What do you think?
Rate this book
The Greek Sophists
By mid-5th century BC, Athens was governed by democratic rule and power turned upon the ability of the citizen to command the attention of the people, and to sway the crowds of the assembly. It was the Sophists who understood the art of rhetoric and the importance of transforming effective reasoning into persuasive public speaking. Their enquiries - into the status of women, slavery, the distinction between Greeks and barbarians, the existence of the gods, the origins of religion, and whether virtue can be taught - laid the groundwork for the insights of the next generation of thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
419 pages, Paperback
First published July 29, 2003
12 people are currently reading
378 people want to read
About the author
John M. Dillon
46 books13 followersJohn Myles Dillon (/ˈdɪlən/; born 15 September 1939) is an Irish classicist and philosopher who was Regius Professor of Greek in Trinity College, Dublin between 1980 and 2006. Prior to that he taught at the University of California, Berkeley. He was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Athens on 15 June 2010. Dillon's area of research lies in the history of Platonism from the Old Academy to the Renaissance, and also Early Christianity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 18, 2017
I have to say that I did find this book interesting. I wasn't certain that it was going to keep me engaged, but it did.
Having Platonist sympathies, I have had a tendency to see the Sophists as hacks and con men. But reading this has at least helped in appreciating the ways they utilized language. Also, they did lay bare the ambiguities of language in some cases--even if one recognizes how ridiculous some of their semantical arguments really are. Plato gets this across to some degree in his dialogues that portray the sophists, but it is indeed often ironical there. Seneca noted a sophistical argument (originally attributed to Eubulides and not included in this book) that went something like this: "That which you have not lost, you have. You have not lost horns. Therefore, you have horns." These kinds of language conundrums are pretty silly on the surface, but if they help one to recognize the ambiguities of language, they may be of some utility. It was this kind of language trickery that the Sophists were known for. Whether Euthydemus and Dionysodorus took seriously their suppositional false dichotomy that one either knows nothing or knows everything is not entirely clear, but one can at least appreciate their demonstration of conundrums that occasionally accompany language when it comes to sense and context. They can be given credit for that at least. Although, one must admit that the Sophists often made money off of simple word chicanery.
Along with the above, the Sophists were the earliest Western thinkers that recognized the power of language in and upon society. Language really is capable of incredible influence when it is formulated and constructed in particular ways. The Sophists should be appreciated for being among the first to recognize this and the first to teach wordcraft. We take this for granted in this day in age, where advertisers and politicians have been manipulating people with constructed language for generations.
As I've stated before in other reviews, when it comes to the early Stoics, the Pre-Socratics and also the Sophists, our knowledge is rather paltry in terms of textual evidence because the original works mostly only exist in fragments (a notable exception is Gorgias) and in treatments by other writers. Be that as it may, when one sees all the fragments and references collected in one source as this book seeks to do, one can get a pretty good idea of what these thinkers were working with.
I give the book around three-and-a-half stars. It kept my attention and I found the accompanying commentary quite engaging.
Having Platonist sympathies, I have had a tendency to see the Sophists as hacks and con men. But reading this has at least helped in appreciating the ways they utilized language. Also, they did lay bare the ambiguities of language in some cases--even if one recognizes how ridiculous some of their semantical arguments really are. Plato gets this across to some degree in his dialogues that portray the sophists, but it is indeed often ironical there. Seneca noted a sophistical argument (originally attributed to Eubulides and not included in this book) that went something like this: "That which you have not lost, you have. You have not lost horns. Therefore, you have horns." These kinds of language conundrums are pretty silly on the surface, but if they help one to recognize the ambiguities of language, they may be of some utility. It was this kind of language trickery that the Sophists were known for. Whether Euthydemus and Dionysodorus took seriously their suppositional false dichotomy that one either knows nothing or knows everything is not entirely clear, but one can at least appreciate their demonstration of conundrums that occasionally accompany language when it comes to sense and context. They can be given credit for that at least. Although, one must admit that the Sophists often made money off of simple word chicanery.
