FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   >>  
i. 129; comp. Gomperz, _Griech. Denker_, i. p. 208; Heiberg, _Festskrift til Ussing_ (Copenhagen, 1900), p. 91; Decharme, p. 69.--Principal passages about Diagoras: Sext. Emp. _adv. math._ 9, 53; Suidas, art. _Diagoras II._; schol. Aristoph. _Nub._ 830 (the legend); Suidas, art. _Diagoras I._; Aristoph. _Av._ 1071 with schol.; schol. Aristoph. _Ran._ 320; [Lysias] vi. 17; Diod. xiii. 16 (the decree); Philodem. _de piet._ p. 89 Gomp. (comments of Aristoxenus); Aelian, _v.h._ ii. 22 (legislation at Mantinea).--Wilamowitz (_Textgesch. d. Lyr._ p. 80) has tried to save the tradition by supposing that the _acme_ of Diagoras has been put too early. Comp. also his remarks, _Griech. Verskunst._ p. 426, where he has taken up the question again with reference to my treatment of it. As he has now conceded the possibility of referring the legislation to the earlier date, the difference between us is really very slight, and it is of course possible, perhaps even probable, that the acme of the poet has been antedated.--Aristoph. _Av._ 1071: "On this very day it is made public, that if one of you kills Diagoras from Melos, he shall have a talent, and if one kills one of the dead tyrants, he shall have a talent." The parallel between the two decrees, of which the latter is of course an invention of Aristophanes, would be without point if the decree against Diagoras was not as futile as the decree against the tyrants (_i.e._ the sons of Peisistratus, who had been dead some three-quarters of a century), that is, if it did not come many years too late.--Wilamowitz (_Griech. Verskunst, loc. cit._) takes the sense to be: "You will not get hold of Diagoras any more than you did of the tyrants." But this, besides being somewhat pointless, does not agree so well as my explanation with the introductory words: "On this very day." On the other hand, I never meant to imply that Diagoras was dead in 415, but only that his offence was an old one--just as that of Protagoras probably was (see p. 39). P. 39. Trial of Protagoras: _Vorsokr._ 74, A 1-4, 23; the passage referring to the gods: _ibid._ B 4.--Plato: _Theaet._ p. 162_d_ (_Vorsokr._ 74, A 23). P. 41. Distinction between belief and knowledge by Protagoras: Gomperz, _Griech. Denker_, i. p. 359. P. 42. Prodicus: _Vorsokr._ 77, B 5. Comp. Norvin, _Allegorien i den graeske Philosophi_ (_Edda_, 1919), p. 82. I cannot, however, quite adopt Norvin's view of the theory of Protagoras. P. 44. Crit
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   >>  



Top keywords:

Diagoras

 

Aristoph

 

Protagoras

 

Griech

 

Vorsokr

 

decree

 

tyrants

 
Verskunst
 

Norvin

 

Wilamowitz


talent
 

referring

 

legislation

 

Gomperz

 
Denker
 
Suidas
 

explanation

 

pointless

 

introductory

 

century


quarters

 

Allegorien

 

graeske

 

Philosophi

 
Prodicus
 

theory

 

knowledge

 
belief
 

Festskrift

 

Heiberg


Ussing

 

Peisistratus

 

Copenhagen

 

Theaet

 

Distinction

 

passage

 

offence

 

futile

 
question
 

reference


remarks

 

treatment

 

earlier

 

difference

 

possibility

 

conceded

 

Philodem

 

Aelian

 
Mantinea
 

Textgesch