protagoras- 第9部分

aware；　but　he　thought　that　he　would　make　fun；　and　try　if　you　could



maintain　your　thesis；　for　that　Simonides　could　never　have　meant　the



other　is　clearly　proved　by　the　context；　in　which　he　says　that　God　only



has　this　gift。　Now　he　cannot　surely　mean　to　say　that　to　be　good　is



evil；　when　he　afterwards　proceeds　to　say　that　God　only　has　this



gift；　and　that　this　is　the　attribute　of　him　and　of　no　other。　For　if



this　be　his　meaning；　Prodicus　would　impute　to　Simonides　a　character　of



recklessness　which　is　very　unlike　his　countrymen。　And　I　should　like　to



tell　you；　I　said；　what　I　imagine　to　be　the　real　meaning　of　Simonides



in　this　poem；　if　you　will　test　what；　in　your　way　of　speaking；　would　be



called　my　skill　in　poetry；　or　if　you　would　rather；　I　will　be　the



listener。



　　To　this　proposal　Protagoras　replied：　As　you　please；…and　Hippias；



Prodicus；　and　the　others　told　me　by　all　means　to　do　as　I　proposed。



　　Then　now；　I　said；　I　will　endeavour　to　explain　to　you　my　opinion



about　this　poem　of　Simonides。　There　is　a　very　ancient　philosophy　which



is　more　cultivated　in　Crete　and　Lacedaemon　than　in　any　other　part　of



Hellas；　and　there　are　more　philosophers　in　those　countries　than



anywhere　else　in　the　world。　This；　however；　is　a　secret　which　the



Lacedaemonians　deny；　and　they　pretend　to　be　ignorant；　just　because



they　do　not　wish　to　have　it　thought　that　they　rule　the　world　by



wisdom；　like　the　Sophists　of　whom　Protagoras　was　speaking；　and　not



by　valour　of　arms；　considering　that　if　the　reason　of　their　superiority



were　disclosed；　all　men　would　be　practising　their　wisdom。　And　this



secret　of　theirs　has　never　been　discovered　by　the　imitators　of



Lacedaemonian　fashions　in　other　cities；　who　go　about　with　their　ears



bruised　in　imitation　of　them；　and　have　the　caestus　bound　on　their



arms；　and　are　always　in　training；　and　wear　short　cloaks；　for　they



imagine　that　these　are　the　practices　which　have　enabled　the



Lacedaemonians　to　conquer　the　other　Hellenes。　Now　when　the



Lacedaemonians　want　to　unbend　and　hold　free　conversation　with　their



wise　men；　and　are　no　longer　satisfied　with　mere　secret　intercourse；



they　drive　out　all　these　laconizers；　and　any　other　foreigners　who



may　happen　to　be　in　their　country；　and　they　hold　a　philosophical



seance　unknown　to　strangers；　and　they　themselves　forbid　their　young



men　to　go　out　into　other　cities…in　this　they　are　like　the　Cretans…in



order　that　they　may　not　unlearn　the　lessons　which　they　have　taught



them。　And　in　Lacedaemon　and　Crete　not　only　men　but　also　women　have　a



pride　in　their　high　cultivation。　And　hereby　you　may　know　that　I　am



right　in　attributing　to　the　Lacedaemonians　this　excellence　in



philosophy　and　speculation：　If　a　man　converses　with　the　most



ordinary　Lacedaemonian；　he　will　find　him　seldom　good　for　much　in



general　conversation；　but　at　any　point　in　the　discourse　he　will　be



darting　out　some　notable　saying；　terse　and　full　of　meaning；　with



unerring　aim；　and　the　person　with　whom　he　is　talking　seems　to　be



like　a　child　in　his　hands。　And　many　of　our　own　age　and　of　former



ages　have　noted　that　the　true　Lacedaemonian　type　of　character　has



the　love　of　philosophy　even　stronger　than　the　love　of　gymnastics；　they



are　conscious　that　only　a　perfectly　educated　man　is　capable　of



uttering　such　expressions。　Such　were　Thales　of　Miletus；　and　Pittacus



of　Mitylene；　and　Bias　of　Priene；　and　our　own　Solon；　and　Cleobulus



the　Lindian；　and　Myson　the　Chenian；　and　seventh　in　the　catalogue　of



wise　men　was　the　Lacedaemonian　Chilo。　All　these　were　lovers　and



emulators　and　disciples　of　the　culture　of　the　Lacedaemonians；　and



any　one　may　perceive　that　their　wisdom　was　of　this　character；



consisting　of　short　memorable　sentences；　which　they　severally　uttered。



And　they　met　together　and　dedicated　in　the　temple　of　Apollo　at　Delphi；



as　the　first…fruits　of　their　wisdom；　the　far…famed　inscriptions；　which



are　in　all　men's　mouths…〃Know　thyself；〃　and　〃Nothing　too　much。〃



　　Why　do　I　say　all　this？　I　am　explaining　that　this　Lacedaemonian



brevity　was　the　style　of　primitive　philosophy。　Now　there　was　a



saying　of　Pittacus　which　was　privately　circulated　and　received　the



approbation　of　the　wise；　〃Hard　is　it　to　be　good。〃　And　Simonides；　who



was　ambitious　of　the　fame　of　wisdom；　was　aware　that　if　he　could



overthrow　this　saying；　then；　as　if　he　had　won　a　victory　over　some



famous　athlete；　he　would　carry　off　the　palm　among　his



contemporaries。　And　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　he　composed　the　entire



