This fine collection throws fresh light on Protagoras' thought. The poetic title is playfully misleading, however, since the book says little about his character. Historical questions about Protagoras' relationships to Democritus or Pericles, for example, are noted in passing, but never explored. Nor does it deal with conflicting reports about his life. Nor does it explore Protagoras' thought exhaustively; no chapter looks directly at the agnosticism of DK 80 B4, for example. Still, on a wide range of theoretical and exegetical questions the volume offers scholarship that is good by any measure.
The chapters originated from a 2007 conference in Leiden; both the conference and the book were organised to honour the late C.M.J. Sicking (1933–2000). It is perhaps owing to the spirit of Professor Sicking's ‘Homo or Philosophus Mensura?’ that the volume focuses almost exclusively on Protagoras the thinker rather than the man. It is, therefore, odd that there are so few references either to this study or to Sicking's ‘Plato's Protagoras: a “Battle of Wits”?’ (Distant Companions [1998]; reviewed by M. Heath, CR 49 [1998], 567–8). Only three of the twelve authors make reference to Sicking (van Berkel, Corradi and Rademaker), although nearly every chapter might have benefited a little by critically engaging with Sicking's excellent work. Notwithstanding this shortcoming, the volume engages with the latest secondary literature in English, German, French, Italian and Dutch. It includes an extensive bibliography too.
V.O.'s introduction is brief and programmatic, drawing out two themes. The first, relativism, is uncontroversial (pp. 2–4). The second, naturalism, is controversial, since Protagoras is usually cast as a leading figure in the nomos faction of the nomos-physis debate (pp. 5–9). Naturalism is not defended by v.O., a task that is left to other contributors.
N. Notomi's study of the historiography surrounding Protagoras begins by asking whether Protagoras was the first sophist, a question that is trickier and more valuable than it may at first appear (p. 11). Protagoras' relativism, says Notomi, is key, for this attracted Plato's critical attention as something antithetical to philosophy: it undermines any pursuit of truth and precludes the existence of an authoritative logos (pp. 33–5). Plato thereby became the source of the tradition that now presupposes Protagoras to be the first sophist.
T.A. van Berkel provides a critical reappraisal of the homo-mensura fragment. Plato is central again, for he was the first to gloss metron as kriterion, which van Berkel finds problematic (pp. 42–7). Unfortunately, in her opinion, the move is repeated by Sextus Empiricus and generally taken for granted thereafter. Van Berkel analyses the verb metrein, arguing that it was used by Protagoras as a self-consciously formulated metaphor. This analysis yields an interpretation of the fragment as an expression of perspectivism rather than relativism. Anthropos is neither the measurer nor the measuring instrument of everything. The homo-mensura postulate acknowledges our inescapable, fallible point of view; Plato smuggles infallibility into it (pp. 59–63).
M. Corradi examines Protagoras' programme (epaggelma) for making the weaker logos stronger. What is the application of ton etto … logon kreitto poiein? Was it a rhetorical programme for prevailing in debate (by making an initially implausible argument appear stronger), or was it part of one's pedagogical improvement by means of logoi that is emphasised in Plato's Tht.? Corradi argues that Plato treats it as educational, quite distinct from the rhetorical tradition beginning with Aristotle (pp. 78–82).
A. Rademaker situates orthoepeia within the context of the promise to teach euboulia and a sophisticated conception of language. Poetic criticism that looks like showing off in Plato's Prt., for example, was developed as a propaedeutic for a public life in which successful debate hinged on speaking coherently and identifying inconsistencies in one's adversaries (p. 107). Thus, language, conceived of as action, is where good judgement and excellence were most highly cultivated.
In light of Hippocratic medicine, P. Demont coordinates political efficacy as is understood in the Great Speech of Plato's Prt. with the therapeutic model of efficacy attributed to Protagoras in Plato's Tht. According to Demont's analysis, the myth of the Great Speech coheres well with the conceptually more sophisticated account of the Tht. (p. 133). In the context of his educational function the sophist can portray himself as being integral to the improvement and evolution of political life.
A. Beresford picks up the theme of evolution and interprets the myth in terms of natural selection. Here we find the most direct, ambitious defence of the book's naturalist theme, for Beresford detects a modern conception of naturalism in Protagoras' Great Speech. Thus, the speech articulates an ethical naturalism that is distinct from social contract theory, either as contract theory is formulated by modern authors or by Glaucon in Rep. 2 (p. 159).
B. Manuwald also concentrates on the Prometheus myth in the Great Speech, asking if there is evidence that Plato consulted an authentic Protagorean source. His answer: yes, quite a bit. Manuwald notes that the speech emphasises interpersonal reciprocity with respect to rights and restraint. In pushing this theme, Plato's dramatis persona skirts the challenge presented by Socrates to provoke the speech (319a–320c); moreover, the sophist's many substantive points about rights and restraints are then bypassed afterwards when Socrates voices misgivings about implications for Protagoras' position (p. 165). The misfit between Protagoras' speech and what Socrates says immediately before and after it suggests to Manuwald that Plato has forcibly incorporated into the dialogue a genuine Protagorean source, probably a promotional, demonstration speech (pp. 175–6).
P. Woodruff sharpens the meaning of the provocative claim that Protagoras teaches skill in euboulia for both domestic and political affairs (Prt. 318e–19a). Woodruff maintains that euboulia is ‘the virtue that helps us deliberate well in the absence of knowledge’ (p. 185). He then disentangles the axiological and epistemological dimensions of deliberation, arguing that Protagoras taught his students how to hone their skills at debating with defeasible logoi to deliberate about what is eikos (pp. 188–90).
The next two chapters analyse the subtle account of perception in Plato's Tht. A. Macé maintains that Tht. 154b–7c is a thought experiment that Plato undertakes for his own purposes (p. 197). Heracliteanism is brought into the dialogue not because it is an implicit element of Protagoras' thought; rather it is developed as an extension of Protagoras' views in order to explore problems inherent to radically privatised perception (pp. 207–10). J. van Eck analyses the perceptual relativism attributed to Protagoras as a Secret Doctrine. Van Eck's special concern is to explicate the obscure distinction between ‘slow’ and ‘quick’ motion; in this episode, the perceptual process is understood as a quick (i.e. short-lived) encounter between two slow-moving (i.e. long-lived) entities, an object of perception and a perceiver (p. 231).
The final chapter by U. Zilioli returns to Protagoras' relativism, considering whether there is a fundamental difference between its representation in Plato's Tht. and in Aristotle's Met. According to Zilioli, previous commentators have wrongly interpreted these texts as fundamentally disagreeing with each other; in his estimation, there is no difference in the way Plato and Aristotle logically arrange or emphasise Protagoras' doctrines, only a different order of exposition. Furthermore, Zilioli sees in Protagoras a powerful forerunner to contemporary relativists (pp. 255–7).
This worthwhile book makes some demands that will restrict its audience: (1) Demont's chapter is in French, a curious exception when many of the other authors have clearly made a special effort to compose their contributions in English (evident in occasional but pardonable awkward sentence constructions). (2) Greek passages are generally accompanied with English translations, but not in Corradi's chapter; the editors ought to have been more thorough here. And (3) the price is bound to ensure that only research libraries purchase it. The first two demands will reduce the utility of this book to specialists. The third will mean that few specialists obtain a copy for themselves, which is a shame.
