Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric

5 THE TWO-LOGO! FRAGMENT

5 THE TWO-LOGO! FRAGMENT The Greek text of what I will refer to as the two-logoi fragment is the following: Kat np&LOc; ETJ Mo A.Oyouc; Elvm nEpt navtoc; npawatoc; avtLKEL!A-Evouc; aA.A.~A.otc; (DL 9.51). Osborne's concern that so-called fragments are often paraphrases has validity with respect to the twologoi fragment.1 After all, our source is over six centuries removed from Protagoras, and no fifth- or fourth-century BCE writer quotes the statement in the same way Protagoras' human-measure or "concerning the gods" statements are quoted. Nevertheless, I think there are good reasons to treat Diogenes Laertius' words as faithful to Protagoras' original ideas. Accordingly, I will follow the convention of referring to the statement as one of Protagoras' fragments. Diogenes Laertius introduced the fragment with the words "and he was the first to say" (kai protos ephe}, implying that what followed was well-known. The existence of something like a Greek commonplace concerning two logoi is suggested by Clement of Alexandria: "Every argument [panti logoi] has an opposite argument, say the Greeks, following Protagoras."2 Similarly, Seneca reported that "Protagoras declares that one can take either side on any question and debate it with equal success " (Epistles 88.43).3 A book titled "Contradictory Arguments" is also attributed to Protagoras, though there is no certainty he wrote such a work (DK 80 At, B5). For my purposes the important idea of the fragment is that there are two logoi in opposition about every "thing" (pantos pragmatos). Even 89 The Major Fragments of Protagoras if Diogenes Laertius is paraphrasing, Protagoras' actual words must have included three key notions: logoi, opposition, and things (pragmata). Given Aristophanes' portrayal of the two opposing logoi in the Clouds and the resonance between the two-logoi and weaker/stronger logoi fragments , there is no reason to doubt that those three notions are authentically Protagorean. Accordingly, my analysis of the fragment will focus on the three notions and what they meant to fifth- and fourth-century audiences. THE SUBJECTIVE AND HERACLITEAN INTERPRETATIONS The available translations can be usefully grouped into two categories: the subjective interpretation and the Heraclitean interpretation. The subjective interpretation is used in such translations as Michael]. O'Brien, "On every issue there are two arguments opposed to each other"; R. D. Hicks, "There are two sides to every question, opposed to each other"; Theodor Gomperz, "On every question there are two speeches, which stand in opposition to one another"; Bromley Smith, "On every question there were two sides to the argument, exactly opposite to one another"; Lazlo Versenyi, "There are two sides, opposed to each other, to every question"; and Guthrie, "There are two opposite arguments on every subject."4 Such translations reduce Protagoras' statement to the proposition that a debate is possible on any topic. Or, as Kennedy paraphrases, "Something can be said on both sides of every question."5 Such readings are consistent with interpretations of Protagoras that reduce all sophistic teaching to rhetoric. While a pragmatic result of the two-logoi statement may have been an advancement of the practice we now call debate, a strictly "rhetorical" reading of the fragment understates the philosophical content of Protagoras' doctrines. The difference between the subjective interpretation and the Heraclitean interpretation turns on the translation of two key words, logos and pragmata. In the subjective interpretation pragmata is translated with such words as "issue," "question," and "subject." These words anachronistically subjectify pragmata since issues and questions are obviously human creations. It is implied further that the two logoi-sides, speeches, or arguments-are created solely by the arguers rather than being aspects of an object of inquiry. In contrast to the subjective interpretation there are examples of what I call the Heraclitean interpreta90 The Two-Logoi Fragment tion. They include Untersteiner, "In every experience there are two logoi in opposition to each other"; Kerferd, "There are two logoi concerning everything, these being opposed to each other"; and Guthrie, "Of every thing two contrary accounts can be given."6 It is worth noting that Kerferd's translation of the fragment has changed over time. In 1949 he rendered the fragment "On every question there are two accounts opposed to one another," and in 1967 "There are two logoi, or accounts, to be given about everything."7 In 1981 he substituted "argument" for "account" but otherwise maintained his 1967 translation.8 The...