Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
f*T
INTRODUCTIONS
TO THE
DIALOGUES OF PLATO.
, Tv
DIALOGUES OF PLATO,
BY
WILLIAM DOBSON,
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE.
M.A.
CAMBRIDGE:
BY JOHN SMITH, PRINTED AT THE PITT PKESS, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY.
FOR
J.
&
J.
J.
LONDON:
STRAND. JOHN WILLIAM PARKER, WEST
M.DCCC.XXXVI.
&
ADVERTISEMENT.
THE
present
apparently
work
comes
the
public
of the
requires
some explanation.
The Author
following
then Introductions died in the year 1834, having the translation, into German, of all
completed
which are here the Dialogues the Introductions to It was his intention to have published given. the whole of the works of Plato upon this plan;
to
regret
the loss
Critias,
and
all
those
smaller
and
spurious
not
and second found in the Appendices to the first di of the three parts into which Schleiermacher
vided the Platonic works.
lation,
critical
The German
trans
moreover,
is
and explanatory;
it
which
consider
necessary
to
mention,
will
as
the
reader
occa
of
these
introductions
find
in
them
as
Such
the the
referred
immediately
themselves
to
will
passages
in
at
Introductions
be
found
end
of
the
volume.
CONTENTS.
PACT.
1
EUTHYPHRO
PARMENIDES APOLOGY OF SOCRATES.
j
V^CJRJXD
-~
HIPPARCHUS MINOS
ALCIBIADES GORGIAS
..................
II
1{jiJ
(
STATESMAN BANQUET
PH^EDON PHILEBUS THEAGES
ERAST.E ALCIBIADES
1
309
321
325
328
337
341
347
JM.
417
ERRATUM.
Page
82, last line, for
her read
hit.
INTRODUCTIONS,
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
THE
prefix
to
Greek Editions of the works of Plato generally them the biography of the Author from the
But only the most well-known collection of Diogenes. old custom could honour to an ^discriminating attachment a compilation, put together as it is without so crude
any judgment,
with
a
translation.
And Tennemann,
of the Pla in the life of Plato prefixed to his system to a sifting pro tonic philosophy, has already subjected
cess
this
pared
and the other old biographies of Plato, com in other with what is found scantily dispersed
neither materially As, then, since that time have been published, nor new facts deeper investigations of leaving discovered, affording any well-grounded hope the labour already far behind them, in their application, to refer such it is best bestowed upon this subject, that point, to readers as wish to be instructed upon And there is the less need what they will there find. who would be a worthy for anything further, as no one of wishing to reader of Plato can entertain the notion
sources.
strike out a light
told
trifles, or epigrammatic answers, even were they of undoubted authenticity especially as, in the case of such an Author, the reader under
and deformed
intelligent
more important circumstances of his life, those more accurate relations, from a knowledge of which, probably, a more thorough of
details in
And
as regards the
his
investigation, that any supposition which one might feel inclined to contribute upon these subjects, would be made at a venture; and very often in his writings we can point out, in the most decisive manner, where an allusion exists
to to
relation,
is.
remarkable
definite
can be with
certainty
made
for
of them
chronology
is,
guess, with a degree of probability, at the place where the former Such par interrupt the series of the latter.
ticular
conjectures,
therefore,
will
be brought forward
immediately in which they may perhaps spread some light around them. It would certainly be more to the purpose, provided it were to adduce possible within the
prescribed limits,
to
more advantage
in those places
scientific condition
of the Hel
of philosophical thoughts, to the works of this class at that time in existence, and the probable extent of their
circulation.
For upon
these
points
there
is
not only
much
to explain
new matter
to investigate,
but there
may perhaps still be questions to throw out, which, though to the professor in these subjects they must be anything
but indifferent, have, however, up to the present time,
But to pursue in been as good as not thought of at all. connexion what is new and ambiguous in such investi
gations,
this place;
and some
the
particulars
whether
in
way
what
to
to confute
all
means
to
which they
moreover,
writers
And what
set
is
common and
in
well
known
is,
pertinently
forth
of philosophy,
as far as is
the reading
to prepare the way for absolutely necessary of the Platonic writings, so as not to grope
about in the dark, and thus completely to miss, from the understanding first to last, the right point of view for
For
And
in like
man
not possess a competent know ner, also, whoever does state of the language for philo ledge of the deficient
cramped and where he himself laboriously extends its grasp, by it, must necessarily misunderstand his author, and that, for the most part, in the most remarkable passages.
sophical purposes,
to feel
is
Of
we
do
so,
or possible to dispatch
it
in ever so
of this new small a space, inasmuch as the whole object of his works is to put it within the power exposition
more
accurate knowledge of them alone, a view of his of the and doctrines of the genius philosopher,
own
quite
new
it
may
be,
or
at
all
events
more
perfect.
And
effectually towards preventing the accomplishment of this object than an endeavour, just at the outset, to instil into the mind of the reader any preconception whatever. Whoever, therefore, has not yet been hitherto acquainted imme
all that external reports have taught him respecting their contents, and the consequences to be drawn from to rest mean
work more
him leave
them,
while
upon
its
own
merits,
his
and endeavour
knowledge
classification
to forget
it
but
whoever from
own
of
them
has
already formed
soon feel
how
far,
by means of the
which he
here finds these writings arranged, even his own views experience an alteration, or at least combine themselves
and gain a greater comprehensiveness and unity, from his learning to know Plato more strictly as a
better,
Philosophical Artist, than, certainly, has been hitherto the case. For of all philosophers who have ever lived, none have had so good a right as Plato, in
many
respects,
to
set
The
deserving
all
how
superficially, or with a feeling of uncertainty which they try in vain to conceal, even the best interpreters speak of the objects of particular works of Plato, or
how
and loosely they treat of the connexion of the subject with the form in detail, as well as in
slightly
him that the enough to shew have not yet authors of these views, however superior,
general,
will
find
traces
generally
matter in
point to
upon a perfect understanding to the hand, and that this is not yet brought which we might ourselves bring it even with
gone
of
the
we
possess.
And
which of satisfaction seems to be somewhat premature, able to understand now be maintains that we
might
it
may
smile to observe
how
unplatonically
one who
of entertains such a feeling comes to the investigation a value upon the consciousness Plato, who puts so high He deceives himself by at least one halfof
ignorance.
all
by
that,
ability can only be understood by of a purpose in the connexion the pervading presence to divine it of his writings, and, as far as possible, this view, when not obvious at first sight. And in
especially,
not very
is
in proportion as have done in other ways, and must, the right understanding it succeeds, contribute to advance
of Plato.
one
for
it
This must certainly be self-evident to every cannot be denied, that besides the ordinary
province
of Philosophy of thoroughly
difficulties in the
understanding
a peculiar and additional cause exists as regards Plato, forms of phi in his utter deviation from the ordinary For of these forms there communication.
losophical
are
two
in
particular,
the
what generally goes by great bulk of the systematic form, First, that which is called losophy. because it divides the whole field into several particular
compartments of
in
sciences,
and
its
to every
particular
work or
section,
up, according plan, with rooms and stories, so that any one whose memory and fingers do not refuse to measure and work,
which
it
is
regularly built
to
may
all
point out,
if
events without
whence an opinion easily arises, that there is something in the system, and that the student has followed and understood it. For, however weak the foundations of these structures often are, and
their
compartments taken
at
but also in connexion with the other parts of the edifice; and the Author himself must afford a clear guide to this by references not to be overlooked. The second form, neither more rarely used nor less favoured, is the
selves,
fragmentary,
investigations,
which
has
only
to
deal
with
particular
regard to
and which, from disconnected pieces, with which it is difficult to be sure whether or no
they are real members, or only masses capriciously and unnaturally separated from the whole body, professes,
notwithstanding,
to
make
Philosophy
comprehensible,
Although, then, in this case superficiality and ignorance are perfectly natural, because the authors have not even
come
to
an
understanding
with
themselves
as
to
the
ground upon which they stand, yet assume an appearance of ease and for the reason that it defines and certainty, names at starting the object in view, and makes at once
straight
for
it.
many
happy
haps
still
who
yet
could
make nothing
for this loose
Plato
form of
method of
discussion.
Whoever
then
is
spoiled
these methods
seem
strange, and
devoid of meaning or
of Philosophy
mysterious.
division
into different
so far from being unknown / compartments of science was as the to him, that he may be looked upon much rather first originator of it to a certain degree, still hardly any
of his writings are confined to any one of these compart But since he considered their es ments in
particular.
sential
common law
it
as
of the
the
importance, and
his
pre-eminently in consequence every aim, the various problems are But where multifariously involved one with another.
made
object
greater of
this account de whoever, on the other hand, would on to the denomination of fragmentary, grade these works find himself constantly embarrassed as to the real will
yet
subject-matter,
which
is
and he
intention
be compelled secretly to confess that the to have had the modest Philosopher does not appear but of of subjects,
will
treating
only
particular
this, or
had one
much more
comprehensive. incorrect opinions upon Plato Hence, then, the twofold and his writings which have been given almost from the
earliest times.
The
one, that
it is
even for the very first writings for any thing entire, nay, of a consistent and pervading philosophical turn principles
of thought or doctrine
in
them
vacillates
on the contrary, that every thing and wavers, and that scarce any thing
;
;
nay, that
frequently one part contradicts another, because he is more of a dialectician than a logical Philosopher, more desirous of contradicting others, than capable of, or caring to pro
duce, a well-founded structure of his own and that when he has to deal with the plausibility of his own propositions, he first seeks up his elements sometimes from this, some
;
elsewhere perhaps disputed doctrine, Now according as his object may be on each occasion. such an opinion is nothing else but a disguised confession of a total absence of any understanding of the Platonic
that,
times
from
works, and that especially on account of their form, when is only the ground of the sentiment that is misappre hended, and instead of being looked for in the judge, it is
it
But
it
is
not necessary
honour
this
it
cussion, as
itself.
For while
has
tion
that
Plato has brought forward his own opinion at least upon a question which, as it ; supposes that
form is only a somewhat useless and more than illustrative embellishment of the confusing perfectly
his dialogistic
thoughts, can only be thrown out by one who does not understand Plato at all. This view, therefore, is founded upon nothing, and
it was and may, without going further, be contradicted before,
common method
of expressing
a successful attempt is made to bring our works into a connexion by means of which every detail with the doctrines therein contained be
by
fact, if
Platonic
comes
intelligible.
And
the
demand
is in
this point of
view so
much
so
the
more pressing,
as
who pass
still
cannot
Now
as
we have no
other tangible proof of his greatness and preeminence will not agree together, except these writings, the two
that opinion, I mean, and this admiration, and the latter will scarcely have any other object except those beauties
of language and composition lavished on matter of no fine passages as they are called, importance, or particular or moral sentiments and principles,
all
pointing to very
subordinate
men
not very dubious merit, so that if these would advance uninterruptedly in their admiration,
if
find something more in him they must themselves wish to Hence, therefore, others, than they have hitherto found. of a correct insight but with more with quite as little
good
will,
Plato himself, partly also by a far-spread tradition pre served from ancient times, of an esoteric and exoteric
in his Philosophy,
in the
own peculiar wisdom writings of Plato his at all, or only in secret allusions, and those contained
either not
very
difficult to discover.
This notion,
in itself utterly
into the most multifarious forms, vague, has shaped itself and the writings of Plato have been robbed of sometimes
and
his
the contrary, sought genuine wisdom, on doctrines which he as good as not at all confided to extensive investigations have been these writings;
for
in
secret
entered
upon
in
nay, order to
determine what
esoteric,
writings of
so to
dis
and
cover where most a trace might be sought out of his the Setting aside therefore genuine and secret widom.
10
truth contained in this proposition, in so far as what
secret
is
and
difficult to
find out is
so only in a relative
some person or other; the whole is only a tissue of mis-apprehensions and confused conceptions which must first of all be unravelled and
to find
and hard
exposed.
conceptions of an exoteric and esoteric philosophy demand a critical sifting, inasmuch as they appear at different times with quite different meanings. For among the earliest Pythagoreans this distinction re
ferred so immediately to the matter, that subjects were
For
these
denoted
as
esoteric
concerning
limits of their
it
and
to
be supposed
that their political system occupied the place of the eso teric far more than their metaphysical speculations, which were as imperfect as unsuspicious. But at that time even
Philosophy was bound up with political views, and the schools were connected by a practical fraternization which
did not afterwards exist
times, on
among
the Hellenes.
In later
the contrary,
that was
popular method
the
which,
after
the admixture of
Plato
now
;
these two
stands in
the
be attempted to apply these notions to the Platonic writings and Philosophy, in order thereby to divide the two into two parts, hesitation and doubt generally must
11
ensue.
For the
last
signification
could
braced by those,
of
it,
as
lectively
and consequently must have committed to them allow that Plato might as easily what was most difficult and mysterious in his wisdom,
are hardly intelligible,
as
And
which Philosophy, concerning he purposely delivered himself, without the interior circle of his confidential friends, either not at all, or in mys
terious hints,
it
must be
and
and the indications referring position of such doctrines, to them, however slight, or at least shown in a less de
gree,
by some kind of
historical traces.
Therefore, of
modern all the advocates of this opinion, the so-called Platonists are deserving of most praise, inasmuch as to accomplish the first. they have actually attempted would not have anything to showBut the other
parties
in
For apart from of the subject. support of their view would ascribe to and unless they theosophistic matter, sciences which he could not some sort of Plato
physical
his
would at writings moreover once disavow, they would be at a loss to discover anyof philosophy upon which thing in the whole region
which possess, and
own
some opinion,
either directly
and
distinctly,
is
or at least
not to be met
And
is
those indeed
who reduce
what
esoteric,
and the vulgar religion, do, in fact, against Polytheism and reduce it to a piece of completely cancel the same, which would be unsatisfactory in the political caution,
extreme, as Plato
s
principles
believe
that
his
scholars
needed
still
further
instructions about them, from the publication of which he shrank, or to a puerile contrivance which
itself
in
delivering in
indulged loud voice with closed doors, have been as well said with open
a
quite
as
little
lower.
And
would
really
genuine historical traces be discoverable, supporting the opinion of a distinction between the esoteric and the
exoteric in Plato.
For
if
it
refers
esoteric
writings in
the
;
same manner
the
first
in
in the exoteric
make it probable, somehow, that those writings were made public in some way different from these, since
otherwise the
less
;
use
to
but of
no
seems
seriously
have thought.
that
Aristotle,
how should
many
that philosopher, nothing could easily remain concealed, does never, notwithstanding, either appeal to other
sources,
or
every instance in the most unconstrained and manner to the works open to ourselves, and even simple when, as is now and then the case, other lost writings or
peals
in
perhaps oral lectures are quoted, these quotations do in no way contain any thing unheard of in the writings we or completely different from them. If therefore possess,
these either did not contain at
all
13
or
Plato,
only conformably to
Aristotle,
secret
interpretation,
how could
in
manner
which he attacks
his master,
Philosopher, if, contrary to his better knowledge, he had then fought only against a shadow ? Now in order to make these misapprehensions and their causes perfectly manifest, and to bring even those
who
are involved in
it
them
is
to a confession
and conscious
certainly a praiseworthy under taking to work out analytically the philosophical subjectmatter from the Platonic works, and thus to expose the
Philosopher to
view,
dissected
and
in
detail,
divested
little
they could may be of his own peculiar form. thus survey the pure treasure, and convince themselves on authentic grounds that it is actually taken from
if
For
those writings, they must be fain to confess that it was the fault of themselves alone not to discern it, and that
it
is
useless to
of,
other lost
Thus much
therefore
may
be attained by this method, that the ungrounded sus picion against the works of Plato vanishes, and the
fact
light.
of his not
And
it
is
expose this truth thoroughly and completely must have and quite himself understood Plato in the same degree as certain also is it, that the understanding of Plato as
:
concerns others
is
by
but that, on the contrary, whoever should exclusively to even the best exposition of this
:
kind
imaginary knowledge only, might easily attain and on that very account remove himself still further
to
an
14 from the
true.
quainted with the whole nature of a body who is to the particular vessels or bones in it for the purpose of comparison with corresponding parts of an other similarly dissected, which would be the fullest use to which that philosophical process could be put ; still the mere passive spectator of the exhibition and
separate
comparison
of
these
parts
will
not
attain,
by those
means
alone,
the whole.
fail
to a
altogether to attain to a
that,
to be
rightly
understood, except
binations
it.
in
its
own
place,
And
will they
all, will
in their case, tending as it did not only to exhibit vividly his own thought to others, but by that very means
vividly
Hence, therefore, to that analytical exposition which we have now been in pos
session of for a short time, in a perfection far exceeding
to excite
and awaken
theirs.
former attempts,
it is
which
without dissection, usually appear so very deplorably involved one with another, I mean, not the particular but the particular works to restore them to opinions
the connection in which, as expositions continuously more complete as they advance, they gradually developed the ideas of the writer, so that while every dialogue is taken not only as a whole in itself, but also in its
connection with the rest, he may himself be at last un derstood as a Philosopher and a perfect Artist.
15
Now
whether there
is
is
any
ever
such
connection,
and
the
such an undertaking
subject and
far
not, perhaps, to
unsuitable to
succeed,
too
great
will best
which Plato himself appear from the first conception to his writings and their suggests to us with regard
objects,
in the
trifling
and which we
Phgedrus.
always
as to
taneously
reality
or
whether,
with
the a
words and
it
letters
vain conceit
is
excited in the
mind that
and
that
understands
it
what
to
it
Hence, that
is
folly
build too
much upon
this,
true
reliance
can
be placed only upon oral and living instruction. must be hazarded But, he continues to argue, writing
at a venture,
it
is
as regards
the
writer
and those who already share in his knowledge, know than for what it can do for those who as yet Whoever then will consider what that so ex
nothing.
alted
preference
it
for
oral
instruction
what
in
this
no other ground but this, that in the case the teacher, standing as he does of the learner, and in living communication
rests, will
find
tell
every
and what
standing
this
not,
and thus
it
when
fails;
advantage
rests,
as
see,
upon the
form of the dialogue, which, accordingly, truly living To this also is to instruction must necessarily have.
debe referred what Plato says, that a sentence orally
Iti
livercd
its
Father and re
jections of one
and that not only against the ob thinks otherwise, but also against the intellectual stubbornness of one as yet ignorant, while the
ceive his protection,
make
to
any further
to
Whence
it
is
at
what a degree that man has forfeited all right to utter even a single word about Plato who could take up with a notion that that Philosopher, in his esoteric and oral
instruction could have availed himself of the Sophistical
method of long and continuous discourses, when, even by his own declaration, such a method appears to Plato
farthest
to its opposite.
removed from that preeminence which he gives But in every way, not accidentally only,
or from practice and tradition, but necessarily and na turally Plato s was a Socratic method, and indeed, as
regards the uninterrupted and progressive reciprocation, and the deeper impression made upon the mind of the
hearer,
to
him
as well in construc
As
wrote so
much from
manhood
to that of his
most advanced age, it is clear that he must have endeavoured to make written instruction as like
as possible to that better kind,
For even if we look only to succeeded in that attempt. the immediate purpose, that writing, as regarded him self and his followers was only to be a remembrance of
thoughts already current among them
all
;
Plato considers
thought so much as spontaneous activity, that, with him, a remembrance of this kind of what has been al
first
and
17
original
mode of
acquisition.
Hence on
that account
and reciprocal communication, would be as to his writings as to his oral indispensable and natural Meanwhile this form does by no means instruction.
that original
it
and at a later period to applied both contemporaneously without a trace of the spirit of philosophical objects, of Plato, or of his great adroitness in the management
it.
But even
and
still
more
in
when we consider
still
further,
object was
to bring the
ignorant reader
nearer to a state of knowledge, or that he at least felt the necessity of being cautious with regard to him not to give rise to an empty and conceited notion of his own in his mind, on both accounts it must have
knowledge
been
the
Philosopher s chief object to conduct every manner from the beginning on investigation in such a wards, as that he might reckon upon the reader s either
creation of being driven to an inward and self-originated to surrender himself the thought in view, or submitting to the feeling of not having discovered most
decisively
or
understood anything.
To
this
end, then,
it
is
re
that the final object of the investigation be not and laid down in words, a process directly enunciated which very easily serve to entangle many persons
quisite
might
are glad to rest content, provided only they are in final result, but that the mind be re possession of the duced to the necessity of seeking, and put into the way
who
by which
it
may
find
it.
The
first is
consciousness of its own state being brought to so distinct a that it is impossible it should willingly con of
ignorance,
tinue therein.
The
other
is effected
either
by an enigma
18
,
being woven out of contradictions, to which the only possible solution is to be found in the thought in view,
in a
way apparently
utterly foreign and accidental which can only be found and understood by one who does really investigate with
an activity of his own. Or the real investigation is over drawn with another, not like a veil, but, as it were, an
adhesive skin, which conceals from the inattentive reader,
is
to be properly
only sharpens and clears the mind of an attentive one to perceive the inward con nection. Or when the exposition of a whole is the ob
ject in view, this is only sketched
before
bine.
him
in his
by a few unconnected who has the figure already own mind, can easily fill up and com
like the arts
by which Plato
succeeds with almost every one in either attaining to what he wishes, or, at least, avoiding what he fears. And thus
this
signification in
speak of an esoteric and exoteric, I mean, as in dicating only a state of the reader s mind, according as he elevates himself or not to the condition of one truly
here
sensible of the
inward
it
spirit
or if
it is still
to
be referred
to Plato himself,
first
For in that certainly, after he was only his exoteric. assured that his hearers had followed him sufficiently
and
perfectly, and perhaps even regularly work out in com mon with those hearers, and according to outlines framed
in
common
after
having
and connection.
grasped in his mind their higher ground Meanwhile, since in the writings of Plato
19
the exposition of Philosophy
is
in
gressive from the very first excitement of the original and leading ideas, up to an all but perfected exposition
of particular sciences,
said being presumed,
it
it
follows, follows,
must
be a natural sequence and a necessary relation in these For he cannot advance further dialogues to one another.
another dialogue unless he supposes the effect pro posed in an earlier one to have been produced, so that
in
the same subject which is completed in the termination of the one, must be supposed as the beginning and foun
dation of another.
Now
if
might
for
to look for
gradual progression, and we should be compelled two separate classes of dialogues, an ethical
series.
and a physical
But
it
as he represents
them as a
to
is
ever
conceive of them generally as essentially connected and inseparable, so also are the preparations for them united
in like
manner, and made by considering their common principles and laws, and there are therefore not several
tonic Dialogues,
unconnected and collaterally progressing series of Pla but only one single one, comprehending
it.
every thing in
The
every one
restoration
sees,
then
of
this
natural order
is,
as
all at
an arrangement of the works tempts of Plato, inasmuch as these attempts in part terminate
hitherto
at in
made
and extravagant trifling, and in a systematic separation and combi part proceed upon nation according to the established divisions of Phi
nothing but
vain
losophy,
in
part also,
only
20
consideration
like
here and
in
there,
a whole
view.
The
into
after
tetra
logies,
Thra-
form of these
range them in the same manner as the works of the Tragic Poets spontaneously arranged themselves accord
ing to the regulations of the Athenian festival, and even on this poor chance-work the classification was ill
kept and so ignorantly executed, that for the most part, no reason whatever can be discovered why, in particular
instances, the results of
it
are
at
all
as
we
find
them.
Not even
is
ended with a
in
satirical piece,
which irony and dialogues epideictic polemics are most strongly preeminent, were on the contrary, assigned to the concluding portions
the
;
two
at first
that Plato,
pupil of Socrates, made some of his actually dialogues public; for how otherwise could those which
when
refer to the
first,
and the Lysis and Phaedrus, which the ancients re gard as works of so early a date, be thrown far into The only trace of an intelligent the middle of all ?
notion might perhaps be found in the fact that the Clitophon is placed before the Republic, as a justifying transition from the so-called investigative dialogues,
and
in appearance
sceptical, to
immedi
is
ately instructive
in this case it
The
Trilogies
21
of Aristophanes, although they proceed upon the same comparison, are more intelligible, at least in so far as not for subjecting the whole mass of writings to this frolic of fancy, and constructs a trilogy only in
that he
is
cases in
sufficient clear
is
or
when such
implied
by some external circumstance, leaving all the rest sub Meanwhile both attempts ordinate to that arrangement. serve to show how soon the true arrangement may only
of the Platonic works was of
it,
and how
ill
excepting very few traces suited that kind of criticism which the
lost,
how
to apply,
was
to dis
cover the principles of a correct arrangement of Philo Less external* indeed, but otherwise sophical works.
not
much
known
dialectic divisions
of the dialogues which Diogenes likewise has prepared for us without indicating the author of them, and ac
the editions
usually
mark
At first sight, indeed, this every dialogue in the title. notice in this attempt does not seem deserving of any
place,
as its tendency
relates to
is
more
and
matters which do not profess to indi But the great cate the exponent of the natural order.
it
division
into
certainly, if
the
investigative
and
at least in ing the progress of the Platonic dialogues, can only be preparatory to the main, since the former
the latter as explanatory of positive theories. were not only that the further subdivision
Provided
made
in
the most utterly illogical manner, in the one according to the form alone of the investigation, in the other ac
cording
to
the
subject,
while
the
latter
of
the
two
22
according to the different Philosophical sciences, so that even what Plato had himself expressly combined is split
asunder, as the Sophist and the Politicus, the Timaeus
and the
Critias, not
to mention other
rangement of Plato, and at the most can only serve as a register to any one wishing to inform himself of the
opinion of Plato upon particular subjects, where he has to look for the decisive passages, although even this,
considering the character of the Platonic writings, is ever very uncertain, and can only be productive of very de ficient results. Besides these attempts at arrangement
there
is
scarcely
any other
to mention, unless
it
be that
man Eberhard,
in his treatise
upon the
and the object of his Philosophy. The first would not indeed deserve to be mentioned, had not great merit been attributed to him in a variety of places, and even de
mands made
the works of Plato according to his plan. It is how ever impossible that these should be complied with, sup For the man s posing even the best disposition to do so.
this,
upon
of Plato reciprocally illustrate each other, and he takes occasion to write a few at
very meagre lines about each of them, shew ing nothing so clearly as that there is scarce a single instance in which he has traced out Plato s object with
the most
But even sup any thing like ordinary understanding. posing all this to be better than it is, and that the
greatest proofs of ignorance, as well as misapprehension
23
of particular passages were not to be
found,
how can
an argument be undertaken upon a principle of reci which of the dialogues thus reci procal illustration ? For
procal
is
to be
the
first,
And
prove
as regards
Eberhard
in
all
reference
of the Phi object in his Philosophy, which, independent of the Athenian losophy itself, lies in the formation
citizens.
