error. This seems the most correct definition, but the word is used loosely. Its general signification, viz. a specious proposition, is perhaps nearest the mark. Truly considered, most errors are sophisms, for errors are not direct contradictions to the truth, but simply the leaving out of view one or more elements of the truth, and seizing on only one or two elements, and declaring them to constitute the whole truth. Victor Cousin defines error to be 'One element of thought considered exclusively, and taken for the complete thought itself. Error is nothing but an incomplete truth converted into an absolute truth." (Introduction à l'Hist. de Philosophie, Leçon 7.) Spinoza had before defined' falsity to be that privation of truth which arises from inadequate ideas.' (Ethica, b. ii., prop. xxxv.) A selection of some of the celebrated sophisms of antient philosophers will best illustrate the meaning of the definition. The lying' sophism was this: if, when you speak the truth, you say you lie, you lie; but you say you lie, when you speak the truth, therefore in speaking the truth you lie. The occult' sophism: Do you know your father? Yes. Do you know this man who is veiled? No. Then you do not know your father, for it is your father who is veiled. The sorites:' Is one grain a heap? No. Two grains? No. Three grains? No. Go on adding one by one, and if one grain be not a heap, it will be impossible to say what number of grains make a heap. (Enfield, Hist of Philos., i., p. 200.) In all of these we see that important omission, or confusion of ideas or names, constitutes the apparent contradiction. In the common example of Bread being better than paradise; because bread is better than nothing, and nothing is better than paradise -the confusion arises from both the 'nothings' being used substantively; whereas it is only the first that is so used; the second is affirmative, and expresses there is nothing better.' A sophism is therefore the use of some word in a different sense in the premises from that in the conclusion, and this is the definition of Aristotle (Top., viii. 11): When the discourse is a demonstration of anything, if it contains anything which has no relation to the conclusion, there will be no syllogism; and if there appears to be one, it will be a sophism, and not a demonstration.'

This confusion of words and ideas, though carried to a ridiculous excess in the above examples, is the origin of all errors and sophisms; but though errors and sophisms are logically constituted alike, yet the instinctive sense of mankind marks the difference between incomplete views (error) and wilful perversion (sophism). In all cases a sophism is supposed to be recognised as such by the sophist. It is an endeavour on his part to make the worse appear the better reason.' It is the consciousness then of the sophist which distinguishes and renders odious his error as a sophism. SOPHIST (Zopiorns). It is well known,' says Dr. Wiggers, 'that the word copiσrns at first had an honourable meaning, and was synonymous with oopóc, a sage, a scholar in its widest sense, for even artists were comprehended in it. Protagoras was the first who adopted the name of ooporns, to distinguish more decidedly one who makes others wise, especially one who taught eloquence, the art of governing, politics, or, in short, any kind of practical knowledge. From that time the word sophist acquired that odious meaning which it retains at the present day. Afterwards, in the time of the Roman emperors, the name of sophist again became an honourable appellation, and was applied to the rhetoricians.' (Life of Socrates, p. xiii., trans.) The race of Sophists, whose enmity to Socrates, their great opponent, has perhaps been the principal cause of their celebrity, was not without influence on the philosophy and literature of Greece. They were a class of men who went about Greece discoursing and debating, and sometimes educating the youthful sons of rich and noble families. The cause of their success lay in the very nature and habits of the Greek people, who were so much addicted to talk and so little to study-who were so passionately fond of and so easily led by rhetoric. And the easy triumph which a fluent talker can always attain by a rapid and artful confusion of words and ideas, must also have operated in their favour. The period at which the Sophists flourished was one of obsolete creeds-one lifeless from the want of some vivifying faith. Religion was attacked by open scepticism; the whole sect of the Eleatæ, with the exception of Empedocles, appear to have handled the history of the gods with arbitrary and allegoris ng boldness. Even the pious Pythagorean | adopted the old religion merely in a peculiar sense of his own; Heraclitus argued against its probability; AnaxaP. C., No. 1391.

