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

CHAPTER V

2. ἢ εἰ μὲν τὸ σῶμα κτλ. For ἤ cf. Crito, 50E ἢ πρὸς μὲν ἄπα σοι τὸν ρατέπα—ρπὸς δὲ τὴν ρατπίδα ἄπα καὶ τοὺς νόμους ἔσται σοι; and for the general form of the sentence Apol. 28E εἰ ὅτε μέν—τότε μέν—τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τάττοντος—ἐνταῦθα δέ, Meno, 94C-D, Gorg. 512A: see the Editor's note on Apol. loc. cit.

4. πολλὰ ἂν περιεσκέψω: but ἔδει in l. 3 and παρεκάλεις in 6. The effect is to represent the process of reflection by oneself as prior to consultation with friends. Heindorf on Gorg. 514D quotes a parallel from the Theaetetus (144E): ἀτὰρ εἰ, νῷν ἐχόντοιν ἑκατέπου λύπαν, ἔφη αὐτὰς ἡπμόσθαι ὁμοίως, ρότεπον εὐθὺς ἂν ἐπιστεύομεν ἢ ἐπεσκεψάμεθα ἂν (i.e. should have inquired first) εἰ μουσικὸς ὢν λέγοι;

8. τὴν ψυχήν. Cf. (with Heindorf) Rep. IX. 583E ὃ μεταξὺ ἄπα νῦν δὴ ἀμφοτέπων ἔφαμεν εἶναι, τὴν ἡσυχίαν, τοῦτό ροτε ἀμφότερα ἔσται. ἐν ᾧ presently is like ἐν τούτῳ in 310D where see note: Heindorf cites Eur. Iph. T. 1057 καὶ τἄμ᾽ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν ἢ καλῶς ἔχειν ἢ μηδὲν εἶναι. For καὶ ἐν ᾧ we should at first sight expect καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ: for the Greek idiom is relative+anaphoric pronoun, not relative+relative, when the two pronouns have the same antecedent and are connected by a conjunction: e.g. Gorg. 452D τί ἐστι τοῦτο ὃ φῂς σὺ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι—καὶ σὲ δημιουργὸν εἶναι αὐτοῦ: see the Editor's note on Apol. 40A. Here, however, the fact that the relative precedes its antecedent (ὃ δὲ περὶ πλείονος—περὶ δὲ τούτου) makes the rule inoperative; and there are other exceptions, e.g. Rep. II. 374B καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ὡσαύτως ἓν ἀρεδίδομεν, ρπὸς ὃ ρεφύκει ἕκαστος καὶ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἔμελλε τῶν ἄλλων σχολὴν ἄγων διὰ βίου αὐτὸ ἐπγαζόμενος—καλῶς ἀπεργάζεσθαι, and Theaet. 192B καὶ ὃ οἶδεν καὶ ὃ αἰσθάνεται (where, however, Bonitz rejects the second ὅ, perhaps rightly).

12. τῷ ἀφικομένῳ τούτῳ ξένῳ. Heindorf's suggestion τῷ ἀφικομένῳ τούτῳ τῷ ξένῳ would convey a somewhat different meaning, viz. ‘this arrival, the foreigner’. The presence of ἀφικομένῳ renders the article after τούτῳ unnecessary: cf. below, 337Eτὸ ἀκριβὲς τοῦτο εἶδος. There is some contempt in τούτῳ= isti (see note on Apol. 45A), and much scorn in τὴν σὴν ψυχήν, repeated slowly at the end of the clause.

13. ὄρθριος: the MSS. have ὄρθριον by mistake. The adjectival construction of this word is found in Laws, XII. 961B δεῖν δὲ ὄρθριον εἶναι τὸν σύλλογον.

18. γιγνώσκεις. The present is regularly used of being acquainted with a person, e.g. Phaedo, 60A Ξανθίππην, γιγνώσκεις γάρ; Theaet. 144C ἀλλὰ σκόπει εἰ γιγνώσκεις αὐτόν. γιγνώσκω. In Plato the perfect is generally used of knowing things: e.g. Apol. 23B ὅστις—ἔγνωκεν ὅτι κτλ., Euthyphr. 2C τοσοῦτον πρᾶγμα ἐγνωκέναι.

οὔτε διείλεξαι οὐδεπώποτε, sc. αὐτῷ: cf. on 313A l. 8 above.

20. ᾧ μέλλεις σαυτὸν ἐπιτρέπειν is wrongly rejected by Cobet. The words are to be taken closely with τὸν δὲ σοφιστὴν ὅ τί ποτ᾽ ἔστιν φαίνει ἀγνοῶν: that Hippocrates should entrust himself to that of which he knows nothing is the climax of Socrates' rebuke.

21. ἔοικεν: sc. εἶναι, i.e. be true (not ἐμὲ ἀγνοεῖν, which is doubtful Greek for ἔοικα ἀγνοεῖν). The subject is simply ‘it’, as in Rep. I. 333C, where ἔοικεν is similarly for ἔοικεν εἶναι.

