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

14. τὰ καλὰ καὶ τἀναντία τοὐτοις. This, the MSS. reading, retained by Heindorf, and recently by Kral, is, we think, right. παῦτα in l. 12 does not have its antecedent in the previous sentence, but is explained by τὰ καλὰ καὶ τἀναντία τούτοις. Protagoras in fact divides ‘goods’ into two classes, viz. (1) goods φύσει, (2) goods ἐξ ἐπιμελείας καὶ ἀσκήσεως καὶ διδαχῆς, and calls the former καλά, the implied examples being personal beauty, stature and health. Schanz's rejection of τὰ καλά is therefore needless.

The editors mostly read τὰ κακά, but (in spite of Ficinus' haec mala eorumque contraria) this would seem to be precluded by the μέν and δέ in ταῦτα μὲν γάρ and ὅσα δὲ—ἀγαθά: the contrast requires that one class of goods shall be set over against another, and is much weakened if we put ‘evils’ in the foreground by reading τὰ κακά. Further, ταῦτα is too remote to be easily taken with τὰ κακά in the sense of ‘these evils’, whereas if we take the pronoun merely as anticipating τὰ κακά, then the statement becomes too wide: for not all κακά, not all ἀγαθά (τἀναντία τούτοις, on this view), come to men φύσει, as indeed the next clause states.