880 HISTORY OF GREECE. So far as concerns Protagoras, therefore, the evidence of Plato himself may be produced to show that he was not a corrupt teacher, but a worthy companion of Prodikus ; worthy also of that which we know him to have enjoyed, the society and conversation of Perikles. Let us now examine what Plato says about a third sophist, Hippias of Elis ; who figures both in the dialogue called " Protagoras," and in two distinct dialogues known by the titles of " Hippias Major and Minor." Hippias is represented as dis- tinguished for the wide range of his accomplishments, of which in these dialogues he ostentatiously boasts. He could teach astron- omy, geometry, and arithmetic, which subjects Protagoras cen- sured him for enforcing too much upon his pupils ; so little did these sophists agree in any one scheme of doctrine or education. Besides this, he was a poet, a musician, an expositor of the poets, and a lecturer with a large stock of composed matter, on sub- protenus pro decretis mere Platonicis habeantur. Disputat enim Socrates pleraque omnia ad mentem ipsius Protagora, ita quidem ut cum per suam ipsius rationem in fraudem et errorem inducat." I am happy to be able to vindicate Plato against the disgrace of so dis- honest a spirit of argumentation as that which Stallbaum ascribes to him. Plato most certainly does not reason here upon the doctrines or principles of Protagoras ; for the latter begins by positively denying the doctrine, and is only brought to admit it in a very qualified manner, c. 35, p. 351, D. He says, in reply to the question of Sokrates : Owe olda d;rAwf oiJTuf, uf ai) {purge, el ifiol uKOKpiTEov lariv, wf TO, qdia re uyadu. tariv uiravra KO< TU uviapa KCIKU' u2,%,u fioi doKEl oil fiovov Trpof TTJV vvv uiroKpiaiv iftoi aa^a^fa- rspov flvai inroKpivacr&ai, ahTiu Kal irpbe iravra rdv uXhov f)ioi> rbv kfibv, on arl pev a. TUV rjdeuv OVK kariv u-ya-&a tart 6s av Kal a ruv uviupuv OVK kari KOKU, earl 6e a kan, Kai rpiTov a ovderepa, ovre KO.KU OVT' ay ad a. There is something peculiarly striking in this appeal of Protagoras to his whole past life, as rendering it impossible for him to admit what ho evidently looked upon as a base theory, as Stallbaum pronounces it to be. Yet the latter actually ventures to take it away from Sokrates, who not only propounds it confidently, but reasons it out in a clear and for uble manner, and of fastening it on Protagoras, who first disclaims it and then only admits it under reserve ! I deny the theory to be base, though I think it an imperfect theory of ethics. But Stallbaum, who calls it so, was bound to be doubly careful in looking into his proof before he ascribed it to any one. What makes the case worse is, that he fastens it not only on Protagoras, but on the sophists collectively, by that monstrous fiction which treats them as a doctrinal sect