Along with the above, the Sophists were the earliest Western thinkers that recognized the power of language in and upon society. Language really is capable of incredible influence when it is formulated and constructed in particular ways. The Sophists should be appreciated for being among the first to recognize this and the first to teach wordcraft. We take this for granted in this day in age, where advertisers and politicians have been manipulating people with constructed language for generations.
As I've stated before in other reviews, when it comes to the early Stoics, the Pre-Socratics and also the Sophists, our knowledge is rather paltry in terms of textual evidence because the original works mostly only exist in fragments (a notable exception is Gorgias) and in treatments by other writers. Be that as it may, when one sees all the fragments and references collected in one source as this book seeks to do, one can get a pretty good idea of what these thinkers were working with.
I give the book around three-and-a-half stars. It kept my attention and I found the accompanying commentary quite engaging.
April 21, 2024
Sophistry has acquired a bit of a bad reputation over the millennia. The term is commonly used to characterize fallacious, shallow, or otherwise poor reasoning that has been gussied up with flowery, rhetorical ornamentation, often with the intent to deceive. Despite what Plato and Aristotle (to a lesser extent) might believe, however, that characterization is not warranted. Yes, there is a bit of verbal trickery and a bit of word play and maybe a bit of pandering to the audience, but considering that the sophists were teaching people how to publicly disclaim on matters of law and politics, there is no denying that speaking in a way that 1) grabs attention, 2) amplifies one character, 3) moves people to actions or beliefs, and 4) keeps people engaged is of paramount importance. There is little denying the utility of of what the sophists taught.
There are so many interesting figures profiled in this book. Among my favorites are Protagoras of Abdera ("Man is the measure of all things" and "No statement can be contradicted"), Prodicus of Ceos, Alcidamas of Elaea, and Gorgias of Leontini. Gorgias was particularly interesting as someone who cultivated a manner of speaking that incorporated elements of poetry into his speeches. The poetry made the speeches more engaging and enjoyable, often making the audiences happier and more agreeable, no matter the content. Poetry does not hold quite the same sway today, but this insight is no less valuable -- consider how many people get their news from comedy shows and how dressing up public information in the form of comedy does all the things sophists taught. More insidiously, consider how dressing up information in the form of inflammatory political and conspiratorial rhetoric achieves the same thing. Certainly there is value to seeing into the art by which people are made to listen and act.
The collection itself is nicely done. Because much of what is handed down to us about the sophists comes from text fragments, it is incumbent on an editor to stitch the fragments together in a coherent way John Dillon and Tania Gergel do a very good job of linking the primary fragments together and contextualizing (and sometimes editorializing) on secondary materials that help illuminate the primary.
- a proud sophist
There are so many interesting figures profiled in this book. Among my favorites are Protagoras of Abdera ("Man is the measure of all things" and "No statement can be contradicted"), Prodicus of Ceos, Alcidamas of Elaea, and Gorgias of Leontini. Gorgias was particularly interesting as someone who cultivated a manner of speaking that incorporated elements of poetry into his speeches. The poetry made the speeches more engaging and enjoyable, often making the audiences happier and more agreeable, no matter the content. Poetry does not hold quite the same sway today, but this insight is no less valuable -- consider how many people get their news from comedy shows and how dressing up public information in the form of comedy does all the things sophists taught. More insidiously, consider how dressing up information in the form of inflammatory political and conspiratorial rhetoric achieves the same thing. Certainly there is value to seeing into the art by which people are made to listen and act.
The collection itself is nicely done. Because much of what is handed down to us about the sophists comes from text fragments, it is incumbent on an editor to stitch the fragments together in a coherent way John Dillon and Tania Gergel do a very good job of linking the primary fragments together and contextualizing (and sometimes editorializing) on secondary materials that help illuminate the primary.