Now
in
this,
to determine
whether
this
object
at
the
basis for the discovery of all the higher speculations of somewhat overit would be Plato, which, I
suppose,
circle
which
it
is
involved,
is
as
Philosophy must
it
certainly
far
determine what
is
too
subordinate a ground
But
if
the opinion
is
Philosophy independent
are
to
of that
writings
under the
cir
cumstances of that time, such an object might demand, this would be the strongest position ever taken up in
favour of their exoteric character.
Meanwhile, accord
of Plato ing to that view, the philosophical writings could only constitute a paedagogic, or rather a polemic to external circum series, in which, from its reference
stances
and events,
like
all
must be
accidental,
and thus
it
would be
cious
enough
concatenation of productions, which, torn out of their organic place, would be, considering further the
total
failure
in
the object
in
view,
a useless piece of
ornamental finery.
tained
by
others,
Equally worthless is the view main that Plato published sometimes one
part of his knowledge, sometimes another, either from mere vanity, or in opposition to that of other Philoso
phers.
tion
In
all
these endeavours,
order of these writings, in refer ence to the progressive developement of the philoso phy, is out of the question. Quite different, however,
of the natural
from
all
is
the character of
the attempt
made
in
Tennemann
at all
Philosophy; the
to completeness,
first,
the
Platonic
dialogues
;
from various
historical
traces
for this is certainly critical in impressed upon them its principle, and a work worthy in every way of an
historical
investigator
like
the
author of that
is
treatise.
In
this undertaking,
directed less to
discover,
by
the
real
and
essential
relation of the
discover in
general the dates of their composition, in order to avoid confounding early and imperfect attempts with an exposition of the Philosophy of the mature and
perfect
Plato.
is
And
to
that
undertaking,
;
generally,
the present
a necessary counterpart
and thus, on
it
does entirely
signs, provided it could only be universally and definitely assign to any Platonic dialogue applied, its place between any two others, would be the natural test
upon outward
entirely
upon what
is
necessary on that ac
is subjected to other external and accidental conditions than its internal development, which follows only such as
in existence sooner
than something else, does not yet appear externally until a later period. But with due regard to these effects
of accident, which would hardly escape an attentive eye, we had the two series complete, and they could be
if
accurately compared, they could not fail by a pervading coincidence mutually to confirm, in the most decisive
We
discover,
how
points
and
somewhat
indefinite limits
fall,
and often an extreme limit only on one side is given. For in strictness the historical traces should not extend
beyond the
life
all
the
an ad consequently, he had a later date at command vantage, however, which he has not always employed
;
so
as
to
leave a
more
accurate
trace for
us.
Now
do indeed excite a hope of some little further historical evidence, so that one might wish that Plato had oftener
been guilty of
is
this fault;
but even
this slight
advantage
of
made very ambiguous by the consideration that many these facts may have been introduced on a subsequent
of the
recasting
works
in
ceased to transport himself so vividly into the actual time of the dialogue, and might be more easily seduced to
There might, its limits, unrestrained by fact. be yet another expedient hitherto unused with perhaps,
transgress
26
reference to this method.
Thus
if
given to Socrates,
which,
a certain order, gradually vanishes, might be regarded as a measure of the distance at any given point from
the period of his
life
;
or even
personages might be regarded as a sign of the liveliness of the interest which Plato took in Athens and in public life then, which was in like manner blunted and destroyed
as time advanced.
limitations,
But
any
all
this is
subject to so
it
many
be
that
confident
use of
might
beneficial,
thing,
So that by
method
it
might
hardly be possible to attain more than what it has been applied to in that work with praiseworthy moderation,
though,
it
hypotheses.
consideration
may At
be,
all
not
always
according
to
correct
upon
can certainly be neither criticised nor contradicted upon that of those historical notices, as that operation only determines an order of reference, but not one chronolo
gical point.
It must,
however, be as
much
as possible
by means
the natural
disarrangement in which they at present are, it would seem necessary to determine first what pieces are really
Plato
s
not.
attempt be made with any degree of certainty, or rather, in case of anything foreign being mixed up with the works
of Plato,
is
genuine
fail
to appear
is
2?
imgenuine
petent
in
connection
the
with
it ?
Or
is
it
to
be com
to take
problem given
itself as
a standard,
slashingly enough, that what will not itself to that connection cannot adapt belong to Plato?
and
to declare,
Scarcely any one, I suppose, would be found to favour this process, or not to see that this would be an ex
tremely partial
decision of
a question
to
it
be answered
is
upon quite
different grounds,
and that
impossible
assumed
as Platonic, should
pronounce
at the
same time
Or more upon the correctness of the assumption itself. probably, the majority of readers will not expect to meet
with the question about the Platonic writings perfectly entire, but regard it as one long since decided, with the
exception
trifles,
may
of great indifference. Such, for instance, will be the of all those who repose upon the long prescribed opinion
authority of editions.
cide accurately
enough with the list of Thrasyllus, in Diogenes, only that more modern criticism has withdrawn the Clitopho from our collection ; and on the other hand,
the explanations of words are wanting in that list;
these,
and
therefore,
Nay, we have
still
Grammarian Aristophanes, who has been already named, whose arranging catalogue Dio genes also had before him, and certainly would not have
collection in that of the
if
he had discovered
I
it.
But how,
would
ask,
can a searching criticism, even though it would pay no regard to the doubts which one s own feelings suggest, rest upon those authorties ? For not only, with the
28
of a
exception
few poets,
have
all
works of particular authors preserved from antiquity, so that it would be matter of wonder if those of Plato were
literature exception, especially as philosophical has in a less degree employed the industry of critics;
to
make an
but in Plato
case,
in,
the importance of which does not seeem to have been sufficiently considered, that
in this respect
those
critics
a considerable number of
small
which they found at hand, dialogues out of the collection For it is clearly manifest to Plato. as not
belonging
from
at
the period
when
this
was done,
these dialogues must have already maintained their place among other works of Plato for a considerable time, since
otherwise no particular operation of criticism would have been necessary again to deprive them of it. And this
could not have taken usurpation, on the other hand, of the spuriousness of place if there had been evidence
these
the time dialogues documentarily descended from of the genuine academicians ; for, generally, as long as
to be found,
men were
tradition
who preserved
cause,
is
not conceivable
that
foreign work should have been commonly foisted upon Plato. Upon what ground, therefore, did these critics found their judgment when they adopted some
rejected
dialogues and
others
If
it
should
be
said
certain
and sufficiently old evidence of their recognition by those who lived nearest after the time of their composition,
we might
tion,
who
is
every
quotation,
29
neither collectively nor in detail a
ground
for rejection,
and
picion
have judged they might, therefore, very easily various grounds of sus In like manner, also, wrong. the sufficiency of the be raised
might
against
proofs applied,
as several
examples both
in
former and
how
early a period
of antiquity supposititious writings have been adopted and learned men into the list of even
by
philologists
Now, if they judged chiefly upon inter genuine works. these at nal grounds, no prescription is valid as regards to renewed all events ; but they must remain fairly subject Hence then arises, late. trial at every period, however
especially
as in the
doubts
will
meets with,
many much that he suggest themselves against in a question whether these men did not
mind of every
attentive reader
from too limited a point of view; or whether they may not have failed to push principles, their full extent, and consequently though correct, to as have preserved much that might have been quite that There are two circumstances
appropriately rejected.
First, that to this doubt. give particular encouragement are not all of them the dialogues at that time rejected the a decisive line from all recognised at separated by same period, but whether we look to the subject-matter, some of the or to the composition and mode of treatment, second. to the Again, first class pretty near
at
known
suspicious
and Hipparchus,
be planted in a better
to a considerable extent,
and
strike out
places.
But
if
our confidence
30
collection
is
thus
shaken,
however
to allow that,
itself
in
strictness,
be
its
own voucher
that
Platonic.
Now
this, to
continue, can be done in no other way except by coming back to evidences again; and, looking at what has been
said above,
it
us,
at the
is any other valid evidence but Aris Meanwhile even with him various grounds of
suspicion
come
in,
many pieces which bear his name, as spurious works are mixed up even with this collection, partly by reason
of of the bad state of the text, which seems to be far more
loaded with glosses than has been hitherto remarked ; and in part, lastly, from his manner of quoting, as he
often mentions the titles only of Platonic dialogues with
out the composer, or even the name of Socrates when we expect that of Plato. But the philological con
sciousness which should here confidently decide whether
Aristotle
had Plato
in his
mind or
not,
and whether or no
he ascribed to him the dialogues named, must indeed have approved itself in possession of a high degree of practice, not only in general, but especially to avoid
arguing in a
the
and founding,
it
may
be,
judgment passed upon the quotations of on one previously formed upon the Platonic
Hence, any quotation
in the
Aristotle
writings.
only in a cursory manner, and, as is not seldom the case, almost superfluously and for mere ornament, need not necessarily be a proof of the genuineness of a Platonic Now the only thing which rescues us from dialogue.
this state of uncertainty is a system of criticism upon Plato pervading the greatest part of the genuine writings
31
of Aristotle, particular parts of which, any one with a
little
practice
may
find
learn
this
easily to
distinguish.
When,
therefore,
we
our Platonic writings, or even only on ideas distinctly contained in them, we may then conclude with certainty
that
Aristotle
in
view as Platonic,
even though, as is sometimes the case, he should not give us the name of the dialogue, but only mention it, in
Socrates. general, as one of Plato or of
explain this more accurately would carry us far beyond the limits of the present introduction, and is the less necessary as those who are ignorant of both sets of works the
To
among
while those
to
objections
the
result,
of sure proofs of the genuineness of the s works, and of guides to the meaning greatest of Plato In of his philosophy in the most important of them.
scarcely fail
these,
further investigation must build, and in fact no better For the Dialogues thus authenticated form is needed.
all
that a
to
connection with
them
affords
the
best test
whereby
likewise,
judge of their
origin.
it
And
that of arrangement,
when we have
that stock
we are
at
once
nection.
For
all the essential grounds of general con must have been natural for the first it
reviewer of the Platonic system to have especially taken a survey of all the most important developments of it
without any exception, and thus we do actually find these in the instances of the works most accredited by Aristotle.
in
32
as regards their genuineness as their importance, entitles
them
to
constitute
the
first
rank
among
the Platonic
Theaetetus,
the
Sophist
and
Politicus,
Phaedo,
Philebus,
and
Republic,
it.
we have a
further, both
the genuineness of
and the second may be accomplished simul taneously with the first, and without the two by their mutual relation contradicting one another, but either very
;
of them
naturally supporting each other mutually in a variety of ways, as, it is hoped, the following investigation will shew.
task, that of testing the remaining our collection, and thus investigating whether or not they belong to Plato, is not without difficulty,
first
Now
the
dialogues in
is
made up of
and
distinguishing features, and it seems unfair to expect that all should be united in an equal degree in all pro ductions of Plato, and difficult to decide to which of
these distinguishing
marks we ought
to each.
especially to look
to assign
Now
under
consideration particularly the peculiarity of the language, a certain common range of subject, and the particular form into which Plato
which
come
usually moulds
it.
Now
as regards the
language, the
would be fortunately dealt by, if whatever could be drawn from that, any proof regarding
question
matter in
the origin of these pieces. But if of them, there are losophical part
we look
to the phi
among
s
the dialogues
it
whose claims
to
be considered as Plato
will
never-
33
be necessary to investigate, some which treat in general of no scientific subjects, nor of any in the spirit
theless
of speculation;
so immediately
from the range of the undoubtedly genuine dialogues, and are so manifestly inspired by the same
mode
of thinking, that it is impossible to recognise in them a later or a strange hand, and yet they might, as
far as
depends upon
this point,
a scholar
or an imitator
his
who
master.
But
part of the dialogues, scarcely any one could presume to select first from the common property of the period
that
which
was the
in
particular,
and from
great compass
which the
has wielded the pen so long must acquire, and moreover the great loss of contemporaneous and similar works,
and, finally, if the small and already long since rejected dialogues are to be accounted as forming part of the
difference
and subject
all
to
pro
to pass sentence
upon any expression whatever even in these small dia logues, and to decide that it is unplatonic with such
certainty that he
to reject
would undertake
?
is
not
is
so
much
and
indication
presence of what
native,
the want
of
embellishing
the
sentence
dialogistic
formula , that
as
34
concerned.
Among
those
therefore
which
cannot
be
accused of that deficiency there is much that need not belong to Plato without its betraying itself in the lan
guage, so that this exclusively can scarcely decide any For when suspicions arise in our minds which thing.
depend more, upon a general impression than upon any distinct grounds which we can bring forward in sup
port of it, it may be assumed that these depend more upon the composition in general than upon the language
alone.
And such again might be the case when we would judge of the genuineness of the remaining works
the
this
according to
class.
subject-matter of
those of
the
first
might be done in two ways. Either it might be maintained that nothing can be Platonic which stands in contradiction with the subject-matter
of these recognised
dialogues.
For
of correcting or changing his opinions even after he has publicly explained them ; and it would be at once
supposed in his case, wonderful as such a supposition on consideration of our modern philosophy must appear,
it
that
upon
Or, thought the same as he did afterwards. be paid to the accurate coincidence of regard
less
the
particular thoughts than to the quality and importance of the subject-matter generally, and a rule be laid down
that
every
work of Plato
35
an author,
stances
who without
the influence
of such circum
cannot
In occasional pieces, properly speaking, like these, it be fairly demanded that those ideas of the
author which belong to a higher sphere should develope themselves, and when traces of them are seen, their
appearance is accidental and supererogatory, and may not even always be taken as an infallible proof of their origin from him. Equally manifest is it that every
great artist of every kind will
his
work up
studies out of
and though the adept will dis cover in them more or less of his style and spirit, yet they neither belong to the class of works which pecu
particular line,
liarly
own
characterize
their
is more, he may in them, pur and for sake of some preparatory exer posely perhaps, cise, remove himself out of his accustomed circle of
subjects,
to him.
There
can be ascribed to Plato only by regarding them in this point of view, and to endeavour to decide with respect to such from the trifling nature of the subject-matter,
or from particular
deviations in
this
the
treatment
of
it,
might,
liable
according to
to mistake.
analogy,
be a
process very
These
tend
to show, that
alone, nor
we should judge
look
to
a third and
the
from the language alone, but that we must more certain something in which
in general.
For even
sists
in the language,
the
relation
to
the
composition,
In
manner
36
this will betray itself in
its
principal
features
even in
which we miss the important matter of these works of a higher class. Moreover, and it is
those
studies
in
this which must contribute to give us a correct idea of this genuine Platonic form, we need not first abstract it, like those other two tests, out of the larger works
which
can
not be drawn with certainty ; but it is, in every essential point, a natural of Plato s notions consequence
still
which
this
be found, generally, to the same extent in latter exists. For it is nothing but the
immediate putting into practice of those methodical ideas which we developed from Plato s first principle as to
the
which writing operates. So that the same of the philosopher which justifies us in idiosyncracy
in
mode
looking for a pervading connection throughout his works, does also reveal to us that which the surest canon
yields
solution
of both problems grows from a common root. Now the dress has already been above as dialogistic represented the external condition of this dialogistic form, and its
almost
vividly
instruction,
which always has to deal with a definite subject, it further adds thereto an especial characteristic, the ad
mixture of which forms the Platonic I speak dialogue. of that mimic and dramatic means of which quality by persons and circumstances become and
individualized,
which, by general confession, spreads so much beauty and charm over the His great and dialogues of Plato.
undisputed
neglect
this
works plainly show us that he does not admixture even when he is most deeply
3?
absorbed
on the other hand they shew us almost universally that he admits it most co
in
the
subject,
as
piously when the subject-matter does not into the dark solemnity of speculation.
lead
so
far
Whence we
may certainly conclude that this peculiar form can never be totally wanting, and that even in the most insig
which he undertook, whether as a study or an occasional piece, Plato will have applied some
nificant
trifle
Moreover, the want of this is indis thing of this art. the first thing which, to the feeling of every putably reader, must distinguish as unplatonic the dialogues
rejected from correct
basis
antiquity
downwards;
that
as
it
is
also
the
upon which
old
critical
judgement
dialogues without Introductions are to be disavowed, except that this formula expresses the fact
but
very
partially
and imperfectly.
And
to
the
in
ward and
to sponta
that frequent recommence neous production of ideas ment of the investigation from another point of view,
all
common
center-point
the appearance capricious, and only excusable from loose tenor which a dialogue might have, but which
meaning and of art ; the concealment, further, of the more important object under one more trifling; the indirect commencement with some
nevertheless
is
always
full of
individual instance
the dialectic play with ideas, under which, however, the relation to the whole and to the these are the original ideas is continually progressing
;
:
conditions
all
really
some of which must necessarily be found in Platonic works that have any philosophical
38
bearing.
racter can
to
Meanwhile
it
this
cha
show
only in proportion
the importance of the subject-matter, and we here see first how, when we are employed upon Plato, the
task of proving the genuineness of
investigation of
its
right place,
For
recommends
itself
by
its
stamped upon
it,
with so
much
is
the
more perfectly this form we may not only pronounce it genuine more certainty, but since all those
arts point
to
what
to
back to what has gone before and forward to come, it will necessarily be so much the
to
it
easier
determine
or between
which
development of the Platonic philosophy it can furnish an illuminating point. And in like manner, conversely,
the easier
the
list
any dialogue its place in of the others, these relations must become more
with the greater certainty, to Plato. in which Platonic matter is therefore,
it
is
to assign
to
These dialogues,
united
in
proper proportion
and
both appear
support of some of them, sufficiently authenticates itself by its relation to, and connection with, the first. But the more deficient a dialogue is in reference to the form, and when the subject-matter presents itself but slightly enough proportioned to it, the more suspicious,
certainly,
of Platonic works, which, even without looking to the pretty valid evidence which likewise appears in
the genuineness of that dialogue becomes, especially as the other elements of the Platonic character must be
39
less distinctly perceptible.
selves will
For even the thoughts them then betray less of the spirit of Plato, and
its
power and beauty, as so much of both connected with those peculiarities in the composition. Thus, as the distinctness of the form diminishes, the
all
all respects,
its
more suspicions and doubts come into gradually becomes less credible that Plato,
place,
to
whom
was so easy and natural to refer from all particular ideas and separate opinions to his great original principles,
should have brought forward in a different manner any subject whatever in the province of philosophy, where every one may be so treated, because he must thus,
without attaining any of his well known points and for no purpose, have transposed himself into a forced position. With respect to such dialogues it is therefore imperative
to bring especial proof of the possibility of their being
must
be shown
favour of them to prevent their rejection, But even sup and that with the most perfect justice. the balance to waver, and that the matter could posing
in
not be at
will
all decided, even this continuing uncertainty not throw the arranger of the Platonic works into any embarrassment. For dialogues of this kind do in no way belong to the list which it is his object to make
out, for,
even supposing their genuineness proved, this would only be the case when a particular object or an of such heterogeneous especial occasion for the existence
productions was pointed out, so that in any case they can only be occasional pieces, which from their very
It nature are indifferent as regards this investigation. is therefore easier also to decide upon the genuineness
40
of
all
which can belong to the connected system which all in which the investigation of
made out
at all, or
only upon other grounds, falls at once and of itself into a third, and for him an indifferent class. I speak not only of those pieces that are dubious from a certain mis understanding of them, but also of those in the Platonic
in any degree within the and whose genuineness, there philosophy, fore, cannot be judged of according to the same rules
fall
collection
which do not
province of
Thus, then, the privilege is reserved of investigating quite from the beginning upwards the connection of the
Platonic writings, and placing them in such an order as shall possess the probability of deviating as little as may be from that in which Plato wrote them ; and this under
not endangered even supposing that a decided judgement upon the genuineness of many dialogues must continue in abeyance for future times, or for a sharper
taking
is
now remains,
since the marks of genuineness and the thence resulting different circumstances of the Platonic
is
in like
manner
to
nection and the arrangement resting thereupon, in the way of a preliminary survey of the whole in general.
For
rest,
to
show
in detail
tions
while here
If then, to continue,
tracted selection of the
in
41
be fonnd perfect, there are some of them distinguished above all the rest by the fact that they alone contain an objective scientific expo
is
to
sition;
and the
Critias.
Every
in
viewed
this,
and even the imperfect condition which, But more than all
the nature of the thing decides the question; inas much as these expositions rest upon the investigations
previously pursued, with which all the dialogues are more or less engaged; upon the nature of knowledge
in particular; generally, and of philosophical knowledge and upon the applicability of the idea of science to the
Man
himself,
and
Na
It
may
indeed be
a long period intervened between the Republic and the Timaeus ; but it is not to be supposed that Plato during
this
interval
maining
with the excep perly come into connection with them, tion of the Laws, if those are to be counted as part of
that connected series, for
written after the books regard to these that they were But these books, together with the upon the Republic.
Timaeus and
it
Critias,
if
should be
said
that
properly
re
presenting
ethical
and
science,
though written
and the idea of the good capability of being taught, are treated of, might nevertheless have been very easily
written
earlier
atory
to
the
Timaeus,
those namely,
which
endeavour
and of the kind of knowledge we possess of nature; this would be not only as unplatonic, according to what
has been said above as any thing could be, and would
suppose the grossest ignorance of those preparatory works in which such a separation of subjects is not to be found;
but
icus,
it
which
same
was written
earlier,
itself,
and that by a considerable period than the Sophist which does, nevertheless, in conjunction with the
but one dialogue, and
is
Politicus, constitute
first
in fact the
But the Republic, as being clearly the part of it. earliest of the properly expositive works, at once sup the existence of all dialogues not poses belonging to this
class,
and
this
it
were
let
edifice
upon which it rests, and which, previous to entering that whose support they are, if one considers them in reference to themselves, and only surveys them im
mediately within their own range, one might, not being able to divine their destination, pronounce and
objectless
imperfect.
Republic
will not
admit of
being separated by any means from the subsequently annexed Timaeus and Critias, whoever would make any objection against the place they occupy in common, must assume that Plato premised, generally, the perfected ex
position,
But every thing, as investigations into the principles. well the manner in which those principles are introduced into the expositive works themselves, and in which
they
are investigated in the preparatory ones, as also every
43
possible conception of Plato
is
s spirit
and
style of thought,
so strongly repugnant to the adoption of such an in verted order, that it is hardly necessary to say anything upon that point ; but we need only ask any one what
dialogues he would read in this order, and then leave him to his own feelings as to the inverted process and
the miserable expedient
that
the
investigations leading
themselves throughout upon the mind of any one reading in this order, clearly pointing to the opposite arrange
ment.
It is
would, in
hoped that no one will object that the case the main, be the same with the order here pro
posed, inasmuch as according to this, a subject is not seldom anticipated mythically which does not appear For the very fact of until later in its scientific form.
its
being done only mythically does not only accurately to excite his read agree with that main purpose of Plato
nition of
but
it
is
even
in itself a clear
how
was, that in philosophizing, properly so called, it is ne not with a composite theory but with cessary to begin the simple principles. Nay, whoever penetrates deeper into the study of Plato, will then, and not before, be
aware how the gradual development and moulding of the Platonic myths form one fundamental myth, as well
as the transition of
tific
form, affords
may be most
clearly
44
perceived.
The
necessity,
therefore,
for
assigning the
if
earlier composition of the Re public prior to any one of those preparatory dialogues, though none such has yet been found, and, what is
were to be found of an
more,
the
will not
falling into
most
serious
with
Plato, and
reconcile
telligence.
we should be much
instance
then,
this
of
these
unreason
vast
in
dialogues indisputably the last, some, on the other hand, of the remaining ones distinguish themselves as clearly as the
first
;
As
constructive
are
for instance,
first
of the
nides.
continuing to adhere only to those the Phasdrus, rank, Protagoras, and ParmeFor these are contrasted with the former, first
to them,
by the
for
mer
the rest are presupposed, so, conversely, many references are to be found throughout to these latter as
previously existing
ticular thoughts, they appear in these dialogues still as it were in the first and awkwardness of
glitter early further, these three dialogues are not in deed like those three last, worked into one whole
youth.
And
up
much
art,
but not
withstanding, mutually connected in the closest manner by a similarity in the entire construction scarcely ever to be met with again to the same degree, by many like and a number of particular allusions. thoughts, But
the most important thing yet in
them
is
their internal
45
matter,
for
is
in
first
of what
the
the basis of
that follows,
breathings of Logic as
instrument of Philosophy, of Ideas as its proper of the possibility and the con object, consequently
ditions of knowledge.
These
therefore,
in
conjunction
some dialogues attaching to them of the lesser kind, form the first, and, as it were, elementary part of
with
the
others occupy the interval between these and the constructive, inasmuch as they
treat
ples,
Platonic
works.
