Protagoras of Abdera

In antiquity the life and philosophical career of Protagoras – arguably the most famous sophist – became the object of many, mostly unreliable, stories. We know for certain that he was born in Abdera, Thrace, around 490 bc – the first half of the fifth century. Despite some evidence to the contrary, it is likely that he came from a wealthy family, one which even gave hospitality to Xerxes at the time of the Persian Wars. It is also reported that, in return, Xerxes granted the family the rare privilege of having their son Protagoras educated by the Magi (even if one chooses to regard this story as spurious, it still confirms the contacts between Protagoras and the culture of the Ionian colonies and those of the Near East). Later he travelled around Greece as a teacher, earning great fame and amassing considerable riches. It is equally certain that Protagoras repeatedly sojourned in Athens in the time of Pericles, with whom he established personal ties. It is difficult to tell whether these contacts also led to a direct involvement in the democratic politics of the great statesman. Evidence in this direction is apparently provided not just by the sophist's surviving fragments, but also by the fact that, in 444 bc, Pericles entrusted Protagoras with drafting the constitution of the new pan-Hellenic colony of Thurii in Magna Graecia (clearly, an appointment of this sort implies that the two men shared the same political views). This connection with Pericles can also be confirmed by the upheavals that marked the last years of Protagoras’ life: the crisis of Periclean politics seems to find a counterpart in the downfall of Protagoras, who – like other personalities close to the statesman – was reportedly put on trial.

But the information we have here becomes very hazy. Some sources report that, after a public reading of his text on the gods, Protagoras was charged with impiety and fled Athens, while his books were burned. By the same account, the sophist died in a shipwreck during his flight. However, this is very questionable; in particular, it differs from what Plato writes in his dialogues, where he speaks of Protagoras as though he had died as a universally esteemed figure in old age, with no references to any trials or flights. From Plato we know that Protagoras lived approximately seventy years (other sources state ninety), which would place his death at around 420 bc.

Diogenes Laertius attributes many works to Protagoras, but a comparison with the other sources reveals that his list is incomplete. Worse still, what are missing from Diogenes’ list are precisely the most important and controversial works, such as Truth and On the Gods. One possible explanation is that these two texts constituted individual entries of the Antilogiae (Opposing Arguments, mentioned by Diogenes), which were possibly also known as Kataballontes logoi (The Overthrower Arguments or, better, The Knockdown Arguments: see Appendix 2). Yet, as in other cases, any attempt at reconstruction is destined to remain a mere hypothesis, given the dearth of available fragments. Indeed, apart from the title of Protagoras’ work, all we have are a few authentic fragments and many interpretations. Ever since antiquity, his provocative theses have elicited interest and criticism from his readers. As a result, different reconstructions of his thought are available, which are not always reliable and are often clearly shaped by disparaging intentions.

The first and most important tradition stretches back to Plato, who devoted two dialogues to the theses of the sophist of Abdera, the Protagoras and the Theaetetus. Many of the later testimonies, starting with Aristotle's, appear to depend on Plato's discussion, and this must be taken into account when examining the information from our sources. Alongside the Platonic tradition, another tradition proved influential in antiquity, namely the one that highlighted the sceptical implications of Protagoras’ thought. However, little is known about this interpretation because sceptics such as Sextus Empiricus explicitly refused to be associated with Protagoras, whom they regarded as a dogmatist. This kind of reading certainly served polemical purposes. Another tradition that was hostile to Protagoras, and which was possibly partly connected to the sceptical interpretation, was the Epicurean tradition, which is responsible for the emphasis on the link between Protagoras and Democritus – in all likelihood, an unfounded idea. All in all, we must note that many – if not all – the testimonies we have about Protagoras are vitiated by underlying polemical attitudes of this sort, which in some cases lead to actual distortions of his thought. The history of this ancient reception must therefore be taken into account in order to come up with a suitable reconstruction.

