8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

1/116

InterpretationA JOURN L A O F POLITI L PHILOSOPHYWinter 1991-92 Volume 19 N u m b e r 2

117

137

157

169

185

Kenneth D orter Freedom and Constraints in Prom etheus B o u n d

Joseph Cropsey Virtue and K no wled ge: O n Plato s ProtagorasM i ch ael D avis Politics and Poetry: A ristotle s Politics Books VII

and VIII

Marie A . Martin

Hugh GillisTr anslator

Misunderstanding and Understanding H u m e sMoral Philosophy: A n Essay on umes Placein M o r a l Philosophy by N i ch o la s C a p ald i

Kojeve-Fessard Doc um e nts

2 1 Glenn N . Schram T he Place of L eo Strauss in a Liberal Education

Bo o k Review

217 Will Morrisey Questions Concerning th e L aw o f Nature by JohnLocke

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

2/116

InterpretationEditor-in-Chief Hilail Gildin, Dept. of Philosophy, Queens CollegeGeneral Editors Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth

Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz d. 1987)Howard B. White d. 1974)

Consulting Editors Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L.Fortin John Hallow ell Harry V. Jaffa DavidLowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield,Jr. Arnaldo Momigliano d. 1987) MichaelOakeshott d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Straussd. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson

Editors Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred BaumannMichael Blaustein M ark Blitz Patrick CobyChristopher A. Colmo Edward J. Erler Maureen

Feder-Marcus Joseph E. Goldberg Pamela K.Jensen Grant B. Mindle James W. Morris WillMorrisey Aryeh L. Motzkin Gerald ProiettiCharles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Bradford P.Wilson Hossein Ziai Michael Zuckert CatherineZuckert

Manuscript Editor Lucia B. ProchnowSubscriptions Subscription rates per volume (3 issues):

individuals 21libraries and all other institutions 34students five-year limit) 12Single copies available.

Postage outside U.S.: Canada 4.50 extra;elsewhere 5.40 extra by surface mail (8 weeksor longer) or 1 by air.Payments: in U.S. dollars n payable bya financial institution located within th e U.S.A.or the U.S. Postal Service).

contributors should follow The Chicago Manualof Style, 13th ed. or manuals based on it; doublespace their manuscripts; place references in th e text,in endnotes or follow current journal style inprinting references. To ensure impartial judgment oftheir manuscripts, contributors should omit mentionof their other work; put, on th e title page only, theirname, any affiliation desired, address with postal/zipcode in full, and telephone. Please send three clearcopies.

Composition Eastern Graphics, Binghamton,N.Y. 13901Printed and bound Wickersham Printing Co.,Lancaster, PA 17603

Inquiries: Patricia D Allura, Assistant to th e Editor,interpretation Queens College, Flushing, N.Y11367-0904, U.S.A. (718)520-7099

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

3/116

I n t e r p r e t a t i o nWinter 1991 92 Volume 19 N um ber 2

Kenneth DorterJoseph CropseyMichael Davis

M arie A . M artin

Hugh GillisTranslator

Freedom n Constraints in Prometheus B o u n dVirtue n Knowledge: O n Plato s Pr ota gor a sPolitics n Poetry: Aristotle s Politics Books V II

n VIII

Misunderstanding n Understanding H u m e sMoral Philosophy: A n Essay on H u m e s Placein M o r a l Philosophy by Nicholas Capaldi

Kojeve Fessard Documents

G lenn N . Schram T he P lace of L eo S tra us s in Liberal Education

Book ReviewWill Morrisey

117137

157

169185

2 1

Questions Concerning th e L aw o f Nature by JohnLocke 217

Copyright 1992 int rpr t tion

ISSN 0020 9635

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

4/116

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

5/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus BoundKenneth DorterUniversity of Guelph

Cypris, you are no god. You are something stronger than a god if that can beEuripides

When we think of Prometheus, stretched out above us his arms spread apartand nailed down, a gaping wound in his side it is hard not to th in k of this godwho sacrificed himself to save humankind from div ine punishment in termsthat are alien to Aeschylus conception. Every age has reinterpreted th e myth inaccordance with its own values a renewal that is not only inevitable but inaccordance with the implications of Aeschylus t rea tment of the story demanded by the implications of the myth itself 2 Nevertheless, this has the disadvantage that Aeschylus own penetrating account is not read carefully enough.

Later ages tre at th e myth as simple allegory the terms of which are constantly rewritten: martyrdom versus tyranny enlightenment versus ignorance,th e heroic creative individual versus paternalistic conformity. Today we mighteasily treat it ironically. The techne given to us fo r our survival becomes theeventual instrument of our technological self destruction: Zeus merely turnsPrometheus treachery into th e cunning of reason ; Prometheus gift convergeswith Zeus counter gift of Pandora. None of these uses of the myth as a culturalarchetype is inappropriate. But the ease by which we make th e story into asymbol of what we already know closes our ears to Aeschylus voice and ourminds to the subtlety and insight of his thought. In Aeschylus hands the mythis less about the relationship between oppression and heroism than about th erelationship between will and nature less about domination and resistance thanabout freedom and fate. The details of his play have more to teach us th an th eseductive simplicity of its archetypes.

In th e middle of the play the following exchange occurs:Prometheus : Craft is far weaker than necessity.Chorus: Who then is th e steersman of necessity?Prometheus : The triple formed Fates and th e remembering Furies.Chorus: Is Zeus weaker than these?Prometheus : Yes, for he, too cannot escape what is fated. 514-18)

This notion of necessity and fate is rarely mentioned in reflections on Prometheus. It is not a deus ex machina but rather the key to Aeschylus u

interpretation Winter 1991-92, Vol. 19, No. 2

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

6/116

118 Interpretationderstanding of th e relationship between Prometheus and Zeus. Ultimatelythe meaning of their antagonism points beyond themselves and beyond humanbeings.

Unnoticed beside the portrayal of Zeus as cruel and tyrannical is the fact thatin less obvious ways Prometheus to o is portrayed in a not entirely flatteringligh t. In th e case of Zeus the negativity is straightforward. Gone is th e story ofEpimetheus slow witted bungling which neglected to reserve any instrument ofsurvival for humankind. Gone too is th e deception by which Prometheustr icked Zeus into choosing bones and fa t instead of meat as th e sacrificial port ion of th e gods, and thereby infuria ted Zeus against

humanity Instead ofbungling and humiliation we are given a deliberately murderous Zeus:

As soon as he ascended to th e th ro n e th at was his father s, straightaway heassigned to the several gods their several privileges and portioned out th e power ,bu t to th e unhappy breed of mankind he gave no heed, intending to blot th e raceout and create a new. (23035)

On th e most obvious level it may have been eschylus intention to reflect onth e rule of Pisistratus, who was tyrant from 561-527, tw o years before Aeschylusbirth or, more likely, that of his son Hippias who continued the ty ranny fo r the next sixteen years but Aeschylus gives the theme a universalitythat makes its immediate referent comparatively unimportant.

The negative elements in th e characterization of Prometheus, on the otherhand, are not only less straightforward, but are easier to miss because oursympathy fo r his situation leads us to look at him less critically than he maydeserve. In Aeschylus presentation he is no mere victim or martyr. That quality is not absent, to be sure, as th e chorusresponse to his courage witnesses.In th e central choral ode immediately preceding th e entrance of Io, they rebukehim fo r his foolh r y defiance of Zeus and sing of the importance of honoringZeus rule (526-60). After Io s departure they again counsel obedience, saying, W ise are th e worshippers of Adrasteia (936). But imme i tely after thisHermes arrives, and th e chorus, after watching Prometheus stand up toHermes threats in the name of Zeus, abandon their prudent docility. WhenHermes sends them away fo r their own safety they reply, with their finalspeech: How can you bid us practice baseness? We will bear along with himwhat we must bear. I have learned to hate all traitors: there is no disease I spiton more than tre chery (1063-70).

But if martyrdom is an element in Prometheus character, it is woven together with less attractive traits. When Hermes says to him, No one could bearyou in success979), we might be inclined to dismiss this as the prejudiced

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

7/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 9view of an enemy. But the sentiment was already anticipated his friend andwould-be ally, Oceanus: this is what you pay, Prometheus, fo r that tongue ofyours which talked so high and haughty 320-21). It is easy enough to judgefo r ourselves, since Aeschylus gives us ample evidence. We might set aside, asunderstandable in th e circumstances,

rometheus nsult n manner toward Hermes, when at th e end of th e play th e latter arrives to convey Zeus threats, andcomplains that You mock me like a hild 985). But his t rea tment of Hermesis only an extreme form of his t reatment of others generally.

Wherever he himself has power over others he lords it over t hem. With hiscousins, th e Oceanids, he is at least cordial, but it is always clear that he is thestar and they his audience. His very powerlessness, and their answering pity, isused as a means of holding sway over them. They come in answer to hisopening words: Bright light and swift-winged winds , springs of the rivers,numberless, laughter of the sea s waves , earth, mother of all, and the all-seeingcircle of the sun: I call upon you to see what I, a god, suffer at th e hands ofgods 88-92) . After th e Oceanids arrive and , having heard his story, expresstheir sorrow fo r him, he advises: B ut do not sorrow fo r my present suffering;alight on earth and hear what is to come, that you may know the whole complete: I beg you alight and join your sorrow with mine273-77). Their relationship will consist primarily of Prometheus explanations and complaints andthe Oceanids sympathy and praise. When th e Oceanids say, My heart ispained Prometheus replies, Yes, to my friends I am pitiable to s 247-78). His final words, like his opening ones, are: O Sky that circling brings th elight to all, you see me, how I suffer, how unjustly1092-93). The tactic ofworking on his visitorspity is deliberate, Aeschylus shows us. He has Prometheus advise Io, To make wail and lament fo r one s ill fortune, when onewill win a tear from th e audience is well worthwhile637-79). In th e absenceof power , he uses his weakness to control his relationship with his cousins.