goras understood it allegorically; and lastly, Hippo was regarded as an open and avowed atheist. Euripides, Protagoras, Diogenes, Prodicus, and Critias, all denied the existence of the gods. (Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. i.) Everything human and divine had lost its earnest na ture, and came to be regarded as an art-an exercise of ingenuity. The art of the Sophists was oratory. Assuming that there was nothing right in its nature, but only by position (Tò díkalov Kai Tò aioxpòv où puoɛi, áλλà vóμy, Plato, Gorg., p. 482), it was their boast that they could make the worse appear the better cause. (Aristotle, Rhet., ii. 24.) Their doctrines closely resemble those of the Sceptics, since they equally denied the possibility of truth, and even interdicted inquiry into it; but the distinction between these sects consists in the Sophists' not masking their arrogance under doubt, but boldly and distinctly averring that there was no truth at all, and seeking to communicate this wisdom to others, to save them the trouble of investigation.

The doctrine of Protagoras tends to deny the possibility of anything objective being represented by thought, and by making human thought the standard of all truth (rávтwv xonμárov μérpov äveρonos, Plato, Craty., 385), and affirming that each manner of viewing things has its contrary, so that there is as mucn truth on one side as on the other, it is deduced as a consequence that the end of philosophy is persuasion; and oratory being the art of persuasion, it was to that which they directed their greatest attention. (Plato, Theatetus.) Ritter however observes that Plato, it is certain, attributed much to Protagoras that did not actually belong to him.' (Geschichte der Phil., vol. i.)

But Protagoras, however sophistical his doctrines, appears to have been in earnest, and to have deduced them rigorously from his premises. Among his followers, as always happens, this earnestness was wanting, and accordingly we find Gorgias (as sketched by Plato) without a single claim to respect; and Euthydemus a despicable babbler. With these latter men it was truly sophistryquackery; and answered their purposes, for they amassed considerable wealth thereby. (Ritter, vol. i.)

Gorgias wrote a work on nature, or non-being, fragments of which are preserved in Aristotle and Sextus Empiricus, in which he endeavoured to prove that nothing is; that if anything is, it cannot be an object of knowledge; and finally, that if even anything is, and can be known, it cannot be imparted to others. (Ritter; Tennemann, Manuel, p. 123.) He reasons thus: if anything is, it must be either being or non-being, or even at one and the same time both being and non-being. (Sextus Emp. adv. Math., vii. 66.) All these cases are impossible; for a non-being cannot be, because it is the opposite of being; and therefore, if the latter is, the former cannot be; because if it were, it must be at the same time being and non-being. Aristotle, according to Ritter, gives the reasoning and proofs differently, but his text is so corrupt as to prevent any confidence being placed in it. Nor is being possible: for it cannot be either produced or unproduced, neither one, nor many, nor yet both at once. Nor can it be at once being and non-being; for if there is both that which is and that which is not, then must they, in reference to being, be one and the same. But if they are the same, then that which is is also that which is not; the non-being however is not, and consequently the being cannot be. (Sext. Emp. adv. Muth., vii. 75; Ritter.) As consequences of this arid sophistry, be deduces that if we suppose being to be an object of thought, it must be similar to being; or in other words, that it must be being itself, for otherwise being cannot be an object of thought. Now if thought is being, then every thought must be true, and non-being is inconceivable. In vain do we object that only those thoughts are true which are confirmed by perception; for as the object of sight is true, though it be not heard, so a thought may be true, though it cannot be perceived. (Sextus Emp., ib., 77, et seq.) A notable instance of the sophistical argument which assumes an analogy as a proof, taking care the analogy itself shall be false.

It is curious to contemplate a highly intellectual nation delighting in such barren quibbles as these, and the fact of the prevalence of sophistry indicates an important phasis in Greek history. We have a parallel in our schoolmen of the middle ages, who were quite as sophistical and as trifling. But it is also important to notice the influence which such a sect had on philosophy and literature. It was the prac tical demonstration of the incompetence of all previous phiVOL. XXII-2 L