Protagoras’ pupils include Antimoerus of Mende, Carmidas and Euathlus of Athens, and Theodore of Cyrene. His influence has also been posited in relation to Prodicus, the so-called anonymous of Iamblichus and the Dissoi logoi, although it is difficult to measure its extent.

Gorgias of Leontini

Gorgias was born in Leontini (present-day Lentini), a Greek colony in Sicily, around 485 bc. He received his education in Sicily (he was reportedly a pupil of Empedocles, and some sources associate him with Thysias and Corax, traditionally regarded as the ‘inventors’ of rhetoric), although a life of travel led him to visit many cities and regions in Greece (Olympia, Delphi, Thessaly, Beotia, and Argos). Here he practised and taught rhetoric, achieving considerable success, including financially. Gorgias reached Athens in 427 bc, when he was despatched as an ambassador by his home city to discuss the delicate question of the war with Syracuse. It is said that, on this occasion, rhetoric too made its first entrance into Athens. He died a centenarian, probably in Larissa in Thessaly, at the end of a frugal life, ‘never doing anything in view of pleasure’ – as he once told an interlocutor.

Among Gorgias’ most famous works we find the treatise On Not-Being or on Nature, which only survives thanks to two paraphrases, one by Sextus Empiricus and the other by the anonymous author of a text On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias. Some sources date this work to the 84th Olympics, which is to say between 444 and 441 bc, but this is dubious. No less complicated is the attempt to date other texts known to us: the two declamations Encomium of Helen and Defence of Palamedes, which are among the few sophistic works to have survived; a long fragment from a Funeral Oration delivered in Athens, or at any rate written for an Athenian public; and the fragments of other orations delivered in various places in Greece. Gorgias may also have been the author of a treatise on The Art of Rhetoric, and of another text, On the Opportune Moment (kairos).

The names of many of Gorgias’ pupils have been recorded: Alcidamas of Elea, Callicles of Acharnae, Isocrates of Athens, Licymnius of Chios, Meno of Larissa, Polus of Acragas, Protarcus of Athens, Proxenus of Thebes, and probably Lycophron too. Thucydides and Critias are also said to have been influenced by Gorgias, as was Aspasia, Pericles’ hetaira.

Antiphon (of Rhamnous?)

Interest in Antiphon dates back to 1915, when a long papyrus fragment was brought to light (87B44 D.-K. = 37D38b L.-M.): whereas previously all that was known of the sophist were short and isolated quotes, the new discovery made available the longest surviving discussion of the opposition between nomos and physis, one of the most hotly debated topics in fifth-century Athens. This finding, however, raised the problem of Antiphon's identity: of whether the sophist by this name was to be identified with the rhetor who promoted the oligarchic coup of 411 bc. The first reconstruction of the fragment gave rise to the myth of Antiphon as a theorizer of equality and an ardent democrat, thereby ruling out the hypothesis that this author was the oligarch Antiphon. But then, in 1984, a new discovery proved the unfoundedness of the ‘democratic’ interpretations of the sophist. The demolition of the latter also removed the main obstacle to the unitary thesis, which currently seems to be the more reasonable one, even though it is impossible to prove it conclusively.Footnote ² Clearly, if this is the correct hypothesis, what we have is a truly central figure on the political and intellectual scene in Athens, a personality whose importance is confirmed by the admiring description provided by Thucydides, who emphasizes the intelligence, eloquence, and boldness of the rhetor – the very qualities that represent defining features of the sophists, in both positive and negative terms.