The one character in the play toward whom he is in a formally subordinateposition, th e well-meaning Oceanus, who is his paternal grandfather and maternal uncle he will not allow to be present. Oceanus first words are:

I come on a long journey . to visit you . . My heart is sore fo r yourmisfortunes; you know that. I th in k th at it is kinship m akes m e feel them so.Besides, apart from kinship, there is no one I hold in higher estimation. . . Tellme how I can help you, and you will never say that you have any friend moreloyal to you than Oceanus. 286-99)

It is a touching speech, but it puts Prometheus in his debt, and Prometheusreplies with anger:

What do I see? Have you, too, come to gapein wonder at this great display, my torture?. . . Was it to feast your eyes upon

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

8/116

120 Interpretationth e spectacle of my suffering and joinin pity fo r my pain? 300-305I envy you, that you stand clear of blame,and yet shared and dared in everything with me 332-33

In fact Oceanus has no intention of standing clear of danger, but wants to intercede with Zeus on rometheus behalf. Prometheus will not allow it, however:

Oceanus : Tell m e, what danger do you see fo r me in loyalty to you, and couragetherein?

Prometheus : I see only useless effort and a silly good nature.Oceanus: Suffer me then to be sick of this sickness, for it is a profitable thing, if

one is wise to seem foolish.Prometheus : This shall seem to be my fault.Oceanus: Clearly your words send me home again.Prometheus : Yes, lest your doings fo r me bring you enmity. 383-90This last speech puts rometheus behavior in a nobler light, but we must

question th e purity of th e sentiment, for he expresses no such worries for Ocea usdaughters. W hen he invites them to join him he already knows the to rments that will thereby be inflicted on them at th e end of the play I haveknown all before exactly skethros , all that shall be 101-2). His first wordsto Oceanus showed an annoyance which he only gradually tames into the appearance of solicitude. By sending him away for his own safety, Prometheusmanages to transform Oceanus generosity toward him into a generosity of hisown toward Oceanus, a reversal of his position of subordination into one ofsuperiority.

If he dominates the Oceanids through pity and rises above Oceanus by aninversion of generosi ty, his condescension shows its unadulterated form in hisrelationship to Io, th e one figure in the play who is his complete inferior. Hevaunts his superiority over her in at least three ways. First, by teasing her an dth e chorus of Oceanids into begging him fo r information about himself andabout her fate. He will later admit that he welcomes such questions: If anything of this is still obscure or difficult ask me again and learn clearly: I havemore leisure than I wis 816-18). But when Io asks why he is being punished he becomes coy and hesitant:

Prometheus: I have just this moment ceased from th e lamentable tale of mysorrows.

Io : Will you then grant me this favor?Prometheus: Say what you are asking for: I will tell you all.Io: T ell who it was that nailed you to th e cliff.Prometheus: The plan was th e plan of Zeus, and th e hand th e hand of

Hephaestos.Io : And what was th e offense of which this is th e punishment?

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

9/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 2Prometheus: It is enough that I have told you a clear story so far.Io : In addition, then, indicate to me what date shall be th e limit of my wanderingsPrometheus: Better fo r you not to know this than know it.Io: I beg you , do not hide from me what I must endurePrometheus: It is not that I grudge you this favor.Io : Why then delay to tell me all?Prometheus: It is no grudging, but I hesitate to break your spiritIo: Do not have more thought for me than pleases me myselfPrometheus: Since you are so eager , I must speak . 613-30Io: Your prophesy has now passed th e limits of understandingPrometheus: Then also do n ot seek to leam your trials.Io: Do not offer me a boon and then withhold it.Prometheus: I offer you then one of tw o stories . . Choose that I tell you

clearly either what remains fo r you or th e one that shall deliver meChorus: Grant her one and grant me th e otherPrometheus: Since you have so much eagerness I will not refuse . . 775-86

The disingenuous disclaimer, that he cannot bring himself to tell Io what awaitsher lest he break her spirit, would itself be enough to break one s spirit like afortune teller who gasps in horror at her crystal ball and says, I d better nottell you this; I don t want to upset you.In fact Prometheus takes evidentdelight in encouraging and savoring Io s terror at what awaits her. Y ou groantoo soonhe te lls th e chorus with regard to Io s fate, you are full of fear to osoon: wait till you hear besides what is to be (696-97). And to Io herself:Are you crying and lamenting: what will you do when you hear of the evils tocome743-44).

Third, not only does he seem to enjoy and encourage her anguish, but hedenies her the sympathy which he himself so openly values, and which he hadhimself encouraged her to solicit (637-39). When she takes his advice, andwails and laments that she might as well throw herself from a cliff if the futureholds such suffering fo r her, she has reason to expect some sympathy fromhim. What he says to her is, You would ill bear my trials, then, fo r whom fatereserves no de th (752-53).

Why is Prometheus portrayed so ambiguously? On one hand as humanity sbenefactor, martyred by the tyrant who would have destroyed us On the other,ungracious toward his seniors , shamelessly self-pitying before his peers, insensitive and condescending toward the helpless? One reason (another will be suggested later is that the characterization discourages us from viewing him simply and exclusively as a martyr , or as th e type of th e highest perfection ofmoral and intellectual nature, impelled by the purest and truest motives to the

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

10/116

122 Interpretationbest and noblest endsShelley, Preface to Prometheus Unbound). rometheusarrogance suggests to us not merely a victim of injustice, but a r g l victim ofinjustice, one who sees himself as the equal of any king and who can holdcourtin even th e most adverse circumstances. The play depicts a contest between near-equals which will end, not with

Zeus overthrow but neverthelesswith his compromise.

Prometheus near-equality with Zeus lies not merely in his secret knowledgeof Zeus vulnerabil i ty, but in a range of forces which Prometheus represents,opposite in kind to those controlled by Zeus. T he polarity is signalled in th efirst scene. Prometheus gave honors to man beyond what was just \peradikes] , remarks Hephaestus at line 30. But a little later he adds , No one, savePrometheus, can justly [endikos] blame m (63). There is an implicit contrastbetween rival standards of justice. Each will be seen to have a different basis.Unlike the Oresteia, however, the contrast will not be between folk and civicjustice, but between justice grounded in nature and justice imposed by force.

Prometheus opening words invoked th e elements aether, air wate r, ear th ,fire: Bright light [aither] and swift winged winds , springs of th e rivers, numberless laughter of the sea s waves , earth, mother of all, and the all-seeingcircle of th e sun 5 Throughout the play he is associated with the natural elements. He is the fire-bearer whose only immortal visitors are Ocean and th eOceanids. Although his mother is Themis justice) he twice addresses her asEarth Gaia, who was Zeus mother) , and insists: Themis, Gaia, she is but onealthough her names are m ny(211). B ut according to Hesiod Themis wasGaia s daughter Theogony 132-35). This is part of a general contrast betweenPrometheus and Zeus as the representatives and champions of the natural andarbitrary powers respectively. Unlike Prometheus, Zeus is nowhere in the playassociated with nature gods, but rather with the untraditional gods, StrengthKratos) and Force Bia), and with Hermes, th e instrument of his commands.The contrast is strengthened by connecting Prometheus with th e female element(the Oceanids, Io, his mother and grandmother Oceanus is dismissed) andZeus with the male. Their relationship as counterparts is reflected in the factthat most of the characteristics attributed to Zeus by Prometheus are also attributed to Prometheus himself by the Chorus or by other characters in theplay 6

Zeus realm is that of the arbitrary. Zeus alone is truly free (50). New arethe customs by which Zeus rules, customs that have no law to them (149-50).H is justice is a thing he keeps by his own st nd rd189-90), a despot sprivate laws (404). But force begets isolation. This is a sickness rooted andinherent in the nature of a tyranny: that he that holds it does not trust hisfriends (226-67). If Prometheus is bound in a sense that is the antithesis toZeus freedom, he is also bound in a different sense that is th e antithesis toZeus isolation. Where the tyrant forges th e bonds of unfreedom, nature forgesthe bonds of kinship. The mistrust of Zeus inspired by power is answered by

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

11/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 123th e loyalty to Prometheus inspired by kinship. ephaestusfirst speech containsth e words, I have not the heart to bind by force a god who is my kin. . . . Yetthere is constraint upon m (14-16). Our kinship has strange power,headds later (39). Not a word about feelings of kinship and loyalty toward hisfather, Zeus. Oceanus says in his opening speech, My heart is sore fo r yourmisfortunes. I think it is kinship m akes m e feel them so (290-91). He isPrometheus paternal grandfather and maternal uncle. But he is Zeus brotherand seems to feel no fraternal loyalty toward Zeus position in th e dispute.When the Oceanids say at th e end, 1 have learned to hate all traitors: there isno disease I spit on more than treachery 1068-70), it is ironically not Prometheustreachery toward Zeus that they have in mind. They are denouncinginstead the possibility of betraying their loyalty to Prometheus, when Hermesadvises them to flee.

