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

56. τὸν τρόπον τῆς πράξεως τοῦ μισθοῦ. Ar. Eth. Nic. IX. 2. 1164^a. 24 ὅπερ φασὶ καὶ Πρωταγόραν ποιεῖν: ὅτε γὰρ διδάξειεν ἁδήροτε, τιμῆσαι τὸν μαθόντα ἐκέλευεν ὅσου δοκεῖ ἄξια ἐπίστασθαι καὶ ἐλάμβανε τοσοῦτον. This is more than Plato says: see next note.

58. ἀποδέδωκεν: but κατέθηκεν (gnomic aorist) two lines lower down. It is not necessary to reject ἀποδέδωκεν (with Sauppe and Schanz) or to read ἀπέδωκεν (with Kroschel and Kral). ἀποδέδωκεν is hardly to be explained as a gnomic perfect (Goodwin), certain examples of which are rare, if not unknown, but is to be taken in its natural sense: ‘if he prefers, he has already paid . . . if not etc.’: this is also Heindorf's view. Unless the pupil had paid in advance, Protagoras left the fee to his own conscience and (according to his own account, ὥστε καὶ αὐτῷ δοκεῖν τῷ μαθόντι) generally fared better, even though (if Diog. Laert. IX. 52 may be trusted) his fee was 100 minae. If Protagoras made no bad debts, he escapes the censure of Plato in Gorg. 519C, where it is said that, if teachers of δικαιοσύνη do not receive their fees, it only shows that they have failed to teach their subject and deserve no fees.