- a proud sophist
August 15, 2022
Not as bad as Plato would have us believe.
February 18, 2024
‘Athens, in the middle of the fifth century BC, was one of the most intellectually lively societies the world has ever seen. Having been instrumental in the spectacular and quite unanticipated triumph over a (numerically) vastly superior invading Persian expeditionary force in 480/79, the city-state of Athens, over the next half-century, built itself up into the political, economic and cultural powerhouse of Greece….’ – with these words commence a most fabulous journey.
It is the second half of the fifth century BC. A group of immigrants come to Athens and become professional teachers of higher education, that is, education that goes beyond the material taught in Greek schools. They are called ‘sophists’, because, at the time, the term sophist refer to men who are ‘professionals of the intelligence,’ and it applied to a wide range of thinkers.
The author of the book under review says: ‘The word sophistês, which seems first to gain currency early in the fifth century, means originally, with a favourable or at least neutral connotation, something like ‘expert’ or ‘pundit’, one who is skilled or ‘wise’ (sophos) in a particular art or craft…’
Into ten chapters this book has been divided:
1. PROTAGORAS OF ABDERA
2. GORGIAS OF LEONTINI
3. PRODICUS OF CEOS
4. HIPPIAS OF ELIS
5. ANTIPHON
6. THRASYMACHUS OF CHALCEDON
7. CRITIAS OF ATHENS
8. EUTHYDEMUS AND DIONYSODORUS OF CHIOS
9. ALCIDAMAS OF ELAEA
10. THE ANONYMUS IAMBLICHI AND THE DOUBLE ARGUMENTS
The book opens with the most representative of the Sophists, Protagoras of Abdera. Even Plato who was not very impartial to the Sophists esteemed Protagoras, called him a nobleman and a philosopher 'never, losing his temper, never jealous of another's brilliance'. Protagoras, as Plato himself detected, undertook to teach his pupils prudence in private and public matters, the art of persuasive speaking and the ability affairs of state.
The book discusses Hippias of Elis, yet another Sophist who was a university in himself. He taught astronomy, mathematics, made original contributions to geometry, was a musician, a poet, an orator and a historian. He lectured on politics, ethics, literature and laid the foundation of Greek chronology by accumulating the chronology of the victors at the Olympic games.
Other Sophists such as Antiphon, Thrasymachus were of a lesser type. Antiphon like Democritus believed in atheism and materialism, and demarcated justice terms of practicality. Thrasymachus identified right with might.
So what fine-points do we carry from this book? The following
*In the history of Greece and for that matter, in that of Athens, the Sophists must be regarded as one of the most vital factors. Not only Greece, but Europe benefited from their learning.
*Grammar and logic for Europe were their invention. They developed dialectic, analysed the forms of argument and taught men how to detect fallacies. The Sophists, through their teaching made reasoning the ruling passion with the Greeks. By applying logic to language they promoted clarity and precision of thought, and facilitated accurate transmission of knowledge.
*Through them, prose became a form of literature, and poetry became a vehicle of philosophy. Refusing to follow tradition, the Sophists tested everything by the yardstick of reason and shared in the rationalist movement which ultimately broke off the ancient faith of the Hellas.
*Yet, this book also shows that it will not be correct to credit the Sophists for all this. The new outlook was in the air and the growing wealth, leisure, travel and research as also assumption had their part to play in the above achievements. The deterioration of morals was also not due to their contribution.
*It was largely due to growing wealth unaided by philosophy which put an end to puritanism and stoicism. The emphasis on knowledge raised the educational level of the Greeks but it did not develop the intellect as it liberated intellect. Knowledge did not make men modest, on the contrary it made every man to consider himself the measure of all things.
*The Sophist idea that Nature was superior to Law led to a belief that whatever Nature permitted was good regardless of customs and laws. This led to new experiments in living. Ancient supports of Greek morality was sapped. Old men mourned the passing of domestic virtues and domestic fidelity.