IB

The weapons made available to Prometheus by his ties to nature are of tw okinds, th e first implying Zeus weakness , the second Prometheus strength. In ageneral way the limitation of Zeus power by nature itself is at th e very heartof the contest between Zeus and Prometheus. When Zeus portioned out th epower , to th e unhappy breed of mankind he gave no heed, intending toblot th e race out and create a new. Against these plans none stood save I(230-36). But how can th e comparatively meager gifts which Prometheus bestowed upon humankind enable us to withstand the destructive powers of Zeus?If he wishes to blot us out, how can rudimentary techne protect us? His powersevidently are limited to those conferred upon him by nature. To blot us outmeans, fo r Zeus, to refuse to rescue us from our helplessness against the inhospitability of our environment: severity of weather , scarcity of food, predationsof animals. Annihilatory miracles of a supernatural order are beyond hispowers 7

Zeus limitation by nature goes beyond th e fact of nature s setting limits tohis powers; he cannot overcome a potentially fatal weakness in his own nature.One deity, Aphrodite, will prove too strong even fo r Zeus. Love will provideth e means both fo r Prometheus deliverance against Zeus will771 ,s and fo rZeus own downfall, as Prometheus reveals in his final speech to Io (823-76).Zeus love fo r Io, and Hera s jealous love of Zeus, were the beginning of Io sordeal. When Zeus heals her with a gentle touch, the encounter will impregnateher with Epaphus. Afte r five generations the line is about to be wiped out, asfifty women flee to Argos from the incestuous advances of their kin. Godtheos) forbids this union and the women murder the men in bed. But Zeusplan (if th e god was Zeus) is crucially compromised: one among these girlsshall love himeros) beguile from killing her bedfellow . . . and from her seed

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

12/116

124 Interpretationshall spring a man renowned fo r archery, and he shall set me free The adventof Heracles thus depends on tw o cited acts of love overmastering prudenceEven Zeus, who hears this prediction, will be unable to resist healing his beloved Io, as the unnamed maiden Hypermnestra) will later be overcome bylove for her incestuous pursuer Beyond that, Zeus will succumb to a third,uncited, instance of imprudent lust. Not only will his passion fo r Io lead to hisfathering of Heracles ancestor Epaphos, but his subsequent passion fo r anothermortal , Alcmene, will father Heracles himself.

In describing the incest murders , Prometheus says, Even so may lovecome , too, upon my enemiesdrawing th e connection between the means ofhis deliverance and the means of Zeus downfall: He shall make a marriagethat shall hurt him. . . . She shall bear him a son mightier than his father764-68). Prometheus power over Zeus resides in his knowledge, to be revealed in exchange fo r his freedom, that the goddess of whom this is fated isThetis. Knowledge of this is Prometheus greatest strength, as Zeus extramarita l lust is his greatest vulnerability As his name , Forethought, implies, Prom th ustrength lies not only in the knowledge of Zeus danger, but in hi sintelligence and knowledge generally Zeus, on the other hand, is mptyminded kenophron; 762). If arbitrary force seeks to impose its will withoutregard fo r what we might call the natural order, intelligence is its contrary,bringing about success by discerning and acting upon th e possibilities offeredby the nature of things. Consequently, just as nature is ultimately stronger thanarbitrary force, so too is intelligence. Not by strength or overmastering forcethe fates allowed th e conquerors to conquer but by guile doldi) only21415). Zeus rule can be broken only by a device of su tletypalama; 166-67).It may be tru e th at Thetis is destined to bear a son mightier than his father, buthis might is not the only factor: Zeus shall need me . t show th e new planbouleum ) whereby he may be spoiled of his throne and his power170-72).

Implicit in all this is a cyclical view of his tory. Whenever the reins of powerchange hands it must be the work of intelligence rather than brute force.Kronos deposed Uranos not because he was stronger but because of Gaias planthat he castrate Uranos during intercourse. But once in power Kronos abandoned subtlety in favor of brute force:

When first th e gods began their angry quarrel . .I then with th e best counsel trie d to winth e Titans, son of Uranos and Earth,but failed. They would have none of crafty schemesand in their savage arrogance of spiritthought they would lord it easily force

. . . [I]t seemed bestto take my mother and join Zeus side:he was as willing as we were:

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

13/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 125thanks to my plans th e dark receptacleof Tartarus conceals th e ancient Kronos. 201-22)Now Zeus, too, becomes reluctant to favor Forethought, and resorts to mere

brutality. It is a universal pattern Every ruler is harsh whose rule is newsays Hephaestus 35). History appears as a series of cycles, a perennial polaritybetween intelligence and force. Only th e intelligence that recognizes th e possibilities inherent in the nature of things can create something new Brute force ismerely repressive, prolonging what has been accomplished but bringing nothn truly new in to being. The first immediately passes over into the second inorder to perpetuate itself as long as possible The second withers into an emptyshell that falls before a resurgence of th e first, whether in th e form of a revolut ion Kronos against Uranos, Zeus against Kronos) or a renewal , such as wouldoccur if Zeus accepts Prometheus as an ally against th e phantom heavenlycounterpart of Achilles 9 The philosophical accuracy of Aeschylus presentationis evident from our own experience, not only in politics but in all forms ofhuman creativity The creative rebels in the arts and sciences in turn becomethe intolerant conservatives and reactionaries once they triumph This is perhaps another reason that even in th e character of Prometheus the seeds of megalomania are made evident, not only in his t reatment of his enemies Hermes,Zeus) but also in that of his fr iends Oceanus, the Oceanids, Io). We sense thatwere Prometheus himself ever to hold power his yoke would not be light, andthat Hermes predict ion, No one could bear you in successis not unfoundedThe inseparability of the natures of Prometheus and Zeus is especially evidentin two passages, one of which assimilates Zeus to Prometheus, th e other Prometheus to Zeus. In the middle of the play Prometheus refers to Zeus power aste hne 514), th e term everywhere else associated with Prometheus himself;and in recounting his gifts to humanity Prometheus reveals that he pursued th erepressive strategy of Zeus rather than his own tendency toward enlightenmentForethought took away our foresight of doom) and replaced it with blindnessblind hope) 250-2). 10

IV

The interplay between the natural and the arbitrary, between intelligence andforce, is only one side of Aeschylus complex play of forces. An interpretationof the story of how Prometheus rescued mortals is also implicitly an interpretation of the nature of humanity. As has just been noted, Prometheus mentionstw o gifts which he bestowed on human beings. 1) I caused mortals to ceaseforeseeing doom . I placed in them blind hopes Tuphlas . . elpidas; 25052). 2) B esides this I gave them fire . . and from it they shall learn manycrafts254-56).

It is unclear what is meant by foreseeing doom. In th e version of the myth

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

14/116

126 Interpretationwhich Socrates recounts in th e Gorgias, mortals knew in advance the momentwhen they would die 523d), and the present passage is often interpreted in thatlight. But if that were what is meant here, why would th e cure be blindhopes rather than a simple erasure of foreknowledge, as it is in the Gorgiasd-e)? Doom moron) may refer to death, but in the present context that seemsto mean not th e moment of death but the fact of death. Foreseeing doomwould then refer to something like despa ir at our finitude and ephemerality.Humans are called ephemeroi [creatures of a day, ephemeral] at 83, 255, 547.)But perhaps not only to that.

Later Prometheus mentions a third gift:I found mortals witless nepious) and gave them th e use of their wits ennous) andmade them masters of their minds phrenon) . . . Humans at first had eyes bu t sawto no purpose; they had ears but did not hea r. L ike th e shapes of dreams theydragged through their long lives and handled all things in bewilderment andconfusion. 443-49)

Prometheus te ac he s th em to build houses rather than live in caves. He teachesthem about seasons and the planting of crops; about astronomy and th e measurement of time; calculation and writing; th e harnessing of farm animals and ofhorses for th e carriages of th e rich; the building of ships 450-68). When th echorus compares him to a doctor who cannot heal himself, Prometheus repliesth at th e greatest gift he gave to humans was medicine. He also taught us th earts of divination and of sacrifice, and revealed the mineral riches of th e earth476-503). The powers he has given to humans are the powers of nature andunderstanding, not the powers of force. The arts are a kind of knowledge, not akind of coercion. Only in th e references to gold and silver, and to the privileged rich in their carriages the crowning pride of th e rich person s luxury )do we perhaps hear intimations of a politics that may involve artificial values, areappearance at the human level of the transition from creativity to repression.These intimations become fully explicit when Prometheus tells Io of th e th re eraces she will encounter in her future travels. Keep away from the Scythians,he tells her: they are an armed people, armed with th e bow that strikes fromfar away And beware of th e Chalybes who work with iron fo r they arenot gentle, nor people whom a stranger dare approachShe must go to theAmazons, th e race of women who hate m n709-24). Prometheus has onlyjust given human beings the crafts, but by the t ime Io makes this future journey in th e vicinity of th e river Violence Hubristes) they will already havebeen tu rn ed to the service of warfare. This double edge of techne was adumbrated in th e opening scene, as we witnessed the champion of techne beingpunished by means of the techne 47) of Hephaestus

In pre Promethean days there was no history neither progress nor cyclesmerely a dreamlike marginal existence. We cannot doubt that post Prometheanexistence is fo r us an improvement, since th e alternative was annihilation. But

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

15/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 127the interplay between creativity and repression appears as much among mortalsas among gods The life of th e gods is an alternation between the violence ofrepression and th e violence of rebellion, and we can already see th e emergenceof th e former among mortals, making the latter inevitable in its wake Thebeneficiaries of Prometheus guile, whether divine or human, will discover thatits power , like all power , is power that corrupts But from that corruption willemerge renewed life, like the Phoenix, that other symbol of fire 2 If th e Prometheus story is a political myth, in eschylus hands it is not a myth ofl iberation but of th e pendulum Perhaps this is why one techne that Prometheusnever gives to humanity is that of politics (cf. Conacher, p 51). There are nodefinitive liberations but only renewals, and renewals need not be liberating fo ranyone but their instigator. Kronos was no better than Uranos; Zeus is here nobetter than Kronos. There is no reason to expect more from a son of Zeus andThetis, or, fo r that matter, from Prometheus himself should he ever achievesuch power eschylus characterization makes this all too clear

What attitude toward life does this recommend? Judging by th e hate-filledworld that Io will t ravel through, th e lives of all of us might be symbolized by rometheus description of Io s future as A wintry sea of agony and ruinIoreplies,

What good is life to me then? Why do I not throw myself at once from some roughcrag, to strike th e ground and win a quittance of all my troubles? It would be betterto die once fo r all than suffer all one s days. 747-51

But she does not do so She seems to believe that life will somehow be worthliving after all Perhaps she illustrates what Prometheus means by saying thathe stopped us from foreseeing doom by placing in us blind hopes. Despite thepain and apparent futility of life, and the repetitive cycles of political disillusionment with liberators turned oppressors, we continue to hope that it is somehow worth while The evidence is against it hope must be blind.

