RALLIKLES. 385 other 3vidence to sustain my denial, except what has been already extracted, from the unfriendly writings of Plato himself, respect- ing Protagoras and Hippias, with what we know from Xen- ophon about Prodikus, I should consider my case made out as vindicating the sophists generally from such an accusation. If refutation to the doctrine of Kallikles were needed, it would be obtained quite as efficaciously from Prodikus and Protagoras as from Sok rates and Plato. But this is not the strongest part of the vindication. First, Kallikles himself is not a sophist, nor represented by Plato as such. He is a young Athenian citizen, of rank and ptation, belonging to the deme Acharnas ; he is intimate with other young men of condition in the city, has recently entered into active political life, and bends his whole soul towards it ; he disparages philosophy, and speaks with utter contempt about the sophists. 1 If, then, it were even just, which I do not admit, to infer from opinions put into the mouth of one sophist, that the sophists, founded upon this same doctrine. The former says (p. 581) : "It ia affirmed as a common tenet of the sophists, there is no right by nature, but only by convention 5 " compare Brandis, p. 521. The very passages to which these writers refer, as far as they prove anything, prove the contrary of what they assert ; and Prcllcr actually imputes the contrary tenet to the sophists (Histor. Philosoph. c. 4, p. 130, Hamburg, 1838) with just as little authority. Both Hitter and Brandis charge the sophists with wickedness for this alleged tenet ; for denying that there was any right by nature, and allowing no right except by convention ; a doctrine which had been main- tained before them by Archelaus (Diogen. Laert. ii, 16). Now Plato (Legg x, p. 889), whom these writers refer to, charges certain wise men aoQovt; idiuTae re Kcii jroiijTuf (he docs not mention sophists) with wickedness, but on the ground directly opposite ; because they did acknowledge a right by nature, of greater authority titan the right laid down by the legislator ; and because they encouraged pupils to follow this supposed right of nature, dis- obeying the law ; interpreting the right of nature as Kallikles docs in the Gorgias ! Teachers arc thus branded as wicked men by Hitter and Brandis, for the negative, and by Plato, if he here means the sophists, for the affirmative doctrine. 1 Plato, Gorgias, c. 37, p. 481, D ; c. 41, p. 485, B, D ; c. 42, p. 487, C j c. 50, p. 495, B; c. 70, p. 515, A. ai> (lev avTOf uprt up%Ei irpiiTTf^v TO. Tyr iroAewf Trpuy^ara ; compare c. 55, p. 500, C. His contempt for the sophists, c. 75, p. 519, E, with the note of Heindorf. VOL. vni. 17 25oc.
