按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
are in all men's mouths…〃Know thyself；〃 and 〃Nothing too much。〃
Why do I say all this？ I am explaining that this Lacedaemonian
brevity was the style of primitive philosophy。 Now there was a
saying of Pittacus which was privately circulated and received the
approbation of the wise； 〃Hard is it to be good。〃 And Simonides； who
was ambitious of the fame of wisdom； was aware that if he could
overthrow this saying； then； as if he had won a victory over some
famous athlete； he would carry off the palm among his
contemporaries。 And if I am not mistaken； he composed the entire
poem with the secret intention of damaging Pittacus and his saying。
Let us all unite in examining his words； and see whether I am
speaking the truth。 Simonides must have been a lunatic； if； in the
very first words of the poem； wanting to say only that to become
good is hard； he inserted （men） 〃on the one hand〃 ＇〃on the one hand to
become good is hard〃＇； there would be no reason for the introduction
of （men）； unless you suppose him to speak with a hostile reference
to the words of Pittacus。 Pittacus is saying 〃Hard is it to be
good；〃 and he； in refutation of this thesis； rejoins that the truly
hard thing； Pittacus； is to become good； not joining 〃truly〃 with
〃good；〃 but with 〃hard。〃 Not； that the hard thing is to be truly good；
as though there were some truly good men； and there were others who
were good but not truly good （this would be a very simple observation；
and quite unworthy of Simonides）； but you must suppose him to make a
trajection of the word 〃truly；〃 construing the saying of Pittacus thus
（and let us imagine Pittacus to be speaking and Simonides answering
him）： 〃O my friends；〃 says Pittacus； 〃hard is it to be good；〃 and
Simonides answers； 〃In that； Pittacus； you are mistaken； the
difficulty is not to be good； but on the one hand； to become good；
four…square in hands and feet and mind； without a flaw…that is hard
truly。〃 This way of reading the passage accounts for the insertion
of （men） 〃on the one hand；〃 and for the position at the end of the
clause of the word 〃truly；〃 and all that follows shows this to be
the meaning。 A great deal might be said in praise of the details of
the poem； which is a charming piece of workmanship； and very finished；
but such minutiae would be tedious。 I should like； however； to point
out the general intention of the poem； which is certainly designed
in every part to be a refutation of the saying of Pittacus。 For he
speaks in what follows a little further on as if he meant to argue
that although there is a difficulty in becoming good； yet this is
possible for a time； and only for a time。 But having become good； to
remain in a good state and be good； as you； Pittacus； affirm； is not
possible； and is not granted to man； God only has this blessing；
〃but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances
overpowers him。〃 Now whom does the force of circumstance overpower
in the command of a vessel？…not the private individual； for he is
always overpowered； and as one who is already prostrate cannot be
overthrown； and only he who is standing upright but not he who is
prostrate can be laid prostrate； so the force of circumstances can
only overpower him who； at some time or other； has resources； and
not him who is at all times helpless。 The descent of a great storm may
make the pilot helpless； or the severity of the season the
husbandman or the physician； for the good may become bad； as another
poet witnesses：
The good are sometimes good and sometimes bad。
But the bad does not become bad； he is always bad。 So that when the
force of circumstances overpowers the man of resources and skill and
virtue； then he cannot help being bad。 And you； Pittacus； are
saying； 〃Hard is it to be good。〃 Now there is a difficulty in becoming
good； and yet this is possible： but to be good is an impossibility…
For he who does well is the good man； and he who does ill is the
bad。
But what sort of doing is good in letters？ and what sort of doing
makes a man good in letters？ Clearly the knowing of them。 And what
sort of well…doing makes a man a good physician？ Clearly the knowledge
of the art of healing the sick。 〃But he who does ill is the bad。〃
Now who becomes a bad physician？ Clearly he who is in the first
place a physician； and in the second place a good physician； for he
may become a bad one also： but none of us unskilled individuals can by
any amount of doing ill become physicians； any more than we can become
carpenters or anything of that sort； and he who by doing ill cannot
become a physician at all； clearly cannot become a bad physician。 In
like manner the good may become deteriorated by time； or toil； or
disease； or other accident （the only real doing ill is to be
deprived of knowledge）； but the bad man will never become bad； for
he is always bad； and if he were to become bad； he must previously
have been good。 Thus the words of the poem tend to show that on the
one hand a man cannot be continuously good； but that he may become
good and may also become bad； and again that
They are the best for the longest time whom the gods love。
All this relates to Pittacus； as is further proved by the sequel。
For he adds：
Therefore I will not throw away my span of life to no purpose in
searching after the impossible； hoping in vain to find a perfectly
faultless man among those who partake of the fruit of the
broad…bosomed earth： if I find him； I will send you word。
（this is the vehement way in which he pursues his attack upon Pittacus
throughout the whole poem）：
But him who does no evil； voluntarily I praise and love；…not even
the gods war against necessity。
All this has a similar drift； for Simonides was not so ignorant as
to say that he praised those who did no evil voluntarily； as though
there were some who did evil voluntarily。 For no wise man； as I
believe； will allow that any human being errs voluntarily； or
voluntarily does evil and dishonourable actions； but they are very
well aware that all who do evil and dishonourable things do them
against their will。 And Simonides never says that he praises him who
does no evil voluntarily； the word 〃voluntarily〃 applies to himself。
For he was under the impression that a good man might often compel
himself to love and praise another； and to be the friend and
approver of another； and that there might be an involuntary love； such
as a man might feel to an unnatural father or mother； or country； or
the like。 Now bad men； when their parents or country have any defects；
look on them with malignant joy； and find fault with them and expose
and denounce them to others； under the idea that the rest of mankind
will be less likely to ta