What would it take to vindicate these hopes, hopes that may be b lind without being false? Is th e answer to be found in a here-and-now commitmentwhich, by focusing only on what is at hand, learns to live without reliance onhope a life such as was advocated by Epicurus in th e ancient world, or onesuch as Camus advocated in ours? Is it to be found in th e epochal events ofhistorical renewal, however ephemeral , a historicism which locates meaningwithin the conditions and values that spawn a particular historical culture in itsfinite span? Or in some form of transcendence, perhaps in th e contemplation ofthe eternity of th e pattern of fate which remains constant through all thesecycles, or, deeper still, perhaps in the underlying ground of that pattern and ofeverything else that exists? The remaining plays of th e trilogy (PrometheusUnbound and Prometheus the Firebearer are lost, and, with them, eschylusanswers On the basis of his only surviving trilogy, th e Oresteia, it is temptingto conclude that Aeschylus may have finally portrayed a breaking of th e old

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

16/116

128 Interpretationcyclical patterns, an ultimate reconciliation of th e perennial dichotomies 13 Itcan be taken as a foreshadowing of this that the chorus tells Prometheus, I amof good hope that once freed of these bonds you will be no less in power thanZeus. But the reply is ambiguous Not yet has fate . . determined thesethings to be thus 508-12).

There are tensions in the play which make such a solution quest ionable, fo rone of the most powerful forces in th e play is never brought into the equationIt is a force that is given several names here, and which corresponds to ourgeneralized concept of love. At the beginning of the play Kratos Strengthtwice identifies Prometheus flaw as his love of humanity philanthropou 11,28). Prometheus later concurs, attributing his suffering to his excessive love ofmortalsten lian philoteta broton; 122 the adjective an apparent acknowledgement of error The chorus uses neither philia nor philotes but sebomai ,re ve re : you revered mortals too mu h544). Just as Zeus love for Io andlater fo r Thetis will cause him to act against self-interest, Prometheus lovephilia fo r humanity causes him to go too far, to forget himself, to betray hisown nature The gods named you wrongly when they called you Forethought Kratos tells him; you yourself need Forethought to extricate yourselffrom this contrivance85-87). Know yourselfOceanos feels compelled toadvise him 311). Prometheus himself, who earlier boasted of complete foreknowledge 101-2 , seems to have deceived himself about th e future consequence of his actions, and even to regret them now

Willingly, willingly, I erred nor will deny it.In helping humanity I brought my troubles on me;bu t yet I did not think that with such torturesI should be wasted on these airy cliffs 269-71In Zeus case the terms used fo r love are eros eroti: 591 , desire himeros:

649, cf 865 , Cypris 650, 864 an epithet of Aphrodite , longing pothos:654 , marriage gamos: 648, 738, 764). This variety of terms and connotationscreates a bridge between th e weaknesses exhibited by Zeus and Prometheus.They converge within the cluster meanings from eros to philia Philia, Prom th useakness , can in fact have erotic connotations In Homer, Euripides,Herodotus, and Aristophanes there are places where phileo seems virtuallyequivalent to ero see Liddell-Scott-Jones, phileo, paragraph 3; it is also acommon term for to kiss ). My point is not that Prometheus philia fo r humanity had anything erotic about it, but that one can conceive of th e rangebetween philia and eros as a single continuum Our own awareness of a continuity from friendship to romance to eros was not unknown to the Greeks, eventhough they had no distinct word for th e middle term. Plato speaks of how

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

17/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 129friendship may become transformed into passion, and Aristotle of how erosmay become t ransformed into friendship 15 No Greek term is as general as ourlove, and this may partly explain th e variety of Aeschylus terminology inthese passages. Zeus love for Io is not mere lust, fo r in the end he confines hisimpregnation of her to a gentle healing touch (848-49). And while there is noindication that Prometheus feelings fo r humankind are anything other thanchaste, th e chorus juxtaposes their chastisement of his excessive regard fo rhumans with their recollection of his courtship of Hesione, whom he also wonwith gifts (544-60).

If Zeus and Prometheus are both made vulnerable by the power of Aphrodite 16 she appears as a third, almost unacknowledged force together with Zeusand Prometheus (the three of whom foreshadow Plato s tripartite soul: desire,ambition, reason . Born from th e foam of

Uranossemen-filled genitals plunging into th e sea, when he was castrated by Kronos during intercourse with

Gaia, Aphrodite also symbolizes one of the major themes of th e play: th e risingup of the son against the father of th e gods.

The earlier simple opposition between Prometheus and Zeus, as representative of nature and will , must now be refined. Aphrodite no longer can be subsumed within the power of Prometheus, even though she augmented his powerby limiting tha t of Zeus, fo r it turns out that she undermines Prometheuspower as w ell. If Zeus and Prometheus represent the alternative forms of s lfassertion brute force and intellect Aphrodite represents their mutual antithesis, obsession with an other The obsession may be described as th e beingconcerned about another person to an extent that threatens our intrinsic concernabout our self. Being concerned boutdoes not necessarily have altruisticimplications. It refers as much to Zeus selfish obsession with Io as to his(perhaps penitent) curing of her. The fact that such love is self-effacing in th esense of other directed does not make it benevolent. Self-sacrifice can gotogether with injustice to others as easily as self-destructive behavior can gowith destructive behavior toward others. We may neglect our own best interestswithout replacing them with someone else s. Zeus love fo r Thetis may leadhim to assaults on her similar to those on Io, even though they would be destructive to himself since she will bear a son mightier than his father. What isconstant in love is the preoccupation with an other, at th e price of diminishedattentiveness to self-interest. It is a secondary matter whether the preoccupationturns out to be beneficial or harmful, or whether th e jeopardy to our s lfin terest becomes actual damage. Against all reason, intelligence, and forethought, Prometheus puts the needs of humanity before his own well being.Against what is needed to maintain his control over Prometheus, Zeus will putthe needs of Io before his own.

To our post-Socratic, Christianized ears it seems paradoxical to regard altruism as a negative form, an irrationality and self-betrayal. Nevertheless, exceptfo r the mortal Io 613), no one in the play praises Prometheus for his sacrifice,

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

18/116

130 Interpretationand even she seems to contemplate th e edge of a cliff with more gr titu e thanshe does Prometheus. The others cannot understand why he would make such asacrifice fo r those who can do nothing fo r him. What drop of your sufferingcan mortals spare you? asks Kratos (83-84). The chorus of Oceanids agree:D o you not see how you have

erred

261-62 ; Do not benefit mortalsbeyond what is appropriate, uncaring about your own (507-8);K indness that cannot be requited, tell me, where is the help in that, my friend?What succor in creatures of a day? (545-47). Prometheus himself admits thathe went too fa r (lian: 122). In passion we are passive, permitting the interestsof others to act upon us. In the play s world of power polit ics, a love by whichwe allow others power over us (whether pity, lust, or simply tenderness) becomes a dangerous and irrational weakness. It is the same ground that givesrise to Thrasymachus contemptuous dismissal of justice as a foolish and servileconcern with what is good for others (Republic 1.343c).

From our Socratic heritage we are accustomed to thinking that reason leadsto altruism, but in the world of Prometheus Bound is no justice-itself, no Ideaof the good, by the contemplation of w hich we m ight overcome th e standpointof individuality. There is only th e self and the other, mediated in one way kinship, in another by love. The play ends with th e visit of Hermes as Zeusemissary. Hermes is not only the messenger of th e gods, but also th e god whosanctifies lying, cheating, and stealing. We will not find in this world thesame presuppositions as in ours about the relationship among altruism, rationality, and holiness. Justice here means, prim arily, self interested obedience to Zeus the king, tempered only by the weaker obligations of kinship. Thelatter are quickly sacrificed if they come into to o open a conflict with th eformer, as th e examples of Hephaestus and Oceanus show. Only th e chorusultimately embraces familial loyalty against fear of th e tyrant, but even thischoice is not completely irrational, fo r they are o f good hope that once freedof these bonds you will be no less in power than Zeus (508-10). Reason orintelligence here means achieving one s ends by th e power of thought ratherthan by brute force. It does not render comprehensible th e sacrifice of one sown ends. That is simply irrational, error (hemartes: 262 or unreason (anoias:1079). If we think of justice as altruism, th e possibility of justice resides herenot in the power of thought (as in Plato but in the power of irrational love, notPrometheus but Aphrodite . This possibility of justice coexists, however, withvery different possibilities.