23. τυγχάνει ὢν—ψυχὴ τρέφεται. τυγχάνει ὤν is virtually equivalent to ‘really is’: cf. Gorg. 468D οἰόμενος ἄμεινον εἶναι αὐτῷ, τυγχάνει δὲ ὂν κάκιον, and note on Euthyphr. 4E. The ἔμπορος is a travelling merchant who trades on a larger scale than the retail dealer or κάπηλος: see Rep. II. 371D ἢ οὐ καπήλους καλοῦμεν τοὺς ρπὸς ὠνήν τε καὶ ρπᾶσιν διακονοῦντας ἱδπυμένους ἐν ἀγορᾷ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις ἐμπόρους; The same account of the Sophist as ἔμπορός τις περὶ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μαθήματα (Soph. 231E) is given in Soph. 223C-224E.

24. φαίνεται γὰρ ἔμοιγε τοιοῦτός τις. We follow Schleiermacher in giving these words to Socrates. Turner judiciously points out that γε in ἔμοιγε is only appropriate if Socrates speaks the words, and that Hippocrates could hardly assent till he knew what τροφὴ ψυχῆς meant.

26. ὅπως γε μὴ—ἐπαινῶν ἃ πωλεῖ ἐξαπατήσει. πωλεῖν is ‘to have on sale’: ‘to sell’ is ἀποδίδοσθαι. Cobet, Novae Lectiones, p. 159. For ἐξαπατήσει the MSS. have ἐξαπατήσῃ, but the 1st aor. conj. is very doubtful in Plato after ὅπως μή (see on the whole question Kühner's Griechische Grammatik, II, 899), and final -ῃ and -ει are frequently confused in the MSS.

28. ὁ ἔμπορός τε καὶ κάπηλος. ἔμπορός τε καὶ κάπηλος together make a plural, and according to strict logic would require a plural article; but ὁ is written by attraction instead of the grammatically impossible οἱ. Cf. Symp. 186C ὁ διαγιγνώσκων —τὸν καλόν τε καὶ αἰσχρὸν ἔρωτα; below, 355Eτά ὀνόματα—τὸ ἡδύ τε καὶ ἀνιαρόν.

40. τυγχάνεις ἐπιστήμων. τυγχάνεις has sunk to a mere copula. It is not necessary to insert ὤν after ἐπιστήμων, although it is only in a few cases that τυγχάνω (in this sense) occurs in Plato's MSS. without the participle expressed, viz. Phaedr. 263C μέγιστον τῶν ἀγαθῶν τυγχάνει; Gorg. 502B εἰ δέ τι τυγχάνει ἀηδὲς καὶ ὠφέλιμον; Rep. II. 369B τυγχάνει ἡμῶν ἕκαστος οὐκ αὐτάρκης ἀλλὰ πολλῶν ἐνδεής; Alc. I, 129A ῥᾴδιον τυγχάνει τὸ γνῶναι ἑαυτόν; ibid. 133A ἐκεῖνο ᾧ τοῦτο τυγχάνει ὅμοιον. In these cases (as here in the Protagoras) it is easy to suppose that the participle has fallen out from ‘lipography’: but in Hipp. Maior (perhaps pseudo-Platonic), 300Aand in Laws, XI. 918C, and Timaeus, 61C, the participle cannot be so easily supplied: and that the construction without the participle was used in everyday speech appears from Ar. Eccl. 1141 καὶ τῶν θεατῶν εἴ τις εὔνους τυγχάνει. See Rutherford's New Phrynichus, p. 342.

43. περὶ τοῖς φιλτάτοις. τὰ φίλτατα is used here of the soul's health as in Gorg. 513A σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις ἡ αἵρεσις ἡμῖν ἔσται ταύτης τῆς δυνάμεως τῆς ἐν τῇ πόλει.

44. κυβεύῃς τε καὶ κινδυνεύῃς. Cobet rejects τε καὶ κινδυνεύῃς, but Plato often puts metaphor and interpretation side by side. Cf. below 314Bἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ψυχῇ λαβόντα καὶ μαθόντα (where Deuschle wrongly rejected καὶ μαθόντα); 334Dσύντεμνέ μοι τὰς ἀποκρίσεις καὶ βραχυτέρας ποίει; Euthyd. 297C πολὺ γάρ πού εἰμι φαυλότερος τοῦ Ἡρακλέους, ὃς οὐχ οἶός τε ἦν τῇ τε ὕδπᾳ διαμάχεσθαι, σοφιστπίᾳ οὔσῃ καὶ διὰ τὴν σοφίαν ἀνιείσῃ, εἰ μίαν κεφαλὴν ἀροτμηθείη τοῦ λόγου, ρολλὰς ἀντὶ τῆς μιᾶς, καὶ καπκίνῳ τινὶ ἑτέπῳ σοφιστῇ . . . ὃς ἐρειδὴ αὐτὸν ἐλύρει οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ λέγων καὶ δάκνων κτλ.; Lach. 194C χειμαζομένοις ὲν λόγῳ καὶ ἀποροῦσιν; Theaet. 174C εἰς φρέατά τε καὶ πᾶσαν ἀπορίαν ἐμπίπτων. See also note on τοὺς τῶν νέων τὰς βλάστας διαφθείροντας in Euthyphr. 3A.