From the surviving testimonies on the sophist and rhetor we know that he was born around 480 bc in the Attic deme of Rhamnous and that he received his early education from his father, Sophilus, whom the sources refer to as a ‘sophist’. We know practically nothing of what happened to Antiphon after that, except for the fact that in Athens he acquired an ambiguous fame as a ‘logographer’ (that is, a writer of court speeches for private clients) and that for some time he worked in Corinth, where he promised to ‘treat the suffering with speeches’ (87A6 D.-K. = 37P10 L.-M.). Whereas Antiphon appears to have kept a low profile for most of his career, everything changed in the last, tumultuous years of his life: according to Thucydides’ account, he was among the promoters of the secret coup which in 411 bc sought to introduce a more or less moderate form of oligarchy in Athens to replace the democratic regime. As is widely known, the coup failed, not least because of a lack of support from Sparta (which Antiphon reportedly visited as an ambassador). Many of the people involved fled, but not Antiphon, who delivered what Thucydides describes as ‘the best defence ever offered up to my time in a trial for a capital crime’ (8.68). Noteworthy as it was, the speech was not enough to save the sophist's life: Antiphon was sentenced to death, his property was seized, and his estates were razed.

Considering Antiphon's work as both a rhetor and a sophist, he is among the authors about whom we are most informed. From a philosophical perspective, the most relevant text is no doubt On Truth. This appears to revolve around the problem of physis, which is explored from various scientific and political points of view. In On Concord, a work addressed to a broader audience, Antiphon deals with ethical issues, giving proof of remarkable psychological acumen. Equal acumen is reflected in the fragments from the Interpretation of Dreams, which he based on rational methods. Too little survives of the Statesman to get an idea of the contents of this work, while all that is known of On Agriculture is the title. Particularly noteworthy among Antiphon's rhetorical works are the three Tetralogies, each of which consists of two accusatory speeches and two defensive speeches on fictional cases – probably exercises intended to explore legal (but also philosophical) problems. Tradition also credits him with a treatise entitled The Art (of Rhetoric) and with some Prologues. The most interesting works among the surviving orations are On the Murder of Herodes, Against the Stepmother for Poisoning, and On the Choreutes. We also have a fragment of what was probably the speech he gave to defend himself after the 411 bc coup. Finally, some sources identify the sophist Antiphon with another Antiphon, an author of tragedies: but this identification is made more problematic by the information that the poet was murdered by orders of the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius.

Xeniades of Corinth

A practically unknown figure, at different times Xeniades has been associated with Protagoras, Gorgias, Xenophanes, and the School of Elea, yet no reliable confirmation of any of these hypotheses has been found. His thesis that everything springs from nothing is certainly noteworthy and earned him an original place in the constellation of post-Parminedean thinkers.

Prodicus of Ceos

We know that Prodicus came from the island of Ceos in the Cyclades. The sources make no mention of his date of birth but nonetheless present him as a contemporary of Democritus, Socrates, Hippias, and Gorgias, which would suggest sometime around 460 bc. Like other sophists, Prodicus made repeated visits to Athens (where by 423 bc he was already well known) and other Greek cities, either as an emissary or to deliver speeches or lectures. One of the main reasons for his fame lies in his linguistic interests, and particularly in his ability to correctly distinguish the various meanings of terms, clarifying their nuances. Not without some irony, the importance of this research was acknowledged by Socrates (who at times went so far as to describe himself as a pupil of Prodicus) and Plato. These linguistic distinctions are based on the assumption that language can adequately reflect the variety of things: the correct use of names is therefore the precondition for an adequate evaluation of reality.

Prodicus also took an interest in natural problems (a record survives of a treatise On Nature), although he stands out for his humanistic emphasis, as is shown by his rationalist criticism of religion, according to which humans first deified all the natural forces on which their existence depended – such as the sun, the rivers, and the sea – and then the great benefactors who had contributed to the progress of civilization (for instance, Demeter and Dionysus for bread and wine). Finally, we know about the contents of a declamation entitled The Choice of Heracles,Footnote ³ in which the choice between vice and virtue provided an avenue to celebrate the freedom of human beings, who forge their own destiny. In the eyes of several interpreters, from Xenophon to George Grote, this call to sacrifice and virtue constitutes the most striking refutation of the charge of immorality directed against the sophists.