In her extreme form Aphrodite, th e irrational, may become th e madness ofpassion. Zeus indiscretions are not committed with Olympian serenity:Zeus is stricken with lust fo r you Io is told in recurring night visions; heis afire to consummate the union of Cypris with you (649-51). Io s punishment at the hand of Hera, and with th e connivance of Zeus himself 663-72 ,whom she resisted, echoes the kind of passionate frenzy that Zeus must haveexperienced in his obsession with her. By means of th e gadfly, the ghost of

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

19/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 131earth born rgos 567-68), she is driven to a madness suggestive of eroticpossession:

Eleleu, eleleuIt creeps on me again, th e twitching spasm,th e mind-destroying madness , burning me upand th e gadfly s sting goads me onsteel point no fire temperedand my heart in its fear knocks on my breast.There s a dazing whirl in my eyes as I runout of my course th e madness driven,th e crazy frenzy; my tongue ungovernedbabbles, th e words in a muddy flow strikeon th e waves of th e mischief I hate, strike wildwithout aim or sense. 877-86)

VI

Aphrodite, th e irrational, may be described in the same te rms as the gadfly,who comes even from within the depths to hound m (573). Her subterraneannature is echoed by the play itself, where her presence is always felt withouther ever being seen or even mentioned, except when her epithet Cypris is usedto refer to sexual love. But her power is the power that has brought Prometheus, Zeus, and even Io all to their fate.

The reconciliation between Zeus and Prometheus that one anticipates in th efinal play of the trilogy would be a reconciliation of self interest. Zeus wouldperhaps share his power equally with Prometheus, wedding intelligence toforce, and neutralizing the antithesis whose tension gave rise to th e cycles ofpower that preceded him and now threaten him. He would benefit by having animpregnable rule; Prometheus would benefit by being recognised as Zeus virtual equal; and th e rest of th e gods would benefit by having enlightened rulers.The class warfare between repressive force and creative intelligence would besublated into perpetual amity.

But what will happen when next Zeus becomes inflamed with passion, orPrometheus with pity oiktoi: 241)? Or when they are inflamed hatred, whichis counterpart to love as Ares is consort to Aphrodite. Why are you pitying invainKratos asks Hephaistos. Why is it that you do not hate stugeis) a godwhom th e gods hate most of all echthiston) since it was your honor thathe betrayed to

mortals36-8). Io set Zeus heart on fire with love and nowshe is . . . driven by Hera s hate (stugetos) (590-92). Prometheus is filledwith hatred echthos, stugnos: 975ff.) fo r his enemies. And even the gentleand compassionate chorus has learned to hate misein) all tr itors (1068).Throughout th e play, and especially near th e end, are references to hatredwhich balance those to love. Many the instances have nothing to do with the

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

20/116

132 Interpretationenmity between Prometheus and Zeus and would not be dispelled by its conciliation. The races of humans that Io will pass through are already full of hatred.Salmydessos th e rocky jaw of the sea hates sailors echthroxenos nautaisi:727). The Gorgons hate mortals b rotostugeis: 799). Io hates stugnes: 886 thewaves of ruin that wash over her. The power of Aphrodite is inseparable fromthat of her illegitimate consort , Ares god of war, her counterpart in passion

We may find an image of the indestructibility of passion in the continuousnocturnal regeneration of rometheus liver th e seat of the passions as theGreeks believed after it is daily devoured by Zeus eagle 8 A still more vividimage is contained in a remarkable reminiscence by Prometheus which at firstseems merely a colorful but irrelevant digression 353-74). Along with Typhoand Zeus Hephaestus is mentioned in it. He has been absent since the firstscene, but his role in the drama is a provocative one Strictly speaking, hispresence was not necessary at all, since Strength and Force Kratos and Biacould have nailed Prometheus to th e cliff without his help. But he is a kind ofdouble of Prometheus a god who works through ingenuity and craft rather thanthrough force who , although crippled, defeated by means of guile th e powerfulwarrior god Ares cf. Odyssey 8.266ff); and who , like Prometheus is prone topity 14ff) . The two of them, Prometheus and Hephaestus used to spend theirtime together, Hephaestus tells us 39). There is even an alternate traditionaccording to which not Prometheus the potter, but Hephaestus the smith, gavetechne to

humanityHephaestus is similar to Prometheus but not in the matterof defiance. Hephaestus is a conciliatory version of Prometheus he is a cre

ator god without hubris. It was Hephaestus who recognised the justice of bothsides: both rometheus injustice toward Zeus pera dikes: 30 and Zeus injustic e towa rd Prometheus endikos mempsaito: 63). He may be seen as a personification of the possibility of rapprochement between Prometheus and Zeus. Ifwe interpret Hephaestus in this way , then th e combined force of Zeus andHephaestus against the subterranean power of Aphroditic passion would give ussome idea of how much stability we might expect from a Zeus-Prometheusalliance of force and reason

The central character in rometheus reminiscence is the subterranean monster Typho about whom Hesiod writes:

But when Zeus had driven th e Titans from heaven huge Earth bore th eyoungest child Typho of th e love of Tartarus [the deepest Underworld] by th e aidof golden Aphrodite. Strength was with his hands in all that he did and th e feet ofth e strong god were untiring From his shoulders grew an hundred heads of asnake, a fearful dragon with dark flickering tongues, and from under th e brows ofhis eyes in his marvellous heads flashed fire and fire burned from his heads as heglared And there were voices in all his dreadful heads which uttered every kind ofsound unspeakable . . And truly a thing past help would have happened on thatday and he would have come to reign over mortals and immortals had not th efather of men and gods been quick to perceive it. . . And through th e tw o ofthem heat took hold on th e dark-blue sea, through th e thunder and lightning and

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

21/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 133through th e fire from th e monster , and th e scorching winds and blazingthunderbolt. . . . But when Zeus had conquered him [by burning him with thethunderbolt] and lashed him with strokes Typho was hurled down, a maimedwreck so th at th e huge earth groaned. . . And in th e bitterness of his anger Zeuscast him into wide Tartarus. Theogony 820-68

Prometheus has seen th e destroyed Typho and pitied him (his fatal passion . Herecalls Typho s failed assault on Zeus, and adds:

now a sprawling massuseless he lies, hard by the narrow seawaypressed down benea th th e roots of Aetna: highabove him on th e mountain peak th e smithHephaestos works at th e anvil. Yet one daythere shall burst out rivers of fire, devouringwith savage jaws th e fertile, level plainsof Sicily of th e fair fruits; such boiling wrathwith weapons of fire-breathing surf, a fieryunapproachable torrent shall Typho vomit ,though Zeus lightning le ft h im but a cinder. 365-74 20

Sitting on their mountaintops, Zeus plying his rule and Hephaestus his ingenuity, will eventually be undermined by th e primitive raging passion buriedbeneath t hem. There is no reason to believe that having Prometheus rather thanHephaestus for his ally would put Zeus in a more secure position. But not bystrength or overmastering force the fates allowed the conquerors to conquer butby guile on y(214-15). Passion alone can never t r iumph entirely over reasonand discipline, although it may subvert their stability and alliance. But if Prom th uspity fo r Typho gets th e better of him, with whom will he ally himselfthis time?

However much th e Prometheia may seem to be a trilogy about Enlightenment ideals, about the tr iumph of sweetness and light over harshness and ignorance, it continually evokes the autonomy and power of the i rrat ional . Just asth e tenuous perfection of Plato s rational rule of the best will quickly becomedestabilized by the irrationality of eros and desire (Republic Books 8 and 9,beginning with 545d ff. , so to o th e seeds of th e destruction of any Utopianview that might be put forward in Prometheus the Firebearer are already visible in Prometheus Bound. Driven by unenlightenable passions, by primordialirrationality, the wheel of creative insight and brutal repression cannot standstill fo r long. To expect otherwise is blind hope.

NOTES

1. Hippolytus 359-60. This translation, and most of those from Prometheus Bound, are byDavid Grene. Occasionally I modify his translation or use my own.

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

22/116

134 Interpretation2. Even in Plato s day there was a variety of versions of th e Prometheus myth (Second Letter31 lb). For a sweeping history of th e way it was t ransformed by later ages, see Hans Blumenberg,Work on Myth, translated by R.M. Wallace Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985 , especially Parts

I1I-V.In th e present interpretation I shall assume that Prometheus Bound was written by Aeschylus.

Fo r a discussion of th e evidence fo r and against th e play s authenticity, see D.J. Conacher, AeschylusPrometheus Bound: A Literary omment ry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980 ,Appendix 1. More recently C.J. Herington has reaffirmed his earlier book-length defense of its

authenticity The Author of Prometheus Bound [Austin: University of Texas Press, 1970] in Aeschylus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986 , pp. 160 ff .

3. Here Prometheus simply says, I taught of th e smoothness of th e vitals and what color theyshould have to pleasure th e gods. It was I who burned thighs wrapped in fa t and th e long shankbone and set mortals on th e road to this murky craft(493-98). The implication is that th e sacrificial portions were determined by what gives th e gods pleasure, rather than by a tr ick.

