|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ations on what human beings are capable of in contrast with the gods.30 Which meaning are we to attach to the word in its two appearances in this poem? In the first passage, Simonides implies his own understanding of Pittacus' saying (that is, that it is "impossible" to be good) by interpolating into it a series of hyperbolic determinants ( ), and even though he does not explicitly assert that by  he means "impossible" rather than just "difficult," these determinants make his meaning quite clear; but when he cites the proverb a second time, and this time does so much more accurately,31 the absence of those determinants means that he can unambiguously declare that, since this time the adjective means "difficult," therefore the proposition containing it (in this meaning) is false (for it would only be true if the adjective could bear no other meaning here than "impossible'').32 This is nearly, but not quite, the same thing as saying, "It is hard to be a good man no, Pittacus is wrong, as a matter of fact it is impossible":33 for the witty sophistication with which Simonides chooses not only to cite the proverb the first time in an improved form in which its meaning is acceptable, but also to use the same predicate in both phrases, means that what the second passage contradicts is really not the first one, but instead only a one-sided misunderstanding of the first one (that which would have taken  as merely  ). In short, according to Simonides, it is not wrong to say, "It is hard to become a man truly noble, in hands and feet and mind, fashioned foursquare without reproach," for here it is clear that "hard" means "impossible"; but it is wrong to say, "It is hard to be noble," for here "hard" seems to mean merely "difficult." And, with the same wit, Simonides exculpates Pittacus himself, "a wise man" (12): for at fault is not the man so much as rather his verbal formulation, the "Pittacism" ( 11). Words, even those spoken by wise men, can distort their speakers' intentions: Pittacus' wisdom has been betrayed by his very own celebrated utterance. What better proof could Simonides wish for his claim that human success and failure depend not upon humans but upon the gods? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus Protagoras' explicit challenge to Socrates can be met fairly easily by considerations concerning the internal context of the poem; these can |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
30 E.g., Hom. Il. 16.620; Od. 10.305, 23.81, 184; H.Dem. 111; Pind. N. 10.72; Bacch. 5.94; Solon 16.1 West; Theognis 1075. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 The exact terms of Pittacus' saying were usually reported as  : see Paroem. Gr. 1.172, 462 and 2.89, 717 Leutch-Schneidewin; and Hesych. and Suda s.v.  . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 In grammatical terms, the particle  in line 1 is picked up by the  of  in line 11. This seems to be the view suggested already at Prot. 343C344A. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 So already Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1913) 167 and especially Fränkel (1962) 352 and (1968) 73, followed by Easterling (1974) 42 and Gundert (1952) 74. |
|
|
|
|
|