logical scrutiny, is driven home against the Sophist with great force. But it is remarkable that Protagoras, in answering the questions of Sokrates, whenever required to choose between two opinions, one of which is really or apparently the more mo ᾿1.11 or elevating, not only chooses the loftier doctrine, but declares that no other choice would be agreeablc to his past life, to which he repeatedly appeals as not permitting him to concede anything that would lower the claims 01 dignity of Virtue; thus proving (as far as anything put into his mouth by Plate can prove it) , not only that he had never taught other than virtuous doctrines, but that he had an established reputation both for virtuous teaching, and for an exemplary and dignified life. Finally, it is Sokrates who, in this dialogue, maintains the "degrading ” doctrine of Utilitarianism ——-at least the part most odious to its impugners, the doctrine of Hedonism, that Pleasure and the absence of Pain are the ends of morality; in opposition to Protagoras, to whom that opinion is repugnant; a revcrsal of the parts assigned to the two teachers by the German commentators, very embarrassing to some of them, who, rather than impute to Plato so "low ” a doctrine, resort to the absurd supposition that one of the finest specimens of analysis in all his writings is ironical, intended to ridicule a Sophist who is not even represented as agreeing with it. Let us add, that though at first sore under his confutation by Sokrates, Protagoras parts With him on excellent terms, and predicts for him, at the conclusion of the dialogue, great eminence in Wisdom.
Prodikus of Keios has no dialogue devoted to himself, nor is Sokrates ever introduced as confuting him.