The
mon knowledge
Physics.
of the distinction between philosophical and com in their united application to two pro posed and real sciences, that of Ethics, namely, and of
between
the
ary,
In this respect also they stand in the middle the constructive in which the practical and
in which the two are kept separate more than where else in Plato. These, then, form the second any which is distinguished by an especial and almost part,
difficult artificiality, as
well
in the
construction of the
particular dialogues
as in
their
progressive connection,
and which might be named for distinction s sake, the indirect method, since it commences almost universally
with
In these three the juxta-position of antitheses. divisions therefore, the works of Plato are here to be
given
to
the
reader;
so
that
while
each
part
is
ar
ranged
places
according to its obvious characteristics, the second rank occupy precisely the dialogues also of the which, after due consideration of every point,
seems to belong to them. Only it must be allowed that with respect to this more nice arrangement, every
thing has not
equal
certainty,
making
it,
46
the natural
and a
With
rank, the
first
of these two
contravened
and
is
never
kind.
Thus,
gistic
in
the
method
the
predominant
is
object,
and hence,
of
the
first
the
last,
partly
a
as
most
to
perfect
partly
as to
transition
the
second part,
the
relation
because
it
begins
philosophize
upon
of ideas to
actual things.
knowledge and of the process of knowing in operation is the predominant subject, and at the head of that
of a part stands the Theaetetus, beyond the possibility mistake, taking up as it does this question by its first root, the Sophistes with the annexed Politicus in the
middle, while the Phaedo and Philebus close
itions to the third part;
it
as trans
the
first,
sketch of
its
Philosophy, the second, because in discussion of the idea of the Good, it begins to ap
Natural
proximate to a totally constructive exposition, and passes The arrangement of the colla into the direct method.
teral
class,
is
ments upon and appendages to the same principal work, as is the case in the first part with the Laches and
Charmides in reference
therefore
to the Protagoras,
and
in these
we can only
always very
several of
second place,
the same
them might be
transitions between
the
collectively
are
preludes
47
diverging from the Theaetetus, to the Politicus
:
so that
we must
bilities
rest
satisfied
collected
as
accurately
may be from
every
source.
The
that name, and say that, with philosophical matter, although copiously penetrated they still form only a collateral piece, although, from
itself,
sidered in
we must give
and genuine Platonic origin, they are perfectly entitled to belong to the works of the first class. Lastly, as regards those dialogues, to which with reference to the point of view taken in the arrangement,
their extensive range
we have assigned
will
in
common
in point of genuineness,
have a very
three divi
facilitated
particularly
by comparison with
also shall
or
that dialogue.
For they
which belongs to them, of being provided with all that can be said in a short space towards elucidating them, and bringing their cause more near to a decision,
PART
I.
I.
PH^DRUS.
usually
;""
THIS
"
dialogue
bears
as
second
title,
Or of
the Beautiful
"
Of Love and of
the
Indisputably
all
such
second titles, appearing as they do to several dialogues of Plato, have arisen, probably accidentally, from a later hand, and have produced almost universally the disad
effect of leading the reader upon a wrong and thus favouring views in part far too limited, track,
vantageous
in
especially of the superadded titles of this dialogue, which have been understood almost universally as indicating
it,
in
in
one
part of the work, and could not, therefore, to an unpre judiced person, obtain as the true and proper subject of it. The omission, however, of this deceptive title will
be hardly
and from
this
cause,
therefore,
as
method
of the
mind, on occasion
dialogue,
this
introduction
must claim
to
extend to what
length.
may
49
exclusive of the richly orna mented Introduction, consists of two parts, much alike in
extent, but otherwise, even at
first
For the
first
that a
speeches upon love, one of Lysias in favour of the position boy should bestow his favour upon a cold and
dispassionate lover rather than an enraptured and impas sioned one, and two of Socrates the first a
supplementary
speech, in the same sense in which such speeches were usual in courts of justice to defend the same cause with
the preceding; the other, on the contrary, a counterin favour of the speech impassioned suitor so severely accused in the first. The second part, to leave it, pre
liminarily, as
indefinite
as
possible,
contains
several
remarks,
speeches,
incidentally
introduced
on occasion of
these
upon the then condition of the art of speaking, with notices of its proper And from together principles.
these
entirely
is
technical
investigations
no return what
treated
briefly-drawn sketch, every reader must at once see that not only that parti cular erotic question cannot have been in Plato s mind the
subject
this
of in
the
main subject-matter, but not even love in general. For in either case this beautiful work, worked up as it evidently
is
most revolting manner, utterly contravening the maxim that it must be fashioned like a living creature, having a body proportioned to the mind, with parts also in due
proportion.
then be nothing but an appendage strangely tacked on, and not even tolerably well fitted, which, of itself alone,
its
position, could
produce no
drawing
50
tion as far as possible
Moreover,
would
be yet but very indifferently completed. For notwith relation standing that in the two first speeches the
of the lovers
is
treated
of
in
;
merely
this
and
separate
regard
to the
nature of love
this,
and
notice
to its
essence
taken of
it
no
higher whatever is
and nothing
Accordingly, a subject so negligently treated could not be the proper subject-matter of the work, and nothing
remained but to place the whole value of the dialogue upon the mythos in the third speech, which alone ex
patiates to a certain degree
that myth, which, of all that the dialogue presents, is most celebrated and famous together with what is said
of the high importance and the great And then we shall have to explain influence of beauty. all that remains to be digressive matter, strangely con
in connection with
it
if,
that
is
to say,
we
from the
subject-matter
of
those
three
speeches in order to
Now
if,
treated of in the
first,
second part,
we
their
discussed;
whence ensues an attempt, the reverse of the first, to centre the main object of the whole in that which forms
51
the subject of the second part, the
more correct
notions,
namely, brought forward respecting the true nature of the art of speaking. This view, which has even been
already adopted by several persons,
at
least
is
favoured by an
half-seriously intended declaration of Socrates, that he brings forward the speeches only as examples,
that,
method employed, be taken only as jest. every thing According to that, then, we should have to pay especial attention, from the beginning throughout, to what is
setting
and
aside
the
correct
to
else in
them
is
paradigmatic in these speeches, and we must endeavour perfectly to understand every relation existing between
them and the theory advanced in the second part, which consists in the main of the three following points. Plato
attempts to make quite clear what is the proper busi ness of the art of speaking. For, as is clearly seen from
first
artists
and teachers of
To blind that day in an exclusively empirical manner. the understanding of the hearers by sophistical means,
and then,
in particular passages,
this
to excite their
;
minds
whole object as likewise an emotionally deficient and uniform method of instruction extremely in composition, with uselessly accumulated subdivisions
was
their
and technical terms, and some maxims upon the use of language, leading at most only to harmony and fulness
of sound, or to the production of striking and brilliant And thus the art was effect, made up the whole secret.
All this then, altogether devoid of internal substance. for the art itself, is which up to this time had passed
degraded by Plato to the rank of technical knack, and while he exposes in its nakedness the principle of the
52
sophistical rhetoricians, that he
not himself
know
compel as
it
were others to certain thoughts and judgments, if this is done at all, however without reference to the truth, with that degree of certainty which alone can lay claim yet
to the
name of
art
on nothing but a
scientific
method of comprehending similar notions under higher; and a like knowledge of the difference of notions, that dia
lectics, therefore,
rhetoric,
connected with
its
principles, pro
With this, then, the second perly belongs to the art. All those technicali stands in close connection. position
ties,
only from practice in the courts of law and the popular assemblies, and referred to them, so that their trifling value
must
they were only put forward as particular kinds, and no longer considered as the whole Hence, therefore, Plato maintains province of the art.
at once appear,
even
if
is universally the same, not only in these places, but also in written productions and oral
discussions of every kind, as well scientific as civil, nay, even in the common usage of social life. means of
By
this extension
and establishment of
its
province,
now com
prehending every species of philosophical communication, beyond its hitherto too narrowly drawn limits, on the one
rhetoric is cleared from many grounds of reproach, and compelled to seek its principles for all these various branches far deeper, and on the other the rising artist
hand
reveals himself in the process, while a great archetype, emblematical of the species which he almost created,
53
floats before
him
in his
strict conditions,
But
as
by
this
very extension,
hitherto
himself,
sense in which
the
word was
clears
used,
is
in
a manner
destroyed,
Plato
away and
letting
it
among
might
easily
be charged
hatred
that
to this investi
s
gation the common incorrect conception of Plato to the art in general. And this he does best
by
up
dependency upon
is
sense.
it,
to be art in a higher
to him,
nothing but
own
countrymen usually
is
a theory can be
made
for it
thus that Plato distinguishes art and artless dispatch. Now such a science can arise only when the classified variety, dialectically exhibited as resulting from the cen
connected in a systematic and exhaustive manner with what results from the perfectly whole range of the means and objects. Accordingly, he demands from the art of speaking, that it enumerate
tral notion of the art, is
the different kinds of speeches, and fix every one and each to correspond to all the different kinds of minds,
all
how every
From
From
for
this point of
much
con
tained in this
it, first
a living
becomes
and these examples could only be either com or as good as completely finished speeches. Whence pletely the propriety of their position before the theoretical part,
evident,
purpose of introducing
But in order to facilitate the them, naturally follows. Plato needed an example of the common comparison, illogical method no less than one of his own, and after
the last again he was obliged to accomplish ends of an nature if he wished to shew the influence of opposite
tendency of that period upon the whole and at the same time to produce that logical discussion, semblance which leads unobserved from one contradiction
peculiar
to another.
ceive,
the
On
would wish
speeches from a preference for the second, as it is only by the most accurate comparison that both can be understood
aright.
Thus
the
become
evident.
For
in the
one
we have
direction
of the speech
to the
pression moreover, notwithstanding all the rhythmical accumulation of words, preserved transparent and cold thus it indisputably is that a mind must be treated which
it is
contrary, the inspired tone, the exaltation of beauty to an equal rank with the highest moral ideas, and its
its
intended to lead to a contempt of passion by directing views to a late future ; in the other, on the
we have
close
connection with
the
Eternal
and Infinite;
the
manner moreover
in which indulgence is demanded for the sensuous system, without however concealing that it
is
only indulgence
thus
it is
imagination a
upon, which,
like that of a
55
fresh
art.
is
how
is
to
consider in
to
what way a given mind can be influenced a given object. In like manner from this point of
it
appear natural that these examples should be taken from a subject appertaining to Philosophy, because in a subject of this description Plato found
will
view
own
as
was
at
the
order as well
to verify, practically,
tension
political
of the
and
civil
to suggest
a fitting rule
for
this the
Now
if
Plato had
de
termined to start from an example actually given, and that example one which had already submitted to the
laws of rhetoric,
it
will
much
as to
that
his
choice
li
mited.
For except the declamations of the Sophist, which were indeed works so unsound that for Plato
with
and principles to place himself in comparison with them would have been productive of no honour, and which moreover, as soon as Rhetoric
such
views
and Sophistry began to separate, lost their consequence more and more from that point of view, there could be little else for him to choose but these erotic rhe
torical essays of Lysias,
possessing
a certain degree fundamental principles, was a more worthy opponent than ever an orator out of the poet
to
icising school of Gorgias.
But
ency
this
is
just the
point
at
which the
insuffici
why
such
to
Plato
have
must
self-imposed law,
his
own method
mouth of
be like
them and appropriate ? And what therefore should have hindered him from composing a speech in any one s
name, unless he found one at hand upon a subject for which he not only had a peculiar interest, but which
also
the
immediate object of this dialogue. For that love is in deed a moral object, and that in the method in which
it is
like
an
of, there lies at bottom something an apology for Socrates who was accused of it in unworthy sense, this would be perhaps sufficient
here treated
cause
points
for
introducing it as one of those subordinate of the second rank which we meet with not
here
in
sparingly
transitions
the
introduction
generally,
in
the
stands in
do, then
allusions; but when anything such relation to the whole as these speeches
in various
it
and
becomes incumbent upon us to discover a necessary connection between it and the main idea of the whole. Now if the main idea here were nothing
case love
but the correction of the notion of rhetoric, in that and beauty, which form the subject matter of
these speeches,
accidental.
would
this
be,
is
But
just Plato
method, and
it
is
the triumph of his master-mind that in his great and forms nothing is without its use, and that rich-wrought
he leaves nothing for chance or blind caprice to de termine, but with him every thing is proportionate and
57
co-operative according to his subjects range. And ho\v should we miss this intelligence altogether in this place, above all others, where the principles which he adduces
are pronounced in the clearest
1
manner
Thus, therefore,
it
is
at
is
not yet the correct view, and not taken from the point from which alone a survey may be had of the whole,
and every particular appear in its proper form and posi tion, but that we must seek out another, connecting every But there are yet other thing still more accurately.
reasons at hand which
to stop here.
For
is it
likely that
it
in any way agree with his other purposes as a writer? or is it not rather the case that nothing similar ever occurs again, and the Phaedrus
?
of rhetoric
upon the
technicals
isolated
in
in a
manner
in
which a far
could
important work,
master,
scarcely be allowed to
stand
Nay
second part, though it is from this that the standing point for this view is taken, still much remains inexplicable
it
is
For this second part not only expatiates greatly upon love and beauty as the subject of the first, but upon the
form of that part and rhetoric generally. For all that is said of rhetoric is extended to poetry and politics suddenly
as well, for these too are arts,
that,
and it can escape no one even rhetoric itself is set up properly speaking, and treated of only as an example, and the same even
said
is
of
it
setting aside
child s-play.
and business is nothing but In such wise, therefore, we are driven from
58
an outer to an inner, and as this last does
itself in
turn
soon become an outer, we push still the innermost soul of the whole work, which
no other
the art,
spirit
of
and informing communi namely, of unshackled thought For which all else in this dialogue cation, or, dialectics.
is
of
in the Socratic
its spirit
in a well
known
particular,
which an ex
clusively scientific
not only does Plato intend to celebrate this art as the root of every other ramification to which that name can apply, but, while
and
in part easy
Now
in
all
other
arts
we are indeed
to
recognise
it,
it
is
itself to
as appear to every one and perfectly divine, which is to be learnt and practised, for its own and for that by no means for their sake, but
of a divine existence.
tics is
Now
with
all
the ardour of
first
love,
and thus
it is
philosophy
that Plato here extols, independently and wholly, as the as the foundation of every highest of all objects, and and beautiful, and for whom he may estimable
thing
to these titles be triumphantly demand that her claims And it is just because philo
universally recognised. not only as an inward state, sophy fully appears here
but,
in
accordance with
its
nature,
as
extending and
to communicating itself, that it is necessary to bring consciousness and to exhibit the impulse which forces it outwards from within, and which is nothing but that
itself
above every
nature excel
of advantage,
does by
59
their subordinate arts which
that impulse
and of the judgment that arranges its details, the impulse itself appears as something originally existing and ever at work in the mind of the finished
and perfect man, seeking its object from without, conHence, sequently as passion and divine inspiration.
therefore,
itself to
all problems are solved, and be the real unity of the work
this
every thing, vivifying and connecting all. This object then, considered in connection with the
manner
in
which
it is
To
this conclusion
we
moreover
at once led,
when
exposition philosophy the of the philosophical impulse and method consciousness is far more intimate and powerful than that of the
in
this
we observe
that
of
philosophical
matter,
if,
which
therefore
it
only
still
appears
mythically, as
for
logical
exposition, and,
were
degree by that predominant consciousness. was very naturally the first state into which a worthily reflecting scholar of Socrates, and one already possessed with the art. must have been transported
certain
this
Now
by the mode of teaching pursued by that philosopher. For these two, impulse and method, were in all his
conversations the constant and ever unchanging elements,
with which therefore the mind would be most possessed, which, as to the matter, he used but to moot particular
questions in particular detail, without selection or con nected purpose. In later times, however, Plato, in
proportion
as
the
objects of
philosophy had
revealed
60
themselves to him more clearly, and he had practised
through all his productions and brought it to honour, would have abstained from making the core of a composition of such extent in the it
the
method more
fully
manner
in
which
he
has
here done.
Moreover,
the
excessive, and almost boisterous and triumphant exult ation, which at once and of itself points clearly enough
to the acquisition of a
newly gained good, relates only to the discovery of the first principles, and the Phaedrus exhibits, less than any other dialogue, a great and
already
acquired
readiness
it
in
the
in
application
of this
points the poetic essays of Plato which preceded his philoso For any one who holds Plato in proper esti phising.
method.
Moreover
a variety
of ways to
mation, will not be willing to believe that he composed poetry only in the thoughtlessness of youth, but rather
that he took
early times,
it
up
seriously,
and contemplated
in
very
and upon grounds of art, all effects pro Thus the power which duced upon the mind of man. Socrates possessed of convincing and influencing the mind
with
still
the apparent artlessness of his arguments, must have appeared to Plato as a master-art never sur
all
passed,
and have
filled
love.
and in such a
of
the
ference of philosophy
from the
And,
was
next,
his
his
not
own
conceivable upon
it
the
grounds
that,
more
than poetry,
by the
science
61
of dialectics,
phists and
piricism.
the so
rhetoricians thought to
by mere em
But if such arguments, however accurately they combine with the only true center-point of the whole, should still appear to any one insufficient to decide
the
period
at
was
written,
let
him
further
the innumerable proofs of the youthfulNow these are to be found ness of the work generally.
mark
immediately in
It has whole style and colouring. to an ostentation of a great inclination to the epideictic for not only, first, and superiority convincing power
its
;
up
in
and afterwards,
it preceding position outbidden, but even philosophy our admi self, in order to give it a lustre and excite
ration, is
praised chiefly,
praise
in
because
it
leaves
far
behind
this
is
what
men most
involved
and
admire.
Now
but,
in part
the subject-matter;
in
Plato
thus necessarily consequent subject and execution are the other, and the spirit is youthful through one upon out in which that general design is applied and con
tinually
till
worked upwards,
at
it
all,
but
second
then
annihilates
Lysias,
at
which
crushes,
still
serve
self
how
in
more powerfully, the two preceding; ob them Plato showily appropriates to him
of the
Sophists,
of
defending
opposite
the
after the other, and, withal, propositions one elaborate display immediately made of abundance
;
of matter
in
the
name of Eros
as regards Socrates,
what
is
and happiness, Further, the investigation which de most beautiful in this speech to be
first
nothing but child s-play, and rejects it along with the as if it were the bantering to nothing
;
challenge
Lysias; the droll, comprehensive, and almost confusing polemics against the early rhetoricians, ridiculing un
sparingly even what is good in their labours, because does not proceed from and this to right principles a length of which he would have them
it
scarcely
thought
itself
make
finally,
the culminating
point in this
Socratic,
epideixis, the
all
exalted
contempt,
oratorical
genuinely
speaking.
for
writing
and
this
all
Even
itself,
in the in
outward form
constantly
youthful
spirit
betrays
the
renewed luxuriance of the secondary subjects introduced at every in an animation in the resting point dialogue, which cannot be quite defended of effort
;
and
affectation;
lastly
also,
in
awkwardness
in the transitions,
half.
not indeed
in the speeches,
With
in
this
view, moreover, the historical indications accurately coincide, leaving as they to the time in which the
the
work
itself
do no doubt remaining as
less to
attempt to
and
generally,
which
with the exception of a few cases in the impossibility of the composition prior to a
63
certain period is self-evident,
it
would be
folly to
form
any conclusion upon historical grounds as to the time at which work of Plato was written, if we are to any
grant what
is
Phoedrus
contemporary
allowed
at
all
of Socrates.
For what
unless he
writer
ever
himself
such latitude,
was one in whose eyes nothing was impro whom no impropriety was too great ? bable, Not indeed that Plato was to be bound to strict his
and for
torical
accuracy, or as
is
if
of time
it
to
On
the contrary,
may
indeed
dialogues
which were
remote from that of transposed into a period pretty their composition, that he starts away from, and leaves,
his
whether from error of me hypothetical grounds, mory and negligence, or from his knowingly sacrificing
sake of a
it
certain
effect.
But
as
this
is
another to introduce,
must
men
who, as every one knew, were not even in existence at the And what was likely to have influenced same time.
Plato to such a course
?
and
admirer of
to
whom
Lysias among the young Athenians, he had here transferred the cha
Nay, what cause spoken by him in the Symposium. could there have been for making this same impossible
interlocutor
come forward
in
a mute spectator, he only swells the accumulated crowd ? would not therefore take this even upon the word
We
as
is
to
this
Phse-
not to prevent
us
from
treating
if
our
it
dialogue,
in
what
we
have to
say further, as
from
we add
and
at
that
in
mentioned
two very well known personages are there a very decisive manner Lysias, namely,
Isocrates. Lysias, in Ol. LXXXIV. l, had travelled the age of fifteen years to Thurium, and returned,
when forty-seven years old, in the of the ninety-second year Olympiad, from which
his
period
great
fame
still
as
an
orator
to
first
commences.
Now
if
we allow
some years
drus can say of him, as something generally granted, that he wrote best of all his contemporaries, this dia cannot have been held earlier than in the ninetylogue
third
Olympiad.
And
certainly
not
later,
for
Lysias
Iso
more than
fifty
crates, two and twenty years younger, could not have been much above thirty, to be brought forward as a
young man.
To
this
may
Polemarchus as a living personage, who, according to Plutarch and the composer of the Lives of the Ten
Now all this does Orators, perished in the anarchy. indeed point immediately only to the time at which the but when considered dialogue may have taken place
:
much
later;
in
which case
at
at
Plato,
who
that time
could not as yet have written anything of this descrip tion, but that the Phaedrus was the first burst of the
b5
inspiration
drawn from
will
tell
Socrates.
For,
the
first,
every
in
man
own
feeling
him
that
manner
which
Plato introduces the speech of Lysias could only have had its proper effect while this publication was fresh in the memory of the readers of the Pha3drus, and that
upon the contrary supposition there would not only be a degree of awkwardness about it, but it would be difficult even to conceive how Plato should have fallen
in with
it.
he treats Lysias, he would have subjected himself to a of injustice, had he at a later period in heavy charge
his criticism
upon him taken for the basis of it an old and almost forgotten piece, and one long ago superseded by many
far
more
perfect.
Moreover
to
as
mention of Polemarchus transition to Philosophy ? For, he died so soon after it, he could scarcely have
supplied an illustrious example for a later period than
in
we have fixed upon. But what chiefly speaks favour of the composition of the dialogue contem poraneously with those occurrences is the prophecy
the one
respecting Isocrates
which appears towards the end of the dialogue, and which cannot possibly have been spoken retrospectively, namely that he would far surpass all
rhetoricians hitherto,
position.
and
rise
to a higher
this
s
kind of com
afterwards
it
orator
expectations,
was
it,
ridiculous to
make
be predicted at a far earlier period ; but if Iso crates did not come up to those expectations, Plato
would
told
in that case
such to him.
have reference
is
66
almost expressed, that Plato would have gladly realised, school of elo by predicting its existence, an Athenian the principles of Logic in opposition to
quence upon
that corrupted and corrupting Sicilian school; and that he wished, if possible, to invite the support of Lysias,
considered as standing intermediate between the If we regard from this point of view the manner two. are here Pericles and in which
who
is
Anaxagoras,
Hippocrates
may well find support, brought so much of it at least as con and even such an idea,
forward, this supposition
cerns the interests of his
native city,
at the time.
can only be at
tributed to Plato
youth
In opposition then to all these arguments, which from so many different points all meet in the same cen in favour of a far later tre, what Tennemann adduces
of the Phaedrus, almost the period for the composition last of Plato s existence as a writer, can have little weight.
indeed no For, as regards the Egyptian story, there is occasion here to suppose with Ast a proverbial mode of us a pretty clear hint speaking, but Plato himself gives that this tale was himself, and in order to
composed by
have done
have been in that so, he need not necessarily from Thrace country any more than he actually brought the Thracian Leaf mentioned in the Charmides with the
Philosophy involved in
it.
And
said in
this dia
to
the
same purpose in the seventh of the Platonic letters; it would seem that Tennemann himself did not mean the in the Phjjedrus to apply to the same par
expressions
ticular case
letter,
which
is
and consequently that he does not maintain that Phaedrus was not written till after Plato s visit to the
67
the younger But he only thinks, in general, Dionysius. that here also disagreeable circumstances in consequence
of writing must have preceded such expressions as we find in the Phaedrus. But of this there is no trace at
all
to
be found
the
as
it
may
with that
letter,
depreciation comparison with true and living philosophical communication is itself per
1
of writing in
from writing, and as a sentiment inspired by that method of teaching which Plato at that time despaired of ever
imitating in written treatises, though he afterwards learnt
so, and did not end with believing to the same extent in the utter incommunicability of Philosophy, al though, as we see, he was well aware from the first that
to
do
could not be learnt historically. But perhaps that author does in reality hold to another ground still be hind that already brought forward ; namely, that in the
it
is
is
only disposed to consider those writings of an early date which connect themselves immediately with Socrates, and in which the peculiar style of Plato is still wanting, esteeming so large a work and with such a subject as only adapted to later times.
But every
skilful
and
self-
phizing does not commence with any particular point, but with a breathing of the whole, and that the personal
character of the writer, as well as the peculiarities of his
modes of thought and views of things in general, must be to be found in the first commencement of the really
free
and independent expression of his sentiments. Why, therefore, should not the communication of the Platonic
Or if we are to believe that philosophy begin thus ? Plato was not merely for a certain period a simply
passive learner,
it
would
be necessary to be able to point out a marked divi sion between these two opposite classes of his works, a task which no one would be in a condition to per
form.
in the
of nearly the whole of his system, is hardly to be denied ; but then their undeveloped state is quite as
clear,
itself
and
so
at
clearly
that
direct
method
in
the conduct
of the
dialogue which constitutes the peculiar superi ority of Plato, throughout the continuous and unin terrupted course of the last half, that it may be ex
this arrange ment, that old tradition which distinguished the Phaedrus as the first of Plato s works, has, not improperly, con
For Diogenes and Olympiodorus refer the origin of this tradition to no competent testimony on the con
;
trary, what these authors say tends rather to favour the hypothesis, that this arrangement was only supposed
already
in
early
times,
to
this
in
order
;
to
destroy
to
several
objections
made
dialogue
it
as
whether, for
kept within the limits of pure prose, or indeed whether the whole investigation was not excusable only in consideration of the youth of the
writer.