4. Prometheus mother, Themis, was, like Oceanus, an offspring of Uranos and Gaia. Hisfather, Iapetus, was th e offspring of Oceanus and Oceanus sister Tethys.

5. In a four element scheme aither th e fiery element of th e sky would be assimilated tofire, and th e sun would repeat th e fire element in another form, or else be treated as a separatedeity. However, sometimes aether was treated as a fifth element, intermediate between air and fire.This might be th e most natural, although not th e usual, way to read th e present passage.

6. Conacher, p. 39, n l Cf. J.C. Hogan, A Commentary on the Complete Greek Tragedies:Aeschylus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984 , p. 290.

7. Once humanity has been given techne in general , th e latter becomes self-sustaining. Conacher notices that th e order in which Prometheus gifts are mentioned suggests an evolutionarysequence, as if each new art were discovered in response to th e new needs of a h igher leve l ofcivilization, once th e needs at th e lower, more pressing level had been met. Such a sequence . . isnormally descriptive of man s own ingenuity in meeting each new challenge(p . 49; cf. p. 83).

8. This is a significant departure from Hesiod, who emphasizes that Heracles deliverance ofPrometheus was n ot without th e will of Olympian Zeus who reigns on high, that th e glory ofHeracles th e Theban-born might be yet greater than it was before Theogony 529-31, Evelyn-White translation; in some later passages I modify his translation slightly . Moreover, in Hesiod th edeliverance refers only to th e slaying of th e eagle. Aeschylus here seems to be th e first to makeHeracles release Prometheus from his chains (cf. Conacher, p. 19).

9. Achilles is th e son to whom Thetis gave birth when she married th e mortal Peleus. Had shemarried Zeus, th e son destined to be stronger than his father would have been Zeus son.

10. Fo r these tw o examples I am indebted to Rebecca Comay and Sam Ajzenstat respectively.Because of th e dynamic reciprocity between guile and force, th e fact that neither Zeus nor Prometheus has exclusive claims on th e tw o attributesdoes not prove that an allegorical interpretationis misguided, as Conacher argues (p . 41). Conacher is surely right to resist th e reduction of sosubtle and complex a play to allegory alone, but there is an important allegorical dimension to it.

. The irony is reinforced in more specific ways: Prometheus is bound for and with his owndevice, th e yoke; he is th e victim of his own disposition; punished fo r having t au ght t he healing artto men he is himself sick of a rebellious hatred fo r th e gods.(Barbara Hughes Fowler, T heImagery of th e Prometheus Bound, American Journal of Philology, 78 [1957] 173-84 p183).

12 . Cf. Blumenberg: Where [humanity] needs and uses fire, where he attributes part of histechnical skill and his capacity for culture to it, there arises, as with other things, th e suspicion thatit would eventually after all have to use itself up, become weaker, degenerate, and require renewal.

This cycle, too, is seen in th e perspective of an organic background metaphor: F ire has itsvegetative periodicity, its world seasons. How impressive is th e idea of fire s self-creation is shownby th e worldwide distribution of cults of fire renewal(p . 300).

13. Some 64 lines of Prometheus Unbound remain in fragments, from which one can see thatits subject was th e freeing of Prometheus by Heracles. irtu lly nothing remains of Prometheus th eFirebearer, not even th e complete certainty of its h ving existed, although not many critics seriously doubt this.

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

23/116

Freedom and Constraints in Prometheus Bound 35The possibility of a reconciliation of th e dichotomies may explain th e prominence of medical

imagery, fo r Greek medicine was often conceived in terms of reconciliation of opposites (seeFowler). Related to this is th e theme of limit, which is pointed out by Hogan (p . 276).

14. hekon hekon hemarton. Grene s I knew when I tr nsgressed softens it to o much.15. Plato, Phaedrus, 255a-e; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8 .4 .1 157a6-16 . The symmetry is

not surprising. For th e unerotic Aristotle, eros is an inferior species of friendship, based only onmutual utility. For th e less sober Plato, on th e other hand, eros is th e most potent form of friendship.

16. Since Aphrodite, in her epithet Cypris, is th e only divine name among th e various terms forlove that have been used (eroti, at 591 , functions as a simple noun rather than th e name of a god) , Ishall use her name synecdochally for th e whole range of terms.

17 . Prometheus obsession with humanity is called sebei (544), translated above as reverebu t having connotations as strong as b e in awe and worship

18 . In th e wake of th e more recent anatomical misconception which ascribes this function toth e heart, some modem versions of th e story (such as Shelley s) make th e heart rather than th e liverth e object of th e eagle s feast.

According to Aeschylus Prometheus Unbound (fragment 193 [Nauck], line 10) th e eaglecomes only every third day. The present passage could be made consistent with that by takingpanemeros (1024) in th e sense of a ll day instead of daily, bu t th e fragment survives only in a(possibly unreliable) Latin translation in Cicero. Whether th e fragment is accurate or not , Aeschylusaudience would at this point probably assume th e ritual to be a daily one , since Hesiod tellsus that by night th e liver grew as much again everyway as th e long winged b ird devou red in th ewhole d y (Theogony 523-25).

19. Cf. th e Homeric Hymn to Hephaestus: Sing, clear-voiced Muse, of Hephaestos famedfo r inventions. With bright-eyed Athene he taught people glorious crafts throughout th e world,people who before used to dwell in caves in th e mountains like wild beasts. But now that they havelearned crafts through Hephaestos th e famed worker , easily they live a peaceful life in their ownhouses th e whole year round. Be gracious, Hephaestos, and grant me success and prosperity(Evelyn-White translation, slightly modified . Also cf. Plato s Statesman 274c: We were givenfire by Prometheus, th e arts by Hephaestos and his co-artisan [Athena].

20. In a variant of Hesiod s version, Zeus buries Typho under mount Aetna instead of throwingh im in to Tarta rus.

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

24/116

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

25/116

Virtue and Knowledge: On Plato s ProtagorasJoseph CropseyThe University of Chicago

Given the dialectical character of th e Platonic writings individually, it is notsurprising that th e Platonic corpus as a whole consists as largely as it does ofengagements with one or another alternative to the understandings of Plato/Socrates. It belongs to the genius of Plato that he constructed a universe out ofelements that exist in a condition of mutual dialectical tension, in a tacit,however limited, concession to th e cosmology of Stress. Expecting always thet r iumphant Socratic finale, even if in the form of aporia and achieved throughnever so many baited deferences, we come nevertheless to appreciate th e seriousness with which Plato scanned th e world of available wisdom, and the carethat he took to draw from Parmenides, fo r example , what that thinker kept inreserve against a rigid theory of Ideas, and from Protagoras, that chanticleersophist, th e wisdom that might lie in his version of the adage Virtue is Knowledge Plato s sifting of Protagoras runs through Protagoras and Theaetetus, theformer dialogue addressing the climactic question of th e coming to be of goodand evil among men , the latter th e companion question, What is knowledge. Ifvirtue is knowledge, as Socrates must forever insist, then why is virtue nottransmissible just as knowledge is t ransmissible in the act of teaching? And ifvirtue cannot be somehow taught, what becomes of the moral pedagogy bywhich th e best political constitution stands or falls? Protagoras on the bringingof good among men (if not by teaching, then how? is a spacious portal into th ePlatonic edifice

The dialogue is made to begin with an encounter between Socrates and afriend,

a chance meeting that occasionsSocrates

recounting a discussion fromwhich he has just departed. Since the dialogue itself, i.e., that very discussion,ended with Socrates remarking that he is already late for some business elsewhere, th e fact that he is now volunteering to repeat th e entire proceedingsmakes it as clear to us as it needs to be that, if he had indeed any affairselsewhere, they must have been the opposite pressing His approach to Protagoras had been at the instance of another , but th e impulse to leave him seemsto have been more entirely his own We may speculate that at th e t ime when

This essay was prepared with th e generous help of th e Earhart Foundation, and is part of aforthcoming book on Plato.

interpretation Winter 1991-92, Vol. 19, No. 2

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

26/116

38 InterpretationSocrates terminated it with the fabrication of another demand on his attentionth e conversation had been squeezed dry of further benefit or interest.

As Socrates tells the story, he goes to Protagoras who is visiting Athensbecause a self centered young bumbler named Hippocrates wishes to attachhimself to Protagoras as a pupil and considers that an introduction by Socrateswould be helpful in gaining him admission to the Protagorean circle. With apatience that thrives best in fiction Socrates allows himself to be awakened byHippocrates so long in advance of dawn that th e young man has to feel his wayaround th e bed in order to find a place to seat himself. Declaring to Socrates ofall people, that Protagoras was the only wise man, and that he Hippocratesaspired to be wise in the same mode , he gives Socrates an opening fo r someinquiry into th e mercenary ways of the sophists. Of course he cannot do thiswithout referring to the sophists as such and by that name. The revelation toHippocrates that he would end by standing before th e Greeks as a sophist raisesa blush on his face that can be seen by th e light of th e barely breaking dawn.More passes as they make their way toward Protagoras Socrates alerting th eyouth to the spiritual perils of trusting himself to poorly understood mentors.The wind of disparagement continues to blow against the sophists as the tw oreach the door of Callias s house where Protagoras is lodging. Their knock isanswered by an emasculated servant whose deprivation in no way inhibits th eexpression of his contempt for th e sophists he takes Socrates and Hippocrates tobe. Apparently and as will soon be confirmed when th e conversation developsindoors contempt fo r the sophists is rife in Greece; and as we have seen at thedoor it extends to the lowest of the low. That Protagoras acquired th e subtitleSophists: ccusatory is understandable, ultimately misleading th ough th a t indication will prove to be. We may well wonder why those virtuosi of rhetoricdid not engender a better opinion of themselves in th e world; whether theirobloquy is not th e unavoidable fate of those whose concern fo r th e truth of theirarguments seems subordinated to cleverness or advantage. But it would be wellfo r us to reserve judgment on th e sophists, fo r as will soon appear , so fa r asProtagoras is representative of them while being perhaps the best among them,their principles do not seem outrageous or absurd.