Eschylus are more calculated to inspire religious awe. | Sophocles knew the laws of his art and what it required, as appears from an expression ascribed to him by Plutarch (De Prof. Virt., Sent. 7). During his whole career he appears to have been striving to realize the idea which he had formed of tragedy. In the three earliest of the extant plays there appear occasionally traces of an artificial style and studied obscurity, but the remaining four are entirely free of this fault. But even the Antigone' is so different from any play of Eschylus in design and execution, that he must have long before been aware of the necessity of the changes which he introduced. The more particular changes to which we here allude are as follows. Each drama of Sophocles turns upon one great action, the Antigone' perhaps excepted; and one idea, which is the leading idea of the drama, is perfectly developed in one play; while with Eschylus the three plays of a trilogy are like so many acts of one drama. Although therefore Sophocles may usually have brought out three tragedies at once, each of them was complete in itself. The lyric part, or the chorus, in Sophocles has no longer that prominent place which it has in Eschylus, nor does it take part in the action in the same degree; it no longer expresses the feelings supposed to be called forth in the audience; but the tragic development of the characters of the drama, or, in other words, the action, is the most prominent part of the drama. The chorus is subordinate, and it would seem that Sophocles used it as a means to let the spectator see what was going on in the minds of the actors rather than in that of the spectators. As the action was thus extended, Sophocles also introduced a third actor, or the tritagonistes, so that now three actors might appear upon the stage at once, whereas before his time there had not been more than two at a time, which rendered the action, as well as the dialogue, monotonous. Lastly Sophocles introduced several improvements in scene-painting and in other mechanical parts of stage performance. At first he is said, like Eschylus, to have acted in his own dramas, but as his voice was too weak, he gave it up.

Besides his dramas, Sophocles also wrote an elegy, several paeans, and other minor poems, and also a prose work on the chorus, which was directed against Thespis and Choerilus. Several antient grammarians, such as Didymus, Horapollon, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Androtion, Praxiphanes, and others, wrote commentaries upon the dramas of Sophocles.

Respecting the life and works of Sophocles, see the Life, by an anonymous Greek writer, which is prefixed to several editions of his works; Suidas, s. v Zoookλns; the masterly treatise of Lessing, 'Leben des Sophocles,' which has unfortunately been left a fragment by the author; Ferd. Schultz, De Vita Sophoclis Poetæ,' Bonn, 1836, 8vo.; Adolph Schöll, Sophocles, sein Wirken und Leben,' Frankfurt, 8vo.; Müller, Hist. of the Lit. of Antient Greece,' i., p. 337-356; A. W. v. Schlegel, 'Lectures on Dramatic Literature,' vol. i., lect. 4.

leading idea of each play, as far as this can be made out from the fragments. The

The translations of Sophocles are very numerous. best German is that by Solger, the last edition of which appeared at Berlin, 1824, 2 vols. 8vo. There are numerous English translations: in prose, by George Adams, London, 1729, 2 vols., and others subsequently; in verse, by Franklin, London, 1758-9, 2 vols. 4to., and 1766 and 1788, 8vo.; by Robert Potter, London, 1788; and by Thomas Dale, 1824. SOPHONISBE. [NUMIDIA.]

SOPHORA, a genus of plants of the natural family of Leguminosa, said to be so named from an Arabic name (Sophera) of one of the species. These are ornamental shrubs and trees, found in central and tropical Asia, also in the warm parts of North America and the equinoctial and subtropical parts of South America. The genus is characterised by having a 5-toothed campanulate calyx; corol papilionaceous; petals of the keel usually united together at their apex; stamens 10, distinct; legumes moniliform, without joints or wings, and containing several seeds; the leaves are impari-pinnate, usually exstipulate and terminal; the inflorescence is in racemes or panicles of yellow, white, or blue flowers. The species best known in England are S. japonica and S. chinensis, which, being from the northern latitudes of the countries from which they are named, are hardy enough to withstand the climate of England; and it has been proposed to engraft the Nepaul S. velutina on the S. japonica. Being handsome trees, with both leaves and trees differing much from European trees, they are well adapted for standing singly in lawns. They are raised from layers, but also from seeds, and require a little protection when young.

SO'PHRON, son of Agathocles, a native of Syracuse, was born about the year B.C. 420. He is believed to have been the inventor of a peculiar kind of poetry called mimes. [MIMES.] He wrote his works in the vulgar dialect of the Doric Greek as spoken in Sicily, and in a kind of rythmical prose. Plato, who had become acquainted with the productions of Sophron through Dion of Syracuse, valued them very highly, and is said to have made the Athenians acquainted with this species of poetry. (Quinctil., i. 10, 17.) Besides the few fragments of the mimes of Sophron which yet remain, we only know the titles of some others of his poems, so that we are scarcely able to form an exact idea of this species of poetry. The circumstance that Sophron wrote in a popular dialect full of peculiarities and solecisms, was probably the reason why his works were studied by the grammarians. Apollodorus of Athens wrote a commentary upon them.