47. παρὰ τοῦ καπήλου καὶ ἐμπόρου: so B. The κάπηλος is put in the foreground as the most usual seller of σιτία and ποτά: the article is expressed only once, because the κάπηλος and ἔμπορος both belong to the same genus ‘merchants’: cf. Hdt. IV. 71 τὸν οἰνοχόον καὶ μάγειρον καὶ ἱπποκόμον καὶ διήκονον καὶ ἀγγελιηφόρον κτλ. There is no sufficient ground for bracketing the words παρὰ τοῦ καπήλου καὶ ἐμπόρου as is done by Schanz, nor for reading παρά του (with T) and omitting καπήλου καὶ ἐμπόρου, as Hermann did.

ἐν ἄλλοις ἀγγείοις: i.e. other than our own bodies. Cf. 311Eτί ὄνομα ἄλλο γε λεγόμενον περὶ Πρωταγόρου ἀκούομεν; It need not be implied that the body is itself an ἀγγεῖον (viz. of soul), though the notion is not unplatonic, and kindred expressions are found in later philosophy, e.g. Marcus Aurel. X. 38 τὸ περικείμενον ἀγγειῶδες καὶ τὰ ὀργάνια ταῦτα τὰ περιπεπλασμένα (said of the body).

54. ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ψυχῇ λαβόντα καὶ μαθόντα. λαμβάνειν ἐν (not εἰς) as in Rep. VII. 517A εἴ πως ἐν ταῖς χερσὶ δύναιντο λαβεῖν; Soph. 243C ταὐτὸν τοῦτο πάθος εἰληφότες ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ. For καὶ μαθόντα, which is explanatory of ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ψυχῇ λαβόντα, see note on κυβεύῃς τε καὶ κινδυνεύῃς.

57. νέοι ὥστε τοσοῦτον. Heindorf quotes Eur. Andr. 80 γέρων ἐκεῖνος ὥστε σ᾽ ὠφελεῖν παρών, and points out that whereas νεώτεροι ἢ ὥστε would deny altogether ἡ τοῦ διελέσθαι δύναμις, the words νέοι ὥστε are less strong; nobis nonnisi iuvenilis quaedam facultas suppetit ad tantam rem diiudicandam. The best MSS. of Plato read ταὐτόν, τοιοῦτον, τοσοῦτον, etc., in the great majority of cases rather than ταὐτό, etc. Schanz (Preface to Laws, p. vi) thinks it probable that Plato always used the forms in -ν. In inscriptions of Plato's time τὸ αὐτό and τὸ αὐτόν occur side by side, but apparently only τοιοῦτον, τοσοῦτον. See Meisterhans, Grammatik der Griechischen Inschriften², p. 122.

61. Ἱππίας. Hippias of Elis was one of the most accomplished and—if we may trust the Platonic writings—ostentatious of the Sophists. According to the Hippias Maior (285B ff.) he claimed to be at home in all the learning of the day—in Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic, Philology, Music, Mythology, History and Archaeology. See Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen, I⁴, 956 ff.

62. οἶμαι δὲ καὶ Πρόδικον τὸν Κεῖον. Contrast Crat. 402B οἶμαι δὲ καὶ Ἡσίοδος. Either construction is admissible. Prodicus of Ceos is repeatedly mentioned in the Platonic writings. A fellow-citizen of the poet Simonides (below, 339E, he professed like Gorgias and Hippias to educate young men (Apol. 19E, Theages, 127E, Rep. X. 600C) and received very large sums in return for his instruction together with the gratitude of his pupils. On one occasion, when in charge of a political mission from Ceos, he is said to have won great reputation in the βουλή at Athens for his conduct of public business, and to have given at the same time private lectures, which were popular and well paid (Hipp. Maior, 282C). He laid great stress on the importance of using words in their correct sense (ὀρθότης ὀνομάτων): see below, 337A 358A and Euthyd. 277E, Charm. 163D, Lach. 197D; cf. also Phaedr. 267B; but this was only taught (we are told) in his 50-drachma lecture; the impecunious Socrates had only paid one drachma and was not quite master of this subject (Crat. 384B). Socrates is fond of professing himself a pupil of Prodicus, e.g. below, 341A Meno, 96D, Charm. 163D. Prodicus wrote eulogies of Heracles and others (Symp. 177B): the substance, if not the actual words, of his Apologue of Heracles at the cross-roads is given by Xenophon, Mem. II. 1. 21. A scholiast on Rep. X. 600C says the Athenians put him to death by hemlock for corrupting the youth, but there is no other authority for this unlikely story. Cf. Zeller, I⁴, 952 ff.