According to a late tradition, Prodicus died in Athens when he was charged with corrupting the young and forced to drink a cup of hemlock. Modern scholars have often dismissed this as an unreliable account; however, other sources report that he was expelled from a gymnasium for having addressed inappropriate words to the young: ‘it is not impossible that he did have to face the kind of opposition which Protagoras spoke of as the common lot of all sophists’.Footnote ⁴

Thrasymachus of Chalcedon

Thrasymachus was born in Chalcedon, a Bithynian city on the Bosphorus, around 460 bc. He chiefly devoted himself to rhetoric and composed several treatises, contributing to the development of the so-called mixed style and art prose. After arriving in Athens, possibly for the first time, in 427 bc, he became involved in local politics, albeit indirectly, given his status as a foreigner. In all likelihood, the long fragment from his speech On the Constitution was drafted in the context of the heated polemics that led to the coup of 411 bc. The reference to the constitution of the Athenian ancestors (starting from Solon), the so-called Patrios politeia, was one of the themes exploited by oligarchic propaganda (in particular that of its more moderate wing) in order to curb the growing power of Athenian demagogues (according to a different interpretation, however, this is a fragment of a speech that the sophist delivered in 407 bc in defence of his home city of Chalcedon, after a failed uprising against Athens). The fragment from the speech For the People of Larissa instead refers to the troubled political situation in Thessaly and puts forward a pan-Hellenic ideal for anti-Macedonian purposes.

However, Thrasymachus’ fame is due not so much to the few surviving fragments of his writings as to Plato, who chose him as the protagonist of a memorable debate with Socrates in the first book of the Republic. The thesis defended by Thrasymachus, according to whom justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, constitutes a first expression of what later came to be described as ‘political realism’: there is a logic of force that imposes itself and imposes laws to serve one's self-interest, identifying the just with what contributes to asserting one's own power and interest. Justice, therefore, is no longer the principle capable of checking force, but rather a means to justify the predominance of those who find themselves in the stronger position. It remains to be ascertained, however, to what extent Thrasymachus actually endorsed theses of this sort. The source informing us of his suicide is dubious, and even the date of his death remains uncertain.

Hippias of Elis

Born in Elis, in the western Peloponnese, probably in 443 bc, Hippias was the first sophist to hail from a Doric city. He was widely admired (and generously remunerated) as a teacher and public speaker equipped with an astonishing memory, and served his city in many important diplomatic missions to Athens, Sparta, and Sicily. His political commitment also sealed his death, if we are to trust the report that he became involved with the democratic exiles fighting against the oligarchs in power in Elis (but it may be that our source here, Tertullian, is confusing the sophist with another famous Hippias, the son of the Athenian tyrant Peisistratos).

Hippias’ career unfolded under the aegis of polymathia: his remarkable versatility enabled him not just to discuss the most disparate subjects – including astronomy and mathematics, music and poetry, painting and sculpture, history and mythology – in a large number of texts, but to distinguish himself in practical matters too. He wrote speeches (epideixeis such as the Trojan Discourse, along with actual orations), epic verses, tragedies, and dithyrambs. He also drew up lists of winners in the Olympics and various other catalogues – including ones of the names of various peoples, of the priestesses of Hera at Argos, and of philosophical doctrines. These interests are reflected in what is arguably Hippias’ most important work, which is simply known as Synagoge, or Collection.

The sophist probably reached the height of his success at the time of his journey to Olympia, where he showed up wearing garments, footwear, and rings that he had crafted himself and which were no less beautiful than the most refined Persian jewels. Not only ancient authors (Plato) but also some modern interpreters have made some ironic remarks on Hippias’ qualities, since it is difficult to take a man seriously who claims to be able to do everything on his own. Others, however, have praised the sophist of Elis for his all-round ideal of man, combining brightness of mind and manual dexterity. Be that as it may, Hippias’ pursuits disprove the prejudice according to which the sophists were only interested in ethical and political matters. His many interests are not an empty show of erudition but proof of his desire to register the ongoing advances made by humankind in a wide range of areas. At least in this respect – namely his awareness of the historicity of the human experience – it is difficult to deny the importance of Hippias’ contribution.

