drink Theseyoung men wanted political power.To gratify ambition was their end and what is not, and how much you should take and when; so that in this and aim. But this was an aim which the Sophistsdid not implant. 'Ihey found purchase the risk is not serious. But you cannot carry away doctrines in a it pre-existing,learnt from other quarters; and they had to deal with it as a separate vessel: you are compelled, when you have handed over the price, to fact (Grote1907, vo1. VIII, 320n.2). take the doctrine in your very soul by learning it, and so to depart either an injured or a benefited man. (Protagoras 313d-314b).' Grote goes on to say that for every man with a predisposition to misemploy the tools imparted by the sophists for the purposes of deceit, there would This passage betrays a mild condescension and mistrust directed at mer- be another with the ability to expose such deception. Yet the fact remains chants offood and drink, perhaps corroborating our earlier remarks about that for a student with a grasping disposition, one who lacks maturity, a general disdain for wage-earning. Second, and more importantly, Socra- natural ability and a predisposition to virtue, and the sophist takes him tes claims that some sophists may be unaware of, or indifferent to, the on, the sophist, far from instilling or helping virtue to flourish in the pupil, harmfulness of their wares. We should remember the claim that no one may actually ruin him. was unhappy with the wares they bought from Protagoras, and the similar Now one may claim, as Gorgias does in the dialogue that bears his remarks of Isocrates about himself and Gorgias. At the same time we name, that the teacher is not responsible for the misuse of the skills he should note that this remark in the Protagoras is not directed at Pro- imparts (Gorgias 457c) and this is an idea that Socrates to some degree tagoras, but to sone peddlers of doctrines, who may be unaware whether would agree with, with the caveat that he himself does not teach, yet the what they sell is helpful or harmful. Two other things should not be missed new danger of deception in words as opposed to deeds represented the here. The issue emphasised is not with sellingper se,but with the potential threat of the persuasive power of tyranny, the ability to engineer wrongful danger to the buyer of what is being sold. And the danger is aII the more executions and deliberate deceptions - dangers that are specific to argu- to be avoided in those too inexperienced to know the difference between mentation, forensics and oratory, and not as evident as misuses of good and bad instruction.e One cannot help but recall Socrates stepping in practical skills. Here the potential for harm enters the equation. Speaking to save the young Cleinias from the hands of the sophists from Chios in from the philosophical perspective of Plato, a person who harms. and Euthydemus (277d). That the youth imitate the method of elenchus or benefits from that harm, and is not punished for so doing, becomes the pseudo-elenchus indiscriminately and to the detriment of philosophy is most lamentable of men. Herein, I believe, lies the deeper philosophical something that Socrates remarks upon in t}re Apology (23c) and the implication of the bondage of the sophist who takes pay for his instruction. Republic, from which the following remark is taken (539b):'n Socrates argues with some vigour in the Republic (335e) that it is never just to harm anyone, a position he maintains with equal vigour inth'e Crito For I fancy you have not failed to observethat lads, when they first get a (49d). Socrates in the Gorgias - notably in the context taste of disputation, misuse it as a form of sport, always employing it concludes famously - contentiously, and, imitating confuters, they themselves confute others. of a critique of persuasive oratory that the unpunished criminal is the They delight like spies in pulling about and tearing with words all who most hapless of men G79e). Hence it is possible to argue that should the approachthem. sophist, who is obliged to take pay for instruction, ruin the soul of a youth

