Gonzalez Lodge, Commentary on Plato: Gorgias

βελτίων καὶ ἐκ βελτιόνων: such combinations are common. Cf. Phaedr. 246 a θεῶν μὲν οὖν ἵπποι τε καὶ ἡνίοχοι αὐτοί τε ἀγαθοὶ καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν, Lys. in Agor. 18 “δοῦλον καὶ ἐκ δούλων ὄντα”, Soph. Phil. 384 “πρὸς τοῦ κακίστου κἀκ κακῶν Ὀδυσσέως”, 874 “εὐγενὴς γὰρ ἡ φύσις κἀξ εὐγενῶν”, Paul ad Phil. iii. 5 Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων.—In this passage, moreover, we see in its worst colors the opposition between the theory championed by Callicles and his actual practices. The former is a kind of sophistical latitudinarianism; the latter, the narrow-mindedness of Greek tradition.

μὴ ἔστιν: the regular accentuation of ἐστι after μή and τοῦτο.

ὄντα: constr. with the understood subject of σῴζειν.

ὁποῖός τις ἔτυχεν: “without regard to moral qualities.”

22 f.

μὴ γὰρ τοῦτο μὲν, τὸ ζῆν κτἑ.: the change from the subjv. to the indic. ἐστί may be due to forgetfulness on the part of the speaker, who, after giving the keynote to the sentence with the μὴ γάρ at the beginning, shifts to the independent, straightforward indic. construction. If the ἐστί is to be construed rigidly with μή, understanding again ὅρα, then we must consider that Socrates rejected the subjv., which may refer either to the present or the future, for the indic., which leaves no ambiguity as to its time sphere. That Socrates is aware of the grammatically uncertain structure of his sentence is shown by the τοῦθ᾽ ὅρα below. But see Goodwin's view, GMT. 269.