Critias of Athens

Critias’ tomb was marked by a personification of oligarchy setting fire to democracy. In death as much as in life, Critias, the scion of one of Athens’ noblest families and Plato's uncle, would appear to have ardently striven after a single goal: to bring down the popular regime he loathed. This loathing is a recurrent feature of his life, from his early youthful experiences (his involvement in the Hermes’ mutilation in 415 bc and probably his joining of the coup of 411 bc) to the leading role he played in the much-despised government of the Thirty, which after the Spartan victory of 404 bc sought to turn Attica into a land of shepherds. He died fighting against the democrat Thrasybulus on Munichia in 403 bc.

A mark of infamy condemned Critias’ work to an unjust oblivion; however, he gave proof of remarkable versatility, applying himself to a wide range of literary genres and carving out a prominent place for himself in the cultural life of Athens. Of particular note are his studies on the various politeiai, which combined an analysis of the type of constitution with an investigation into the most relevant aspects of civilian life and military organization. Many fragments survive of his political elegies and other poetic compositions, which were well suited to symposia. Critias also composed some tragedies, although in some cases their authorship is uncertain. He can probably be credited with the fragments from the Tennes, Rhadamanthys, and Pirithous, which appear to have explored the sharing – out of love and friendship – ‘of the ultimate dangers, death or exile’ – dangers whose full weight Critias bore in his own life.Footnote ⁵ The case of the satyr-play Sisyphus is more problematic, because it can also be attributed to Euripides.

Philostratus featured Critias in his Lives of the Sophists: for this reason, perhaps, Diels chose to include him in his edition; and since then he has always been reckoned among the sophists. However, if we rule out the fragments from the Sisyphus, there seem to be no cogent reasons to regard Critias as a sophist: he was not a teacher and appears to have championed a kind of old-fashioned, pro-Spartan education, essentially hostile to the teachings of the sophists (although some points of convergence between the two may be found). The importance that Critias assigned to poetry also seems to be at odds with the sophists’ positions. Finally, even if one were to attribute the Sisyphus to him, this work is a theatrical text that cannot be taken to present doctrines personally endorsed by Critias. At most, like many other young Athenian nobles, he may be regarded as a pupil of the sophists (and of Socrates), but he can hardly be considered to have been a sophist himself.

Lycophron

Aristotle refers to Lycophron as a ‘sophist’: this is the only certain information we have about a figure of whom we otherwise know almost nothing – not where he came from, when he lived, or what his life was like. If the Lycophron mentioned by the anonymous author of the second Platonic letter (314d) were the sophist in question, we would know that he visited the court of Dionysius II in Sicily between 364 and 360 bc. Aristotle compares his style to that of Gorgias and Alcidamas, which has suggested the plausible conclusion that Lycophron was a pupil of Gorgias and a rough contemporary of Alcidamas. Lycophron would thus be a representative of the second generation of sophists. Our sources do not even record the titles of his works, although from the few testimonies we have it is possible to infer that he had a good command of the problems tackled by the most famous sophists – from the issue of language to the opposition between nomos and physis. This makes the lack of reliable information about him all the more regrettable.

Callicles of Acharnae

All we know about Callicles is what Plato tells us in the Gorgias. Some scholars have gone so far as to suggest that he is a fictional character. More reasonably, Dodds defended the opposite thesis, suggesting that Callicles truly existed but died young, thus leaving little memory of himself.Footnote ⁶ As far as we can judge from Plato's dialogue, he is reminiscent of another Athenian aristocrat, Critias. Like Critias, he is to be considered not so much a sophist as a pupil of the sophists – and Plato arguably used the figure of Callicles to illustrate the dangers of their theses.