236 237 Geoff Bowe 21. The Cuse against Teaclt.ing Virtue for Pa.t, not suited for such instruction, he will be harming his pupil and himself. instructor. Unlike Socrates. who associates with whomever he wishes. the F or by Plato's lights, if he who harrns goesunpunished, he is rnost hapless. practice of teaching for pay ensnares the sophist into a most precarious Just as the tyrant cannot escapethe conditions that his tyranny creates, and indentured occupation. neither can the sophist escape the conditions that his sophistry creates. Socrates'apparently sneering claim that the sophist is rnost unfortunate Notes in having his freedom restricted now takes on a more philosophical tenor. 1. 'f. The inept sophist can be forced to coruupt the souls of the youth by taking Just a few rccent cxamples include J. Dillon and Gergel, The Sophists. (Harnrondsworth: 'The pay for his services. and by logical extension. is condemned to a life of Ponguin. 2003). xiii. xviii; D. Corey. Case Against'lerrchins 'inflict for Par': Socrate-srrnd the sophists'. H[stor1'of Pollticol Tlrcugltt (2002). misery hirnself. According to Isocrates, such men most injury upon ,23:2 1gd; R. wnterfield, The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and the sophists ([)xfcrr4: (Helen their own students' 7). Oxford University Press, 2000), xxvi; A. Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticitr' (princo- How forcefully does Thrasymachus argue his position in the Republic, ton: Princeton Ur.riversity Press, 1999). 111: J. De Romilly. Th,eGreat Sophist in. knowing that his reputation as a wise teacher, and hence his very liveli- Periclean Athens (Oxford: Oxford Universitv Pless. 1992), ,1-5:S. ,Iarlatt, 'Thc hood, is on the line? How calmly and freely does Socrates arglle, knowing First Sophists and the Uses of Historv'. Rhetoric Ret:iew,6:1 (1987). 68; G"B. that he will not lose wealth or reputation in a quest for the truth, and that Kerferd. The SophisticMouement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 25; W.K.C. Guthrie, The (Cambridge: such a quest can only benefit him? How often does Socrates remind his Sophists Cambridge Universitv Press. 1971). 35: E.L. Harrisorr,'Was Golgias a Sophist'l'.Plrcenix xviii:3 (196.1),185, 190-1;rcr interlocutor that he wili gladly be refuted in the interest of truth? How whiclr we may add G. Grote, A History of Greece, vol. VIII (London: Ever'1'man. indentured is the sophist who must fight in word and deed to save face in 1907).314. 'The front of paying or potentially paying clientele? (Gorgias 457c-458b). The 2. I am reminded here of the observation of Benjamin Jowett. that great sophist is not merelS'owned by his stndenl. he is owned b1' his argtiment enemv of Plato is tl're world, not exactly in the theological sense, yet in one not as well. The servitude to which Xenophon i'efers extends beyond merely wholly' different - the world as the hater of truth and lover of appearance, occupied pursuit gain having to take on whomever can pay, and encompasses a servitude to in the of and pleasure rather than of knowledge, banded together against the few good and wise men, and devoid of true educatiop. Thrs arguments that one may not believe. and ultimately to a life of servitude creirture has man5'heads: rhetoricians, lawyers, statesmen, poets, sophists. But the sopl-rist profit to a corrupted soul, one that must through lack of freedom to is the Proteus who takes the likeness of all of them; all other deceivershave a piece discriminate between those capable of instruction and those who are not. of him in them. And sometimes he is represented as the corrupter of the world; and Those who are not capable of virtue, if given the appropriate arsenal, sometinres the world as the corrupter of him and of itself (8. Jowett. The Dialogues threaten to force Athens into tvrannv rather than liberate her through of Plato, vol. IV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1871), 287. education. 3. Presumably'Aristotle has slavery in mind here, br"rtali the better insofar as sophistry has been presented by Xenophon and Plato as a kind of intellectual servitude. Conclusion 4. Note the remark at the end of the Meno (100b):'It foiiows from tl.risreas,'nir.rg. Meno, that virtue appears to be presL'ntin those of us who may possessit as a gift The foregoing considerations serve to highlight several aspects that seem from the gods.' to have contributed to the negative reputation of sophistry in ancient 5. To Plato this might seem as obvious as it would to the average Canadian that Greece. The cultural/contextual considerations are not specifically philo- health care'is a universal right. sophical; rather they seem to reflect certain prejudices about wage-earn- 6. Grote (1907, vol. VIII. 346n.3) notes that those who argue that the sophists deny the naturalness of rights are in ing and citizenship. Charges of charlatanism, inconclusive to the extent wrong-headed in their approach. Callicles Gorgias, for example. is asserting a natural right of sorts. one which is superior to that claims impossibility of the of teaching virtue are inconclusive, are legislative rights. This does little. however. to asslrage the fear that legislative nonetheless uncomplimentary in the face of the fact that if virtue could be justice d lo Thrasymachus in the Republic is diametrically opposedto an approach taught, it ought to be taught for firee by respectable citizens. In strict to legislative justice that attempts. in a pre-Thomistic way. to modei itself on philosophical circles, the idea that virtue is something natural and objec- natural principles of justice. Now while Grote is right to point out that Callicles is 'Ovelman' tive contributes to the sense of charlatanisrn attributed to relativistic not a sophist and that his anticipation of Nietzsche's is not a cloctrine teachers who would teach that which philosophy considers natural within that a sophist bent on cultivating a clientdle in Athens would speak publicl;', I am not convinced that there ale any grounds for denying that the position attributed relativistic frameworks. On a more specific level, what Plato regards as all to Thrasymachus in Republic I is sornething that Thras.vmachus may have said irnportant. namely psychic health and the avoidance of harm and harm- (Grote, 352). For r.nanvpcople hold the position, or something like it, according to ing, turns the fauity practice of virtue instrr.rctionto unprepared students Glaucon and Adeimantus ir.rRepublic Il. 'Plato's into a morally corrupt activity that harms the student and enslaves the 7. Cf . Gorgias 519c;Blank f g-SS,g: E.J. Power, Academy: A Halting Step