It is evident
;
what
is
meant by the
first
but in the
last,
mean Dionysius.
What
the
appear
69
preliminary elucidations the particular details of the work. cerning
namely,
to
add
certain
con
praised by Dionysius, and with out taking offence at the piece of natural description in he accounts it an instance of that it, homely and tem
is
The
Introduction
perate style, which, as the peculiar province of the school of Socrates, belongs, he thinks, to Plato in even an emi nent degree. The first speech which Phaedrus reads to
Socrates he clearly recognizes as a work of the cele brated orator, a point upon which no one will entertain a doubt, although an English Philologist has laid a
Now if more had remained penalty on the belief of at. 1 to us of the collection of Lysias erotic publications, we should be better able to judge of the relation of this
character
speech to others of that writer, as regards the art and This here however is not displayed in it.
deserving of
in
much
praise in itself;
as the
in the translation
to
which they
exist, and the indefiniteness of expression which almost always admits of several meanings, is a crux for the
interpreter.
supposing the others to have been like this, the whole was an attempt, not indeed thought unsuccessful, lessly entered upon, but still perfectly
Now
Then the towards an extension in the Art of Speaking. first Socratic speech carries forward the principle of
Now Lysias more thoroughly and clearly worked out. here Dionysius at once censures the invocation to the
Muses which precedes
it,
thinking that
it
comes down
suddenly like storm and tempest from a clear sky, de a tastless piece of poetastry. stroying the pure prose
that Plato
means soon
to
acknow-
70
ledge himself that this
sentences
a specimen of high sounding and dithyrambs, with great pomp of words when he says to Phgedrus that he meaning,
is
and
what
little
should be surprised at nothing in the sequel, for that he is now uttering is not far short of dithy
rambs.
Now
in
it
as
to
that invocation to
affectation
in
the
Muses, we
sportive de
the
looking to the whole structure, one would be disposed to scarcely any deny its claim to the title of on the con prose. By the
but,
surprise,
trary, which Plato expresses at the dithyrambic nature of his sentences, he certainly did not intend to express
at
the passage in which this occurs, will easily discover that it does not refer to any kind of Poetic but that Plato only intended, inspiration ; certainly not to his own to attract notice to the dis disadvantage,
between his own rythmus and that of Lysias. For in the latter all the periods are turned with a mo notonous uniformity, one like another into antetinction
split
theses;
and the whole speech is pervaded by one and the same flat In that of Plato on extremely melody.
the contrary, the rhythmus is in continuous gradation, so that he begins, where his ideas are far-fetched, with
short propositions at a quick step, and as the speech ad vances from the general to the particular, the sentences
also
last
become more developed and articulated the orator, when he has reached a
it,
until at
hovers around
and as
it
slowly revolving period. Yet, notwithstanding, the struc ture of these periods appears, to us at least, perfectly prosaic, as also the epithets are taken from the philoso
phical and not from the poetical province of the subject.
71
So that
to see
how
Dionysius, which
in truth, could
it
can strictly refer only to the feet of the words, is grounded be the privilege of Grecian ears alone, as
is
upon
s Theory upon this point, rests To us, from that of Dionysius. grounds
who do not
inquire quite so
much
fulness of expression
seems
actually
reach
only to
unfettered
by metre,
himself intended to respect certainly Plato In the second speech of Socrates, that be epideictic.
and
in
this
famous Myth
is,
lastly,
logue
tant part, for sake of which all other matter in this dia has been unfairly thrown into the back-ground.
The consequence of this has been, Myth itself has been throughout
For the Love
far
that
not even
the
rightly
understood.
most part, been taken in a too abstract and limited sense, and much has been
has, for the
Least of all has overlooked or childishly trifled away. that it is the fundamental Myth the fact been remarked, from which all that succeed and enter into the whole
system of the
that
Platonic
so
the
more the
subject-matter
at
advanced,
from the mythic into the scientific, the stages, passes remainder is ever shaped out with less pretension, and So that Plato here becomes more vividly mythical.
seems most expressly to assume the privilege of inter of his Philosophy. weaving Myths with the expositions be here all this cannot proved, but
Though
regularly
must
verify
itself
by
the
sequel.
Now
of
as
to
what
little
Myth, but
the
definite can
be adduced in
illustration
imagi
native in it; and the cosmographical conceptions espe which are the basis of it, are the more difficult
cially
to
explain,
as
the
Myth
rests
quite on
the
boundary
solutions of
More accurate between the Natural and Supernatural. it would be more welcome than certainly
Heyne some time
since
communi
hardly be discovered after a per usal of the fragment referred to. For the identity in a rests not so much upon the image, as upon comparison,
will
Parmenides, which
a similar application of
it
to the object.
Moreover, more
would be implied
son probably intended, namely, that Plato borrowed his division of the Soul from Parmenides. In our confessed
uncertainty as to particulars,
general, that several of the
it
may however be
this
;
said in
conceptions in
Myth
a
and
that, as
expressions
are
derived
from
the
mysteries,
more perfect understanding of them would probably contribute most towards an explanation. On this ac
count a
still
thagorean
the
true
Philosophemes
may
not
be supposed to be
key even to the mythology, still less to the doctrine of the human mind, as also the Platonic doc
trine of
renewed recollection
is
hardly to be explained
this
from Pythagoras.
the
Myth pomp
is
of
the whole, and to harmonize the strictly allegorical parts of it. Wherefore we must beware of entering too much
into
details in
comprehending aright those philosophical which Plato himself marks as such in the indications, It might be adduced as a consequence, suffi delivery.
only
ciently
with
little
attended
to,
that
in
every case a man s character is not originated during the course of his life, but exists in him from the first.
73
that
the
essentially
existent
is
beheld, not
in
heaven,
but
in
is
in the region
it.
But
it
beyond heaven, can hardly be implied might be most difficult to explain what
men
by
lie
according as they
the Eternal.
less
penetrated
If therefore
concealed under the considerable varieties in the readings, the whole passage might perhaps belong to that class of
decorations in which
we
much.
And, generally,
it
is
impossible to
draw
attention too
much
to
the
is
fact,
thing in this
meant and applied rhetorically, so that even dialogue here, where untamed imagination has been so often dis
covered, like the wild horse as
it
philosophy hurrying the wiser one along with it, Plato And appears rather with all the judgment of a master.
even supposing that in the detail this composition carried him near the borders of a province that did not belong to him, as Dionysius even compares one passage with a
passage in Pindar,
still
the style
is
in the
main prosaic
first
it
For
to sketch an image,
as is here done,
is
this work.
The remarks
this splen
difficulties,
II.
LYSIS.
unauthenticated legend, inasmuch as Diogenes does not give us the name of its voucher, makes this dialogue one of the earliest, at least among those
sufficiently
greater degree
of authority however might fairly attach to it than to the similar one respecting the Phaedrus, as this latter
rests only
is
1
grounded upon the tradition of a fact, namely Socrates exclamation of surprise when he saw himself in the
representation given of him
by
Plato.
it
is
its
place
assigned
to
vour of
torical references.
is
related
all
of
as
For in its subject-matter the Lysis Phaedrus and the Symposium alone the dialogues of Plato, inasmuch as the question
to
the
to
love,
and the grounds of friendship and which constitutes its whole content, is a second
the
nature
ary and subordinate object in point of form in the Phaedrus, while in the Symposium it is, in form, pri mary and predominant. Clearly, however, it could hardly
occur to ony one to place the Lysis after the Sympo sium, as in the latter the question is not only decided directly and finished to the very last stroke, but also
considered in
So
that
most extensive and general relations. dialectical touches, like those of which the
its
Lysis consists, could scarcely be intended to form an ornamental addition to that discussion, while to work it
out as an independent whole subsequently to
it,
would
75
have been as
little
consistent
had before
him
in
that
started in this.
dialogue the solution of every question And a mere dialectical exercise, especially
dialogue would then be, can hardly finished master of a later period.
one so
trifling as this
be attributed
to the
more
It would therefore only remain to be investigated, in the next place, whether the Lysis is to be placed before or after the Phaedrus. The latter does indeed likewise speak
decisively
upon the principal question, inasmuch as it developes at length one source of love, and goes into an
explanation of
reference to
it
;
so that
fairly think, in
this
circumstance,
it
that, as in the
case
of
the Symposium,
would be contrary
dialogue
treats
to the principles
assumed
to place that
much
evident
others
as
the
Lysis
only
of
the
same subject
sceptically.
to
But the great distinction must of itself be those who know the Symposium, while to
not,
it
who do
may
certainly be
made apparent
; only think of deciding in this manner a question which had been already at an earlier period taken within the
For the theory respecting the source of love and brought forward in the PhaBdrus mythically
to
province of logic,
to
the
of their author, but every idea of the philosophy useless undertaking ; because even in itself a vicious and the reproduction
upon a
elements
among
must render
To
this,
moreover, the following argument may with many will probably be more decisive.
76
drus the matter
is
which
is
occasion
how
is
;
no where pointed
friendship in
it
general that
and
to think
of carrying on and bringing to a conclusion an investi gation begun with such universal bearings, and which
to think of doing this yet obtains no decisive answer by means of a mythical exposition, and that relating but is an to one part of the subject absurdity so great that
it
writer
could only be ascribed to an unthinking and random a description which least of all applies to Plato. ;
therefore
is
The Phaedrus
as
by no means
to be looked
upon
not
it
with
lingering
in
desire to
resolve
the logical
doubts contained
the
Lysis
And
upon
it
this
it
may be
;
stands nearest
whether
is
to
be looked upon as a
supplement to the Phaedrus, or as a note of preparation to the Symposium. To the latter it does indeed approx
imate in
its
;
the subject
more general and various method of treating but not to mention other grounds which
being fully understood before we come
Symposium, in the Lysis any trace is so utterly wanting of what Plato wrote between the Phae drus and the Symposium and it is itself so
;
to consider the
entirely
to
be understood from
itself
77
it
occupies indisputably the place next after it, and is almost to be viewed only as a supplement to this dia logue, or as an enlarged dialectic elucidation of its
subject.
For what
in the
Phsedrus
is
brought forward
in
a mythical form, that love has its source in the identity of the ideal between two persons, is here proved dialecand in an enlarged sense. The tically, though indirectly
latter,
affinity
takes
more than
this
and indeed
indefinitely, that
only by reference to the Phaedrus that it can be easily understood. Indirectly, inasmuch as For all other propositions resolve into contradictions.
it is
that this
is
and the one particularly defended by Plato, is only ap Much rather is the manner in which the doubts parent.
raised against
the
earlier
position,
that resemblance
is
are
applied to this
likewise,
upon
as the
to the whole,
who
bears in
mind the
Like
is
only then unprofitable himself to his own external personality, and to an in not to him who, terest in his own sensuous being ;
taking interest
istence, possible
in
the
consciousness of a spiritual ex
at the
for
the
being
course of which, beyond those limits; a process, in the man universally meets with something like first,
every
and related
deavours.
to himself,
and not
at
war with
his
own en
Similar hints are also implied in the similar as to the uselessness of the sceptically proposed positions in so far as it is conceived, not as an antidote to
good,
78
the bad, but independently and for
ever, seems
this
itself.
Aristotle,
how
not to
And
misunderstanding of the dialectics and polemics oc curring in the writings of Plato, may generally indeed be
excused in his case, as his synonymous arts are of a coarser But metal, and of a composition admitting of no polish.
in
is
so easy,
the
source of his error seems to be that he probably knew but little of the connection more especially of the earlier Pla
tonic
his
writings.
For
several passages
may be found
in
which he appears to have had the all of them look as if he Lysis thought Plato s apparent indecision real, and believed that he was only unable to extricate himself partly because he over
ethical works, in
in his
mind, and
inclina
tion, partly because he mistook his three kinds of friend ship, and therefore, naturally enough, could not avoid falling into a contradiction, as often as he thought to
transfer to
Now
it
must be
clear to every
emphasis Plato, though only in his indirect method, draws attention to that distinction, as a considerable
is devoted to the dialectical expo and how decidedly he rejects the so-called friendship of utility, and this too certainly, dialectically
considered,
with
as this
utility
is
never and on no
but always,
and
this accidentally,
Still
only
in
another.
likewise
speak in favour of a very early date for the composition of the Lysis after the Phsedrus. Thus, for example, we find in this
further
particulars
dialogue also harsh transitions, a playful caprice in the connection, and occasionally a carelessness in the choice
70
of examples
;
all
of which a
inexperience
in
composer.
Thus
also
what
occurs
poems
would be superfluous to think of noting in detail the whole course of the dialogue after the general view of
It
it
must now
produced
particulars lie concealed in this and one feels reader will divine every
;
would completely separate the of the idea of friendship from the physical application
pretty certain that Plato
ethical,
if
Thus
that
it
can
which
connects the spirit with the form, namely, to enjoin a morally erotic treatment of the object of love, is not only reached by the preliminary pieces of dialogue, but is very
artfully insinuated
which, just because they were easy to avoid, mark the The same may be said of the luxuriance in beginner.
the by-work, and a certain ostentation of superfluity of But this little dialogue is remark matter on all points.
able for the
manner
in
which
it
from which
it is
and judge of the Platonic writings, partly as a striking example, and the first of such examples, of how little
ground there
is
80
decide the questions to the investigation of which he gives a sceptical without writing colouring, down the meaning of the riddle in plain words, as he
rally,
mean
to
here observes that method in the case of a subject with to which he decides in two other regard dialogues, and
that in
may
without trouble find the decision in what looks entirely sceptical. Partly, also, it is an example of how easily
Plato could give birth to dialogues of a slighter cast, which, considered in themselves, are merely dialectical, but stand in a necessary connection with
something mys
tical
without them,
light
planets, as
it
their
from the greater independent bodies, and moving around them. Also of how the appearances of
those dialogues cannot be understood unless their relations to the larger are rightly comprehended ; and how neces
sary,
therefore,
it
must
be,
if
we would determine
the
subject of such writings, or decide whether they are Platonic or not, that every possible means should be
tried to fix their distance
For
few would now pay much attention to the doubts which a too austere and strict criticism could raise its
genuineness
against nay, it could scarce be found necessary to refer the accuser further to its imitative and dramatic
effect,
and so much of
themselves
is
character.
Of
;
the
characters
nothing to
be said
moreover, there
is
no trace
is
clothed.
81
III.
PROTAGORAS.
men
of those
To
who had
at
that period
come forward
youth ; to Protagoras first, who of all masters of dispute and eloquence, by reason of the fundamental principle
on which his
art rested,
study of a philosopher, even as he was himself called a philosopher in ancient times and honoured as such;
to the learned Hippias,
and and memory brought forward by reason of his labours, who, though as a less important philological personage, contributes to the effect of the whole ; and,
in
to Prodicus, chiefly
the
noblest
of the Athenian
fathers,
celebrated
through
their
their
partly
succeeding
partly times by
own deeds
as
generals,
demagogues,
and poets;
Agathon and others, who, though only pre sent as mute spectators, exalt the pomp and splendour
it is
that,
is
to
recommend
to Protagoras, this richly ornamented dialogue intro duces us. And, moreover, to the most brilliant and
luxurious house
in
who
citizen,
of Pericles,
as the
second husband of his mother after her separation from Hipponicus, connected in the relation of brother-in-law
to
Alcibiades,
who married
as the
most zealous
82
extravagance put an end to the ancient splendour of his house, which had come down almost from the time of
Solon. These are the wise and noble personages who take part in the dialogue which Socrates here details to his friend just after its occurrence, and it is not necessary to have any further previous information respecting them,
as they all,
and the
and distinctly in the work itself, that it is one of the first and most important sources from whence a know
ledge of their characteristics
may be
this
obtained.
was objected to the dialogue, that its author had been enabled to bestow upon it this profusion of important
personages only in the most inadmissible way, by means of gross offences against the order and propriety of dates.
For
that Plato conceived the dialogue to be held not earlier than in the ninetieth olympiad. Thus Hipponicus, the
mentioned, but Protagoras with the latter, who appears exclu lodges immediately sively as lord and master; and Hipponicus perished in
Callias,
is
father of
never
eighty-ninth olympiad. Nay, still more decisively, there is a The Wild Men," comedy of Pherecrates, called
"
mentioned as having been brought out in the previous year, which adorned the Lenaean festival in the last year
of the eighty-ninth olympiad.
as his
faults,
have been staying at Athens at any other time except the truce under Isarchus, in the first during year of the
eighty-ninth, against
which Dacier,
in
her introduction
83
to the translation of the Protagoras,
endeavours to justify
first
Plato
of the ninetieth,
could not have said of Protagoras that he had come first to Athens three days ago, as he is brought forward in the
But even
if
be disposed to agree with Dacier as regards the first point, and in respect of the second, to reject the testimony of
a comic poet, who, as well as Plato, may have allowed himself a fiction, still the matter is not done with, as there
are several unquestionable evidences in every
way opposed
and forcing
Athenseus,
higher up
and
in
it is
not
mentioned
that
passage
of
For
first
treated
by Protagoras
so,
as
still
young man,
and even
calls
himself
which
it is
impossible he could
do only twenty years before his death. Moreover, Alcibiades, who only a year after that assumed by Athenasus
is
termed a downy-cheeked youth, and Agathon, crowned as a tragic poet in the same olympiad, a boy. Nay, what is most decisive of all, Pericles is
called a general,
is
spoken of as
still
living,
and
his sons
who
died before
him
whence plague are present in the company, back to a date prior to this dialogue is clearly thrown
in the
Now as the third year of the eighty-seventh olympiad. with this last epoch, not so many minor points coincide
belonging at
all to
what
is
essential in
the dialogue,
as
for instance Agathon and the sons of Pericles, it is most clearly in Plato s mind, evidently that which was
to in the execu
But
may
84
not been
already produced
in Athenseus,
previous
to
the exhibition
in a
mentioned
more
imperfect form,
especially as
is
an exhibition at the
here spoken of; for it is impossible to entertain the notion of an oversight committed by Plato,
is
Lenoea that
supposing him to have here come back to the time at which In like manner it may be doubted he actually wrote. whether it is absolutely necessary to conceive Hipponicus
as dead,
perhaps in the army before Potidaea, if the second year of the eighty-seventh olympiad is not to be thought of, in which Hipponicus led an army against the Tanagraeans.
In any way
it
may
Plato transposed to a false period this one circumstance, not unimportant for his plan, than that he purposely pursued such a course with those of trifling magnitude
and importance
and
in
this
case
"
"
also of Pherecrates
might be fixed to
not to leave that fabrication perfectly isolated, and to keep the more ambiguous what could not be clearly made
out.
better place
and probably
of Eupolis were the occasion of this idea and the temptation to such a licence. And quite as
necessary for him was that earlier period in which those wise men were actually in the flower of their fame, and
The
and when, moreover, this generation of knowledge-seeking youths was not yet devoted to the affairs of state and war. Moreover, it
;
sent Socrates, in his year of approaching old age, engaged in such a prize-fight with the sophists, and to make even
Protagoras, towards
whom
he cannot
still
divest himself
85
of a certain respect, a butt of such Socratic irony in his And even here what Protagoras actually extreme old age.
says, exaggeratingly boasting of his age,
in
which Socrates depreciatingly mentions his own youth, may not be without its object, but intended to throw ridicule
upon the standard of those who perhaps reproached even Plato with his youth. For Protagoras was banished from
beginning of the ninety-second olympiad, during the change of constitution effected by Antiphon
the Rhamnusian, and died,
it
Athens
at the
would seem,
in his exile,
according to some, seventy, according to others, ninety years old. Now if we look for the truth even between
the two, although Plato in the
Menon,
plainly declares
five olympiads opinion, he could not boast thus of his old age to Socrates, earlier, then nearly forty years old, without some degree of
first
still,
exaggeration.
Therefore,
would continue,
if
it
is
earlier
time
is
and
would properly wish to transpose the that from the later date only some trifling reader, and
circumstances are intermixed, perhaps unconsciously, in For at any rate it is but a shallow of ornament. the
way
with the
simple supposition
that this apparent confusion does not proceed from the method and conscience of an ancient author.
time to exchange the less important inves for the considera tigation of the external circumstances tion of the internal subject of this somewhat complicated
it
But
is
86
to separate
to
whole, proclaiming plan and arrangement as easy and simple, can hardly suppose this dialogue in any other predicament than the very worst, and this with great For he must suppose that no injustice. arranging idea
whatever
spins
is
what
precedes,
as
much
and
is
without unity as without art and purpose. trary, whosoever desires not to miss the
idea of the
On
the con
object
whole,
in
is
complex
interwoven throughout, must trace accurately the con nection of every particular, and into these the reader is
now
to be
1.
preliminarily introduced.
to bring the
be taken to Protagoras, to reflect upon his purpose. This investigation is as it were continued by Protagoras quite as indirectly, though from a different point, in a
short lecture delivered after a request for it had been the extent and preferred, upon antiquity of sophistics. And in this he partly exposes the boldness of his
public
profession to this trade, partly deduces the thing itself as of considerable antiquity, not indeed from the most ancient philosophers, but from Not poets and artists.
anything
however,
uninvolved
until
or
definite
comes out
dialogical
political
Socrates,
in a short
extracts
is
from
that
virtue
his instruction.
8?
2.
Hereupon
the position,
instances
down
sketched indeed,
but
sup
to
ported by
which Protagoras offers a counterproof, partly in a myth about the origin of men and of social life, also by partly
endeavouring, in some further investigations, to turn the
same instances of ordinary modes of acting, which Socrates had brought forward, to favour his own proposition.
3.
On
occasion of what
is
adduced by Protagoras,
Socrates, after some premonitory hints as to the difference between an epideictic lecture and a dialogue, annexes a discussion of the latter form upon the question of the
unity or plurality of the virtues, in which he first com who maintains their plurality, to pels his opponent, and piety to one another, and then when oppose justice
Protagoras has great difficulty in extricating himself from this dilemma, Socrates courteously breaks off, forces from
him
identical, and at length is on the of proving the same of justice, when Protagoras point in order to break the thread, brings violently starting off
forward a long, but exclusively empirical discussion upon the nature of the Good.
arise naturally new explanations as to of the dialogue, and while fresh terms have to the nature be entered into for the contest, since the affair has taken
4>.
Hence
the form of a regular philosophical prize-fight, to the the nearer it had increasing pleasure of the noble youths
now find approached that form, Prodicus and Hippias in their own way, with opportunity for coming forward
short speeches.
And
proposal to choose
88
form which, with
all
all its brevity, is distinguished above the strict dialectic process observed in it.
others
5.
by
According
to the conditions
proposed by Socrates,
Protagoras has now become the questioner, and after introducing a poem of Sirnonides, continues the dialogue
without however any definite point which he would conduct by this method, being but only the endeavour to involve Socrates in contradic
concerning virtue,
visible to
tions.
Socrates, however,
first,
on further a pleasant
by -fight with Prodicus, and afterwards himself explains this poem in a continuous discourse, in which the position
only willed from error, is assumed to be the general opinion of all wise men, and also a derivation of philosophy from the worldly wisdom of the Lacedaemon
that all evil
is
ians
being taken up, the discussion is brought to an end with the conclusion that by such argumentations taken from poets, nothing can be gained for the establishment of
ideas.
6.
Upon
this,
is
lastly,
the Dialogue
is
it,
again taken
now
the questioner in
and
in that
is
only one
science, of that
him
only apparently sound objection of Protagoras, he makes allow, half voluntarily, that there is no good but
pleasure,
and no
evil
it
follows,
as
a very easy consequence, that all virtue is nothing but a science of calculation and comparative measurement. And thus the contradiction is brought to light by
Socrates himself, that on the one side Protagoras, who maintains his ability to teach virtue, has refused
still
89
to allow
that
it
is
science,
at
while on pains
to
the
prove
this,
though
purpose went
of the possibility of teaching Virtue. From this short summary of the details
at once
sufficiently
clear,
it
must be
that
common
as
methods of viewing
they could not comprehend the whole, but went to satisfy themselves with a part, have as good as failed alto
gether.
rable,
the
dialogue,
inasmuch
Some
as
for instance,
will
they
do even
directed their attention exclusively to what can be con sidered only as the colouring of the whole, the unin
terrupted irony, which certainly has been admired by It cannot indeed be every reader yet of this dialogue.
overlooked that Plato here allows this his peculiar talent to play in a vast range, and with great self conscious
whence they who put a high value upon his study of the Mimes, and his approximation to the comic,
skill,
might
easily
take
up
the
notion
it
that
this
ironical
treatment, or annihilation as
sophists,
is
to
This
and
in
the
same
sense
;
the present
the
dialogue,
is
far
from being the highest kind of irony, either of Plato generally, or of this work in particular, but only that
subordinate imitative colouring which
may
be met with
90
not
unfrequently
given
to
even
among
the
moderns,
otherwise
so little
name.
Again
it is
to be remarked, that
peculiarities and manners of particular persons proceeds only from an endeavour after truth in the represen tation of the speakers, and therefore supposes at once
that
something
in
is
to
be
said,
and what
it
is
to
be,
may
so
occur any
where
Plato,
and
certainly
does
occur,
when
any point is discussed with these opponents of Socratic wisdom and modes of thinking, not only as mere orna ment, but as a means connected with the end, in
order to
make
it
authenticate
the truth of the whole palpable, and to by a careful removal of every thing
;
unnatural
reason
it
and
but
that
as
for
that
very
or
conceived
the
first
proper object, because then in the first place the ex aggeration would be unavoidable, and in the next the
philosophical object, without
work of Plato
is
ever framed,
subordinate, or have been completely wanting. Others on the contrary, too eager for the
treasure,
real
and
not
even
fortunate
discoverers
because
they sought without knowing their ground, have only adhered to one of the questions started, as if that one
it
communicability unity or plurality; for any one who thus takes up only some particular
point,
this
must
necessarily
is
waver.
