Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:20:48.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prodikos, ‘Meteorosophists’ and the ‘Tantalos’ Paradigm1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

C. W. Willink
C. W. Willink
Affiliation:
Eton College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three famous sophists are referred to together in the Apology of Sokrates as still practising their enviably lucrative itinerant profession in 399 b.c. (not, by implication, I in Athens): Gorgias of Leontinoi, Prodikos of Keos and Hippias of Elis. The last of these was the least well known to the Athenian demos, having practised mainly in I Dorian cities. There is no extant reference to him in Old Comedy, but we can assume that he was sufficiently famous – especially for his fees (possibly the highest charged by any sophist) – to justify his inclusion as the third of this ‘triad’; cf. the triad Protagoras – Hippias – Prodikos in the Protagoras, considered further below. Gorgias was by now a grand old man of about ninety (with more than a decade of active life still ahead of him), the last survivor of the first generation of fee-taking educators, associated first and foremost in the popular mind with the suspect arts of political and forensic persuasion. Prodikos and Hippias were probably in their sixties.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 25 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 , Pl.Apol. 19eGoogle Scholar.

3 , Pl.Hipp. maj. 281aGoogle Scholar.

4 Ib. 282e; the other main characteristics that appear in Plato's treatment of Hippias are L boastful self-advertisement and versatility. Cf. Guthrie, W. K. C., The Sophists (Cambridge, 1971 = HGP III, part I), pp. 281–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Guthrie, pp. 269 ff.

6 cf. , Ar.Birds 1694, Wasps 420Google Scholar.

7 Guthrie, pp. 274, 280 n. 3 (against the view of M. Untersteiner that Hippias was born c. 443 b.c.).

8 τoȗτoν τ⋯ν ἄνδρ' ἢ βɩβλ⋯oν δɩ⋯øθoρεν/ἢ Πρ⋯δɩκoϲ ἢ τ⋯ν ⋯δoλεϲχ⋯ν εῖϲ γ⋯ τɩϲ (fr. 490 K.). τ⋯ν ⋯δoλεϲχ⋯ν τɩϲ means ‘some prater, babbler’ (a standard use of τɩϲ with the gen. pl.); εῖϲ γε emphasises ‘some’ (sc. ‘if not Prodikos’). See further on p. 28 with n. 25.

9 , Pl.Hipp. maj. 282cGoogle Scholar: …πoλλ⋯κɩϲ μ⋯ν κα⋯ ἄλλoτε δημoϲ⋯αɩ ⋯ø⋯κετo, ἄταρ τ⋯ τελευταȋα ἔναγχoϲ ⋯øɩκ⋯μενoϲ δημoϲἰαɩ ⋯κ K⋯ω λ⋯γων τ' ⋯ν τ⋯ɩ βoυλ⋯ɩ π⋯νυ ηὐδoκ⋯μηϲεν κα⋯ ἰδ⋯αɩ ⋯πɩδε⋯ξεɩϲ πoɩo⋯μενoϲ κα⋯ τoȋϲ ν⋯oɩϲ ϲυνὼν χρ⋯ματα ἔλαβεν θαυμαϲτ⋯ ὅσα.

10 , Pl.Crat. 384bGoogle Scholar, , Arist.Rhet. Γ 14. 1415bGoogle Scholar; Guthne, p. 275.

11 Philostr, . Vlt. sophist. 12Google Scholar; cf. Xen, . Symp. 4. 62Google Scholar (Sokrates refers ironically to Prodikos as ‘χρημ⋯των δε⋯μενoν’)

12 Athen. 5. 220b; cf. , Sen. Ar.Nub. 361Google Scholar. ‘Teacher/pupil’ relationships, beloved of commentators, need to be treated with caution; but this one seems likely at least to reflect a widespread contemporary opinion.

13 So, notably, in Mem. 2. 1. 21 ff., where Xenophon approves a Prodikean moral allegory (of whose profundity opinions have differed – see Guthrie, p. 277 f.).

14 cf. also , Pl.Prot. 341aGoogle Scholar, Meno 96d, Charm. 163d.

15 Mayer, H., Prodikos von Keos und die Anfänge der Synonymik bei den Griechen (Paderborn, 1913)Google Scholar; cf. Guthrie, p. 276.

16 Dover, K. J., Aristophanes Clouds (Oxford, 1970), pp. xlix ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Ib. lv.

