Now what astonishes me in the “sophists,” as they are called,1 is, that though they profess, the greater part of them, to lead the young to virtue, they really lead them in the opposite direction. Never have we set eyes on the man anywhere who owed his goodness to the sophists of today.2 Nor do their writings contain anything3 calculated to make men good, but they have written volumes on vain and frivolous subjects, in which the young may find pleasures that pall, but the essence of virtue is not in them. The result of this literature is to inflict unncessary waste of time on those who look to learn something from it all and look in vain, cutting them off from wholesome occupations and even teaching what is bad. I cannot then but blame them for certain large offences4 more than lightly; but as regards the subject matter of their writings my charge is, that while full of far-fetched phraseology,5 of solid wholesome sentiments, by which the young might be trained to virtue, I see not a vestige. Speaking as a plain man, I know that to be taught what is good by one’s own nature is best of all,6 and next best to learn of those who really do know some good thing rather than of those who have an art to deceive. It may well be that I fail to express myself in subtle language,7 nor do I pretend to aim at subtlety; what I do aim at is to express rightly-conceived thoughts such as may serve the need of those who have been nobly disciplined in virtue; for it is not words and names that give instruction, but thoughts and sentiments worthy the name.

Nor am I singular in thus reproaching the modern type of sophist (not the true philosopher, be it understood); it is a general reproach that the wisdom he professes consists in word-subtleties, not in ideas.8 Certainly it does not escape my notice that an orderly sequence of ideas adds beauty to the composition:9 I mean it will be easy to find fault with what is written incorrectly.10 Nevertheless, I warrant it is written in this fashion with an eye to rectitude, to make the reader wise and good, not more sophistical. For I would wish my writings not to seem but rather to be useful. I would have them stand the test of ages in their blamelessness.11

That is my point of view. The sophist has quite another — words with him are for the sake of deception, writing for personal gain; to benefit any other living soul at all is quite beside his mark. There never was nor is there now a sage among them to whom the title “wise” could be applied. No! the appellation “sophist” suffices for each and all, which among men of common sense12 sounds like a stigma. My advice then is to mistrust the sonorous catch-words13 of the sophist, and not to despise the reasoned conclusions14 of the philosopher; for the sophist is a hunter after the rich and young, the philosopher is the common friend of all; he neither honours nor despises the fortunes of men.

Nor would I have you envy or imitate those either who recklessly pursue the path of self-aggrandisement,15 whether in private or in public life; but consider well16 that the best of men,17 the true nobility, are discovered by their virtu............