And how
the
insufficient
fact, that from proceeding appears from such a point of view several parts of the dialogue do not admit of any explanation whatever; as for instance,
the
sophistical
art
and
91
of Philosophy, and the whole discussion respecting the poem of Simonides, moreover that even such matter as
is
more
advance but
first in
continually
beginning again
from
the
certainly singu
lar
how could
the main
which
it
is
said at the
end of
it,
the one hand, but very truly on the other, that as far as it to a decision was concerned, it had bringing
been pursued poorly and confusedly enough. Now whoever attends not only to this or that point, in this dialogue, but to every thing, to the
frequently
and cursory hints which in Plato least of writer admit of being overlooked, to the any change of the form in the different sections, to what is continually
interspersed
recurring in and between these sections, notwithstanding all the whoever does this will multiplicity of subjects
recognize, in this very dispute
of the whole
the purpose,
praise and ennoble the dialogistic form of namely, and to proclaim it as the proper form of all Socrates,
genuine philosophical
all
communication,
all
sophistical forms,
appearance, not even the method of commentating upon If we place ourselves in passages of poets excepted. this true centre point of the work, we see first, in the
by
For
as
there
inward
so
spirit
of the
process was
discovered,
exhibited,
the
outward form
as
philosophizing is here
is
and
in
what
results,
such,
criticised.
Further, as
92
the
also with
the exposition of
impulse, and that not the common one whose object it is, from a feeling of vanity, to spread a falsely so-called and knowledge, but an
the communicative
really
empty
impulse which
so as
is
to
ideas,
grounded upon
philosophy
;
the
also
ethical
Socratic
so
here,
the question regarding the possibility of satisfying that impulse is the subject on which the different forms are to display themselves, and submit to comparison, and
that in
also
the
argument
of
the
communication
that
of
the ethical,
which
is
the
very
point
constitutes
of virtue.
Nay,
even
in
inasmuch as
contest
;
in
this
arises
dialogue agreeably to
set
only
still
more vividly
forth, as at that time the sophists were connected with the philosophers more nearly than the orators were, so
Moreover from
this
itself,
phistical
methods
is
made
of
all
the
more
in
examples
how
easily
epideictic
discourse
93
beautiful in ap throw off without may ever understanding one another, and how on the con trary, the dialogistic form brings the true meaning of
question,
is
every one to light, traces out the point of distinction, and, provided only that it is not met on one side by
total absence of all
by means of the continually renewed expositions of the subject from all sides, the causes are always and continually developing themselves,
co-ordinately with all this,
which must prevent the sophists from attaining a better method, and which made them well content to frame a
these causes are the absence of the genuine philosophical impulse and the base enterprises and pur
worse.
And
And
that
this
is
its effect,
is
like all
not recognised
most part the source of the extreme delight which most readers take in
upon
its
own grounds,
is
Thus
the
first
and avarice
very first piece of dialogue, where he is content to oppose the reverse of discretion to knowledge also, it becomes
evident,
when virtue
is
to
nently obtains, that he is totally destitute of all percep If however this was a piece of dulness tion of it.
wantonly attributed by Plato to this man, it would But it refers in that case be sufficiently devoid of art.
his
contem
whether
had before
to
is
their
eyes,
it
matters not
else.
relatively
Protagoras or
some one
For
that
philosopher
94
of his sect.
that
it
no better with Protagoras in regard of the distinction between the pleasant and the And if, good.
fares
at
the
conclusion,
to
him the
great
that
contradiction in
involved,
we
learn
in
necessary for the instruction of others, or upon the notion of virtue in which he would
upon
conditions
instruct
far
them
the
grand principle of which consists in bringing the nurs ling of philosophy to self-consciousness, and
compelling
him
has
is
to
independent
dialogistic
thought.
Such
the
proved
itself
a method which brings all this to view, and applies those testing points, offering them for recognition or
rejection, by overlooking which, Protagoras discovers himself to be a person who has never recognised moral
moral objects as the end of his And it is philosophy. the projection of these points and the trial whether the
right can in any
is
manifold
artificial
turns
which Socrates
makes,
which can
nicalities
and
On
the contrary,
they are the very points which at once constitute a clear proof of Plato s advancement as a philosophical artist. For in the Phaedrus we do indeed find that indirect
process which forms as it were the essential character of all Plato s dialogues, particularly those not immedi
ately constructive,
we
find
it,
say, sufficiently
predom-
95
whole of the composition, but only very but in this we have it sparingly applied in the details pursued no less in the details than in the whole gene
inant in
the
;
rally,
As
drus, are put into practice with that laborious industry with which able pupils in an art, who have already made
every tolerable opportunity in their exercises for exhibit ing any of the secrets they have discovered before the
eyes of the skilful adept.
tical dialectics,
But
it
is
genuine form of philosophical art which appears here further advanced than in the Phaedrus, but also the
scientific
bearing
is
is
improved.
The
vice
proposition indeed
is
is
that virtue
to
be done or
proposition, however serious Plato may have been in making it, is not here put into a definite form and
left
as
it
indefinite,
it
web
in
which he
entangles those
which results in part from the evidently ironical treatment of the whole proposition, partly from the connection into which it is so easily
the true idea of the good
placed with that utterly un-Socratic and un-Platonic view that the good is nothing but the pleasant, partly also
from the resulting application of what in virtue might be knowledge and science to the arts of measuring and
arithmetic.
But
at all events
we here
find
some
indirect
96
decision
of the question,
the
more accurate
definition
Thus
the apparent
and yet maintains that it is knowledge, this an enticement held out to reflect upon the
is
relation
evidently of
knowledge to teaching, after consideration of what had been already said in the Phaedrus upon the nature of
The opposition in reference to the School of Heraclitus between being (TO and becoming (TO
ideas.
e!i>m)
yiyvcaOai) although at the same time ironical as regards the Protagoras, has a similar tendency. As also the
subordinate question of the unity or plurality of virtue only a particular case belonging to the more general
of unity or plurality, or
is
the
manner
in
by the very
it,
the Protag
object,
own immediate
the germs of several succeeding works of Plato, and that in such a manner that it is at once clear even from this
that
it
is
all
other dialogues in
which these questions are treated more at length. Now as to the myth brought forward by Protagoras,
there
is
no need
to
it
number
it
as
naturedly raising among those of 1 Plato s own ; on the contrary, if not the property of Protagoras himself, as seems likely, though there is no
evidence to confirm the supposition, yet the manner in which Plato applies it makes it much more probable
that
it is
to an exalted rank,
at all events
composed
in his spirit.
For pre
to cisely as is natural
97
of thinking, whose philosophy does not extend beyond immediate sensuous experience, the reasoning principle in men is only viewed as a recompence for their deficient
corporeal conformation, and the idea of right with the feeling of shame as requisites for a sensuous existence,
Hence also the proof contained in because Plato could not give any other colour myth, ing to such a view, is very oratorically stated, as he does not so much spare investigations upon principles
until a later period.
this
as
make
the want of
them
what
he has properly to explain is not connected with the course of the narrative, but is only adduced as a command of Zeus. It appears also strange on that account in
respect of the style, and probably imitated after Prota 1 And, as to Socrates opinion of the poem of goras.
Simonides, of which nothing but this fragment is pre served to us, namely, that it must be a censure upon the
apophthegm of Pittacus, this is not to be taken merely At least we are in possession of another poem as a jest.
generally
ascribed
to
Simonides,
style
in
blance in
manner and
to this is not
be mis
similar polemical
relation to
the epigram of Cleobulus quoted in the Phaedrus, was also himself one of the seven wise men.
who
IV.
LACHES.
AMONG
upon
the
it
because
the smaller dialogues immediately dependent will stand the first, Protagoras, the Laches so nearly resembles the former that it can
to,
or enlargement
98
of,
it.
^Fox^Cjpurage^oif
which
it is
the
immediate problem of the Laches to discover the cor rect idea, formed the subject of an argument in the Pro
tagoras with reference to the disputed point of the unity of all the virtues, or the distinction of them. Protagoras, in maintaining the latter proposition, being reduced to a
because in
nature
it
is
distinct
from
all
; and, even in experience is In opposition to this, Socrates with separate from them. had shown, that, if we look to the fact how courage ex
other virtues
often to
be met
development as
spirit
that these qualities only obtain the appellation of that virtue in so far as skill and judgment are connected with
them^we
points of distinction between courage and foolhardiness and precipitation ; and, consequently, that that virtue
also ranges into ingenuity in calculation.
Against that
proof Protagoras had defended himself in a manner, as has been already remarked, actually worthless and foreign
which Socrates evidently only admits be cause further investigation upon this track would have
to the subject,
led
from the point which he had in view. Consequently he there opens up the investigation on another side, inasmuch as he shows, that upon the sup
him too
far
is
we need
only oppose the unpleasant courageously as a means towards acquiring the pleasant, and that, consequently,
else
ing
art,
consequently intelligence
and ingenuity.
This,
99
main question of the Protagoras re garding the communicability of virtue, was the conclusion of the dialogue but the question as to was
to the
;
when applied
courage
clearly not exhausted with the conclusion here obtained* but on the contrary remained in a state so dislocated and
unsolved that Plato could scarcely let he had given up the first mode of
tion in
it
rest there.
For
an incomplete form, and the hypothesis in the second was not his own ; in respect of which, moreover,
readers of that day might as easily deceive themselves, as it has happened to those of more modern times to
do.
This therefore
dialogue, in
is
little
illus
which, what is argued respecting connects itself immediately with those investi courage gations, with the intention of pursuing them more accu
trative
Hence, argued that boldness does not in its operation exhaust the idea of courage, inasmuch as the province of the latter extends far beyond the fearful, properly so
rately,
first,
it
own point
of view.
called,
and resistance
to every kind of
to pleasure, belongs
no
less to
courage
that therefore
perseverance would better express the distinguishing Corrected then in this manner, quality of this virtue.
the
first
is
repeated and
brought
is
all
perseverance courage
ingeniously calculated to attain a certain object or re sult inasmuch as the moral judgment that an act is
;
courageous,
severance,
is
as even too
Hence,
generally,
physical strength,
courage because
is
not
that
to
be conceived as
it
in
case
must
be
100
ascribed to brutes as well as men, a supposition which
Nicias,
Plato,
of indisputably pronounces the opinion The second question from the Prota rejects.
who
to make goras is not taken up again, until, in order any delusion impossible, the hypothesis that the plea sant is equivalent to the good, is removed, and a dis
tinction established
to
this,
Now
with a view
there could be
intelligible
or
more
morals are only a geometry of pleasure, that knowledge which is to constitute virtue, can be
clearly, if all
nothing else but a prescience of results and their ac From this then the tual value as sources of pleasure.
knowledge of the good is here completely distinguished, and it is then first demonstrated, that in so far as courage is to be considered as such a knowledge, it can be no
the particular virtue distinct from other virtues, because
only principle of division, according to which, looking to the ordinary meaning of the idea this could be done,
namely, that derived from time, does not fall under con sideration in moral matters consequently, in this place
;
also
the conclusion,
that
virtue
is
indivisible,
is
con
all
the others.
While
is
therefore
continued,
the higher ethical ideas, which were laid down in the Protagoras, are not only confirmed by a clearer refu
opposed to them, but also actually projected further, although as is usual in these Pla tonic dialogues of this class, and agreeable to the
tation
of
what
is
principles of
it
them, this
were,
find
and with
may
them
already
put
into
the
101
way
of discovering them at
in
all
events of himself.
For
what Laches
moral wisdom,
his
innocence
as
being
this is
the right
to
or,
Theory
that
of Virtue,
it
and
the
meaning of
knowing.
the
his
opinion
this,
is
knowledge,
And
we may observe
in passing, is not
tends to limit instance which only the general proposition, that Plato always an greatly nounces his own opinion through Socrates ; or, if not,
remarkable
through the person who distinguishes himself as the For neither is wisest, and who conducts the dialogue.
all
of
Plato,
say much according to the views of the others, in order to detect the contradictions hidden in
characters
those
views;
nor
is
that
alone
the
truth
which
the
leading character says, but much also said by others which Plato allows to pass without contradiction, and
which the attentive reader easily distinguishes by the peculiar tone in which it is delivered.
So much for the main subject of the dialogue, which indeed, as regards its external dress, is there somewhat
differently arranged,
Much also here occurs to illustrate here pointed out. and exalt the dialogistic method, and we may remember
to
what a degree
this
in the Protagoras.
a very clear ex Plato planation, brought forward, probably, to justify of the Lysis and Protagoras, against misconceptions
Among
and tending
to
own
102
ignorance, while the expositor
for this
in
is unquestionably the meaning of the passage which Nicias censures this very point as something
So also the assertion that it contemptible in Laches. must be a matter of indifference whether the teacher
is
or not,
is
certainly
defence
of Plato himself in regard of his treatment of Lysias as well as Protagoras ; and the other, in opposition to
is of itself to bring has a similar object in view. It can understanding, not be superfluous to draw the attention of the reader
those
who
of Plato to such particulars, partly because they bring to light still more the connection of these dialogues, partly that he may learn in time to estimate properly
the
constant
presence
of
a purpose
in
the
author
mind.
This pervading connection then with the Protagoras indisputably secures to the Laches its place in the series
of the dialogues
totle,
of Plato,
works,
circumstance
;
be wondered
it
at,
and
it
can
excite
for
for
superfluous putes the Platonic views of the good in general as well as of virtue, to delay in particular over Plato^s treat
virtue,
is
and
own
objections to
it.
Moreover,
all
that
in
external
here so perfectly
Platonic,
and even
Protagoras,
side
in
that
s
not
upon any
of
any one
are
mind.
The
as
it
richness
of
the by-work,
the presence
mute
persons,
altogether
were
con-
103
tinuation of the Protagoras.
And
of
Aristeides,
and
who maintained
for
a long time the balance of power against Pericles with great ability, verify with much accuracy the re mark first offered in the Protagoras, that the greatest
statesmen were
their
art.
still
Moreover
purpose
additional
and in order
to
show
how
are,
extreme
else
old
age, most
of,
is
of
all
to
be proud
treats
accustomed to
as
years
Lysimachus
here
Socrates.
depreciatingly In the
boys,
choice
of the other persons it seems to have been a general the Socrates of Plato object to repel the charge, that
only understood
how
boys and Sophists. here, but mute; and the regular interlocutors are noble their class, with personages from among the first of
whom
fairly
Socrates
argues
to
upon
that
which
they
might
that
is,
be
supposed
rest
understand;
of courage,
with
captains.
And
above
the
of them
in campaign, and an eye bling Socrates as his comrade And Nicias, of whom Plu witness of his courage. tarch says that he was by nature averse to precipitation and ambitious hopes, and only concealed his innate
cowardice by chance successes in war, very appropri of courage, which ately defends the unusual theory
makes
it
more a
matter
of
insight
and
ingenuity.
104
Only the too prolix discussion of the first question re garding the art of weapon-practice, and the very agree
able though
little
appropriate
tale
of the
sickle-spear
to
at
of the utterly
understood,
unknown
it
be
and
might be
it
to
it
come
is is
any
the
than that
a luxurious
said in
Phaedrus,
there
must
necessarily
be an admixture in
V.
CHARMIDES.
applied in common in the Protagoras,
OF
life,
all
as
Socrates
enumerates them
was only ironically represented as one and the same with wisdom, and afterwards, when
manner.
first
it
At
its
relation
to justice
Hence, fearing the result, shot off in another direction. the Charmides very naturally arises as a second offset
from
that,
it
as an independent virtue
the
that
with
On
the
behalf of the
particular
is
exhibition of outward
is
which
ordinarily
made
to consist,
may
and there
way claim
to
form an unconditional
105
which Socrates himself recognises as the ordinary ex planations of discretion, and which are conceived as
opposed to impudence and precipitation) can be, as he In the Laches shows, virtues in and for themselves.
the phenomena corresponding to courage, I mean bold ness and perseverance, were less formally discussed. In this dialogue on the other hand, what was there worked
out more circumstantially, is here brought forward in a shorter and less direct form. I speak of the pro position, that it is not by subdivision of the object
that particular virtues can be defined, but
case of each
as its sole
that in the
and every one, we come back to the good and exclusive object. Now as regards the
stating
particular
mode of
the idea,
it
is
only a de
as in the Laches,
to believe
that Plato
has only gone sceptically to work. For the view in which he gives to the one and indivisible virtue the
title
of discretion,
to
that
sufficiently
makes even
emphasis.
general
Whoever
:
proposition
no
man
can be discreet
without
knowing
it
as a consequence of Critias
it,
concerning
the Protagoras
in
doubt
as
it
to
Plato
for
opinion.
decision
over leave
the
thus arrived at a perfect understanding of the subject, whether setting aside the trifling advantages which this
106
translation
of
ours
of
the
idea could be expressed more appropriately in our lan guage than by this term. That of moderation (Mas-
was translated by Cicero, in which he seems to have had Aristotle in his mind more than
sigung),
as
it
Plato,
is
all.
Socrates
discretion
transition
that
it
is
self-knowledge,
the
other
that
is
at
knowledge of knowledge and ignorance, might perhaps But if first sight appear forced and sophistical.
self-knowledge
is
tion, of virtue or
a knowledge, which, rightly understood, must certainly be pre-supposed, and which Plato only ceased to repeat when the further repetition of it would have been te dious
;
then,
certainly,
self-knowledge
is
a knowledge
conversant
And
it
is
which
this
investigation
prefaces
dialectic
from the
ethical,
particular notion
of
discretion
connected
with
the
these
dialogues, and
the
posed
as
recognised
and granted,
in
of knowledge
and action
the
the
brought nearer by
virtue
as
all
inquiry
distinct
of
separate and
from virtue
itself,
and
above
107
knowledge, and that which
is is is
And
the instance of the prophet repeated connectedly with the Laches, but is further outbidden by an instance of one who knows all from all times, and judges of
all who know, so that the distinction between practical and technical knowledge can no one. Moreover escape
the
distinction
knows,
and
taken between the knowledge that one the knowledge of what one knows, the
with
power of making
itself its
own
object,
and the hints given as to the relative and absolute, are very remarkable as leading notices in the work.
The
fact,
that
all
these
general
elucidations
are
to discover yet new explanations of the idea of discretion, is a peculiarity which to a certain degree already assimilates the Charmides in point of execution to the artificiality of the
works of the second period ; while by the more en larged and more perfectly conceived problem relative
to
the
definition
of
knowledge, it prepares the way that has preceded, not only for the
Parmenides, but also for the Theaetetus, and again starts from the apparent separation of the theoretical from the practical, which strikes us in the Protagoras and Par
menides.
Any
one not
satisfied
with
all
events be
con
it
mides do certainly belong to this place. For otherwise would be natural enough, to consider these smaller
as
expositions
to
exercises
those
larger ones
of
Republic.
be the case,
still,
108
in the first place, a
;
from these smaller ones with reference to the ethical Moreover the reader who has but rightly under ideas.
nature of morality, as it is given in the will not look in vain for proper expo present series, and wisdom, but both may be con sitions of
stood
the
justice
is
brought
forward
in
Some
attaching
there certainly is quite peculiar circumstance to that one explanation of discretion here ad
it
doing his
own
business.
And
it thus, in order to give to sophists perhaps explained this virtue quite a different meaning as applied to the
still this is not sufficient, governing and the governed nor is it indicated in such a manner as to justify the
:
conclusion that
it
was Plato
On
liarly
the contrary, whoever observes the facility with which this explanation is again given up, and to the pecu with which Socrates announces satirical
that
lar
it
will
see that
some particu
able
refrain
Critias, whether
relative to the undertaking of public affairs he appealed or that in his notorious attempt to to such
arguments, Socrates from teaching, he may have availed himself of a similar principle, which Plato here covers This would with ridicule as in itself perfectly indefinite.
dissuade
coincide very well with the probable period of the
position
com
of
the
dialogue,
which
may
be
conveniently
109
placed in the anarchy, for after the death of Critias such an allusion would be no longer in the spirit of Plato, so we should have to look already for an apo
logetic purpose in
it.
The
character of Charmides
represents
it,
is
strikingly the
this
same
is
as
Xenophon
so
that
VI.
EUTHYPHRO.
is
As an
the
as
one of
with
itself
dialogue.
the
Laches
in the light of a very it appears, however, subordinate piece, because not only docs its imperfect dress stand in very disadvantageous contrast with the
and Charmides,
but even
its
internal
substance,
when compared
with
what we
much
better.
For
in
to a pro
of the most general ethical ideas, nor, gressive connection further than the particular notion which con if we go no
stitutes
the immediate
are
reader
sufficiently
acquainted
with
the
views of the composer ; but it is clear at once, and upon the face of the work, that the object in view is as limited
as the
mode
the fact
Now of treating the argument is sceptical. in the formation that so essential an clement
is here wanting, might peculiar to the Platonic dialogues that the present dialogue is one fairly excite a suspicion
110
of those which are to be denied a place among the works of Plato ; and this suspicion is strengthened by many
peculiarities in the execution which, instead of the already
approved and finished master, betray a not unsuccessful, and therefore complacently consequentializing imitator,
little dialectics
eager to push to extremes the moderate acquisition of a and a somewhat superficial irony. Mean
while, the rejection of this suspicion depends
upon the
validity of the following grounds. Firstly, the dialectic exercise contained in the Euthyphro, though not so com
is
no
less
a natural
tion to,
from the Protagoras than, in itself, an approxima and preparation for, the Parmenides. This holds
especially with regard to the development of the distinction between what indicates the nature of an idea, or only one
of
relations, as well as with regard to the origin of that usage of language which Plato observes throughout in the Moreover, in the sequel to mark this distinction.
its
remaining works of Plato, the notion of piety is cancelled out of the list of the four cardinal virtues, with which,
in
the Protagoras,
it
is
still
associated,
and
in
is
such a
altoge
manner
been supposed
the
in
lost.
which
is
stands
to
those virtues
but
and undisguised
the Euthyphro.
is
diately connected
under
these
circumstances,
hardly
avoid
Ill
combining with the object of dialectically investigating the notion of piety, that of defending his master in his
own
him
very subject. Nay, might be, that the more pressing the circumstances, the more easily this apologetic purpose would so far swallow up the original
ethico-dialectic
was with
one,
that
Plato
neglected
to
introduce
in his explanatory sceptical usual manner, without, however, our being able to say that he is untrue to, or that he has completely renounced
hints
into
the
discussion
himself.
Thus with this undeniable complication of pur the alleged and unquestionable deficiencies of the poses,
little
endeavour to exhibit, as far as might be possible, the common ideas in their nakedness, and the haste, it would
seem, of the composition
so
far at least
that as
we
have no traces of any follower of Socrates who composed and wrote in so Platonic a style as that exhibited in this
work, and the piece can hardly be fixed in the later times of the regular imitators, I still would never venture to
it.
therefore,
it
we continue
as Platonic,
may
this
it
much
of the character of an occasional piece from the preponderance of the subordinate purpose, it cannot
list
of those
in
its
it
which connect themselves with the Protagoras, is probable, indeed, that it would have filled
which
place
to Socrates,
though
it
may
The
introduction
112
also
in
persons
eminently skilled
this
the subject
under discussion.
his
Now
man
was,
as is manifest
from some of
own
expressions, a very
a prophet, well-known and somewhat ridiculous personage as it would seem, and one who professed himself espe
cially
knowing
in
who
the
One
Euthyphro,
indisputably
same as
idea,
The
of bringing this person into contact with while the process against the latter was actually Socrates, going on, and to exhibit him in contrast with the philo
then,
by means of the piece of immorality which his zeal for piety had occasioned him to commit, was one by no means unworthy of Plato. The action brought by
sopher,
against his father, bears pretty much the of a real occurrence, though it might be trans stamp
Euthyphro
The manner, more be almost compared may with the story of the sickle-spear in the Laches only
ferred from other times or persons.
over, in which
it
is
discussed,
with the subject, and that neither its greater prolixity, nor the frequent recurrence to it, when the unquestion
able apologetic reference
is
be viewed
in
VII.
PARMENIDES.
in
WHO
an awful distance as a
gloomy sanctuary concealing treasures of the most ex But alted wisdom, and those accessible only to a few ?
113
after this fancy,
however natural
lately,
set
it
thougli not
till
aside,
that falsely
grounded
opinion of exalted wisdom was changed into objections of such a nature, that supposing the correctness of them,
the whole only becomes inconceivable in another point of view. Or is it not to be thought inconceivable that a man
of Plato s genius and philosophical acuteness should either not have remarked the multiplicity of meanings in the
still
unpractised
the Sophists
whom
he so multifariously attacks, and that he should even have pushed the thing so far as to be in danger of
fatiguing
the
instructed
with
the
performance,
or
of
intention.
To
review,
pre
and the
different explanations
to
render
difficult
introduction
this dialogue,
many
in
on other accounts sufficiently terrifying to many points of view. Hence it may be more
advisable to state briefly the view which seems to be the correct one, as it may possibly approve itself suffi
ciently
to
give a
standard
whereby
to
judge of other
opinions.
It is in
general supposed
writings of Plato
but as
this
hy
pothesis upon hardly any other ground except a reluctance to give him the credit of having composed so
profound a work in his youth, the reader admit the opposite assumption,
may
as easily
preliminarily and
only
114
as hypothesis, and consider the Parmenides as belonging For as the Phaedrus to the Phaedrus and Protagoras.
had only
in general inspired
its
while the
Protagoras,
artfully
connecting
the
external
and
the
internal, had exhibited by examples this philosophical passion and the sophistical pruriency, as well as the
methods resulting from each of the two so the Par menides also shews itself to be a similar efflux from the
:
completes in another point of view what the Protagoras had begun, as a supplement
it
Phsedrus, inasmuch as
to
it
and counterpart of
it.