18 Dover ‘artistry’ + ‘intelligence’ (less naturally, I think). Perhaps we need not split hairs here; ϲoø⋯α κα⋯ γνώμη is simply a hendiadys for ‘intellectual prowess’.

19 cf. μετεωρoκoπεȋν Peace 92, μετεωρoλ⋯ϲχηϲ , Pl.Rep. 489cGoogle Scholar, μετεωρoλ⋯γoɩ E. fr. 913.2, etc.

20 cf. Ehrenberg, V., The People of Aristophanes (Blackwell, 1943), pp. 198–9Google Scholar.

21 Guthrie, pp. 238, 279; Untersteiner, M., The Sophists (Oxford, 1954, tr. Freeman, Kathleen), pp. 209 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 Diog. Laert, 2. 8; cf. Kirk, G. S. and Raven, J. E., The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 362 ff.Google Scholar, and Mansfeld, J., ‘The Chronology of Anaxagoras” Athenian Period and the date of his trial', Mnemosyne 32 (1979), 39 ff., and 33 (1980), 17 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 For Prodikos' reputation as a ‘natural philosopher”, cf. Guthrie, p. 277.

24 , Sext.Math. 9. 51Google Scholar, Cicero, ND 1. 118Google Scholar; cf. Guthrie, pp. 236 ff. ‘all antiquity’ on p. 241 goes too far).

25 Dr Richardson points out to me that Pfeiffer (Hist. Class. Schol. 1. 30) understood ‘a book or Prodikos’ as a joke about the ‘bookish’ character of this sophist. He was evidently wrong – Prodikos is paradigmatic rather of the ⋯κ⋯λαϲτoϲ γλ⋯ττα: cf. n. 8 above.

26 In his valuable article ‘The freedom of the intellectual in Greek Society’ (Talanta 7 (1976), 24–54)Google Scholar, Dover somewhat superfluously allows that Prodikos may have been executed somewhere other than at Athens and for some other offence (p. 42).

27 cf. Ferguson, W. S., Cambridge Ancient History v (1927, 1969), pp. 348–52Google Scholar.

28 The Protagoras begins with an ‘ideal date’ prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War; at 327d the ‘ideal date’ has become 419 b.c.

29 cf. Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (Oxford, 1934), p. 397Google Scholar.

30 , J. and Adam, A. M., Platonis Protagoras (Cambridge, 1893), p. 95Google Scholar.

31 No one seems to have doubted that Prodikos is satirised as ‘τ⋯ν ταλ⋯ντατoν’. Guthrie was obviously dissatisfied by a (tasteless) jibe about ‘physical infirmity’, but could offer nothing better than the suggestion that P. was ‘inclined to a gloomy view’ of life (p. 280); a singularly unconvincing explanation of the sobriquet, even on the assumption that P.'s view was abnormally ‘gloomy’. Gomperz, H. (Sophislik und Rhetorik (1912; Darmstadt, 1965), pp. 90–125)Google Scholar had elaborated a similar position by guessing that P. had notoriously compared the miserable life of man with the sufferings of Tantalos.

32 See, in general, Roscher, Lex. 5. 75–86Google Scholar; Kerenyi, , Heroes, pp. 57–61Google Scholar, gives a useful (if some-what undiscriminating) mythographic synthesis.

33 , Pl.Euthyph. 11dGoogle Scholar τ⋯ Tαντ⋯λoυ χρ⋯ματα; cf. Anacr. 10/355 Page τ⋯ Tαντ⋯λoυ τ⋯λαντα τανταλ⋯ζεταɩ.

34 For the standard sense of the word, cf. Xenophanes B3 ⋯βρoϲ⋯ναϲ δ⋯ μαθ⋯ντεϲ ⋯νωøελ⋯αϲ παρ⋯ Λυδ⋯ν; Verdenius, W. J., ‘ΑΒΡΟΣ’, Mnemosyne 15 (1962), 392–3Google Scholar.

35 There is a textual uncertainty, but it is reasonably clear that ⋯βρoϲ⋯νη of ‘gait’ is only one aspect of the point; Men. is also a resplendent figure in terms of ‘finery’ and ‘luxuriant hair’ (1532); cf. the ‘Lydian’ Dionysos with his ⋯βρ⋯ϲ hair in Ba. (493, etc.) and the juxtaposition of ⋯βρ⋯τηϲ and τρυø⋯ at Ba. 968–9.

36 cf. Ehrenberg, , The People of Aristophanes, p. 291Google Scholar.