*Pursuit of wealth and pleasure made public men reject morals as superstitious. The unscrupulous individualism led to chicanery and political demagogy and degenerated the broad cosmopolitanism into callousness about patriotism or even readiness to handover the country to the highest bidder.
*Conservative and religious minded people and the common people of the urban democracy began to consider philosophy a danger to the state. Some philosophers themselves also joined in the attack upon the Sophists for the prevalent malady. Socrates began his career by delivering a speech against the Sophists. Aristotle also continued the attack on them. This book says: ‘It was Socrates and Plato, the opponents of the sophists, who denigrated the meaning of the term to one of contempt as caught in the word, sophistry.’
In fine, one must say that, too much commercialisation of knowledge by the Sophists and their charging of steep fees became a matter of great scorn with many. Yet we must conclude that this was but the darker side of the shield, for without the Sophists Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have been impossible.
Enchanted by the style of writing!! Most recommended.
It is the second half of the fifth century BC. A group of immigrants come to Athens and become professional teachers of higher education, that is, education that goes beyond the material taught in Greek schools. They are called ‘sophists’, because, at the time, the term sophist refer to men who are ‘professionals of the intelligence,’ and it applied to a wide range of thinkers.
The author of the book under review says: ‘The word sophistês, which seems first to gain currency early in the fifth century, means originally, with a favourable or at least neutral connotation, something like ‘expert’ or ‘pundit’, one who is skilled or ‘wise’ (sophos) in a particular art or craft…’
Into ten chapters this book has been divided:
1. PROTAGORAS OF ABDERA
2. GORGIAS OF LEONTINI
3. PRODICUS OF CEOS
4. HIPPIAS OF ELIS
5. ANTIPHON
6. THRASYMACHUS OF CHALCEDON
7. CRITIAS OF ATHENS
8. EUTHYDEMUS AND DIONYSODORUS OF CHIOS
9. ALCIDAMAS OF ELAEA
10. THE ANONYMUS IAMBLICHI AND THE DOUBLE ARGUMENTS
The book opens with the most representative of the Sophists, Protagoras of Abdera. Even Plato who was not very impartial to the Sophists esteemed Protagoras, called him a nobleman and a philosopher 'never, losing his temper, never jealous of another's brilliance'. Protagoras, as Plato himself detected, undertook to teach his pupils prudence in private and public matters, the art of persuasive speaking and the ability affairs of state.
The book discusses Hippias of Elis, yet another Sophist who was a university in himself. He taught astronomy, mathematics, made original contributions to geometry, was a musician, a poet, an orator and a historian. He lectured on politics, ethics, literature and laid the foundation of Greek chronology by accumulating the chronology of the victors at the Olympic games.
Other Sophists such as Antiphon, Thrasymachus were of a lesser type. Antiphon like Democritus believed in atheism and materialism, and demarcated justice terms of practicality. Thrasymachus identified right with might.
So what fine-points do we carry from this book? The following
*In the history of Greece and for that matter, in that of Athens, the Sophists must be regarded as one of the most vital factors. Not only Greece, but Europe benefited from their learning.
*Grammar and logic for Europe were their invention. They developed dialectic, analysed the forms of argument and taught men how to detect fallacies. The Sophists, through their teaching made reasoning the ruling passion with the Greeks. By applying logic to language they promoted clarity and precision of thought, and facilitated accurate transmission of knowledge.
*Through them, prose became a form of literature, and poetry became a vehicle of philosophy. Refusing to follow tradition, the Sophists tested everything by the yardstick of reason and shared in the rationalist movement which ultimately broke off the ancient faith of the Hellas.
*Yet, this book also shows that it will not be correct to credit the Sophists for all this. The new outlook was in the air and the growing wealth, leisure, travel and research as also assumption had their part to play in the above achievements. The deterioration of morals was also not due to their contribution.