Having gained access to Callias s house Socrates and Hippocrates comeupon a telling scene: Protagoras in ambulatory discourse followed by a coterieof acolytes who form up behind him in twin columns , part before him as hereverses direction and fall in astern once more , ears straining. The sophistsHippias and Prodicus are described in their respective peculiar postures, enlightening sundry adherents. If there is anything serious about the sophists,Plato will introduce it gradually.

Now it is t ime fo r Socrates to proceed with the introduction of the hopefulHippocrates to Protagoras. Since it is th e purpose of Hippocrates to advance

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

27/116

Virtue and Knowledge: On Plato s Protagoras 139himself in Athenian life by deploying what he will leam from Protagoras thelatter is grateful fo r Socrates delicacy in leaving it up to him whether he willhear ippocratesapplication in private or before the company: local citizenriesdo not always take kindly to th e interference of a foreigner who claims a powerto teach their young the arts of ambition Evidently Protagoras is alert to th edanger of appearing to corrupt the young, even if th e appearance attaches unjustly to an effort to improve t hem. It is out of vanity, Socrates suspects , thatProtagoras now prefers that th e proceedings go on before th e whole companyIn the course of declaring his preference for an open interview Protagorasmakes an important observation on the history of the sophists: they comprise anancient esoteric order whose members include some of the most famous men ofGreece: poets, seers, ath letes, m u sician s, and many more all of themteachers. Homer and Hesiod themselves, and Simonides were of the numberAll sought to conceal their sophistry They hoodwinked the vulgar , of course,but could not conceal their purpose from th e powerful classes He Protagorasalone proclaims his sophistry from the housetops not claiming fo r himself anysuperior honesty but doing so out of unwillingness to bear the humiliation ofbeing caught in a deception he knows is bound to fail. This admitted calculation deserves the reader s respectful attention; the consequenti list principlethat underlies it will play an important part in th e moral doctrine that Socrateswill later develop.

What suspect practice is it that Protagoras confesses to perpetrating as asophist, and in which he by indirection implicates th e entire brotherhood?Nothing less than educating m n(Protagoras 317B). Why does this philanthropic impulse generate universal revulsion? Because it is a private usurpationof a public prerogative? Because it is done for gain? Because it is artful, usingand communicating a profane sorcery? Every one of these possibilities is disposed of in what follows. Protagoras will argue persuasively that men are endowed but not sufficiently endowed with the arts of sociality, in which they doindeed need further cultivation He charges no fixed fee for his instruction butpermits his pupils to pay him whatever they declare on oath to be the value tothem of his teaching (And why should sophistry not get th e benefit of th edistinction of th e teaching art and the moneymaking art?) Finally Protagorashas exactly renounced secrecy and displayed himself before th e Greeks fo rwhat he is . We know where our sympathies are supposed to lie but we are lesscertain, at th e moment , of their ground

Socrates would like Protagoras to tell Hippocrates what the association thelatter is seeking would do fo r him . The general answer is that it would improvehim. Socrates wonders how. Protagoras now (perhaps one should say again)distinguishes himself from th e herd of sophists, who do no better than purveyth e usual arts a rithme tic , a str onomy , geometry, music while he teacheshow best to manage one s household and how to be most effective, in speechand deed in the affairs of the city: in brief th e political art, and making men

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

28/116

140 Interpretationgood itizens (Socrates formulation, 319A). To this claim Socrates enters afamous demurrer: virtue is not teachable. He has seen on many occasions that,when the issue is a technical one, the knowledge of trained experts is respectedin th e Assembly, which defers to skilful people who can be trusted to havelearned an art In matters calling fo r political judgment, however, there is norecognized art in which a man can become an acknowledged expert throughtechnical training, i.e., through undergoing a course of formal instruction,without which he is unqualified to pronounce or advise In principle, anyonecan be wise in the affairs of th e city It is as if Socrates is saying that politicaljudgment is something like a natural gift, had by some and not by others,possessed without being acquired; and a training in it would be a transactionpresided over by a fraud and practiced on the dim. The likelihood of this issupported by the manifest inability of even those most gifted with politicaljudgment, or other virtues, to impart their endowment to the ones nearest anddearest to t hem. This is as true in the private realm as in the public Within th ehome, Pericles was unable either himself to tea ch or even to find another whocould tea ch th e goodness he valued most to the beings he cherished most Thematter is simply not subject to pedagogy Plainly stated, this argument tracesmoral character, and judgment as well, to a source that is not man, perhapsnature, perhaps something else, but in any event a power that conveys gifts topatient humanity. It is to th is position that Protagoras must address himself. Hewill do so through one of Plato s magnificent reconstructions of Protagoreandoctrine, beginning at 320C (another is in Theaetetus 165E-168C).

Protagoras s response will be guided by his immediate understanding thatth e unspoken premise of Socrates antipaideutic etiology of virtue is th e proposition that the universe is of a certain kind, made or containing or perhaps ruledby What-Endows. We know that Protagoras understands this because he begins his lengthy statement with a zoogonic myth th at tra ce s us all, and therewith the status of our virtues, back to the gods

There was a time, he says, when gods were but th e mortal kind was notThe gods made th e animals and then charged Prometheus and Epimetheus, theprospective and th e retrospective, to assign them their powers Epimetheus distributes th e powers so that each kind will possess means of preserving itselfagainst annihilation by its natural predators Balance epanison or compens tionis the principle at work Unity permeates and supervenes over aggressive multiplicity Epimetheus seems to have stumbled on a working model ofth e One and th e Many in the shape of the animal kingdom. It was left toPrometheus to see to the needs of man, whom Epimetheus had somehow overlooked. Prometheus provides fo r mankind by stealing, on their behalf, fire andthe arts from the gods, who apparently would not willingly succor mankind , ofwhom they had washed their hands from the beginning.

Who, by the way, are Epimetheus and Prometheus, retrospect and prospectGods they are not; godlike powers they seem to be. Whose b ckw rd looking

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

29/116

Virtue n Knowledge: On Plato s Protagoras 141and forward-looking powers are they then if not m ns himself? In the fablethat Plato s Protagoras is spinning, Epimetheus is man s looking around himself and observing the manner of the coming to be and passing away of theliving things, the compensatory balance of consumption and being consumedthat comprises a bestial cycle from which forethought alone can liberate him.What the gods will not bestow on him to this end he will rape them of, and hewill never cease to consider how far in this world his wellbeing must be hisown farseeing care.

Protagoras now speaks of man as sharing in the divine, referring of course toth e art and fire obtained from heaven through a force and fraud; and virtueof this participation he became reverent of his own close kin aloft, setting upaltars to them and making icons of t h em. We observe that without the contraband arts th e human beings would have been both unable to honor the meanand myopic Olympians with works of art and also unmoved to do so , since th epossession of arts encourages introspective man to see a god. As P lato fashionsthis skillful projection of Protagoras, the persistent tendency of th e great sophistto link humanity to divinity through techne becomes clearer, and if we bear inmind that in th e background of th e discussion is th e ever present issue of teachability, more exactly the teachability of virtue, we can envision an importantvictory for Protagoras if he can produce the concurrence of divinity qua excellence and teachable art qua excellence. His pedagogy would then pass divinityfrom man to man , perfecting the philanthropy of Prometheus.

Protagoras continues. For all his art and worship, man still lived a solitaryand dangerous life. His predators were the beasts, not his fellow human beings,and he found that his preservation depended on his joining together with hisfellow men in order to deal with th e brutes. According to Protagoras, men hadbeen losing the war polemos with the beasts because humanity lacked th epolitical art, a part of which is (the art of) warNow th e remedy of associationfo r defense produced a new disorder: in their novel proximity, the humansreplaced the beasts as the source of danger to life, and th e primitive societythreatened to dissolve in mutual injury because men lacked th e po litical artPlato will not imply any criticism of Protagoras as being inconsistent in sayingthat th e political art is at the same t ime the art of war and the ground of peace.The assimilation of the warmaking art to the political condition is in the spiritof ocrates own thought as set forth at the beginning of the Timaeus where hecalls fo r an account of the exploits of the best city in its most characteristicactivity, which is war in speech and deed. That peace is impossible withoutpolitics and politics is impossible without war seems to have been as evident toProtagoras as it was to Socrates.