The fragments are collected by C. J. Blomfield, in the Classical Journal,' vol. iv., p. 380, &c., to which a supplement and some corrections were added by the same scholar in the Museum Criticum,' No. VII., p. 640, &c. Compare Grysar, De Sophrone Mimographo,' Coloniæ, 1838. SOPORIFICS. [ANODYNES; NARCOTICS.] SOPRA'NO (Italian), the highest of the various voices; the Treble. [VOICE.]

SORA. [LAVORO, TERRA DI.]

bonne; the commoners were doctors or bachelors of the House of the Sorbonne. The whole management of the society, and, so far as appears, its property, were vested in the fellows, among whom there was no gradation of authority; all were equal; there was neither 'Superior' nor Principal;' some distinctions of office and precedence there appear to have been, but no power of one over another; and so strictly was this equality observed, that no regular ecclesiastic could be a fellow, because he was subject to his 'principal' or 'superior; and a fellow entering into any religious order, forfeited his fellowship thereby. The fellowships appear to have been appointments for life. The officers appear to have been elected by the fellows from among themselves; they were the superintendant (proviseur), who was always a man of eminence; the prior, who presided at their assemblies, examinations, &c., and was always chosen from among the bachelor-fellows; the elder (senieur); the professors, the librarian, the conscripteur, the procureurs, &c. There were apartments in the college for thirty-six persons, and latterly thirty-seven. The doctors and bachelors were from the first allowed to receive poor scholars as pupils They taught theology gratuitously, and from 1253 to the suppression of the college there were at least six professors who gave gratuitous instruction in the different branches of theology. The college was from time to time enriched by legacies and denations. Robert de Sorbonne took great pains in the establishment of a library, which became one of the most valuable in France: in 1289-90, when a catalogue was made, it consisted of above a thousand volumes, worth more than 30,000 livres, or 15007., a large sum in those days, and so far increased in 1292, that it became necessary to make out a new catalogue. The accessions between this year and 1338 amounted in value to 3812 livres, or 1907. All the more valuable books were antiently chained to little desks or stands (tablettes), and were arranged according to their subjects. Antient catalogues of the dates of 1289-90 and 1338 were in existence when Ladvocat wrote (A.D. 1760).

The buildings of the college, which are in the south of Paris, near the palace of the Luxembourg, having become much dilapidated, were rebuilt by Cardinal Richelieu, who demolished the college of Calvi in order to build the church. He had engaged to restore this smaller college, but died before he could effect his purpose, and it was never restored. The church itself, after the suppression of the college, was appropriated to other purposes, but has since been restored to its original use as a place of public worship. The other buildings of the college are occupied by the three faculties of theology, science, and literature of the Académie Universitaire of Paris.

The college of the Sorbonne was one of the four constituent parts of the faculty of theology in the university of Paris; and though the least numerous part, yet from the number of eminent men belonging to it, this college frequently gave name to the whole faculty; and graduates of the university of Paris, though not connected with this college, frequently styled themselves doctors or bachelors of the Sorbonne. The high reputation of the college caused it to be continually appealed to for the judgment of its members on questions of theology or morals. One question referred to their decision, illustrative of the character of the age, was the validity of the gift made by Philippe le Bel, king of France, of the heart of his father (Philippe le Hardi) to one of the churches of the Dominicans; and which heart the monks of St. Denis claimed to have interred in their abbey. It was more to the honour of the doctors of the Sorbonne that the first printing-presses in Paris were established in their house. They supported the faction of the Guises in the religious wars of the sixteenth century. (Ladvocat, Dictionnaire Historique; Duvernet, Histoire de la Sorbonne; Biographie Universelle; Dulaure, Histoire de Paris.)

SORBUS, the Linnæan name of a genus of plants, comprising the mountain-ash, rowan-tree, and service tree. It is now made a subgenus of Pyrus. [PYRUS; ROWANTREE.]

SORE CIDÆ, or, more accurately, Soricidæ, Mr. Swainson's name for the family of Shrews or Shrew-mice, genus Sorex of Linnæus.

