The ‘sophists’ have been problematic figures in the history of philosophy. Their reputation has varied according to point of view and time period, but recent re-examination has changed the direction of how they are treated. It is not only a matter of evaluation, but rather of how to situate them in history. The Cambridge Companion to the Sophists is a welcome achievement in its treatment of this important subject.
This is the first comprehensive collection of essays in English, whereas a number of books on ‘sophists’ have been published before in French, Italian and German besides two important monographs in English, i.e. W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 3: The Sophists (1969/1971), and G.B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement (1981). Following the introduction, ‘The Problem of the Sophists’ by the two editors, Billings and Moore, the book consists of fourteen chapters in three parts. The division into Part I ‘Contexts’, II ‘Thought’ and III ‘Receptions’ shows the intentions of the editors concerning how to treat the sophists, with an informative appendix entitled ‘The People of the Sophistic Period’. It provides a new examination and reading of the testimonia, using the Loeb volumes of A. Laks and G.W. Most, Early Greek Philosophy, 9 vols (2016).
The introduction first focuses on the ‘canonical sophists’ of the fifth century bce and advocates two new approaches that differ from the existing works. First, it takes a more cautious historical approach to the fifth-century ‘sophists’ than the traditional view and, second, it discusses them in a much wider context than the history of philosophy. These approaches seek to move beyond reliance on Plato’s critical views and are shared by the other contributors, so as to ‘reframe the problem in a new and more productive way’ (p. 28).
A cautious refusal to limit the range of ‘sophists’ characterises the first approach by focusing on the changing contemporary treatments of them between the fifth and fourth centuries bce. The editors cast strong doubt upon the traditional characterisation of them as professional teachers. This particular aspect receives a more substantial examination in Chapter 3, ‘The Professional Lives of the Sophists’, in which H. Tell argues that the sophists should be seen as ‘a varied group of practitioners within the broader economy of wisdom’ (p. 123). This view is shared by the other chapters in Part 1. K.A. Morgan, in Chapter 1, ‘Sophia before the Sophists’, examines the Greek concept of sophia in a wide range of literary contexts, from the archaic period to Pindar, and her examination removes the traditional barriers that distinguished sophists from other wise men, especially poets. In Chapter 2, ‘The Sophists between Aristocracy and Democracy’, M. Munn situates the sophists in their political and social contexts. The sophists operated in an agonistic society, in an aristocratic rather than democratic context, as generally imagined. Thus, Part 1 opens the way to a new understanding of the sophists.
This already includes the second approach, suggesting that the group of sophists should be examined as a cultural phenomenon, rather than a philosophical alliance. The problem concerning sophists is not just a part of Presocratic philosophy or Greek philosophy in general, but also touches upon a cultural atmosphere that covers a wide area of science, medicine, history, poetry, drama, politics and communication. Thus, in Chapter 4, ‘The Sophists in the Fifth-Century Enlightenment’, Billings examines one of the few contemporary sources on the fifth-century sophists, Aristophanes’ Clouds, and proposes to understand their interest in the social and natural sciences as ‘a spectrum rather than a binary’ (p. 137).
The second approach is amplified by the multifaceted examination in the seven chapters in Part 2, which deal with the main subjects of the sophists’ activities rather than individual sophists. In Chapter 5, ‘Nature and Norms’, R. Bett rethinks the important dichotomy of physis and nomos. Although this pair was widely and variously used in this period, the sophists contributed to deepening the thought in a reflective way. In Chapter 6, ‘The Turn to Language’, M. Bonazzi examines the speaking and writing activities of the sophists as leading to ‘a more profound reflection on the human world and the importance of logos’ (p. 197). In Chapter 7, ‘Problems of Being’, E. Rodriguez casts new light on the sophists’ arguments on being a ‘provocative, puzzle-raising style of argumentation’ (p. 218). Here, although Rodriguez sees Gorgias’ On what is not as a significant contribution to ontology (pp. 205–11), it may have to be taken into account that the treatise is not an invitation to serious exploration, but a more complex parody (cf. G. Grote, p. 423). In Chapter 8, ‘Politics in Theory and Practice’, C. Balla well draws attention to the development of political theorising around the sophists. In Chapter 9, ‘Interrogating the Gods’, M.E. Kotwick carefully discusses the religious thoughts of the sophists, perhaps their most important and controversial contribution to intellectual history. In Chapter 10, ‘Skills of Argument’, M.-K. Lee examines the skills of argumentation of the fifth century bce, including both rhetoric and logic, and shows how this debate is crucial to the development of logic and philosophy of language in the fourth century bce. Finally, in Chapter 11, ‘Civic and Anti-Civic Ethics’, D.C. Wolfsdorf examines a wide range of ethical texts, dividing them into two main trends, which he calls civic ethics and anti-civic ethics.