poem　with　the　secret　intention　of　damaging　Pittacus　and　his　saying。



　　Let　us　all　unite　in　examining　his　words；　and　see　whether　I　am



speaking　the　truth。　Simonides　must　have　been　a　lunatic；　if；　in　the



very　first　words　of　the　poem；　wanting　to　say　only　that　to　become



good　is　hard；　he　inserted　（men）　〃on　the　one　hand〃　＇〃on　the　one　hand　to



become　good　is　hard〃＇；　there　would　be　no　reason　for　the　introduction



of　（men）；　unless　you　suppose　him　to　speak　with　a　hostile　reference



to　the　words　of　Pittacus。　Pittacus　is　saying　〃Hard　is　it　to　be



good；〃　and　he；　in　refutation　of　this　thesis；　rejoins　that　the　truly



hard　thing；　Pittacus；　is　to　become　good；　not　joining　〃truly〃　with



〃good；〃　but　with　〃hard。〃　Not；　that　the　hard　thing　is　to　be　truly　good；



as　though　there　were　some　truly　good　men；　and　there　were　others　who



were　good　but　not　truly　good　（this　would　be　a　very　simple　observation；



and　quite　unworthy　of　Simonides）；　but　you　must　suppose　him　to　make　a



trajection　of　the　word　〃truly；〃　construing　the　saying　of　Pittacus　thus



（and　let　us　imagine　Pittacus　to　be　speaking　and　Simonides　answering



him）：　〃O　my　friends；〃　says　Pittacus；　〃hard　is　it　to　be　good；〃　and



Simonides　answers；　〃In　that；　Pittacus；　you　are　mistaken；　the



difficulty　is　not　to　be　good；　but　on　the　one　hand；　to　become　good；



four…square　in　hands　and　feet　and　mind；　without　a　flaw…that　is　hard



truly。〃　This　way　of　reading　the　passage　accounts　for　the　insertion



of　（men）　〃on　the　one　hand；〃　and　for　the　position　at　the　end　of　the



clause　of　the　word　〃truly；〃　and　all　that　follows　shows　this　to　be



the　meaning。　A　great　deal　might　be　said　in　praise　of　the　details　of



the　poem；　which　is　a　charming　piece　of　workmanship；　and　very　finished；



but　such　minutiae　would　be　tedious。　I　should　like；　however；　to　point



out　the　general　intention　of　the　poem；　which　is　certainly　designed



in　every　part　to　be　a　refutation　of　the　saying　of　Pittacus。　For　he



speaks　in　what　follows　a　little　further　on　as　if　he　meant　to　argue



that　although　there　is　a　difficulty　in　becoming　good；　yet　this　is



possible　for　a　time；　and　only　for　a　time。　But　having　become　good；　to



remain　in　a　good　state　and　be　good；　as　you；　Pittacus；　affirm；　is　not



possible；　and　is　not　granted　to　man；　God　only　has　this　blessing；



〃but　man　cannot　help　being　bad　when　the　force　of　circumstances



overpowers　him。〃　Now　whom　does　the　force　of　circumstance　overpower



in　the　command　of　a　vessel？…not　the　private　individual；　for　he　is



always　overpowered；　and　as　one　who　is　already　prostrate　cannot　be



overthrown；　and　only　he　who　is　standing　upright　but　not　he　who　is



prostrate　can　be　laid　prostrate；　so　the　force　of　circumstances　can