Euthydemus and Dionysodorus of Chios

Most of the information that we have about these figures comes from Plato's Euthydemus; other testimonies from the Cratylus and Aristotle confirm that they were genuine historical figures. As far as we can tell, the distinctive feature of their work lies in their interest in sophisms, of which they make bold use in the Platonic dialogue. Ever since antiquity, this focus on paradoxical arguments has suggested a comparison with the Megarian School. Yet, there is no need, perhaps, to hypothesize, as Dorion 2009a does, that the two figures belonged to this school, thereby severing all links with the sophistic tradition. Rather – at any rate according to Plato's testimony – they represent the worst version of sophistry, the eristic type whose only goal was to win debates.

Alcidamas of Elaea

The only useful chronological information we have about Alcidamas is that, like Antisthenes and Lycophron, he was a pupil of Gorgias. He may indeed be regarded as a representative of the second generation of sophists, who appear to have focused almost exclusively on the art of rhetoric. He was probably one of the pupils of Gorgias most interested in the theme of improvisation, in contrast to those pupils (such as Isocrates) who instead privileged technical expertise and the drafting of written speeches. A trace of this contrast survives in the short speech entitled On the Writers of Written Discourses or On the Sophists. Along with a memorable sentence against slavery, Alcidamas is significantly associated with a speech entitled Odysseus against the Treachery of Palamedes: a work that, if genuine, would set him in competition with his master. Among the works now lost, the most important one is arguably Museum.

The Dissoi logoi and other anonymous treatises

Dissoi logoi (Twofold Arguments or Pairs of Arguments, as Laks and Most propose) is a text written in the Doric dialect that has been transmitted without a title or author as an appendix to the manuscripts of Sextus Empiricus, a sceptical philosopher lived under the Roman Empire. The title by which this text is known today comes from the opening words: ‘Twofold arguments are spoken in Greece…’. A reference to the end of the Peloponnesian War appears to suggest a date between the late fifth and early fourth century bc, although this is a controversial hypothesis. No less controversial is the nature of the text: it has been taken to consist of school exercises, an orator's notes, an epideixis, or even notes taken by a listener. What is clearer is its structure, which consists ‘in setting up opposing arguments about the identity or non-identity of apparently opposing moral and philosophical terms such as good and bad, true and false’.Footnote ⁷ Generally speaking, this text has not been very popular with modern scholars, who have often emphasized the banality of many of its arguments. However, its awareness of the relativity of any point of view and its tendency to arrange arguments into contrasting couples bear witness to ‘the remarkable maturity of Greek thought in the second half of the fifth century’.Footnote ⁸ It is important to keep this point in mind when approaching the Dissoi logoi, which is one of the texts that best illustrates the Greeks’ capacity to problematize reality.Footnote ⁹

Along with the Dissoi logoi, there are a number of other anonymous texts that, according to scholars, can be traced back to the world of the sophists. Arguably the most interesting of these is the so-called Anonymus Iamblichi. Iamblichus (third–fourth century ce) was a Neoplatonist philosopher and the author of a work entitled Protrepticus, which includes long excerpts from previous authors (for instance, from Aristotle's Protrepticus). Scholars have identified roughly ten pages devoted to a defence of nomos that may be traced back to the fifth/fourth-century bc debate. What is also unique about this text is its focus on economic issues. Another text for which a sophistic origin has been suggested is part of an oration, Against Aristogeiton, preserved in Democritus’ corpus: in this case too the topic discussed is the value of nomos. In both cases, however, it may be unwarranted to speak of a sophistic authorship; a more prudent approach would be to speak of texts influenced by sophistic themes. What may be inferred from these texts – without having to assign them to any specific sophist – is that the problems raised by the sophists continued to be debated for centuries.Footnote ¹⁰