For, in the
Protagoras,
the philosophical passion is considered as communicative, while in this dialogue it is represented in reference to
the independent process of investigation which must pre
cede communication
to truth alone,
all
it
looks in
its
purity
collateral point,
and
necessary assumption, that scientific knowledge and searches for it in well arranged excursions.
possible,
There
is,
therefore, no want of opposition taken between the true and the false, but it is shown partly in Zeno, who works onwards to a definite point, the refutation of others,
not without a consciousness of the inadmissibility of his weapons to whose books, at that time generally known,
the reader
almost tacitly referred ; partly also in Socra tes who does not yet go far enough, and from youthful still confines himself within too narrow apprehension,
is
limits.
this
intend to imply a
see, partly
we
from
the circumstance that in the earlier dialogues he attributes to him a genuine zeal for dialectics; partly, because in those pieces as well as in this he represents him as only in an
115
earlier
his
philosophical career.
Two
this
things,
may probably be
side,
looked for in
a
indication
on
the one
mean,
censure
upon applied themselves to and who upon that very account considered them ethics, selves more genuine scholars of the philosopher ; on the
those Socraticians
who only
belonging to
indications,
it
the
dialectic
would
As then
this
indicated, so
also is
the other verbally set forth only in some parti shown in the
main by the quiet manner in which the investigation, from which so many terrific results come out, is brought
to
a conclusion,
in
it.
and by the
strictness of the
method
as regards the examples of philo here chosen, the doctrine of correct sophical investigations division of ideas was attempted in the same way in the
pursued
Now
Protagoras
and
it is
why
the
philosophy of morals is chosen with that view, and every thing reduced to the question of the communicability of
virtue.
spirit,
From
in
is
this
dialogue in
which
investigation
in
the
be exhibited, the exercise is undertaken upon the doctrine of the mutual connection of ideas, as it is only by such connection, and not by separation, that
abstract
to
knowledge can be
really extended.
And
it
is
perfectly
of nature predominates, and the highest question in it, that, namely, of the possibility of the knowledge of things,
constitutes the centre-point, around which the whole
in distant circles.
moves
Now
it
116*
notice
that
such
to
coincidence
in
tendency
state
all
and inward
of mind and
that I
form
points
And
would
regularly maintain is this, that the Parmenides has its origin in the same aims and youthful method with the
Protagoras; not that Plato constructed it as a counter part to the Phaedrus and Protagoras, with a distinct consciousness of doing so, which is least of all to be
ascribed to the youthful writer
at
that time,
for
now
Parmenides decidedly more historical knowledge of science than in these two, and a more multifarious practice in philosophical art but still
flecting.
We
there
is
a youthfulness in the
into view,
manner
in
Now
of things rests on the one side immediately upon that of the tenability and constancy of ideas, and on their
relation to
is this
it
point which
is
indeed something more than an introduction. as we are accustomed to see in the majority of But,
which
by
statement
of
is
involving the consideration of ideas as something inde pendent of the mutable, and as existing of themselves.
the
hardly the proper place for deciding strange dispute about Plato s peculiar doctrine of ideas, as this dialogue, accurately taken, can be consi
is
This however
words
with
which
117
eludes the statement of the difficulties which
beset
the
assumption of ideas independently, that the substantia tion of ideas, as it is called, is by no means the
matter here in dispute, and which
Socrates to establish.
this
it
is
the purpose of
And what
is
said elsewhere
upon
only be brought under consideration subject For if Plato has been generally in its proper place. viewed, I do not say improperly, as a precursor of
can
the
this,
sacred
that
to
it
writers,
is
he
resembles
them
especially
in
ascribed
necessary, in judging of the doctrines him, whether they are his own or not, to
its
it
own proper
is
place,
and
the
connection
in
which
is
there
in
found.
There
remarkable
the examples
in
so far as
they involve a division of ideas, which if not systema For is at all events very striking. tically carried out,
he divides them,
ideas,
first,
most
easily
subject
; secondly, into the physical, the ob of which are the ever recurring creations of nature, jects
original conception
to
be produced only
by
no independent and constant existence seems to belong, inasmuch as they signify only parts of universal nature,
or transitory operations of natural powers
into
;
and, finally,
those
at
which
last,
represent
idea of
relations
only,
and under
is
which,
the
knowledge
itself
again
brought.
And
itself
to the
reader
this
dis
tinguishing character,
that
notion
will
scarcely suggest
Plato
as
had
to
view
to
contradict
any par
or the
ticular
theory
the
conception
of
truth,
118
existence
of
;
ideas,
it
Socrates
object
is
but
generally to
draw attention
to the difficulties
which the susceptibility of distinction does itself oppose to any one who attempts to give a general answer to the question as to what mode of existence or reality
must be ascribed
which
fall
But
this
was
far
from being the place in which these difficulties were to be solved, and the more so as with the preparations
here
made
for
that purpose,
sive dialogues
occupied
with
Even Plato
which he
indicates
them exact
in
the
manner
which he
generally
pursues
questions
more profound vestigated himself, or which suppose views and a higher degree of philosophical perfection than any to which he can yet hope to have brought his readers. Meanwhile, for those who have well con
sidered all
up
to this point,
it
will not
be
difficult
to
conceive
that
ready at
highest philosophical problem which al times was haunting Plato s mind as the only
means of escaping from these difficulties we speak of discovering somewhere an original identity of thought
and existence,
connexion of
preliminarily
in
and
deriving
from
it
that
immediate
man
the
Phaedrus
by
the
doctrines
there
contemplation and recol mythically lection, connected with which and dependent upon it is
set forth of original
a higher
state
is
eminence
ideas of relation.
119
As, then, this
first
no
various contradictions of individual real things, but that the only process deserving admiration would be to shew
the
so
also
upon
this
senti
ment
of the
For Parmenides,
after
having
request of Socrates that he would subjoined enter upon the investigation of ideas still further, rules as to the method of pursuing it, allows himself to be
this
persuaded to illustrate these rules by an example, and thus actually to follow out a thesis upon a manifold and exhaustive plan; and with this view he selects the
instance of unity
a choice
des to make, but also considered by Plato as of great importance as regards the whole subject of the dialogue. And he is to shew what are the consequences to unity
itself
and
all
is
this, supposed notwithstanding that he had not pledged himself that such would be the result, he finds himself in the
to
or
not
to
exist.
And
with
strange predicament, as
it
ciating manifold contradictions concerning the notion he For the whole investigation separates into four selected.
parts,
and
all
besides,
to
two contradictory
results.
worked out
in
it
turns out that to each and every one of these notions none of all these predicates can belong, and then again
120
that
and
still
in
two opposite predicates may be applied to all many cases the contradictions are accumulated
:
more strangely.
And
as
have given rise to the belief with many persons that the whole investigation consists of mere sophisms ;
scription,
this of Plato,
false dialectics, or
own mouth
sitions
their
the
reader
the
survey
of
whole
certainly
refuse
his
assent.
To
the
follow
view
of
it,
forward in
should
still
appear necessary
do so
after
said,
must
at
least
be spared for another place. But in this the following particulars only can be noticed. First, it must by all means be remembered that Parmenides had expressly
recognised
the request
of Socrates
to
institute
an
in
Hence, then,
not allowable to quit this point of view, though by so doing we be enabled more conveni might perhaps
ently to explain this or that particular point.
self-evident,
that,
It is also
results
arise
chiefly
from
the
different
significations
of the word existence or being, consequently from the different conditions under which the notion is brought. And it is by this in particular that the second part
is
connected
in
spirit
with
the
first,
where
other-
121
wise only an extremely loose connection would be per
ceptible,
mean, observable,
significations
of drawing
existence,
the
different
of
and
and
to ideas.
And
own
in
this
the idea
process of unity is
considered
separate potentialities:
clearly
when
this
is
the
case,
that
neither
wrong, nor can any one suppose in the writer the intention of deluding by this If however, and this cannot be denied, the course.
can
the
attentive
reader go
idea
is
worked
out
by
all
such
to
predicates
still
as
let
it
do
not
appear
applicable at
an idea,
be re
definite
in
determine
what manner an
with no objective existence can be classed among ideas, or what abstraction can be so classed, and that
every point
tic
is
to be essayed,
in order,
by
this
dialec
explanation as regards the great bulk of the difficulties; the following consideration however may be further added. The
for
And
indeed
would
an
most
as
intricate developements,
sophistical,
intentionally
distinguished
by the
resulting
series
circumstance, that
the
train
of consequences
strictly
method, als6
discovered by probing
deeper in the investigation; a fact to which Parmenides himself frequently calls attention. The object therefore
for
immediate
which these particular parts are he*re, is not the result, but the actual mode of ]M by
6r>f,
122
means of which, as
the
investigation,
to
it
Plato
his
own
of
peculiar
certain
manner,
ideas
draw
attention
It
is
the
nature
of relation.
object
very
all
collateral
through
elucidation
the
logue,
and to see
and
how one
these
That
ideas
always an important
refers
to
another.
subject
it
of
all
consideration in
his
by
as
an
important and
or
matter
in
investigate, to
reference
others.
themselves
only
in
relation
to
Now
in
which we have a comprehensive view of the peculiar properties of unity, it must not be forgotten, that unity
the general form of all ideas alike, which Plato himself sometimes calls unities ; and that, accordingly, it is from this dialectic point that the opposition of
is
unity
comprised under that term, which would otherwise have no proper keeping, is to be con
to
all
not
sidered,
opposing results in particular. But the different views and hypotheses which co-operate
as
well
as
the
followed out
towards establishing this connection, will not be easily by any one to his own satisfaction who
first compare, with much pains and accuracy, the mutally opposing sections of the investigation with
does not
the
geneous
And the attentive reader will find something eminently remarkable in the attempt made at the end of the first
123
section, certainly the
to con
struct
knowledge
will
by
of
antitheses.
the
antiquity
of
this
mighty
attempt,
dialectical
so
similar
much
among
many
Plato pro
Still
unity
the
supposed non-existent
small in
it,
infinitesimally
in
time,
jective existing
or
spacial
repletion
without
They
are,
as
re
gards
in
his
manner
which
sidered to be a confusion
speculation
of
the
more
kind
in
is
combined with
this notion
The manner
which
of magnitude, if we may so call it, is discovered, and the way in which, notwithstanding its obstinate resist
ance to
all
management,
it
is
described,
is
appears so deserving
of admiration, that
it
difficult to conceive how a philosophical critic, who deserves in other respects some merit in his exposition
of this dialogue, gives up, not long before this section, on receiving notice of the subject, as if he were weary of pursuing further this loose web of sophisms. One
should have thought that a commentator who, even in the middle, had met with much that had less claim upon
his
attention,
to
would
work
at
least,
on
notice
given,
have
been glad
to the
difficulties,
124
were
all,
it
beforehand every way, for all conclusions drawn from the hypothesis of a non-existent unity? to which, as
an indispensable supplementary part, even It is not Parmenides himself so significantly points. difficult to adduce still more, though of less import
constituting
ance
for the
but the temptation must be withstood ; perhaps reason that many readers, from their own selfinto
search
and
explanation
of
this
investigation,
in
which almost every point radiates with the germs of whole lines of fresh investigations, and each succeeding
gradually increasing and mani fold significancy, admits of a more extended and com prehensive survey of all connected with it, may be
one,
by reason of
the
induced,
sooner
to
than
they
would be by
this
deficient
in
that formation, strange piece of logical art, as far as a similarity can obtain between
inward form of things, and the true history of the world, with a richness and a depth which no one can ever be fully conscious of
tales, represent the
modest name of
many
go along thought and composition, may sometimes discover par ticular relations which have lain concealed from the
composer himself.
readers
who
with
And
we
further,
the present
work
are not
in
a condition to
particular,
come
is
to a perfect
under
our
standing
of
every
grounded
upon
ignorance of
many probably
existing
relations.
Wha,
125
for instance,
can
tell
at
in the
which we take most offence, do not refer to passages books of Zeno ? may divine that something-
We
we com
pare propositions of Zeno still preserved to us with several of the passages in the Parmenides, which
the
It would seem to us here superfluous and sophistical. be a serviceable undertaking, though one that does not
belong to this place, to follow out this track further. That Plato respected Zeno very highly as a dialec
tician,
and has here adopted his method, he himself but it also seems quite as certain says clearly enough that he put no great value upon his genius as a
;
philosopher as exhibited in the work here brought for ward. Similarly also, in another place, where he has to
deal with the Eleatic philosophers,
Zeno
is
mentioned
not
Par independently, but only as connected with menides. How far, then, the notices drawn from the
higher province of speculation relate to the philosophy of Parmenides in particular, and whether, for instance,
world as deprived of unity in opposition to that grounded upon and resolving itself into it, is intended
the
illustration and corroboration of the op which Parmenides institutes between the world position of reason and the world of sense; to decide this ac
to
be a fresh
curately
we
possess,
and ever
shall possess,
too scanty
it
For remains of the compositions of the wise Eleatic. be a fallacious process to listen to testimony, might
since
Parmenides
is
one
of
those
who were
earliest
misunderstood, and even the means to which we must resort are still in an extremely unproven and imper
fect
will
state.
Even
unite
in
is
much
that
not
with
what
is
generally
assumed from
126
only that Parmenides is intended to contradict himself by the contradictions in which unity Had is involved, is a thing not to be thought of.
these
sources
little
respect for
him
as to
that is, far allow himself such liberty towards him, such a proceed less than for Protagoras or Gorgias
ing
would
certainly
have
been
most
may be
which
views
of
at
upon
seems
certain
to
expressions
Plato
be
all
dissatisfied
Parmenides,
the most,
is
that
can
be
by
re
them,
that he did
not just at
It is more spect him quite so highly as he deserved. over clear enough that Plato makes Parmenides speak
quite in
ical
his
own
are
spirit,
that
at
many
once
particular
dialect
strokes
borrowed
from
him,
and,
to
him.
an injustice to look here for Plato^s opinion generally upon the system of Parmenides. This work, suppos
ing even we were to assume that Plato, at the time of its composition, had already made up his opinion
is in no degree nor in devoted to that object. Much rather is the any part main point of view on the strength of which Parmeni
des
here
comes
the
forward,
and
for
which
in
fact
he
first
conducts
to
dialogue,
that
of having been
the
make
Plato makes an endeavour, which betrays itself clearly enough, to bring Parmenides historically also into connec
tion
with Socrates,
and
to
derive
the
dialectics
which
first
as well as the
127
universal founder of the art.
Hence
his
visible
endea
vour to represent the dialogue as one that actually took For place, and to put its authenticity beyond a doubt. otherwise it might have been a matter of perfect indif
ference to
critic,
him
to
many
was possible for this conversation, or rather for any meeting whatever of Socrates with Parmenides to have taken place upon that
How
point
we
cannot,
is
think, decide
For there
in
point of fact
time ; but the question only is des was in Athens, and how far reliance
be placed
upon the
olympiad. Only thus much is certain, that if it is a fiction which Plato has here allowed himself, and one moreover
of a description which is at variance with actual facts, he might in that case either have left the matter as far
as possible
if
he wished to
reduce
at his
it
to objective certainty,
the considerably advanced age which he ascribes to Parmenides ; and of these he would have
command than
To
what purpose
this
de
stance
had taken
place,
have taken place ? But without reference to truth of fact, and suggested only by Plato s undeniable endeavour to
gain the dialogue an appearance of historical foundation, a circumstance is here to be brought into notice, with
regard to which no one yet seems to have entertained any suspicion, although the general opinion of it tends
to charge Plato with an absurdity of
which
should be
128
sorry to believe
him
guilty.
For who,
would
ask, is
Cephalus who repeats the dialogue, who are Glaucon and Adimantus whom he meets, and Antipho of whom
he
is
supposed to In Cephalus,
tell
first,
the story
Lysanias and the father of Lysias, who, like the natu ralized resident of that name, had travelled to Athens as a stranger. But the father of Lysias is generally a
Syracusan, and this Cephalus comes from home at ClaYet it is difficult to believe that any other zomena?.
is
meant.
For he who
in Plato s
the supposition,
an advanced period of old age, and therefore be generally known. And such a man must Cephalus, the father of
zomenae comes,
Whence therefore ClaLysias, have indisputably been. let every one decide for himself from the
cases,
two following
not to
this is a fiction of
Plato
which seem the only possible. Either s but to what purpose ? in order
;
make
?
Sicilian
men
of Plato
would be a somewhat ponderous and complicated process in order to remedy a more trifling evil, and one that might have been avoided with perfect
that
ease.
But
To
in
introduce, then,
so
think
reason,
doing
that
(all besides unity,) the original plurality of Anaxagoras, was to be suggested to the mind? But, in the first place, this would certainly
intrude itself more upon the notice, and, in the next, Cephalus need not on that account be made a Clazomenian, but need only have hospitable acquaintances there.
Or Cephalus
Syracusan has, before travelling to Athens, lived a certain period at Clazomenae, and Plato
the
129
mentions this with a degree of emphasis as a circumstance
not generally known,
principal question
is,
But
this
only in passing.
The
who
are Glaucon,
Adimantus and
Antipho
The
first
well-known brothers
two, every one answers, are the of Plato, and Antipho is a half
brother of his, not indeed otherwise known, the offspring of a second marriage, mentioned, it must be allowed, no
where
else
mother Perictione with one Pyrilampes, who could not therefore have been the well-known person of that name,
his
But do
?
these
possibility
For
meant
brothers,
when Cephalus appears as a person of are young men, and here, at the period
at Athens, already settled
and ready
to promise
to
posing Cephalus younger, consider the strange circumstance that Plato, in order to prove the authenticity of the dialogue,
him
makes a Cephalus relate it who has himself heard it from Plato s own younger brother so that Plato might
;
have had
it
by a
far less
roundabout process.
And
the
yet stranger circumstance that a younger brother of Plato should have heard this dialogue immediately,
much
and while
still a growing boy, from an ear-witness, whose minion he appears to have been, and, notwithstanding, should be already a man at the time of Socrates early
youth.
Whoever
nothing more irrational can be easily conceived, and that such a plan was calculated to make the meeting, the actual occurence of which Plato wished to warrant, a
130
mere baby
tale.
Let us therefore
this half-brother
relieve Plato
from
forced
upon him, whom even Plutarch and Proclus appropriate to him manifestly only on the ground of this passage and let us rather confess that we do not know of ours
;
were, unless perhaps Glaucon the elder and Callaeschrus had yet another brother
Adimantus from
whom
the
about the out younger. But too much already ward circumstances of the dialogue, as there is yet some the internal matter thing remaining to be said upon
itself.
such a strik dialogue, I should say, comes to be doubted ingly abrupt conclusion, that it might easily For to conclude is the conclusion. whether this really
The
seems, whether
we regard
it
as disproportionate or over
Whoever
recollects
how
out
in
the Protagoras also the investigation concluded with a confession of a contradiction prevailing through
in
its
whole course,
will,
conclusion at least a
similar
indication
of surprise,
requisite.
How
;
supposing
it
it
to
is
difficult
to conceive
have been there, could have been lost, for whoever had worked on
through so much that was tiresome would hardly have There refused to add the little that was gratifying.
remains, accordingly, scarce any other supposition except that Plato was interrupted for a considerable time by
131
dialogue to a termination; and that perhaps he did not afterwards subjoin the conclusion, because he already had in his mind the sketches at least of other dialogues
which were intended to approximate to the same ultimate And that external interrup point by another method.
tion,
if
the supposition
is
to
out,
followed
first
the
journey, upon which he started from that place. The last, according to my notion, would be the most
For even supposing Plato, agreeable with probabilities. and this supposition is of itself hardly credible, to have
composed such a work during the unquiet times in which Socrates accusation was prepared and finished, in that
nothing could prevent him from giving it the finish It is much more probable that ing touch at Megara. it was at Megara, when, during Plato s composed stay
case,
there,
important influence upon it, name from the place, and devoted
dialectics,
his
especially
to
was formed.
But
if
view of setting up a more plenary defence of the work, should think to found still more important suppositions upon the condition in which the end is at present found,
as that, generally, the best part
are lost,
and the right conclusion and that otherwise the second part would be
first,
put
ideas
in
more accurately defined according to dialectical For investigation, we could not assent to such a view. whoever is convinced by the exposition as brought up
to the point at which it ceases, that the Parmenides is a counterpiece to the Protagoras, though not without the
advancement which
is
132
one work of Plato
s
work as
we
at present
have
will
But as to the reader who is not convinced thing further. we can only lay before him the following con of this,
siderations
which to the reader yet unacquainted with The difficul Plato can be verified only by the sequel. to every theory ties which are here adduced in opposition of ideas, are not to be solved in the philosophy of Plato
otherwise than by an accurate comparison of the purer or higher knowledge with that which is empiric, and
further,
Recollection
subjects,
therefore,
to
the
exposition
of
important dialogues from the Theaetetus upwards. Now if he is to be sup posed to have already completed this in the Parmenides, to what purpose are all these dialogues, every one of
series of
which
treats its
subject as
all
if,
it
explained of the Parmenides is to be dated later than composition that of these dialogues, the Theaetetus, the Meno, and
even, as
But
if
the
unhappy
and
do
;
to repeat
with useless
a proof that the place of the Parmenides only in the transition to the dialogues of that class,
shews
itself
to
be technical language
in a state
of earliest
infancy,
by
its
unsteady
manner
in
which
it
grasps,
by the
that
it
can scarcely
133
clench the most important distinctions in words.
This
trans
circumstance
lation.
the
But
the
spirit
there was here no other expedient, unless of the whole was to be extinguished, and
facilitating the
understanding
of doing so infinitely aggravated, it, there was, I say, no other expedient but that of ob serving the most accurate fidelity, and of introducing
the reader altogether to the simplicity, and, if one may so speak, the helplessness of the growing philosophical
a process by which alone a translator is pre language vented from attaching to his author what does not belong to him, and, on the other, his own merit in having seen
the truth through
cially
all its
is
conceived
it,
APPENDIX TO PART
I.
I.
APOLOGY OF SOCRATES.
IN the general Introduction to this exposition of the works of Plato, it has alreaSy been said that when
any pieces are thrown into from intending thereby at
of
at
all
this
Appendix we are
to
far
in
once
deny or
also the
call
Thus
Apology
the
times
loved and
admired for
spirit
sents
which breathes through it, and the image it pre of calm moral greatness and beauty, is only
in
this
found
place because
it
its
The
indeed
an
undeniable apologetic
:
the
accusation
its
the
to
Protagoras gave
that
a manifest right to
the
be subjoined
contrary,
as
dialogue.
The Apology on
can
find
no purely piece place in the series of the philosophical productions of And there is even one signification in author. its
a
occasional
which
Jet
it
not
is
the
reader
start
it
might indeed be
I
said that
no work of PlatoV
his
mean
that
it
is
hardly
work of
thoughts,
any
thing invented
For
if
we
attribute to
Plato
first
of defending
Socrates,
we must then
135
he might have done so, either during his process, or at all events at some period, how soon or how late is indifferent, after
of
all
distinguish
the
times
at
which
his condemnation.
In the last case then Plato s only could have been a defence of the principles and object sentiments of his friend and master. This however,
with one
who was
one work might very easily have combined with his purposes, and thus we do really find not only particular indications of this nature scattered over his
in
scientific
later
writings,
but
we
shall
soon
come
enough
to
know an
interwoven
which notwithstanding it is a collateral and one brought out into dis purpose tinct relief to hold up to the light Socrates" conduct as
in
and
one
closely
political virtue.
Now
a pro
ceeding of this kind admits of explanation, but Plato could scarcely find occasion at a later period for a piece
which merely opposes Socrates to his actual accusers. It must then have been during the process that Plato
composed
all
this
it
speech.
clear
events
is
But
for
worse service than by publishing a defence in Socrates own name before he had defended himself in court.
effect
guard against and what they might neglect, and to put the accused into the dilemma of either being
obliged to repeat
ful.
much
the
Hence
better
then,
more
excellent
the
adapted to the
character
of
Socrates,
to him.
the
more disadvantageous it would have been no one, I suppose, will give any weight
But
hypo-
to this
136
thesis.
to make might have a twofold purpose, either simply the progress of the matter more generally known, and
to
establish a
memorial of
it
for
future times
or to
and the place in the proper light the different parties Now if we examine what method of the proceeding.
would have been the only reasonable means for accom find that a speech plishing the latter object, we shall
not
attributed
to
Socrates
but
to
another
latter
advocate
could alone
furnish of
them.
For the
could then
adduce
to
much
what
of
Socrates
his
would be
compelled
omit on
account
that
character,
and show
by
provided only the cause of the accused had been conducted by one not accustomed to despise what many even of noble birth did not
the
work
itself
despise,
it
Were
a
very
there
ground
one
it
whatever
an
anecdote,
Diogenes
writer,
for
Plato^s
more natural
would
have been
to make known what he would himself have said if He would then have had he had not been prevented.
displaying in practice those higher precepts and expedients of language the power of which he had himself been the first to discover ;
an
opportunity
here
for
and he
certainly
to
that
point
in
which related
to
the
new
gods
And in like manner in the name ruption of youth. of any other person, he would have retorted with far
better
effect
as
much
or
more upon
a
the
in
accusers of
merits
a different
to
On
the other
hand, in
speech
attributed
137
Socrates himself but
tually
different
from
have
that which
he ac
object
delivered,
to
Plato
could
no
have
other
than
show
or
what
Socrates
would
voluntarily
his
neglected
fence
involuntarily
omitted,
in
and how
order to
de
a better
Not
to
have
been
scarcely
possible
renouncing
the
method of Socrates, it is moreover manifest that the defence which we possess is not contrived in accord
ance with
such a purpose.
the
For
after
in
such a speech
how should
supplement come
subsequent to the
a supplement which sup a result not inore favourable than the real one ? poses
of this
piece
was to exhibit
pur and
preserve the essential points in the actual progress of the cause for those Athenians who were prevented from hearing it, and for the rest of the Hellenes,
and
for posterity.
