Protagoras: Literature as a Political Tool

Introduction

During the 5th century BCE, many philosophers considered it their duty to find and teach the truth. Two important philosophers: Plato and Sophocles both challenged the system using their literary skills. This was the only way to take a stand against their government without being severely punished. Plato’s Protagoras used conversation between characters in his dialogues to make a political statement. The basis of The Protagoras, was the 5th century BC Greek Sophist philosopher of Abdera Greece. Some background information concerning Protagoras, the man, is necessary to understand the importance of his character’s role in Plato’s Protagoras. Born in Abdera in northeast Greece, he was a frequent visitor to Athens, becoming the first and most famous of the ‘Sophists’ who, for a price, would give “professional training in public life and in other skills” (Holt 124).

He was also credited with being the first to offer a systematic approach for the study of tenses, moods and grammar including distinguishing parts of speech. During his late twenties, Protagoras became a close friend of Pericles, leader of Athens from 460 to 429 BCE, and was invited by him to draft a legal code for the new pan-Hellenic colony of Thurii, Italy (Philips 126). Later, as a result of his challenging and non-conforming views of his society, Protagoras’s many works were publicly burned. This left no direct sources from him except the first, extremely detailed and lengthy, sentence from On the Gods. He was then exiled in 415 BCE (Key 32). Because of the burning of his works and his exile, much of our information concerning Protagoras, the man, comes from Plato’s dialogues, one of which was named after and respectfully portrayed Protagoras.

This work elaborated on one of Protagoras’s most famous maxims, which stated, ‘Man is the measure of all things.’ This is usually taken to imply a relativistic or skeptical view of humanity when the maxim is read in its entirety. Meaning, Protagoras’ maxim suggests the accomplishments and findings of humanity be based on all other things, whether they are actions or intentions. “Man is the measure of all things; of those which are, that they are; of those which are not, that they are not” (Auden 76).

Sophists

It was this belief that inspired both Plato’s and Protagoras’ view of the operation of their government. In a series of questions, asked by the character Socrates, and answers, given by his students, the ideal government according to the Sophists’ was established. Finely’s documentation quotes Plato’s Protagoras, 322 E- 323 A, to read: When the subject of their deliberation involves political wisdom . . . they listen to every man, for they think that everyone must share in this [the same] virtue; otherwise there could be no poleis [polis]. (86)

Protagoras felt the polis was both necessary and corruptive to the function of government. It was necessary because it was the voice of the people, but it was a corruption because “the people” were ignorant of most of the issues. Through the dialog of Protagoras it can be argued that both Plato and Protagoras felt the polis should maintain its power as long as it was modified. One modification in the polis that both Plato and Protagoras felt necessary was the eligibility for the members of the polis. Everyone in the polis did not belong because of the inability of most to think scientifically and rationally.

Plato states: . . . [only a few can govern] and these, whether they rule with the will, or against the will, of their subjects, with the written laws or without written laws, . . . must be supposed, according to our present view, to rule with some scientific principle. (qtd. in Hill 125)

According to this line, Sophist felt the rule of the polis should be addressed with a scientific approach. “The science of government can only be attained by a very few” (Waters 327). Those who could not approach matters scientifically had no position in the polis. This of course, was written to imply that the Sophists were the selected few who should run the polis. At that time, they were the only ones who, from their point of view, had adequate scientific knowledge to do so.

The Sophist also went so far as to say, as noted by McDarwel, “So long as the governors rule scientifically, it matters not whether they rule with or without law, over willing or unwilling subjects” (46). The Sophists established themselves as the best qualified for government officials. Not only is Protagoras a tool of the Sophists to address the qualifications of the polis and government officials, but it also stressed the issue of the law. Philips, in his account concerning Plato’s Protagoras states it, “ . . . because the law does not perfectly comprehend what is noblest and most just for all and therefore cannot enforce what is best” (238).

Because of this opinion, the Sophists were skeptical about the validity of the law. They were unsure to whether the law should be followed or rebelled against considering that they were inadequate. The laws were imperfections to them because of their constant need of modification. “ . . . [the laws cannot be taken as absolute truths] because the law is always striving to make one [another law]”(Auden 156).

