J. Adam, A. M. Adam, Commentary on Plato, Protagoras
J. Adam & A. M. Adam, Ed.

28. ἄλλο γε, i.e. other than the name ‘Protagoras’. It is more in accordance with Plato's usage to make the first question end with the first ἀκούομεν, and regard the ὥσπερ clause as introducing the second question τί τοιοῦτον περὶ Πρωταγόρου ἀκούομεν; This second question is rejected by Cobet as spurious, but the punctuation which we have adopted seems to remove the difficulty. The ὥσπερ clause defines in advance the meaning of τοιοῦτον: for this and for the asyndeton compare Sophist. 258B-C πότερον οὖν—δεῖ θαρροῦντα ἤδη λέγειν ὅτι τὸ μὴ ὂν βεβαίως ἐστὶ τὴν αὑτοῦ φύσιν ἔχον; ὥσρεπ τὸ μέγα ἦν μέγα καὶ τὸ καλὸν ἦν καλὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ μέγα μὴ μέγα καὶ τὸ μὴ καλὸν μὴ καλόν, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἦν τε καὶ ἔστι μὴ ὄν, ἐνάπιθμον τῶν πολλῶν ὄντων εἶδος ἕν; Crat. 394AB; Theaet. 172D with Heindorf's note. See also 330Aὥσπερ τὰ τοῦ προσώπου, where the same punctuation should be adopted. In l. 31 the MSS. read ἠκούομεν by mistake for ἀκούομεν.

31. σοφιστήν—εἶναι. On σοφιστής see below, note on 312C γε implies that Protagoras may be a sophist only in name. εἶναι is frequently used with verbs of naming: cf. Lach. 192A ὃ ἐν πᾶσιν ὀνομάζεις ταχυτῆτα εἶναι. Cobet's suggestion to read εἶεν, ἔφην, ὡς for εἶναι, ἔφη. ὡς is ingenious but needless.

34. αὐτὸς δὲ δὴ—παρὰ τὸν Πρωταγόραν, sc. τί ἂν ἀποκρίναιο;