Are we then
the
to
conceive
that in
such a case
unable
to
by
in
himself, perhaps
strange
to
Socrates,
like
?
with
the
exception
of
the
first
principles,
set
:
pupil
rhetoric
who has
be
once
at
his
an
exercise
to
in
him
This
we
should
indeed
loath that
believe
rather
this,
would
we
assume
case
like
where nothing of
so
own
to
friend,
and
especially
time
before
or
after his
we would assume,
must have been
too
say,
that
his
departing
friend
138
whole form too spotless and noble to be exhibited in a dress, or otherwise than a divinity, naked and enwrapt Neither indeed do we in nothing but its native beauty.
his
have been
different.
For the
critic in
who had
at
Thus
is
it
speech would have found in it much to change. the accusation relating to the seduction of youth
far
from being repelled with the solidity with which to do so, and in opposition
towards the ancient gods, the defensive power of the circumstance that Socrates did
to the accusation of infidelity
made
sufficiently
prominent
far
more weaknesses of
this
to
kind not in any way founded upon the spirit of Socrates such a degree that Plato would have been com
this
Accordingly nothing is more probable than that in speech we have as true a copy from recollection of
memory
speech and one negligently delivered, could render pos sible. But perhaps some one might say ; If then Plato,
theless
insist
supposing him to have composed this piece, had never no hand in it but as a scribe, why are we to
upon this, or whence can we know even that it was Plato himself and no other friend of Socrates who
was present
quainted
?
The
the
questioner, if he
is
otherwise ac
with
language
of
Plato,
need only be
betrays that
Plato.
how decidedly this defence can only have flowed from the pen of For Socrates here speaks exactly as Plato makes
it
as
we, according to
all
that remains to
139
that any other of his pupils did make so little does this similarity admit of that on the doubt, contrary an observation of some im
us cannot
say
him speak.
And
portance
certain
larly
may
be founded
in
upon
it.
mean, whether
particu
peculiarities
the
Platonic
dialogue,
the
fictitious
questions
and
answers
introduced
into
one
proposition,
prehension
positions in
common,
much
passage, together with the interruptions almost unavoidably ensuing in the construction of the
subordinate
period as begun
so very
prevalent,
not properly
in
to
be referred
to
Socrates.
in
They appear
is
Plato most in
;
those places
which he
particularly Socratic
least
frequent and
clear
of their
accompanying negli
gences in this dialogue and the following one, which is And from these con probably homogeneous with this.
taken together a manifest probability arises that these forms of speech were originally copied after
siderations
mimic
who endeavoured
to
certain degree to
whom
he introduces,
peculiarities otherwise which justified him And whoever tries this observation by in so doing. the different works of Plato, especially according to the
they had
arrangement
here established, will find it very much And that other Socraticians did confirmed by them. not attempt such an imitation is accounted for on the
little
art
was
bend to a
of a negligent colloquial style to the laws of written language, and to blend them with the regulated beauty
140
of expression
and
on the
other,
more courage
was
from small required to meet a certain share of censure But to en critics than Xenophon perhaps possessed.
large further
upon
this
which might be brought forward against the supposition of this dialogue having come from Plato, and indeed with more plausibility than any other ; I mean that
Plato stripped of the dialogic dress under which produces all his other works, and which is not wanting
it
is
Menexenus, which otherwise consists in of only one exactly the same manner as this does, Why, therefore, should the defence, which speech.
even
in
the
would
of
all
so
easily
have admitted
Plato
then,
of this
embellishment,
the
works of
alone
this
dispense
with
still
it ?
However convincing,
to allow
may
sound,
is
the
preponderance of to be it
reply
all
too great
;
sufficient
excite a
to
suspicion
and
It
we
therefore
as
follows
the
objection.
at
that
time
a matter of necessity to Plato as it subsequently did, and this may serve to satisfy those who are inclined to set a great value upon the dress of the Menexenus; or Plato himself separated this de fence too far from his other writings to admit of his
much
And then again, wishing to subject it to the same law. it would be in general very unworthy of Plato for us to think of considering the dialogic dress, even in the
case of
into
works where
principal
it
the
matter,
does
not
the
conformation
and
of the whole.
Now
if this
141
the
case here
why should
to
forcibly
to introduce it?
Especially as
is
extremely probable
as
that
he
wished
hasten
as
much
possible
the
it not publication of this speech, and perhaps considered advisable to commit himself at that time to a public opi
if
he had involved
unmeaning.
As
we may
from
to the
similar cases,
certainly suppose
various
quarters
for
the
;
understanding of
this
it
piece to be generally
self explains
known
most of what
is
II.
CRITO.
HAVE
"
preceding
similarly
the already observed in the introduction to that the Crito appears to be Apology,"
circumstanced
with
that
piece.
For
it
is
not be a work regularly possible that this dialogue may framed by Plato ; but one which did actually take place
as
is
here described,
which
Plato received
from the
interlocutor
could give
embellish
with Socrates as accurately as the former did more than it, while he himself hardly
reinstate
it
and
in
the
well-known language
of Socrates,
ornamenting
the beginning
and perhaps filling up necessary. This view rests upon exactly similar grounds with those which have been already explained in considering the
when
142 For in this dialogue also there is the same Apology. entire absence of any philosophical object, and although the immediate occasion invited to the most important
investigations into the nature of right, law,
pact,
and com
at
all
attention
times, these
are treated
of so exclusively and
solely with reference to the existing circumstances, that we easily see that the minds of the interlocutors, if
the
dialogue was really held, were exclusively filled with these ; and if it is to be considered as a work of
Plato
s,
in
the composition
of which facts
it
had no
in
fluence, then
we must
occasional
attribute to
piece.
the character of
perfectly
It
is
indeed
in
expressly
it,
as
the
granted principles only without any investigation, and with reference indeed to old dialogues, but by no means such as could be sought
for
in
down
as
other
writings
of
Plato,
process
which,
in
mean
ing
is
to have been
if
we regard it as a work exclusively Plato s own ? For in point of meaning, nothing is here given which
already
was not
contained
in
the
Apology.
Or,
if
we
Plato intended to
Socrates
make known
assist
the fact
friends of
wished to
do
so,
and that
all
of
this historical
foundation
his
own
invention, in
that
on closer consideration, only about the first half of the dialogue would be intelligible, the latter half
case,
not.
able in
143
takes place
;
inasmuch as the
Socrates
were justified
even
by
that,
supposing them
not to have undertaken anything of the kind. And on the other hand the dialogue itself is constituted exactly
as
one that actually took place, subject to a certain degree to chance circumstances as one of that descrip
is,
tion always
at all like
one composed with an object, or into which art in any way enters. For dialogues of the former class may
easily start
after barely
alluding
even proceed to confirm by frequent repeti tion what might have been said at once definitely and
to
it,
or
expressly
to
nor
expectations
Crito
is
which
they
do not
the
satisfy.
Now
the
clearly
framed
is
the
idea
in
nected parts are often loosely joined, uselessly interrupt ed, and again negligently taken up, exactly as we might
suppose, generally, that none of the deficiencies as pe culiar to a dialogue actually held and only told again,
hold
it
possible
may
have composed
this dialogue,
and think
may
in
the publi
as in that of the
"
Apology".
Not before
a remote period, that into which, according to my views, the Pha3don falls, could Plato even in what relates to
the death of Socrates, pass from literal accuracy to a greater latitude in treating of those subjects, and inter-
144
weave them with an independent work of
for philosophical
art,
designed
will
still
exposition.
at
all
events,
endeavour, by means of this view, to reserve this dialogue somewhat more able criticism than has
hitherto appeared completely disproves its claims to be considered so. Two reasons in particular incline me to
this opinion, first, the
the
t;
Apology"
And, secondly, the very period of the Platonic writings. strictness with which the composer confines himself to the
particular circumstance which
is
all
admixture of investi
first
which
other Socraticians, but only to so distinguished a man, an act by which he does at the same time expressly
remove
Hence
is
also
who do
not
start
from the
is
deliberation in
common
impossible, an
in
emphasis
to
be ascribed rather to
Plato,
order
to
than to
Socrates, who would hardly have needed it toward his friend Crito, who could only differ from him in conse
first
principles.
be put upon the story of Diogenes that JEschines was actually the interlocutor, and that
to
145
also, died
all
We
see at
events an endeavour to avoid injuring any Athenian friend of Socrates in the fact, that Plato only mentions name foreigners as having any share in the plot of by
abduction.
in fact,
is
by whom who
fictitiously
III.
ION.
to the
First,
is
that
if his
criticism
to
a science or an art,
itself
one poet, but extend over all, because the objects are the same in all, and the whole art of poetry one and indivisible. Secondly, that it does not belong to the
rhapsodist generally to judge of the poet, but that this can only be done in reference to every particular passage by one who is acquainted, as an artist and adept, with
what
Now
it
every instance described in those passages. will be at once manifest to every reader that cannot have been Plato s ultimate object to put a
is
it
in
discover any purpose in Plato in a far too limited sense, that which except,
writings directed
towards
overlook
common
the
life
it,
cannot
a
circumstance
those
rhapsodists,
somewhat subordinate
class of artists,
who were
for the
most part concerned only with the lower ranks of the people, enjoyed no such influence upon the morals and
146
cultivation of the youth
of a higher rank,
that
Plato
should have
made them an
and
Sobutt of his irony. Nay, viewed even as a genuine cratic dialogue, we must still look for some other and more remote purpose in it for which Socrates committed
himself so far with such a man.
It
natural, certainly, from the precise manner in which they refer continually from the rhapsodist to the poet, and
definite
allusions
to
the Phaedrus, to
is
is
of the art of poetry must be considered to be the real find also here, and that kernel of the dialogue.
We
in
is
this
proposition
it
brought
forward
that
so
direct
a form,
that
could
scarcely for
the main
purpose of the dialogue to maintain it, but it returns upon us in almost the same words as we found in the
more deeply grounded, as it might be inferred from the same principles that poetry is but
Phaedrus,
neither
an
it
nor more definitely enunciated, so that might in any degree be explained why, in that dia
artless craft,
logue,
art
and
in this
was cursorily attributed to the tragedians, manner the two ideas, that of art and divine
be combined with one another.
is
inspiration,
here to be found,
dialogue have been expressly written for the purpose of endowing a mere repetition of what had been already
said with a few fresh examples.
On
the contrary,
it
is
clear, upon more accurate consideration, that a contra diction exists in what those two main propositions about
For
it
is
supposed,
first,.
147
that the art
is
set
and
then the principle is one up by reason of its object, it is notified that poetry has lastly many objects
is
;
from one another, according to which it cer This is upon the tainly would not in that case be one. whole so very much in the Platonic manner, to lead from
distinct
one proposition over to its opposite, that whoever has remarked the gradual transition will certainly look at once
for
of poetry,
more accurate advices upon the nature of the art by which alone this contradiction may be
for
it
Now
that the pro something like the following posed object is by no means an object of the poet in the sense in which it is his who deals with it for a
exist in
certain
end according
to the
rules of art,
principle of unity in the art of poetry must be looked for in something else ; and that the work of the poet exercises a creative influence in the minds of the readers. But,
first,
there
is
for
cused, and then both they, and the consequences which might be drawn from them, for the separation and sub
division of the arts generally, have been
as clearly enunciated in the Phaedrus,
already quite
dialectic foundation
so that the
dialogue does nothing for them, further than investigate them in disconnection with the principles on which they
rest; a process
slightest
use.
itself,
Hence
upon
this
presents
to
148
For, compare as
we
view,
and
not
the
the thing always assumes Ion having had the Phaedrus in Add to this, Phaedrus the Ion.
will,
is
For art placed too much in the shade. almost entirely from the point of view alone regarded that it supposes a knowledge, of its object, whereby it
the piece,
is
distinguished
from
it
artless
handicraft,
that
which presents
as
endeavouring to produce a
work by means of that knowledge, whereby it discon This latter point is nects itself from pure science.
cursory manner only, and never accompanied by a hint of the kind which in the Pro tagoras and its family, and even so early as in the Lysis, marked out the way with so much distinctness.
touched upon
in
And
this
can
be neither
attributed
to
the
nature of
the dress in
ascribes
which the dialogue is put, as it expressly the same work to the rhapsodist and the
this
poet
nor does
confusion
of
the
unities
of
the
object
appearance of purpose
sufficiently to
make
it
petent
guide.
And
taining even a hint respecting the true view, we are almost compelled, from the obscurity and deficiency of the execution, to reject again the only tenable theory contained in the work.
And
present themselves,
when
we consider
reference to
tion
closely, and compare particular passages in subject and arrangement, as well as execu
and language;
spirit
for
many
details
in
are
his
so
much
in
the peculiar
of
Plato
and
most genuine
149
method, that we think we certainly recognize him in them alone ; and then again we come sometimes upon
his
weaknesses such as we could scarcely ascribe to him in earliest stages, sometimes upon faulty resemblances
other passages
to
the
appear
will
ance of
unfortunate imitations.
The
annotations
show
this
more accurately,
as
be made manifest and judged of only by considering them in the particular place where they occur. While,
then,
is
as
we contemplate
drawn from one
this
dialogue,
to
our judgment
other,
thus
side
the
and
the
two
it
between which
keep a deter
s
may
make
or
to
mined
For
either
one of Plato
pupils
may
have composed the dialogue after a hasty sketch of his master, in which some particular passages were worked
out more fully than others, or at least taking Plato s hints and expressions as guides, whence the obscure
correction
The
only period in
which
early
it
as
can claim to have been composed must be as possible after the Phsedrus ; and it can be
first
mode
of treat
commenced subsequently
to this
work,
in which the development of details resembles the com But whether in this case the Ion position of the whole.
is
be considered a kind of prelude to some greater work of Plato which remained unexecuted, upon the
to
it
had nothing
150
in view tain
beyond a playful and polemic extension of cer sentiments expressed in the Phaedrus to attempt
might be hazardous.
that
to
maintain
the
not
say unintentional,
such
as
Zeno complains of in the Parmenides, but hastened by some seductive cause or other from without. This,
since
in
it,
most
a
naturally
have been
spoiled
that
pretty,
though
pet,
somewhat
loadstone,
and
abused
for
comparison with
the
from fondness
which, in
Plato
may
have
order to bring it on fresh and shining, on the one hand have at that time finished
exercise
off this
little
more
hastily
than
would other
expending any par pains upon every particular, and on the other, perhaps, not have been disposed to withhold the pub
ticular
lication
wise
been
done,
without
of
it,
if
he did
the
not otherwise
subject.
lay
any par
this
ticular
value upon
main
But even
comparison would have found a place so appropriately in the Phaedrus, where the dependency of different men upon different gods, and the attractions to love
thence resulting, were under discussion, that
it
were to
be wished Plato
had discovered
it
at
that
time,
and
Ion.
by
so
that
this
ambiguous
it
In any case
dialogue,
betraying as
does
many
suspicious
features,
ticular philosophical
to
tendency, could hardly lay other place but this which we assign to any
151
SUPPLEMENT.
IT
this
is
not
without mature
to
;
reflection
that
as
I
it
leave
introduction
written
in
stand
for
it
in
the
main
was
originally
to
extinguish
later
traces
me good of how
circumspectly,
and
have
turning every thing to the best, I work with those dialogues ascribed to
to
me
at
first
suspicious,
that
my method of proceeding might be the less liable to be confounded, by attentive readers at least, with a frivolous and precipitate criticism coming in after the
As for the rest, every reader thing was decided upon. who compares the annotations with the introduction
remark that I give more space to the grounds of suspicion than to the defence, which last however
will
thought
case of a
entirely
frain
it incumbent upon me to investigate in the work which, with all its weaknesses, is not without a Platonic tone; and even now I re
from cancelling that defence, as it may pave the way towards explaining what is unquestionably Platonic in detail, supposing the work itself to be condemned
as not genuine.
this
ungenuine^ and, in so
my
152
IV.
THE LESSER
a great
its
HIPPIAS.
similarity
to
the
Ion,
refer
in
ambiguity of
its
Platonic origin.
find
For
we not only
genuinely Platonic so
much
suspicious,
also
what
we meet with
rejects or adopts
down
in
a like sen
For
is
the form,
each
hitherto
not only worthy of the remaining works of Plato laid before the reader, but also in accurate
The two
first,
positions
which are im
is
the
man who
right
wrong in any matter is one and the same, namely he who knows something of it; and that again which in itself I can by no means consider,
is
as
things
is
better
than
he
who
these unintentionally and without his knowledge; are adduced in such a manner from the propositions
particular
Homeric
case,
manifestly intended to draw attention to the distinction between the theoretical and the practical, consequently
to the
at
the
same time
to
and the moral faculty, and point out in what sense alone
in this
virtue can
can
no one
Platonic
earlier
transition to the opposite is so entirely in accordance with the maxims in the Phaedrus, that the spirit and earlier period of the philosopher appears in this dis
This then supposed, the final object tinctly prominent of the dialogue is so similar to that of the Protagoras,
that it is impossible not to ask what is the order of the two dialogues and what relation they have to one
to
be established as coming
from Plato?
Now
if
Protagoras, then some point ought to appear further de veloped or more distinctly set forth in the former than
in
the latter.
for
it
this
to
be the
might indeed appear that the first part must bring an attentive reader, advancing in his con clusions beyond the letter of what he reads, sooner than
the Protagoras could do, to certainty as to what, if Virtue is a knowledge, is to be the object of this know
case:
But in the Hippias this in no means carried forward from the vestigation by but point at which it had stopped in the Protagoras
ledge,
it
is
introduced
quite
in
different
manner, and
in
in
both
goras
conducted negatively
it
only.
For
the
the
Prota
only cursorily proposition, that the object of moral knowledge, is reduced pleasure to a contradiction ; in the Hippias it is argued against
is
it,
is
that
as
it
is
a knowledge,
it is
is
not
the knowledge of the object with which from time to time. Now the fact that
will find
it
concerned
persons
many
easier
to
discover
the
positive
conclusion
in
the
Hippias,
can
later composition
of that
On
the
contrary,
154
it
is
manifest
that
Plato
satisfied
with
little
the course pursued in the Protagoras, so immediately upon dialogues that follow he advances the conclusions there drawn
;
as in
the
and the
in a communicability of Virtue is further preserved and is even far long series which we have before us,
more intimately connected there with the whole philoso phy of Plato than the somewhat partial though perhaps
in
the Hippias.
after
the
Prota
always occupies, must ever Moreover we find interrupt the natural progression.
neither in
the
to the latter, Protagoras, nor in any of the appendages And this view is quite as little any to the Hippias. confirmed by the proposition worked out in the second
part of
that the good and only the bad man uninten man errs intentionally For if the Hippias were a supplement to the tionally. been brought Protagoras this ought manifestly to have
into connection with the supposition there advanced, that Now it is indeed true that no man errs intentionally.
to the proposition in the Hippias such a turn is given that it is inferred that if any man errs intentionally
must be the good man, when it seems to be sup man errs intentionally posed that more probably no but this would have been brought out far more promi
it
nently
if it
in reference to the
Hence we are always far more tempted to Protagoras. the notion that the hypothesis in the Prota entertain
goras might be laid
is,
as
it
this position already worked partly in reliance upon out in the Hippias; therefore nothing now remains but
155
place the Hippias before the Protagoras, and to re gard it as the first attempt to bring forward those ideas
to
upon the nature of virtue in the well known and direct method; but an attempt which did not seem
have been
sufficiently
in to
successful,
it is
occasioned that larger and more beautiful work. Now true that all the testing of spirit and method inter
woven
into
it,
with
all
immediately
dependent there
upon would be an addition perfectly new, but then it is also very conceivable that something of the kind must have occurred to Plato when he wished to improve and discuss anew a And this subject already treated of.
view might even be brought to a higher degree of pro if it was more bability, accurately shown how some kind
of germ, though mostly in an extremely imperfect state, of every thing else contained in the Protagoras may be found in the Hippias, whether we look to the
subject-
matter,
or
is
to
the different
modes of treating
it.
As
then this
may
be taken
true,
supported
But when
vestigated,
this
details
come
to be
favourable
view wanes
variety of doubts arise as to whether this dialogue can in fact be the work of Plato at all. These doubts
immediately and at first sight only on consideration of the dress in which the dialogue appears. For, first, there is much here so awkward that we can
it to Plato, and then, in the whole conversation about Hippias olympic exhibition, the irony upon the sophists is severed from the
1
do indeed
arise
hardly attribute
remaining subject-
156
matter of the dialogue in a way not to be found in Plato elsewhere; and again, the variations in the manner of
the dialogue are so pointlessly introduced, that that Plato should have so scarcely possible
it
seems
applied
the read
first
time.
er s attention is taken
by
blances to
for example, of the unquestionable resem the Protagoras are open to the suspicion of imitation, when we consider that in that dialogue they arise out of the additional subject-matter not found in while in the Hippias they furnish only the
Many,
Hippias,
unmeaning ornament. And again, the manner particu interlocutors start with Homer looks larly in which the
like
an expedient of some pupil unacquainted with those as also the com more valued by Plato lyric poets,
;
plaint
that
it
is
impossible
now
is
to ask
Even Hippias seems severed away from Protagoras. among the personages of that dialogue to be the princi for good luck, and without any par pal one here only ticular reason, such as we can most generally produce
in
other
dialogues.
Nay
more,
whoever
once
looks
example
affords of
only resembling
led
Ion.
So
it
persons might easily be best to apply to the Hippias also the same theory as to the Ion ; reserving, that is, to Plato, his undeniable
many
consider
property in the
first
and re
the after-work of some pains-taking cognising in the rest and pretty intelligent pupil, destitute of the spirit and
157
taste of his master.
Hence Bekker
has, in
my
opinion,
who, it is extremely proba ble, might be one and the same person with the com On the other hand however, others poser of the Ion. may regard it as a preponderant argument in favour
of the genuineness of this dialogue, that Aristotle quotes it not indeed under the name of Plato, but still just
as
unknown composer
he
will frequently
teacher.
For
no regard
is
to
this is an answer be paid to the quotations of Aristotle But this make. which I would not at all events now
Aristotle quotation does indeed properly show only that not decide that he ascribed knew our dialogue, but does
it
to Plato.
V.
HIPPARCHUS.
after
IT
the
exercise
of long and
complex consideration, that the final resolution was taken of following the example of two great masters in the art
of criticism, and striking the Hipparchus out of the list of dialogues belonging to Plato ; for the object which an
intelligent reader can
is
Pla
tonic enough.
This
as love of gain, or as self-interest, a notion very closely connected with those well-known propositions that there
is
good, and
that
that
when men
Hence
s
error.
it
to
believe
was Plato
158
purpose
to to
start
life
also
from
this
idea
appertaining
common
as
courage, and thus to penetrate to the central point of his As it is also the case that this notion philosophy.
very well calculated to be projected into that higher and genuinely ethical theory relating to the love of the
is
good. to be
at
the
end, pretty clearly alluding to a further extension of the principles and views brought forward in what has pre ceded. be that this Accordingly it
might
is
thought
constructed upon a design of Plato; in such a manner however that only a small
was executed, which might at the most have borne the same relation to the whole as conceived by
part of
it
Plato,
to
as in
the
does
the rest.
case,
An
present
because
example the more applicable in the it is just from the kind of dis
the
good there
it
receives,
that
the
to
an extension of
like
that in the
Hip-
parchus
that
may
is
what
very easily be conceived. Except indeed there hinted of the idea of the useful
be far more Platonic than what we proclaims have here in the Hipparchus. The dialogue would then be a small fragment of which the commencement is want
itself to
and whose present conclusion must have been added a very unskilful hand. For no intelligent reader will by be able to discover in any thought of Plato s, however
ing,
cursorily expressed, any ground for believing him capable of annexing such a termination, nor would any one with even the slightest insight into the plan of the dialogue think of concluding or And interrupting it thus.
quite
a
as
little
is
it
Plato
custom to break
in
with such
159
beginning; for even the Menon, notwithstanding that he there begins with the main question, is not without
its
introduction.
Meanwhile,
even
though we would
a strange hand, whose mutilation and mischief it may not be very easy to repair, the dialogue itself, we shall find, receives but too little assistance from this favour
able
view,
For,
firstly,
is
that
to
connection
with
is
other
Platonic
ideas,
which
save
the piece,
never
even in the slightest degree forthcoming, and the sup position of the existence of a higher ethical object, or a genuine dialectic treatment, has no foundation in any
since there is no dialogue of thing but good-nature Plato, take it where you will, such that, if a portion co-extensive with the Hipparchus were selected or com
;
piled out of
the main branch to which that portion not be recognised by any one from in belongs might fallible tokens. On the contrary, the Hipparchus as
it,
we have
it,
is
connected with no
is
other
dialogue of
so far
insignificant and unplatonic ending, that the unfa vourable prejudice which the two extremities at once excite against it never meets with anything effectually
calculated
to
remove
it.
For the
dialectics
which
it
and lame performance, always re volving upon the same point on which it was fixed at the commencement, without making a single step in advance.
exhibits are a tedious
And even supposing the plan of the dialogue to have been designed with far more enlarged views, who could think of ascribing to Plato that digression about the
Pisistratidae,
with
is
not to the
contri
is
the sb ghtest
160
object
it
might rather
be looked upon as a specimen of antiquarian knowledge produced by some sophist who wished to display his
erudition.
But above
all
the Hipparchus
is
denounced
by the total absence of that which in the general preface, with the assent it is hoped of every reader, was men
tioned
as
test
of
Platonic
dialogues,
mean,
the
who
For
there
is
whether internal or external, which might indicate more accurately anything about the interlocutor. Nay even
the most external condition, the mention of his name, is not satisfied the by a single notice of it
throughout
so that the prefix of a name to his conver dialogue sation seems to be only the addition of some old copyist
;
or perhaps grammarian,
who was
title
Thus much
at
least
may be
easily
shown,
not
in such
that if Plato
called
man was
first
For how
very of the Pisistratid have abstained from noticing the si milarity of his name to that of the interlocutor?