The Sophists had two general rules concerning the law:

• The first best thing, is the rule of the Sophists through scientific advancement
• The second best thing, suffering the downfalls of an otherwise governed state

This meant that if the people were foolish enough not to elect Sophist rule, then they should suffer the consequences of their actions whether they be just or unjust (Jaccob 14).

Plato

An exercise of this notion is found in Jowett’s, The Dialogues of Plato, as Plato states: No citizen should do anything contrary to the laws, and any infringement of them should be punished with death and the most extreme penalties; and this is right and good when regarded as the second best approach when we do not follow the best reasoning [rule of the Sophists]. (325)

Plato used this work to seek to compel men to reform the system by whatever means possible. This did not necessarily imply the use of brutal force, nor did it imply perfect peace. Plato believed in radical change; evident by his declaring: And shall we say that the violence, if exercised by a rich man, is just, and if by a poor man, unjust? A reformer should carry mankind with him; but even if he use a little violence, what harm [is done]? (Jowett 156) The reform was to be against tyranny and obstinance. These are two components Plato frowned upon. They were also elements in his perception of law.

He felt, “Law is like an obstinate and ignorant tyrant” (Key 77). Even though he held low regard for the merit of law, he acknowledged and understood its purpose. The question was asked, by Socrates, “Why then are laws made?”. The character, Stranger, then gave the response: “ As the training master makes rules, not for each particular case- that would be impossible- [but] for the generality. . .” (McDarwel 19).

The existence of the laws was not Plato’s main concern; his focus was the generality that were responsible for the creation of the laws. Those of the general public were not of scientific mind and it was there that the problem lied when the establishment of the law was made. This was why the Sophists imagined a utopia of Sophist leaders and followers. The cycle from start to finish would then be completed, thoroughly and scientifically, through an idealistic approach. Auden notes: The rule of a wise man is better that the rule of law [in the hands of the ignorant masses]; for the complexity of humanity cannot be met by legislation. (366)

Plato combined politics with poetry in his Protagoras to address not only the qualifications of the polis and the legislature, but also the appropriateness of the law according to the Sophists. Through the dialogues of Socrates, Protagoras, Stranger (young Socrates), and other students; he tells the world the idealistic view of government according to the Sophists. Though these dialogues were not performed, they were influential to the art of using literature as a medium of political expression. Plato used his literary talent to convey a message of political merit. He used Protagoras’ ideas incorporated with many other Sophist morals to encourage political reform. “ A physician is not blamed for curing a patient against his will; and we should not condemn any one who compels men to act more justly” (Hill 263).

Protagoras was a successful attempt to enlighten humanity on the need for reform and the downfalls of stagnation concerning government.

“ Man is the measure of all things; what is measured and how it is measured is of equal importance, so chose wisely [Plato]” (Key 49)

Works Cited

• Auden, W. trans. The Portable Plato: Protagoras, Phaedo, Symposium, and The Republic. New York: Viking, 1948.
• Finely, Moses. trans. Plato: Protagoras and The Republic . New York: Oxford, 1981.
• Hill, Garrett P., and Benjamin Kavis. trans. Plato’s Protagoras. New York: Warner, 1974. Holt, Sol J., and John R. O’Connor. Exploring World History. Boston: Globe, 1990.
• Jaccob, C. Insight and Perspective Concerning Plato’s Phaedo, Protagoras, and The Republic. NY: Orbis, 1986.
• Jowett, B.trans. The Dialogues of Plato. NewYork: Random, 1937.
• Key, James H., Michael K. Norris. The Legacy of Greece: A New Appraisal. Toronto: Brown, 1978.
• McDarwel, M. Sophists: A Distinguished Class. New York: Viking, 1963.
• Philips, David. Ancient Greece: Politics and Poetry. New York: Alpha, 1958.
• Rohrer, Tim. “ Embodied Perspective vs. Objective Measurement: Rationality in Plato’s Protagoras.” 1995. Online. 1 Nov. 1999 <http://www.uoregon.edu/rohrer/plato.htm>.
• Waters, J. On Plato’s Protagoras and The Republic. Trenton: Element, 1993.