37 For these famous mythological sobriquets (originating in Comedy), cf. , Ar.Ach. 530Google Scholar, etc., and , Plut.Pericles 24Google Scholar.

38 cf. Himerius, , Eel. 3. 11Google Scholar (Kerényi, , Heroes, p. 58)Google Scholar; the τλα-root (which may underlie Tantalos' name) alludes to both ‘daring’ and ‘enduring’.

39 Ol. 1. 52, 59 ff.; for Pindar's motive, cf. Köhnken, A., CQ n.s. 24 (1974), 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stinton, T. C. W., PCPS 202 (1976), 68Google Scholar.

40 Longo, O., ‘Proposte di lettura per l'Oreste di Euripide’, Maia 27 (1975), 265–87Google Scholar (see esp. p. 280 n. 58). He is the first commentator, I think, to have seen that this Tantalos is ‘emblematic’ of sophistic ‘tolma’.

41 Platon Com. fr. 136 (from The Sophists).

42 See now Dihle, A., ‘Das Satyrspiel “Sisyphos”’, Hermes 105 (1977), 28–42Google Scholar.

43 Philochoros ap. Diog. Laert. 9. 55; cf. Webster, T. B. L., The Tragedies of Euripides (1967), p. 160 n. 2Google Scholar.

44 The ‘garrula lingua’ became canonical in later treatments of the myth, variously explained or left unexplained: ‘betrayal of divine secrets’ (Ov. A. A. 2. 606, D. S. 4. 74. 2); ‘a too audacious claim to parity of life with the gods’ (Ath. 281b = Nócroi fr. 10 Allen); cf. also AP 16. 89 and another late-Hellenistic poem (Barns, and Lloyd-Jones, , SIFC 35 (1963), 205 ff.)Google Scholar, , Ov.Am, 2. 2. 44Google Scholar, Met. 6. 213. All these are likely to have been influenced by the new turn given to literary treatment of the Tantalos-myth in the Euripidean locus classicus.

45 Sch. , Pi.Ol. 1. 57Google Scholar; cf. Diog. Laert. 2. 8, , Eust.Comm. Od. 1700. 60Google Scholar.

46 The Pindar scholiast (see Diels, /Kxanz, , Fragmente der Vorsokratiker ii. 11)Google Scholar cites , E.Or. 4–7 and 982 ffGoogle Scholar. in support. It might be that the myth reported by him was an inference from these passages; but it is odd (if so) that there is no mention of it in the voluminous scholia on Orestes.

47 As to the ‘cosmologised rock’, di Benedetto, (Euripidis Orestes (1965), p. 7)Google Scholar quite reasonably envisages ‘una interpretazione razionalistica del mito che risaliva probabilmente all’ ambiente anassagoreo' (one might think, e.g., of Metrodoros of Lampsakos; cf. Richardson, N. J., PCPS 202 (1976), 405)Google Scholar. But such an explanation does not account for the implicitly hostile view of the ‘blasphemer’ and his αἰϲχτη ν⋯ϲoϲ; nor would allusive treatment of an esoteric theory have been intelligible to more than a small fraction of the audience. As to the ‘flying in air’, Kerényi (60–1) associates that with a supposedly very ancient ‘cosmic’ aspect of Tantalos, and cites Nonnus, , D. 18. 32 and 35. 295Google Scholar (T⋯νταλoν ỉερoø⋯την); but it is a safe assumption that Nonnus' epithet (proper to the Erinyes) was simply suggested by Eur.'s phrasing (Orestes was a very well-known play). Rosivach, Vincent J. (Maia 29–30 (1977–1978), 77–9)Google Scholar at least recognises the need for an explanation, but his conjecture ⋯ε⋯ πτoεȋταɩ is unconvincing; and his argument that ‘the rock…should be stationary above Tantalos' head' is vitiated by his total neglect of lines 982–4 (it is because the rock ὑπερτ⋯λλεɩ and δɩνε⋯εɩ like the sun that T. now has to be μετ⋯ωρoϲ and in motion, in order to preserve the ‘overhead’ picture).

48 cf. p. 29 with n. 28. On the assumption that the sobriquet is not Plato's invention, Prodikos is as likely to have acquired it in the decade 420–10 b.c. as in the 430s.

49 The relevant date here is of course that of the revised Clouds (the surviving version, apparently never performed), assignable to 420–17 b.c. (Dover, pp. lxxx ff.).