Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric

9 THE "CONCERNING THE GODS" FRAGMENT

9 THE "CONCERNING THE GODS" FRAGMENT Next to the human-measure statement, the "concerning the gods" fragment is Protagoras' best-known saying. It is quoted in whole or in part by Diogenes Laertius (9.51), Hesychius (DK 80 A3), Sextus Empiricus (All), Cicero (A23), and Eusebius (B4); it is mentioned or paraphrased by Philostratus (A2), Philodemus (A23), Diogenes of Oenoando (A23), and Plato (Theaetetus 162d). The fragment consists of two sentences: 1) rtepi !lEV ee&v OUK EXW dc5Evm, oiJe' w~ doiv oiJe' w~ OUK doiv oile' ortoio( LLV£~ i.f>tav. 2) rto/../..a yap 1:a Kmi..Uovm ei.f>Evm t] 't'ablJM'tlJ~ Kai ~paxu~ &v 6 ~(o~ 1:0'0 av8pwrtou (DK 80 B4). The first sentence can be given either an existential or veridical reading. Either places Protagoras clearly in the mainstream "philosophical" use of eimi ("to be"). The existential reading is very common and is even accepted by Kahn: "Concerning the gods I am unable to know, whether they exist or whether they do not exist or what they are like in form."1 Since Kahn's extensive study of the Greek verb "to be" has proved influential, I repeat his discussion of the first sentence in its entirety: Here in what is perhaps the earliest surviving "technical" use of eimi as existential predicate we see that questions of existence are explicitly distinguished from what will later be called questions of essence. And we see also that the latter would typically be formulated by sentences with be as copula: hopoioi eisi idean. (Compare the standard Hellenistic doctrine which asserts that we can know that the gods are but not what or what 141 The Major Fragments of Protagoras sort they are.) This distinction between the existence and the essence or nature of the gods corresponds in logical terms to the syntactic contrast between esti as existential sentence operator and as first-order copula.2 Kerferd remains unconvinced of Kahn's suggestion that the "concerning the gods" fragment was the first technical use of eimi as an existential predicate, and he translates hos eisin and hos ouk eisin as "that (or how) they are" and "that (or how) they are not."3 Nonetheless, an existential reading is plausible. The construction of Protagoras' statement identifies two issues: the question of existence (has eisin) and the question of the gods' idean-"form," "nature," or "appearance." Even a veridical reading would juxtapose the question of whether "they are the case" or "they are not the case" with "what they are like in form." Clearly the existence /essence distinction is nascent if not explicit in such a juxtaposition. In any event, the construction of the first sentence of "concerning the gods" was syntactically provocative. Has eisin and has ouk eisin were stripped bare of any possible qualification that othetwise might have signaled Homeric-age connotations of location or status.4 The twin phrases force the hearer to address the issue of whether the gods are true or false, fact or fiction, independent of considerations of what the gods are like. Significantly, this innovative question of existence or nonexistence was posed in a statement still guided by narrative form. Syntax still had not evolved sufficiently to address the question of whether and what gods are in purely abstract fashion; that task was left to Plato. Protagoras' inquiry was framed as a personal one, "concerning the gods I am unable to know," to which an elaboration is added, "whether they exist or whether they do not exist or what they are like in form," to which the second sentence is added as further elaboration. Protagoras' prose was still influenced by the additive form of oral narrative, though his innovative use of eimi marks a progression toward the more nuanced analysis found in Plato and Aristotle. The second sentence of the fragment is appropriately translated as "For there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life."5 Jaap Mansfeld suggests that the first phrase may h·ave been an idiomatic expression meaning "there is more than one thing in the way."6 Mansfeld's suggestion is plausible given Protagoras~ tendency to create memorable aphorisms, and it can be accepted without changing the point of the second sentence. The claim that life is too short to gain knowledge of the gods had 142 The "Concerning the Gods" Fragment precedent in Empedocles' claim that life is too short...