238 239 Geoff Bowe

TowardsHigher Learning',History of EducationQuarterly iv.3 (1964),155-66. Of courseas far as we know,only the practiceof Protagoras,who took pavmentonly upon the satisfactionof his client at thc cnd of' a courseof instructior.r.is an exception(Aristotle, Nicomach.eanEthics 1I64a). 22 8. Cf. Gorgias464b-466a. 9. Cf. Blank 1988.9. 10. Cf. A. Nehamas,Virtu

Aristotie, Metaphysics, trans. H. Tredennick. Loeb edition (London: Heinemann, Just as'Stoic'and'Epicurean' are now used in ways quite different from 'sophist'is 1979). their original meaning, hardly ever Llsedin its original senseof Aristotle, Politir:s, trans. T.H. Sinclair (Londor-r:Penguin. 1966). 'sophist' a lover of wisdom. is, even now, a term of abuse. Sophistrv has Aristotle, Sopltistical Refutati.ons, in J. Barnes (ed.), The Complete Worhs of use of cleverness to justifl' the unjustifiable. Aristotle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). come to mean casuistry, the 'Socrates 'to Blank, David, vs. Sophists', Classical Antiquity iv (1988), 1-a9. to defend the indefensible, make the weaker argument the stronger'. 'Liturgy Christ, M.R., Avoidance and Antidosis in Classical Athens', Transactions As previous contributors have written, most of our knowledge of the of the American Philological Association 120 (1990), 147-69. sophists is derived from the writings of theil' opponents. And from what 'The Clorey,D., Case Against Teaching Virttie for Pay: Socrates and the Sophists', we can re-assernbleof their teachings and writings, there was far lllore to History (2002),189-210. of Political Thought xxiii: 2 the sophists than the cheap charlatanry the name evokes now' Gomperz, T., Greek Thinkers, vol. I (London: John Murray, 1901). 'sophist' It is not difficult to find examples of the use of as a telm of Grote, George,History of Greece,volrVIII. Everyman edition (London: Dent. 1907). Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft writes: Isocrates,Antidosis, trans. G. Norlin, Loeb edition (London: Heinemann, 1929). abuse today. For instance, the Isocrates, Against the Sophists. trans. G. Norlin, Loeb edition (London: Heine- mann. 1929). socratesmacle a poinbthat he nevertook a feefor his teaching.(Neithei'did Plato, Apolog1,. trans. H.N. Fowler, Loeb edition (London: Heinemann, 1999). Jesus.)This provedthat he was not oneof the Sophists,who soldtheir minds Plato, Euthydemus, trans. W.R.M. Lamb, I-oeb edition (London: Heine-mann, as a prostitutesells her body.... The Sophistsapproached wealthy Athetri- 'Our 1962). ans with this reasonablesolicitation: minds are full - full of clever Plato, Gorgias, trans. W.R.M. Lamb, Loeb edition (London: Heinemann, 1925). rhetorical tricks to confusejuries - and our pllrses are empty. Your purses Plato. Protagoros. trans. W.R.N,t.Lamb, Loeb edition (London: Heinemann, 1924). are full and your minds are empty. Let's mzrkea mutually profitable ex- PIato, Republic. trans. G.M.A. Grube and C.D.C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett. change.Grease our palns with your silver.and we will oil your brains with 1992). parentswere paying expensive tuition 'The our wisdom.'N{anywealthy Athenian Sidgwick, H., Sophists', Journal of Philology viii (1872), 288 307. to tutor their children without examining what product they to Sophists 'Amel'r- Xenophon, Memorabilia, trans. E.C. Marchant, Loeb edition (London: Heinemann, were buying. Just changeone word in that sentence-'Athenian' to 1923). can' and you seethat the more things change,the more thev stay the same (Kreeft 2002.28).

Aside from the accuracy or otherwise of Kreeft's passage - Aristophanes' play Clouds (which was first performed when the sophists such as Pro- tagoras, Gorgias. Hippias, Prodicus and Antiphon were alive and practis- ing their craft) alone suggeststhat concerns about'what product [wealthl' 'sophist' Attenian parents] were buying' abounded * it is clear that is, putting it mildly, a strongly loaded term. one can hardly think of a rrore derogatory comparison than likening a philosopher to a prostitute. Clearly there is u.r ug"n,lo here that goesbeyond sober historical and philosophical consideration ofthe sophists. That the sophists still attract such attention is further testarnent to their relevance today. As the Kreeft passage illustrates, passions are still excited by the sophists' and the parallels that

240 oA1