*It was largely due to growing wealth unaided by philosophy which put an end to puritanism and stoicism. The emphasis on knowledge raised the educational level of the Greeks but it did not develop the intellect as it liberated intellect. Knowledge did not make men modest, on the contrary it made every man to consider himself the measure of all things.
*The Sophist idea that Nature was superior to Law led to a belief that whatever Nature permitted was good regardless of customs and laws. This led to new experiments in living. Ancient supports of Greek morality was sapped. Old men mourned the passing of domestic virtues and domestic fidelity.
*Pursuit of wealth and pleasure made public men reject morals as superstitious. The unscrupulous individualism led to chicanery and political demagogy and degenerated the broad cosmopolitanism into callousness about patriotism or even readiness to handover the country to the highest bidder.
*Conservative and religious minded people and the common people of the urban democracy began to consider philosophy a danger to the state. Some philosophers themselves also joined in the attack upon the Sophists for the prevalent malady. Socrates began his career by delivering a speech against the Sophists. Aristotle also continued the attack on them. This book says: ‘It was Socrates and Plato, the opponents of the sophists, who denigrated the meaning of the term to one of contempt as caught in the word, sophistry.’
In fine, one must say that, too much commercialisation of knowledge by the Sophists and their charging of steep fees became a matter of great scorn with many. Yet we must conclude that this was but the darker side of the shield, for without the Sophists Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have been impossible.
Enchanted by the style of writing!! Most recommended.
July 13, 2018
The name "sophist" holds negative connotations to this very day, largely due to the efforts of Plato, but let us not forget that these philosophers were the first thinkers in Western philosophy to realize how truly important language really is. Every philosopher in the area of language today, up to and including Wittgenstein himself, has the DNA, so to speak, of the sophists in them, even if they did not share their business model. Rather than seeing them as hacks and con men who charge absurd amounts of money from naive young men, one should study these thinkers as though they were any other ancient philosopher.
This excellent little collection here by the great classicist John M. Dillon who also did work on a fantastic anthology of Neoplatonist texts, is excellently translated and researched, with frequent and relevant endnotes giving a reader who may not be familiar with the texts and customs being discussed here full context. To my knowledge, this is the best book on the Sophists to date.
This excellent little collection here by the great classicist John M. Dillon who also did work on a fantastic anthology of Neoplatonist texts, is excellently translated and researched, with frequent and relevant endnotes giving a reader who may not be familiar with the texts and customs being discussed here full context. To my knowledge, this is the best book on the Sophists to date.
August 28, 2025
Overall, this can helpful if you want to learn about rhetoric and "sophistry" in its original and oldest form. The sophists in this book do have helpful things to say.
However, I don't feel that the people who put this together did a great job. The author(s) are opinionated, saying things like "Podicus is represented as being inferior in distinction to Potagoras (which is of course, reasonable)", and much of the text is written in separate fragments. It can be difficult and exhausting to try to understand if the fragments were written by the sophist being mentioned, or if it was hearsay from one of the contemporaries. This problem could have easily been fixed by organizing the material differently and more deeply discussing, the source materials, translations, and limits of discussing some of these ancient figures.
I thought this was a disappointing read from an entertainment and pleasure standpoint, this book was basically written as pure reference material for university students trying to write a paper or something.
However, I don't feel that the people who put this together did a great job. The author(s) are opinionated, saying things like "Podicus is represented as being inferior in distinction to Potagoras (which is of course, reasonable)", and much of the text is written in separate fragments. It can be difficult and exhausting to try to understand if the fragments were written by the sophist being mentioned, or if it was hearsay from one of the contemporaries. This problem could have easily been fixed by organizing the material differently and more deeply discussing, the source materials, translations, and limits of discussing some of these ancient figures.
I thought this was a disappointing read from an entertainment and pleasure standpoint, this book was basically written as pure reference material for university students trying to write a paper or something.
January 3, 2011
A very Thorough review of these important philosophers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews