Plato Protagoras 334

οὐδαμῶς, ἔφη . The argument is here broken off, and not (in its present form) again resumed. If Socrates had continued, Protagoras would doubtless have asserted that what is ὠφέλιμον for man is for him ἀγαθόν . The argument has therefore been: σωφρονεῖν , it is said, is ἀδικεῖν . But σωφρονεῖν = εὖ φρονεῖν = εὖ βουλεύεσθαι if (but only if) εὖ πράττειν (i.e. ὠφέλιμα πράττειν ) accompanies εὐβουλία . In other words ὠφέλιμα πράττειν = ἀδικεῖν is the stage which we have reached—a thesis which it is the object of the Republic and of a large part of the Gorgias to refute.

πολλὰ οἶδ’ ἅ . The speech which follows may be from some work by Protagoras (so recently Zeller in the Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, V, 2, 177), perhaps his περὶ ἀρετῶν , mentioned by Diog. Laert. IX. 8. 55 (since ἀρετή is a general word for excellence). Zeller points out that just as the notion ‘true’ was conceived by Protagoras (in his πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος ) as relative, so here the notion ‘good’ is represented as relative and varying with that to which it is relative.

ἀνθρώποις μὲν—ὠφέλιμα : ἀνθρώποις μέν has no antithesis expressed: were the antitheses expressed in full, the sentence would be very cumbrous, running somewhat as follows: ἔγωγε πολλὰ οἶδ’ ἃ ἀνθρώποις μὲν <τὰ μὲν> ἀνωφελῆ ἐστί, καὶ σιτία—μυπία, <τοῖς δὲἄλλοις ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς ὠφέλιμα>, τὰ δέ γε ὠφέλιμα <τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις ἀνωφελῆ> . For μέν without a balancing clause see on τὸ μὲν καταγελασθῆναι in Euthyphr. 3C , and on 330A above for τὰ δέ without a preceding τὰ μέν. ἀνωφελῆ is ‘hurtful’, as frequently: see above on οἷον μὴ ὅσιον in 331A With Protagoras' classification of ὠφέλιμα—ἀνωφελῆ—οὐδέτερα cf. Gorg. 467E ἆρ’ οὖν ἔστιν τι τῶν ὄντων, ὃ οὐχὶ ἤτοι ἀγαθόν γ’ ἐστὶν ἢ κακὸν ἢ μεταξὺ τούτων οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε κακόν(where see Thompson's note) and below, 351D

οὐδενί : Schanz follows Naber in reading οὐδέσι against the MSS. both here and in Euthyd. 302C . The plural would be more appropriate here, but what is denied of all individuals is denied of the species, and the dative plural of οὐδείς seems to lack authority.

εἰ δ’ ἐθέλοις—πάντα ἀπόλλυσιν . Heindorf suggests εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις —the indicative being generally used in this phrase, e.g. Alcib. I, 122B εἰ δ’ αὖ ἐθέλεις εἰς πλούτους ἀποβλέψαι κτλ., αἰσχυνθείης ἂν ἐπὶ σαυτῷ —but Goodwin, M.T. p. 188, § 500, quotes a precisely similar example from Thuc. II. 39. 5 καίτοι εἰ π(αθυμίᾳ μᾶλλον ἢ ρόνων μελέτῃ—ἐθέλοιμεν κινδυνεύειν, ρεπιγίγνεται ἡμῖν κτλ. In both examples the present in the apodosis contains a reference to the future.

φυτοῖς—πάγκακον . Theophr. Hist. Plant. IV. 16. 5 πολέμιον γὰρ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο (sc. τὸ ἔλαιον ) πᾶσι· καὶ ἔλαιον ἐπιχέουσι τοῖς ὑρολείμμασι τῶν π(ιζῶν· ἰσχύει δὲ μᾶλλον τὸ ἔλαιον ἐν τοῖς νέοις καὶ ἄρτι φυομένοις· ἀσθενέστερα γάρ κτλ.

ταῖς θριξὶν—ἀνθρώπου . Arist. περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως V. 5. 785 a . 30 ff. says that a mixture of oil and water is a remedy against grey hairs.

ἐνταῦθα , i.e. ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ .

ταὐτόν . This form, not ταὐτό , of the neuter of ὁ αὐτός is almost regular in Plato: see on 314B

μέλλει , sc. ὁ ἀσθενῶν : see on 319D

ὅσον μόνον ‘just enough to’. Cf. Rep. III. 416E δέχεσθαι μισθὸν τῆς φυλακῆς τοσοῦτον, ὅσον μήτε ρεπιεῖναι αὐτοῖς. . .μήτε ἐνδεῖν, Theaet. 161B ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδὲν ἐπίσταμαι πλέον πλὴν βραχέος, ὅσον λόγον παρ’ ἑτέρου σοφοῦ λαβεῖν καὶ ἀποδέξασθαι μετρίως .

τὴν δυσχέρειαν—ὄψοις . The nausea is of course that felt by a sick person at the smell of food: so far there is therefore no reason for holding ῥινῶν to be corrupt and reading χυμῶν (as Kroschel formerly read), still less εὐκρινῶν with Bergk. But it is not clear how oil could thus prevent nausea, nor does there seem to be any parallel among the ancients to such a statement. It is known that the ancients (like many modern peoples) used oil in cooking much as we use butter (see Blümner's Privataltherthümer, p. 228), but the present passage seems rather to point to the use of some kind of fragrant oil sprinkled on the food after it was cooked. The Greeks were at all events not unfamiliar with the use of scents in banqueting: see Xen. Symp. II. 2 ff. Kroschel thinks Plato is making fun of Protagoras by putting into his mouth the word ‘ ῥινῶν pro πικρῶν vel χυμῶν ’, but this view will hardly command assent.

καὶ βραχυτέρας ποίει . Hirschig would reject the words, but they explain the metaphor in σύντεμνε : see on 314A κυβεύῃς τε καὶ κινδυνεύῃς .

ὅσα ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ . Cf. Gorg. 461D τί δέ; οὐκ ἐξέσται μοι λέγειν ὁπόσα ἂν βούλωμαι ;

καὶ αὖ βραχέα . Sauppe cites Gorg. 449C καὶ γὰρ αὖ καὶ τοῦτο ἕν ἐστιν ὧν φημί, μηδένα ἂν ἐν βπαχυτέποις ἐμοῦ τὰ αὐτὰ εἰρεῖν. Τούτου μὴν δεῖ, ὦ Γοπγία· καί μοι ἐρίδειξιν αὐτοῦ τούτου ροίησαι, τῆς βραχυλογίας, μακρολογίας δὲ εἰσαῦθις; cf. also Gorg. 461D and Phaedr. 267B .