James A. Towle, Commentary on Plato: Protagoras
James A. Towle, Ed.

εἶναι: depends, like οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν εἶναι above, upon ὁμολογῶ.

60 ff. Protagoras attempts to controvert the interchange, which he imputes to Socrates, of θάρσος and ἀνδρεία, by instituting an analogy between them and the two terms δύναμις and ἰσχύς, which like them, if the derivation of the consequents (γίγνεσθαι ll. 55, 60) is immediate, stand in the relation of genus and species, viz.: θάρσος: ἀνδρεία= δύναμις: ἰσχύς. The two antecedents he derives from τέχνη and ἐπιστήμη respectively, and from θυμός and μανία in common; the two consequents, from φύσις, and respectively from εὐτροφία τῆς ψυχῆς and εὐτροφία τοῦ σώματος. The difficulty is to ascertain the exact nature of these relations asserted to be equal, to identify the generic marks in both genus and species, and, in any view, to harmonize this with his previous statements. As all ἀνδρείοι are θαρραλέοι, and all ἰσχυροί are δυνατοί, the source of ἀνδρεία must be found in that of θάρσος, and of ἰσχύς in that of δύναμις. But it is difficult, for instance, to indentify φύσις, one source of ἀνδρεία, with either τέχνη or θυμός, two of the sources of θάρσος,—leaving μανία out of the question. The τὲ καί, moreover, connect θυμός so closely with μανία as almost to force us to take the former in a bad sense, anger, passion. Again, it is sufficiently difficult to identify φύσις, one source of ἰσχύς, with ἐπιστήμη or θυμός, sources of δύναμις, but the attempt to identify with either of these the other source of ἰσχύς, viz. <*>ὐτροφία τοῦ σώματος, amounts to an absurdity.