This is the same language as that of Kalliklês in the Gorgias of Plato, c. 40, p. 484.
[572] Stallbaum, Proleg. ad Platon. Protagor. p. 23: “Hoc vero ejus judicio ita utitur Socrates, ut eum dehinc dialecticâ subtilitate in summam consilii inopiam conjiciat. Colligit enim inde satis captiose rebus ita comparatis justitiam, quippe quæ a sanctitate diversa sit, plane nihil sanctitatis habituram, ac vicissim sanctitati nihil fore commune cum justitiâ. Respondet quidem ad hæc Protagoras, justitiam ac sanctitatem non per omnia sibi similes esse, nec tamen etiam prorsus dissimiles videri. Sed etsi verissima est hæc ejus sententia, tamen comparatione illâ a partibus faciei repetitâ, in fraudem inductus, et quid sit, in quo omnis virtutis natura contineatur, ignarus, sese ex his difficultatibus adeo non potest expedire,” etc.
Again, p. 24: “Itaque Socrates, missâ hujus rei disputatione, repente ad alia progreditur, scilicet similibus laqueis hominem deinceps denuo irretiturus.” ... “Nemini facile obscurum erit, hoc quoque loco, Protagoram argutis conclusiunculis deludi atque callide eo permoveri,” etc. ... p. 25: “Quanquam nemo erit, quin videat callide deludi Protagoram,” etc. ... p. 34: “Quod si autem ea, quæ in Protagorâ Sophistæ ridendi causâ e vulgi atque sophistarum ratione disputantur, in Gorgiâ ex ipsius philosophi mente et sententiâ vel brevius proponuntur vel copiosius disputantur,” etc.
Compare similar observations of Stallbaum, in his Prolegom. ad Theætet. pp. 12, 22; ad Menon. p. 16; ad Euthydemum, pp. 26, 30; ad Lachetem, p. 11; ad Lysidem, pp. 79, 80, 87; ad Hippiam Major. pp. 154-156.
“Facile apparet Socratem argutâ, quæ verbo φαίνεσθαι inest, diologiâ interlocutorem (Hippiam Sophistam) in fraudem inducere.” ... “Illud quidem pro certo et explorato habemus, non serio sed ridendi verandique Sophistæ gratiâ gravissimam illam sententiam in dubitationem vocari, ideoque iis conclusiunculis labefactari, quas quilibet paulo attentior facile intelligat non ad fidem faciendam, sed ad lusum jocumque, esse comparatas.”
[573] Plato, Sophistes, c. 52, p. 268.
[574] Cicero, Academ. iv, 23. Xenophon, at the close of his treatise De Venatione (c. 13), introduces a sharp censure upon the sophists, with very little that is specific or distinct. He accuses them of teaching command and artifice of words, instead of communicating useful maxims; of speaking for purposes of deceit, or for their own profit, and addressing themselves to rich pupils for pay; while the philosopher gives his lessons to every one gratuitously, without distinction of persons. This is the same distinction as that taken by Sokratês and Plato, between the sophist and the philosopher: compare Xenoph. De Vectigal. v, 4.
[575] Plato, Protagoras, c. 16, p. 328, B. Diogenes Laërtius (ix, 58) says that Protagoras demanded one hundred minæ as pay: little stress is to be laid upon such a statement, nor is it possible that he could have had one fixed rate of pay. The story told by Aulus Gellius (v, 10) about the suit at law between Protagoras and his disciple Euathlus, is at least amusing and ingenious. Compare the story of the rhetor Skopelianus, in Philostratus, Vit. Sophist. i, 21, 4.
Isokratês (Or. xv, de Perm. sect. 166) affirms that the gains made by Gorgias, or by any of the eminent sophists, had never been very high; that they had been greatly and maliciously exaggerated; that they were very inferior to those of the great dramatic actors (sect. 168).
[576] Aristot. Rhetoric. ii, 26. Ritter (p. 582) and Brandis (p. 521) quote very unfairly the evidence of the “Clouds” of Aristophanês, as establishing this charge, and that of corrupt teaching generally, against the sophists as a body. If Aristophanês is a witness against any one, he is a witness against Sokratês, who is the person singled out for attack in the “Clouds.” But these authors, not admitting Aristophanês as an evidence against Sokratês, whom he does attack, nevertheless quote him as an evidence against men like Protagoras and Gorgias, whom he does not attack.