only　overpower　him　who；　at　some　time　or　other；　has　resources；　and



not　him　who　is　at　all　times　helpless。　The　descent　of　a　great　storm　may



make　the　pilot　helpless；　or　the　severity　of　the　season　the



husbandman　or　the　physician；　for　the　good　may　become　bad；　as　another



poet　witnesses：







　　　The　good　are　sometimes　good　and　sometimes　bad。







But　the　bad　does　not　become　bad；　he　is　always　bad。　So　that　when　the



force　of　circumstances　overpowers　the　man　of　resources　and　skill　and



virtue；　then　he　cannot　help　being　bad。　And　you；　Pittacus；　are



saying；　〃Hard　is　it　to　be　good。〃　Now　there　is　a　difficulty　in　becoming



good；　and　yet　this　is　possible：　but　to　be　good　is　an　impossibility…







　　For　he　who　does　well　is　the　good　man；　and　he　who　does　ill　is　the



bad。







But　what　sort　of　doing　is　good　in　letters？　and　what　sort　of　doing



makes　a　man　good　in　letters？　Clearly　the　knowing　of　them。　And　what



sort　of　well…doing　makes　a　man　a　good　physician？　Clearly　the　knowledge



of　the　art　of　healing　the　sick。　〃But　he　who　does　ill　is　the　bad。〃



Now　who　becomes　a　bad　physician？　Clearly　he　who　is　in　the　first



place　a　physician；　and　in　the　second　place　a　good　physician；　for　he



may　become　a　bad　one　also：　but　none　of　us　unskilled　individuals　can　by



any　amount　of　doing　ill　become　physicians；　any　more　than　we　can　become



carpenters　or　anything　of　that　sort；　and　he　who　by　doing　ill　cannot



become　a　physician　at　all；　clearly　cannot　become　a　bad　physician。　In



like　manner　the　good　may　become　deteriorated　by　time；　or　toil；　or



disease；　or　other　accident　（the　only　real　doing　ill　is　to　be



deprived　of　knowledge）；　but　the　bad　man　will　never　become　bad；　for



he　is　always　bad；　and　if　he　were　to　become　bad；　he　must　previously



have　been　good。　Thus　the　words　of　the　poem　tend　to　show　that　on　the



one　hand　a　man　cannot　be　continuously　good；　but　that　he　may　become



good　and　may　also　become　bad；　and　again　that







　　They　are　the　best　for　the　longest　time　whom　the　gods　love。







　　All　this　relates　to　Pittacus；　as　is　further　proved　by　the　sequel。



For　he　adds：







　　Therefore　I　will　not　throw　away　my　span　of　life　to　no　purpose　in



searching　after　the　impossible；　hoping　in　vain　to　find　a　perfectly



faultless　man　among　those　who　partake　of　the　fruit　of　the



broad…bosomed　earth：　if　I　find　him；　I　will　send　you　word。







（this　is　the　vehement　way　in　which　he　pursues　his　attack　upon　Pittacus



throughout　the　whole　poem）：







　　But　him　who　does　no　evil；　voluntarily　I　praise　and　love；…not　even



the　gods　war　against　necessity。







All　this　has　a　similar　drift；　for　Simonides　was　not　so　ignorant　as



to