Mr. Swainson observes, that the Shrew-mice stand at the head of the Sorecida, the second aberrant family of the order Fera, according to his views, and which, he states, corresponds, without any variation, to the INSECTIVORA of Cuvier a name which he says that he would have retained

for the group, were it not highly expedient to preserve a uniformity of nomenclature throughout the animal kingdom; and he acts upon the rule of naming every family from the typical genus by which it is represented. Mr. Swainson enters among these carnivorous mice, as he terms them, by the genus GYMNURA, which bears the closest affinity to Cladobates [TUPAIA], and also bears a strong resemblance to Didelphys. Cuvier, he remarks, was of the same opinion, and adverted to the affinity of Gymnura with the shrews, as seen in its pointed snout and scaly tail, &c., although he omitted to remark that the stiff setæ, or bristles, interspersed among the woolly hairs of the body, point out another and a very important link of connection, namely, to the Hedgehogs, close to which however he admits that Cuvier arranged that interesting genus.

The Sorecidæ,' says Mr. Swainson, in continuation, and following Cuvier, like the bats, have the grinders furnished with conical points; but they are destitute of wings or lateral membranes, and they possess clavicles: they have no cacum, and they all press the entire sole of the foot on the ground in walking. In their economy they are nocturnal, leading for the most part a subterraneous life, and deriving their principal support from insects: those that are natives of cold countries pass the winter in a lethargic state: their feet are short, and their motions, when on the surface of the earth, slow and feeble.' Mr. Swainson, then, after some remarks tending to show that Cuvier's views indirectly favour the natural analogy which Mr. Swainson holds to exist between the Sorecida, Tarsius, the Glires, and the Vespertilionidæ, each of which, in Mr. Swainson's opinion, truly represents the other in their respective circles, observes, that in the moles there are four large canine teeth, separated from each other, between which are small incisors; an arrangement, he remarks, more in unison with the general dentition of the Quadrumana and the Carnivora.

Mr. Swainson then proceeds to notice the group more particularly, observing, that the genus Gymnura will probably connect the hedgehogs, so well known by their prickly spines, and their remarkable property of rolling themselves up into a ball when disturbed, either with Cladobates, or that the latter may come in between the shrews and the hedgehogs, the former being much the most numerous. These, with but two exceptions, he remarks, one of which is the Sorex Indicus, are peculiar to the European continent. They are remarkable, he observes, for having on each flank, under the ordinary skin, a little band of stiff and close hairs, from which an odoriferous humour can be distilled. They dig holes in the earth, which they seldom quit until the evening, when they search for insects and worms. He then notices the Desmans (Mygale) as being also European animals, and much resembling the shrews, from which they chiefly differ in their teeth. Scalops, in his opinion, seems to represent either these animals, or the moles in the New World. Lastly, he observes, we find in the African CHRYSOCHLORIS a representation of this little group. Macroscelides does not appear to have been known to Mr. Swainson, though the genus was described in the fourth volume of the Zoological Journal,' in 1829; neither does he seem to have been aware of Brandt's description of SOLENODON (1832).

The second division of the family, according to the same author, is composed of mole-like animals, apparently connected to the shrews by the American Scalops, and the African Crysochloris, and includes three genera, the Tenrecs (Centetes, Ill., Centenes, Desm.) [TENREC], TALPA, and CONDILURA. At the end of the volume, the Family Sorecida is made to contain the Shrews, Moles, and Hedgehogs, with the following character:

Muzzle lengthened, pointed; legs short, feeble; feet pentadactylous; lower incisors generally very long, pointing forwards; no lateral membranes; mamma ventral. The family thus characterized includes the genera Erinaceus, L.; Sorex, L.; Mygale, Geoff.; Scalops, Cuv.; Chrysochloris, Cuv.; Talpa, L.; Centenes, Cuv.; and Condylura, Desm.

The Insectivora of Cuvier consist of the Hedgehogs (Erinaceus); the Tenrecs (Centenes); the Shrews (Sorex and Scalops); the Desmans (Mygale); Chrysochloris; Talpa; and Condilura.

The genus Sorex of Linnæus is placed between Talpa and Erinaceus; and this article will be confined to the true