To avert the self destruction of our kind, Zeus consents to share politicalwisdom with the human beings. On what terms? Hermes is to convey to allmen , not to some few who would be the experts or artisans of political art, thejustice and conscientiousness that are at the core of th e political art. The words

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

30/116

142 Interpretationused are dike and aidos the former with its accompanying meaning of righteousness and the latter a complex amalgam of respect and susceptibility toshame or disgrace. Everyone, in principle, participates in the political virtues;Protagoras seems to envision a democratic foundation fo r human existence Hedoes not make this into a fo rmula fo r prescribing a regime as best or mostnatural , and he immediately makes provision fo r the capital punishment ofthose who are incapable of sharing in the decencies of common life. It is easyfo r us to see that if Protagoras had devised a god who had endowed all menwith equal political virtue fo r th e sake of human preservation in society, th esophist would have left little enough for himself to do as a teacher of politicalvirtue Conversely, the justification of a pedagogy in political virtue inevitablyimplicates the dispensing god in the gross imperfection of the human k ind inwhich such a large residue of room fo r correction persists Protagoras s myth isa standing demonstration th at th e image of a god who is chary of sharing withmankind his wisdom of good and evil is available outside th e limits ofrevelation

Protagoras considers himself to have explained why th e assembled citizenswill listen to anyone regardless of his profession if he discourses sensibly onmatters governed by political virtue politikes aretes) 323A1): th e very existence of cities te stifie s to th e distribution of the social disposition among men,in effect to the almost universal presence of it in th e human kind. The observable practice of mankind is an index to profound truth.

It is obvious to us, and it immediately proves to be at least as obvious toProtagoras, that in making this argument he is a step away from arguing himself out of an honest occupation as a teacher of political virtue Who wouldneed a human provider where a divine one has gone before? Again, Protagorastakes his demonstration from th e common practice of mankind Whereas weblame no one fo r his ugliness or deformity, because these are seen to be trulyinvoluntary, we blame injustice because we attribute it to the malefactor himself, and we punish it not to retribute it upon th e guilty but to deter a repetition and to deter is to train. As we are all imbued with sociality, so we allknow it to be a thing acquired by learning. All that the reader of this myth needdo to purge it of gross contradiction is to eliminate a supposition that th e imbuing is th e effect of the action of any teacher or imbuer who is not human. W eare all sociable because we all teach one another sociability Of course , somedo it better than others The very best teacher of virtue might be struck by thenotion that he does for man what nothing else in the cosmos does. Protagoraswill in fact go so fa r as to claim to be, himself, th e best of all men at makingothers noble and good 328B).

Protagoras claims to have shown Socrates how it comes about that the Athenians in assembly listen willingly to any man of any occupation if he addressthem on civic matters in a sensible way , and Protagoras can claim to have doneso through an argument that turns on th e teachability of virtue Abandoning

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

31/116

Virtue and Knowledge: On Plato s Protagoras 143myth fo r straight speech logos , he will turn next to Socrates second point,which is th at the good men have so much t rouble and so little success whenthey seek means to have their very own sons made virtuous, a fact that Socratesadduces as evidence that virtue cannot be taught . Protagoras insists that th ewhole weight of th e human environment comprises an unremitting pressure ona youngster from the beginning of his life, forming him in th e mold of th evirtues His parents, his teachers of music and of gymnast ic , and eventually th ecity itself through its laws, all are ceaselessly prompting him to virtue throughout his entire life, by coercion where admonition and persuasion fail. Protagoras does not neglect to consider why th e relentless moral pressure of humanity upon itself can fail. Men, whose lives should follow th e paradigm ofvirtue everywhere recommended to them, behave instead according to a modelof their very own (326D1). What could explain this willfulness The samecause that explains why a master flautist s son, taught by his father, need notprove to be a master flautist: th e element of natural aptitude As it were , ourgreater or less inclination to virtue is by nature, but virtue itself is by instruction and habituation. This foreshadowing of Aristotle is presented by Protagoras in the medium of rational discourse rather than myth, as he has declared, and we see th e sign of that transition when he renders his final accountof th e distribution and cultivation of th e civil virtues in th e language of naturalaptitude where previously he had spoken in te rms of endowment by gods

We must remind ourselves that it was out of a similar premise , namely , thatth e virtues are ours by reason of an endowment of some origin, perhaps nature,that Socrates appeared to argue to their incommunicability teaching. To thispoint, th e issue between Socrates and the great sophist appears to be this: thetw o agreeing that it is hard to know what makes , or how to make , a humanbeing good, and agreeing further th at th e aptitude fo r virtue is largely by endowment, which of them makes the stronger argument th e one who maintains that the virtues are not teachable or the one who argues that they are Itmight be well to recall that this long exposition by Protagoras was prompted inlarge part by Socrates requiring Protagoras to say in what way his instructionmakes men better. We are in a position to formulate his response thus: Protagoras helps to make his young pupils more sociable, to foster whatever natural inclination they have toward justice and th e other virtues that make a man agood associate in th e city In brief, Protagoras makes , or at least aims to make,of young men good cit izens, even if ambitious ones By th e end of his life, ocrates doings as a whole will appear to his fellow citizens as a career ofmaking th e young into bad or skeptical citizens The sophist appears in th ehonorable light, shed upon him by Plato, of one whose concern it is to civilizeth e human animal, that amazing being with so much capacity for good and evil,so much in need of his fellows if he is to live a fruitful life and so prone toabuse them if he believes he can do so with impunity . Not for a single momentunmindful of these truths, nor inclined to dispute them, Socrates looks so far

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

32/116

144 Interpretationbeyond them that he could appear to neglect and in the end despise them, andthis notwithstanding that he is made th e propounder of the true and good cityThe engagement between the sophist and the philosopher gives us an occasionfor wondering whether in a country like Athens the philosopher must choosebetween being mocked as a fantast or reviled as a felon.

Now 328D Socrates begins his rejoinder Politely but pointedly likeningProtagoras s flow of speech to a book in its deafness and muteness in regard toquestions, Socrates makes an issue, and not for th e last time, of the differencebetween the presentation of argument in sustained speech and the exchange ofquestions and answers succinctly put His reason for introducing this issue mustbe inferred from what follows, fo r no reason is given Socrates declares himselfto need clarification on one small point alone: are all those various virtues towhich Protagoras had referred one single thing with many names, or are theyrather parts of some one single thing? However the question will be pursued, itsbearing on th e disjunction of long speeches and short answers seems clearenough: this matter should have been taken up and disposed of early in Protagoras s discourse, and if it had been, th e discourse would have taken a different, better direction. Reasoning and speech should not be allowed to proceedwithout continuous confirmation of th e steps being taken, one by one , lest th ewhole inquiry prove in need of redoing If this explains the introduction Socrates of what looks like a cavil about methods , then it serves less to protecthim from the blame he would deserve as a petulant quibbler and more to indicate that everything Protagoras had maintained stands or falls by the answer toth e crucial question, namely, Is virtue one or many , which would have beenraised near the outset if there had been an opportunity to raise it.

In response, Protagoras maintains that the virtues are parts of virtue, as th efacial features are parts of the face. Socrates presses toward the assimilation ofthe virtues to one another To make his point, Socrates extracts th e admissionthat there is such a thing as justice itself, holiness hosiotes itself, etcetera, andthat, fo r example, justice is itself just. We would be easier in our minds if wecould intervene at this point and ask how justice can be just without participating in some entity called justice, i.e., without participating in itself, whatever that might mean We suspect that Plato s Parmenides, if he had been present, would have sensed Socrates injection of th e Idea of Justice here andwould have reminded him of certain difficulties he once experienced whencalled on to be precise when speaking of participation in an Idea (Parmenides 13 IB ; but Plato s Protagoras and presumably the real Protagoras isnot oriented to th e problems of the Ideas. Nor does he object when Socrates,taking high moral ground, asks, Could holiness be not just and therefore unjust? 331 A , as if it were impossible fo r anything (for example a bird to benot-just without being unjust Protagoras does balk, however, at th e notionthat whenever tw o things have anything in common they must have everythingin common and be th e same He goes so fa r as to say that it is not at all just tospeak like that (33 IE). Should he have taxed Socrates with injustice?

8/13/2019 Vol_19-2

33/116

Virtue and Knowledge: On Plato s Protagoras 145Socrates moves off on another tack which will help to reveal his larger

purpose. Having failed to obtain Protagoras s agreement to the unity of thevirtues in Virtue, he will now argue the unity of th e virtues in Wisdom. His keyproposition is that to behave wrongly is to behave unwisely (332B). Thisgranted, everything else falls into place: Since th e violation of every virtue is afolly, each and all th e virtues have one and th e same single opposite; andhaving but one opposite, all the virtues are united through that common opposite, which is folly; and folly too itself has but one opposite, which would becalled wisdom or, as we now see, virtue. Thus, all th e virtues have collapsedinto the opposite of their opposite, and th e virtues are united in Wisdom, whichis what was to be demonstrated. By this conclusion, the virtues cannot bep rts of something in which they participate to form a whole, as the eyes ,nose, mouth , and ears, each with its peculiar function, are parts of a face. Ofcourse , Protagoras is not entirely pleased.

Summarizing the state of the question 333B , Socrates makes explicit thatdiscretion sophrosyne and wisdom are th e same, and justice and holiness arealmost schedon th e same. We have no clue to th e reason fo r the almost butif we must devise one, it might develop around the thought that nothing candisturb the identity of two virtues except their failure to share fully the sameopposi te , namely , folly. We would want to hesitate at length before decidingwhich, as between justice and holiness, by failing to contradict folly participates in it to whatever microscopic degree . Unab le to resolve this sensitivedifficulty by ourselves, we go on to note th e next step in ocrates argumentwhich does appear to bear somewhat on th e vexing issue. Socrates inquireswhether a man acting unjustly is, in his injustice, being discreet, practicing amoderation (sophrosyne). Protagoras says that he would be ashamed to agree tothat, although the multitude among men say it. Protagoras does not take advantage of this opportunity to point out how this widespread turpitude increases theneed fo r universal moral instruction of th e kind he provides, and Socrates simply consents to take the deplorable popular view rather than any belief of Protagoras s as his target . S