RHETORICAL TEACHING 36? reality. Rhetoric (argues Plato, in the dialogue called Gorgias) is no art whatever, but a mere unscientific knack, enslaved to the dominant prejudices, and nothing better than an impostrous parody on the true political art." Now though Aristotle, follow- ing the Platonic vein, calls this power of making the worse appear the better reason, " the promise of Protagoras," l the accusation ought never to be urged as if it bore specially against the teachers of the Sokratic age. It is an argument against rhetorical teaching generally ; against all the most distinguished teachers of pupils for active life, throughout the ancient world, from Protagoras, Gorgias, Isokrates, etc., down to Quintilian. Not only does the argument bear equally against all, but it was actually urged against all. Isokrates 2 and Quintilian both defend themselves against it : Aristotle replies to it in the beginning of his treatise on rhetoric : nor was there ever any man, indeed, against whom it was pressed with greater bitterness of calumny than Sokrates, by Aristophanes, in his comedy of the " Clouds," as well as by other comic composers. Sokrates complains of it in his defence before his judges ; 3 characterizing such accusations 1 Aristot. Rhetoric, ii, 26. Ritter (p. 582) and Brandis (p. 521 ) quote very unfairly the evidence of the " Clouds" of Aristophanes, as establishing this charge, and that of corrupt teaching generally, against the sophists as a body. If Aristophanes is a witness against any one, he is a witness against Sokrates, who is the person singled out for attack in the " Clouds." But these authors, not admitting Aristophanes as an evidence against Sokrates, whom he does attack, nevertheless quote him as an evidence against men like Protagoras and Gorgias, whom he docs not attack.
- Isokrates, Or. xv, (De Permut.) sect. 16, vvv 6e teyti fiev (the accuser)
<if yo> rot>f ^rrovc Aoyovf Kpelrrovf 6vva/j.ai rrotclv, etc. Ibid. sect. 32. Tteipurai ps dia(3a?i.?.iv, <if (JtadiSt t'pcj rot> veurepovf, ?. yeiv diidanuv not TrapH rd dinaiov h> rotf iiyuat irfaovEKTCiv, etc. Again, sects. 59, 65, 95, 98, 187 (where he represents himself, like Sokratfis in his Defence, as vindicating philosophy generally against the accusation of corrupting youth), 233, 256. 3 Plato, Sok. Apolog. c. 10, p. 23, D. rH KOT<! TTUVTUV ruv Qihoaotyovvruv irpoxcipa ravra Xeyovaiv, OTI TU fiereupa Kal rH vird y^f, nal $fot)f pi) vopi* &iv, Kal rbv !JTTU hoyov upetTTu iroielv (6i6donu). Compare a similai expression in Xenophon, Mcmorab. i, 2, 31. rd KOIVTJ rolf Qtl.oaoQois ii-b rut iro2.%tiv fTirifiC>(ivov, etc. The same unfairness, in making this point tell against the sophists excla sively, is to be found in Wcstcrmann, Geschichte der Griecr. Beredsamkeil ecta. 30, 64.