The clear division between the late fifth century bce (lifetime of Socrates) and the early fourth century bce (after Socrates’ death, when Plato was active) is initially shown in the introduction and further discussed by each of the two editors. First, Billings in Chapter 4 examines the fifth-century sophists in terms of the ‘enlightenment’. While this characterisation may raise a problem of rating the sophists like the eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinkers as second rank (cf. E. Zeller, p. 429), his examination clarifies two features of fifth-century sophists, i.e. self-consciousness of radical change and broadness of intellectual fields. Second, Moore, in Chapter 12, ‘The Fourth-Century Creative Reception of the Sophists’, surveys the evaluation of the sophists in the subsequent century and suggests that the stereotypical hostility towards them among fourth-century authors may not be directed at the fifth-century canonical sophists, but rather at their contemporaries (p. 369). These two chapters fully demonstrate the change and gap between the fifth and the fourth centuries bce.
As for the division of the two phases, however, the editors claim that the new view of the sophists as professional teachers started with the ‘Socratics’ (pp. 11–12, 15, 351), but this claim is vague and not without controversy. They mention only works of Plato and a few passages in Xenophon (perhaps following Plato) as representative of the ‘Socratics’, but we know that other pupils of Socrates are often called sophists: Aristippus and Aeschines were paid teachers of rhetoric (pp. 12, 323), and Antisthenes’ works are included among the sophistic texts (pp. 16, 288–91). Although these Socratics may have had a view of the ‘sophists’ as professional teachers similar to that of Plato (the severe critic), it would be misleading to suggest, without carefully examining each of Socrates’ disciples, that they shared a common notion. At least I did not see evidence that Socratics other than Plato (except Xenophon’ Memorabilia 1.6) made a clear distinction or contrast between sophists and philosophers, especially in relation to Socrates. Socratics can and should be treated more carefully.
Part 3, which discusses the reception of the sophists, paints a vivid picture of how our conception of sophists has been shaped throughout history. After Moore’s Chapter 12, S. Prince, in Chapter 13 ‘Writing the First Sophistic’, examines a few major works in the Second Sophistic, above all, Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists on the First Sophistic, to show how the definitive picture of the ‘sophists’ appeared in the Roman period. Then, in Chapter 14, ‘The Sophists in the History of Philosophy’, C.C. Raymond eventually arrives at our contemporary perspective, observing the complex changes in the view and treatment of ‘sophists’ in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Relaxing and broadening the scope of sophists has led to many interesting observations. For example, Anaxagoras, usually seen as a typical natural philosopher, is discussed among the sophists (pp. 21, 128, 251, 439–40). Also, it revives a controversy as to whether or not Socrates is included among the sophists (pp. 1, 19). Socrates is mentioned throughout the book and focused on in different contexts. The ambivalence of his position is clearly summarised in the appendix by Moore, who says that ‘It seems more likely that he and they [sc. the sophists] represent connected positions within a network of ideas and methods’ (p. 459). Against this view, Bett maintains a separation between Socrates and the sophists concerning their attitudes to the nomos–physis issue (p. 178), and so does Kotwick concerning their stances on the traditional gods (p. 276). Socrates remains a focus of controversy surrounding the sophists.
It is unfortunate that some academic controversies are neglected in the volume. In particular, the list of the ‘canonical sophists’, presented at the beginning of the book, contains ‘Antiphon’ as the author of the rhetorical works of the Tetralogies and the treatise On truth (of which some papyri were discovered) without any comment (pp. 1, 15). The editors thus identify the Athenian rhetorician and politician with the sophist with whom Socrates has a conversation in Xenophon’s Memorabilia 1.6. The other contributors generally follow this identification: Munn and Balla discuss ‘Antiphon’ in the political context (pp. 90–1, 243–9). However, G.J. Pendrick, Antiphon the Sophist: The Fragments (2002), following Diels–Kranz (p. 403 n. 2), proposed a strong argument against the identity of those ‘Antiphons’, based on testimonia of late antiquity. This controversy is mentioned in passing on several occasions (pp. 90 n. 70, 287 n. 44, 393 n. 68, and implied on pp. 194, 440–1 [appendix]), but is completely ignored elsewhere (e.g. p. 348; cf. p. 365 n. 89). While the unitarian view seems to have moved closer to consensus in recent years, general readers should still be alerted to the existence of the controversy surrounding Antiphon(s).
While the volume provides diverse views on the sophists, contributors often provide different interpretations or views of the same texts without cross-reference, so as to make the volume a collection of articles rather than a coherent companion. For example, the same fragment of Antiphon (D38/B44a) is used differently in different translations on p. 172 (Bett), pp. 243–5 (Balla) and pp. 326–8 (Wolfsdorf); Protagoras’ fragment (D10/B4) receives different treatments on p. 147 (Billings) and p. 259 (Kotwick). Additional cross-references and comments would have been useful.
A diverse and lively re-examination is a benefit of companions such as this, in which common features of the sophists emerge, including a reflective and critical rethinking of a wide range of issues. This research style is particularly suited to complex and open subjects such as the sophists. The volume is bound to reorient our views on the sophists and significantly enrich scholarly debate.
