484 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE 



NOTB IV. 



'OtSa yap dvBpa h/a Ilpoyrayopav TrXeico ^rj/xara diro ravrrjs Tr}<s (rot^iXK rf 

 $etSiav ye, os ouro) irepifjiavo)? KaXa ipya iipya^cTO, Kai oAAors ScKa t<dk 

 avSptavTOTTotwv. — {Meno. § 29. Bekker.) 



Heindorf proposes to read re for ye; and Butfcmann assents to the 

 change : " Heiudorfio assentior corrigenti re, quam particulam ante 

 illud Kttt dXkovs abesse posse non credo." Stallbaum intimates his 

 concurrence in Buttmann's remark. On a point which is purely one 

 of Greek scholarship, the opinion of these learned men is entitled to 

 the highest consideration ; yet I feel some difficulty in accepting their 

 decision. In the first place, the particle ye is uncommonly appropriate. 

 It has a fine delicate ironical effect. Socrates (who is the speaker) 

 says in substance : One man, Protagoras, derived from the exercise 

 of his talents as a sophist, an amount of money, not greater perhaps 

 than such a man was entitled to expect from such a profession, but 

 greater at any rate (ye) than was obtained from the practice of their 

 art by Phidias and ten other statuaries besides. In the next place, 

 I question, whether, if re were substituted for ye, a sense would not 

 be imposed upon the passage, difierent fi'om what Plato wishes to 

 express. " When we find re in the first sentence, and /cat in the 

 latter, .... the meaning conveyed is, that what is affirmed gen- 

 erally (re = in any way) of the former, is affirmed in the same way 

 in the latter (xai = in this)." — {Donaldson's New Cratylus, p. 24G.) 

 On this principle, if the reading re were adopted in the passage be- 

 fore us, the meaning would be, that Protagoras amassed more money 

 than was earned by Phidias, or by any ten other statuaries. But 

 this doe3 not seem to be the exact shade of thought. Plato's mean- 

 ing I take to be, that Protagoras made more money than Phidias 

 and ten other statuaries put together. Now compare the following 

 parallel passage : 6vk aTroSe^o/jtai ifxavrov ovSe ws CTretSav evi rts TrpoaOif 

 ev, ■^ TO ev o) irpoo'eTeOr] 8vo yeyovev, r] to TrpocTTcOcv Kai w TrpocrereOr] Bta 

 rrjv Trpoa-Oecnv^Tov irepov rto Irepto Bvo lyevero {Phaedr. § 104. Bekker) j 

 *'l do not so much as admit, when one is added to one, either that 

 the one to which the addition was made has become two, or that the 

 unit to^which the addition was made and that which was added to 

 the former taken together {to TrpocrreOev /cai w Trpoa-ereOr]) became 

 two on account of the addition of the one to the other." Here 

 it will be observed that re does not occur in the first member of 

 the expression. 