Certainly on no supposition whatever. But the intro duction of a quite indefinite and anonymous person is not only completely at variance with the nature of the
Platonic dialogue, but here in particular
it
mention
would have
been very easy for him to select extremely appropriate characters out of those already used by him on other
occasions.
So
that,
even
plan of
to
every thing duly considered, not Plato s can have been in existence
according
which
some
other
writer
has
worked
161
for the plan
first
outline,
upon
which the
rested.
suitability
On
in
person for the dialogue the other hand, the marks of an imitator,
too, will
enough
particular
instances
by the
notes,
in
order
from
left
to
reader.
the private observation of the phi The notion from which the dialogue
well
could
not
by
this
gewmnsucht
one.
to
(avarice,)
so
common
life
bad a
signification as the
Greek
For the
in
gain
trifles
word than
in
more strongly implied in that any other, and moreover the opposition
is
good cannot
purpose
strike
the
ear
too
is
strongly
as
far
as
the
of
the
dialogue
concerned.
162
SUPPLEMENT.
SINCE
gress
first
has
been made
wrote this introduction, further pro in the case of this and of the
following dialogue.
fairly
be
attri
same composer I had already hinted and not only has no protest been entered into on the other side with a view to establish their au thenticity, but even Boeckh s ingenious opinion, which
;
ascribes both of
excommunicated dialogues to Simon, has not yet been met by a contradiction. For what Ast mentions in op
position
to
that hypothesis
is
by no means of much
have
let
importance.
Notwithstanding
it
this I
my
cautious
introduction stand as
the investigation
ity s
may remain
and
uniform
left
sake.
also
have
the
in the title,
though
am
opinion only mentioned the subject, have nevertheless followed the text of Bekker and this may be said in
;
of BoecklVs
anticipation
also.
163
VI.
MINOS.
will
suffice
FEW words
again
to
gain assent to
Minos
as well
as
the Hipparchus.
assigning this as its proper reader must see the remarkable place, every similarity between it, and the Hipparchus, which is so great that they seem both of them to have been turned out of the
same mould.
ly,
The beginning
breaks
in just
as violent
weakly and inappro after a new priately, investigation had apparently but So that even with regard to this just begun.
off just as
sorry
all
that
main sub
is more, antiquity. discussion has the dialogue its very equally given name, while the interlocutor is not only divested of all
upon a personage of
And, what
this
character and circumstance, but also nameless, and can the less be called Minos, as he no where gives even a hint that betrays him to be a and Minos was stranger,
And
tenor and course of the dialogue, will recognize as unplatonic. is ever Nothing gained by all the
abundance of examples, nor anything more accurately defined by comparison with a similar idea; on the con trary, they pass with the most unsocratic carelessness from one idea to another; as from that of to
certainty
that
of opinion,
and every
however
164
useful or tending towards a decision of the question, is* So that as regards the always heedlessly abandoned.
lame progress of the investigation, the Minos does deed resemble the Hipparchus, but is far worse ;
the supposition of an identity of composer, but nature of the subject. ciently explained by the
is
in-
this
For the
the purpose of the dialogue generally cannot have been is all show and pre investigation of an idea, but this because no Socratic dialogue can tence, adopted however, exist without it, the main object being only a poor jus
But prejudice in favour of Crete. this Minos has in itself a still further and more peculiar
tification of Socrates
mark of
spuriousness, in
of the language.
words connected with the principal word, by derivation and sound, or playing with them without injury to the
investigation,
like a
trick,
the author,
clumsy workman, miserably entangles himself be tween these two processes. Again, the name of the
kingly art is put abruptly and without any referential notice as a thing conceded, for the art of statemanship, This is and that of the kingly man for statesman. brought in here out of the later Platonic dialogues,
out of which however the composer, whose imitation of Plato is always harping upon the most frequented places y
was incapable of drawing anything more profound. But it is unnecessary to add more upon a subject clear as to any one who will see. day
165
VII.
ALCIBIADES
II.
ALREADY
in ancient times,
of the legitimacy of this dialogue, as some persons attri For this supposition there were buted it to
Xenophon.
indeed no particular grounds, and least of all a decisive and we might almost say that it similiarity of style ;
But
it
is
at once rejected by every philologist. the more probable that there was at least only
some decided reason existing for denying this little work to Plato; though no such testimony is in fact wanting
The upon which to hang a decisive sentence of rejection. case however of this dialogue is very different from that For many might of those hitherto rejected or suspected.
probably say that
it is
better in
many
every reader will certainly be obliged is also far less Platonic in the thoughts, in the arrange
For,
first,
as regards
congratulated trine of Socrates upon the subject of prayer; and this is principally the reason why this place in particular has been assigned to this dialogue, in order to refer
the subject-matter, the interpreters have at various times themselves on finding here the true doc
back
to the
Euthyphro and
the
Apology
together.
For
when we
Now how
it
the hints in
Apology
consider
is best, sometimes grant and sometimes deny, nay, that one might suppose the case possible of their offering, what could be dangerous for mankind to receive ? or that to meet with death after the performance of brilli
man must
trary, this is
is a great evil which use great foresight to avoid ? On the con manifestly a doctrine about the gods of the
nature of those of which Socrates says in the Euthyphro, that it is perhaps because he does not consent to anything of the kind, when people maintain such propositions con
cerning the gods, that he is calumniated and accused of And the latter view is quite as manifestly at impiety.
variance with
in the
all
And
is
Socratic or not,
how poorly
worked up.
For
in existence, of inconsistency
knowledge of what
that Plato
is
best, if they
?
may
But
if it
should be said
by
this contradiction
former supposition, we answer that there is not at the end any indication of the contradiction, as there is in the
Protagoras and other similar cases ; nor again, is there in the course of the dialogue any trace of the irony which
Plato in such a case never could have omitted to intro
duce.
is
prayer, even according to the intention of the composer, certainly not to be taken for the main subject of the
dialogue, but
what we
find
and sciences
to
that of the
best.
167
Now
a
enough, and
preliminary discussion of it might fairly find a place here with reference to the But dialogues soon to follow. the manner in which it is forward is far from
brought
;
Platonic,
or even
Socratic
for
it
was,
as
we know,
good, private and public, can arise only from virtue, and not conversely ; while here the necessity for the knowledge of the best
that
all is itself
is
Socrates
himself
who
said
only put upon the ground that otherwise security And in endangered, and the state must prosper ill.
like
manner
this
is
neither
moral nor
to
scientific
up
the present point, and will appear still further in reference to the time of his later works, which manifestly For enough our composer had in view.
immediately
before the last result quite comes out, that those namely must rule in the state who have attained to the
knowledge
of the best, Socrates shoots off again to that discussion about prayer, which can however be nothing but the
even before that the unity of the work is destroyed by the proposition being maintained that ignorance itself may be to a certain degree a good,
a proposition which, in default of anything better, leaves
still
And
of
remaining an unsocial, uncultivated, aboriginal kind life, such as forced itself upon those who misunder
stood the cynical principles, of which generally many traces appear here, though not however without contradiction.
The arrangement,
in
which
this theory
is
must appear
to
every
entirely destitute of
any art
is
And
in like
168
Platonic character of the work
1
is
shown
in the poverty of Socrates sentences, the miserable little formulas with which, in order to tack the dialogue on
again
as
it
is
slipping
through his
hands,
he
asks
opinion of it, the very slight use made of Alcibiades, his want of anything like marked character,
Alcibiades"*
all the by-work, and still more matter be brought forward all this is so prominent, might that particular turns, which come out Platonically enough,
the indistinctness in
that
can excite no doubt whatever of the spuriousness of the dialogue, but only confirm the opinion that the composer
penetrated language, and been incapable of learning from him his peculiar secrets. Plato is also thus acquitted cursorily of one of the
into
his
spirit than
his
For
it
have a general knowledge of the only necessary dates, and decide as we may all that is questionable with
to
will
still
be found impossible that Socrates should have conversed with Alcibiades about the death of Arit
chelaus
say nothing of the fact that in the same dialogue the intention of murdering Pericles is without
;
to
any necessity lent by supposition to Alcibiades, as if it were possible that the former should have been alive a
short time after the death of Archelaus.
PART
11.
I.
GORGIAS.
greater dialogues
LIKE
all
Plato
up
to this point
his principal
For we
been in regard of almost universally misunderstood. meaning must in Plato s case especially regard a mere half
apprehension of anything as an entire misunderstanding; since where the reciprocal connexion of the parts and their
relation to the whole
is
missed,
all
all fundamental comprehension, is ren dered impossible. Now, as in the Phaedrus, most critics overlooked too entirely the subject of rhetoric, and for
particulars, and
of the whole
so in
much
every thing else merely for digressions and occasional Others again have looked to some other investigations.
particular point, as to the doctrine set forth
by
Callicles,
of the right of the stronger, and to its refutation by Socrates ; or to the incidental remarks tending to the
degradation of poetry, and have deduced as a result the ingenious notion, that the Gorgias contains the first
outlines of that which has been treated,
(I cannot tell
earlier)
more
fully in
the books of the Republic. An idea which for the very reason that it is more ingenious than they are aware,
conveys nothing
170
of this
may
For what important production of Plato be said to contain, rightly understood, such not
work.
?
outlines
So much, however,
that according
to
is
any one of these views, the portion of the whole so prominently brought forward must appear in very loose connexion with the rest and
exposition,
;
especially
if
one regards the whole in this light, can hardly be viewed but as an idle supernumerary labour, strangely pieced But a reader must know little of Plato on to the rest.
who
does
not
speedily
detect
thus
anything of this kind occurs, and withal sounding so deep, this must undoubtedly be the weightiest of all
the topics handled, and the point from which alone every thing else can also be understood in its true connexion,
and
can
be
discovered
reason the inner unity of the whole and regarded in this light, the ;
Gorgias appears exactly as the work that is to be placed at the head of the second division of the Platonic writings,
with reference to which our general Introduction main
tained,
it
includes, occupying
method of philosophy, but of its object^ aiming complete apprehension and right decision of it.
yet, as the latter, endeavour absolutely to set forth
at a
Nor
the
two
and Ethics, but only by prepa to fix and define them and
;
when considered
community
of mutual dependence, they signalize themselves by a less uniform construction than was in the first division,
but one peculiarly articifial and almost perplexing. Now let this theory be again expressly brought forward here,
collective
works, and
before us,
be immediately applied to the dialogue and its position justified in accordance with
if it
hand
and perfectly existent, in other words, of the eternal and unalterable, with which, as we have seen, every exposition of Plato s philosophy
intuition of the true
The
commenced, has its opposite pole in the equally general, and to common thought and being no less original
and underived, intuition of the imperfectly existent, everflowing and mutable, which yet holds bound under its
form
all
action
and thought
reality.
as they can
in actual, tangible,
most general problem of philosophy is exclusively this to apprehend and fix the essential in that fleeting chaos, to display it as the essential and good therein, and so
drawing forth
reconcile
it
to
the
full
light
of consciousness the
same time.
relation
to
each other
the difference of
the
Setting out from the intuition of the perfectly existent, to advance in the exposition up to the semblance, and thus, simultaneously with its solution,
methods.
the immediate
; this is, in relation to philosophy, of proceeding. On the other hand, way starting from the consciousness of the contradiction as a
means of
thing given, to advance to the primary intuition as the its solution, and to lead up by force of the
very necessity of such a mean towards it, this is the method which we have named the indirect or mediate,
172
and which being for many reasons especially suited to one who commences on ethical ground, is here placed
by Plato in the centre, as the true mean of connexion and progressive formation from the original intuition,
his elementary
Now
being and semblance or sensation bear to one another in this antithesis, is the same as that which in ethics
exists
feeling.
Therefore
and
and
the principal object for the second part of Plato^s works, their common problem, will be to show, that science
art cannot be discovered, but only a deceitful sem blance of both must be ever predominant, so long as these two are exchanged with each other, being with
And advances are appearance, and good with pleasure. made to the solution of this problem naturally in a
twofold way
;
on the one hand, namely, which hitherto had past for science and art is laid on the other, attempts bare in its utter worthlessness
:
and
art
and
at
their
fundamental outlines.
this
class,
The
it
Gorgias stands
rather limits
the
head of
because
itself, as preparatory, to the former task, ventures upon the latter ; and starting entirely from than the ethical side, attacks at both ends the confusion exist
ing
herein,
its
fixing
on
its
inmost
spirit,
as
the
root,
The openly displayed arrogance as the fruits. observe this general distinction, they remaining dialogues
and
in the observation of the scientific partly go farther back in mere seeming, partly farther forwards in the idea
of true
and partly contain other later conse quences of what is here first advanced in preparation.
science,
From
The
first,
that
called
in
unfounded
a profound
And
in
from the same point likewise the particular manner which each is proved, and the arrangement of the
whole,
is
may be
explained.
For when
it is
under consideration, and the ethical object is predo minant, Truth must be considered more in reference to
art than science,
if,
that
is,
unity
is
to
it
And
moreover,
form that is here discussed, general and comprehensive for the dialogue embraces every thing connected with it,
from
the state, to its least, the em greatest object, bellishment of sensuous existence. Only, as his custom
its
most fond of using the greater form as the scheme and representation of the general, and the less, on the other hand, as an example and illustration of the
is,
Plato
is
greater
that no one
may
For
is
to
be
observed,
is
art of politics,
only to represent it, and account especially, the introduction to the Protagoras is here repeated, verbally one might almost say, in order to draw attention the more certainly, by this change in
but
still
on that
the
more
it
closely
drawn
in
that
dialogue
is
notwithstand
ing here more intimated than expounded or systematised, the separation of rhetoric from sophistics, so that the
former, regarded as an art under the category of the science of semblance, is to contain whatever refers to
the greatest object of
all
art,
of communicating with the principles themselves. For though Socrates compares rhetoric only with the admi
nistration of justice,
legislation, the
that
of
the
first
principles,
from which
certainly
original
composition
the application
is
proceed, The case of them to a given subject. exactly the same, according to the ancient ideas, with
and
conformation
and
rhetoric
gymnastics, in which outward perfection of the body is one and the same with the principles of
servation
human
its
pre
; rhetoric, on the contrary, like politics in the ordinary sense, can never be anything but a remedial art, and applies those principles to a given
and production
corruption.
Here
then, to discover
The
shown on the
whom
a similarity in disposition
had made a pupil of the other two; and then in the last section in which Socrates recapitulates all that had pre
ceded, both sets of principles are shown to originate in the same one vicious principle, and to point to the same
deficiency.
Still,
as
it
is
make
do
any
we here
them
175
In the
to
first,
whom
Plato,
justice, ascribes
in his instruc
at the outset a
tions,
representing that
tends
in
only
to
life,
and
no way to the
own method,
justice
Socrates proves to him from his and that of the other rhetoricians, that
injustice, which nevertheless he is obliged to recognise as the objects of his art, can never be consciously contained in it, or given by it. To Polus however the
still
and
more
that
shown
in particular
still
refuses to
give up unmeaning, and persists in assigning to it a of its own, the commission of injustice proves to province be worse than the sufferance of it, which leads immedi
ately to a distinction between the
Here again
in
the comparison
may
indirect
investigations
;
of the beautiful
formally and hypothetically only, and, allowing it to be entered as an abstract and exclusive notion, explains dialectically its relation to other homogenous ideas as to which
men
the apparent supposition of the unity of the good and the pleasant had been made the ground-work of the
argument, and there remained therefore no other instru ment of distinction, but mediateness or immediateness of
the pleasant and unpleasant in time, which however can
constitute
no such instrument,
as
is
so
multifariously
and the dialogues con In the dialogue with Polus the identity
the pleasant
is
left
less
definite,
and
previous
would depend only upon time. Whence, as soon as the distinction between the and the pleasant is made out, the result comes good
out of
itself, that the idea of the useful is immediately connected with the good. In the conversation with Callicles Socrates imme
*
diate purpose
is
chiefly to
that opposition,
and
to
that
good
is
exhausted in
the
pleasant, has no
support
in internal consciousness,
but
good
with
Callicles
Socrates-
makes
might fairly be allowed to constitute in themselves the most ingenious I mean, when we further take into part of this work. consideration the manner in which they fail and the
first
the
as
yet,
of
Italian
wisdom,
which
is
as nicely calculated
1
from the whole description of Callicles character it beautifully applied, and the way in which Socrates,
and returning to his own peculiar philosophical organ of dialectics, adduces a most important exposition of
the true nature of pleasure, that
it is
something in per
as arising in the
petual flux,
177
transition
is
All this
in
fact
ingenious,
worked out
to allow of our considering matter occasionally touched upon, and the political part alone as the peculiar object of the work. as
only collateral
This explanation, as soon as Callicles has admitted a distinction between the pleasant and the good, though only quite in general terms, is followed by the third
which connects and comprehends the two pre In this, then, Socrates, in accordance with the ceding. ethical and preparatory nature of the work, concludes
section,
mind, and expressing it mythically. Now if a comparison is to be instituted also between this myth and that in
the Phaedrus,
and there
is
to
certain
extent
much
the
will
and
to
art
in
this,
as
the
past
in
does to
science
and knowledge in
that,
and that
the one as
only an image, while the essen tial point consists in the consideration of mind divested And thus Plato is so far from intending of personality.
well as the other
is
Time
to set such a
lead us to take
value upon the mythical part as might it historically, that he connects it with
leave
the
is
subject of love
but
in
this
dialogue love
quite as
it
much
is in
;
of the individual
only, as
we must
at all events
suppose, relying upon the investigations pursued in the Lysis, it has already divested itself of its mythical dress.
178
this
But we need not pursue particular comparisons of that a kind only we may observe in general
;
us to our comparison with what has preceded brings to the proof second result: I mean that with reference
supply, the Gorgias not only belongs the second part, but also occupies the first place in For in that which constitutes the main subject of
may
mode
combined with the more general object of the art, whole exposition, the endeavour to investigate upon the side the opposition between the eternal and the
practical
all its Gorgias, notwithstanding the apparent similarity with the Phaedrus, bears entirely For in that dialogue, character of the second part.
mutable, in
this
the
where philosophising was only spoken of as an impulsive the method, feeling, and knowledge as inward intuition,
as
thing external,
rather the reality of knowledge together with instead of mere objects, that are to be discussed,
is
method, art is set up as something formed and finished, and the connection between the arts as something ex ternal, and the investigation is pursued rather with a
view of discovering whether they have an object, and
mere structure, a decided transition may be pointed out from the Phoedrus through the Protagoras to the Gorgias, and from this
what
it
is.
Nay,
if
we look
to the
to the
Euthydemus and
in like
And
manner
all
throughout by
179
cation of true science and art and the objects of them, until at last it leaves this connection with the negative and comes out alone, when at the same time the whole
of the indirect treatment passes into one of an opposite form. Thus, while the Gorgias clearly proves itself
to
belong to this
series,
it
is
quite
as
manifestly the
first
member
of
it,
already mentioned to the earlier method of instruction, partly because the last-mentioned combination of the
is far from being so ingenious and complicated as in the subsequent dialogues,
the Euthydemus for instance, and Moreover, Sophist. the subdivision of the under several heads, investigation and the apparently return to the commencement
frequent of the subject, are forms which the sequel and become most
the Lysis and
the
little
dialogues
Protagoras afford but slight approximations. Add to this, in order to fix the place of the Gor
gias
still
more
all
decisively,
the
ingenious
manner
in
which almost
the
again taken
up
and sometimes particular points out of them, sometimes their actual results are more or less clearly
in
it,
interwoven
with
it,
and, on
the
fectly unintentional way, though the skilful reader can not overlook it, in which the germs of the following
dialogues
of this
series
already
lie
folded
up
in
this.
been already touched upon in point general with reference to the Phasdrus and Protagoras, but might still be pursued much further, and still
has
The former
more numerous references might be discovered in de tail. Thus from the Phaedrus the objection might be especially brought against Plato by other Socraticians,
180
that
notwithstanding
his
apparent
intention
in
that
method of that species of dialogue of correcting the rhetoric which tends only to delude, and his depreci
ation of
it,
he
still
allows
it
to
it
hold
as
such
place,
that
an object of de
for
this,
sirable
in the
And
it
is
precisely
that
Gorgias its only possible between me principles, and of the necessary connection in so emphatic a form, and thod and thought, appears
is
use, according to
moral
so
multifariously
it
repeated,
in his
order
to
show how
to
impossible
to
is,
starting from
principles,
come
from
to this subject,
in
different
that
And
the Protagoras
the de
be scription of sophistical self-complacency might easily and the game too easy, when the thought exaggerated,
writer
of
the
dialogues
attributes
to
in
his
this
opponent
such
when Gorgias
dialogue, himself similarly circumstanced with Protagoras, he proves far more pliant and docile with regard to the turnings of the dialogue, and draws less
finds
follies
and absurdities.
Hence
ridicule
upon himself.
in
But,
at
all
on
the
contrary,
that there
Plato
is
shews afresh
Polus
events,
no
certainly in
some degree an echo from the first series, manifestly stands here in a far more subordinate relation than the
similar one in
the Protagoras.
is
Lysis
not only
Thus
bad taken up as a thing granted and acknowledged, but also what we find in that smaller dialogue upon the
subject
of
love,
predominant as
it
is,
in
confined
181
and limited form, obtains in this, in the Phaedrus upon the nature
like
of
an extended application, beyond mere personality, to the more important civil relations as well, inasmuch
as
And
thus
too
it
is
now
the
first
time
proved,
that in
to
the
every
brought forward with sufficient clearness for one, which inculcates the necessity of a simi
or character,
for
this,
the production of
With
moreover, we are
that those,
who pursue
common
which had been already enunciated verbally in the Crito, but is here palpably exemplified in the first
a view
discussion of Socrates with Callicles,
and contains
like
wise from this point of view the defence of the indirect dialectic method for the second part of the Platonic
works.
Socrates
Moreover,
expressly
in
acknowledge
the
the
principle
brought
nion
forward
in
Laches,
courage
cannot
be conceived apart from knowledge, is certainly his opi ; and, in like manner, what has been declared in
the introduction
to
the
Charmides
to
be the result of
I
that dialogue with reference to discretion. Socrates agrees in the explanation, that
virtue,
in
;
mean
that
is
discretion
so far
as
it
is
to
be regarded as health of
the mind
182
the Euthyphro, as justice towards the All these gods. are retrospective references, if not quite literal, still
who
ever considers them comparatively, will never entertain the notion of inverting the arrangement, and take these
were preliminarily noticed. And even as to the lesser one who would undertake to find a con Hippias, any
it
firmation of
it
in the
sec
tion, just man always wills to act justly, appears to refer less to the general position already ad vanced elsewhere, that every one always wills the good, than to the principle that willing belongs quite as as knowing to the nature of necessarily justice in par
the
ticular,
and that
the
sceptical
this is exactly the natural result of treatment of the idea of justice in the
Hippias.
far
see
is
from
important
itself,
or
as
certain
as
the others.
of justice eminently implies the presence of volition, is a thing so generally recognised, that it may be assumed without any reference to a previous proof. Again, the traces of a promise or preparation for
as
the majority of the subsequent dialogues, appear quite clearly as the references to earlier works which we
;
The manner,
for instance,
essential
dis
which,
after
between the good and pleasant, the notion of a combination of the two is notwithstanding again enter
tinction
tained, points to a
is
last dia-
183
The manner in which the nature logue of this series. of the art of counterfeit is taken up, and its province divided according to the rules of dialectics, is the first
breathing of what we meet with in the Sophist and Statesman so artificially and comprehensively worked
out.
The
mind of
thically,
laid
is,
as
it
Phasdo.
much
which
in
this
So that we may even decide from hence, how second period proceeded from the point
specified
as
we have
the
centre
point
of the
Gorgias, and what on the contrary belongs, so to speak, to a second formation, or must be referred to the point
And already indicated, as contradistinguished from it. I speak not so much of the as of the prin dialogues, cipal factors of the dialogues ; for it is precisely in this
reconciliation
without
uniting
them
so
completely as to cancel
still
all
opposition between
more
artificial
sequent
dialogues consists.
Hence, even the Gorgias, strictly taken, can only be viewed as a moiety of the beginning of this second part, and it is not until we have combined it with the
Theaetetus that we can look upon
it
as constituting a
complete commencement, inasmuch as the latter treats of the opposition between existence in the abstract and
conception,
the
that
between
Hence, considering good and perceptive feeling. the total absence of any decisive testimony whatever as
to the period
of composition,
and moreover,
that
the
184
of the Gorgias prior to that of the Theaetetus cannot be immediately and at once established. On the con is only as an inference mediately drawn from trary, it
a variety of particulars, and these are nothing more than manifold references to what has preceded and to what follows, the character of a general prelude, if I may
be allowed so to express myself, and that analogy, ac cording to which every new layer in the philosophy of
Plato commences originally with the ethical these are the only grounds which can justify the precedence of
Gorgias, against several particular objections which might possibly be alleged against assigning it such a
the
position.
Whoever
is
takes
up
the
acquainted with
manner
in
which
it
is
Plato^s
will
undoubtedly discover
of himself more of the same kind copiously interwoven with the details of this dialogue. For other persons we be allowed to draw attention to some of them only. may
For
instance,
with
what
in
reference to
the
Phaedrus
and Protagoras appeared to us before in an apologetic light, still more matter connects itself in this dialogue
which we can only understand as a review of particular
declarations
as
had
of opinion against such Platonic writings hitherto appeared. However, what might be
this
said
limits
upon
must always remain within the of supposition, and the best method therefore
point
only to give slight indications in the particular places and passages where such matter occurs. And,
besides this, there
is
will be,
much
nection with the Apology of Socrates, that it might be said that all the essential matter in that piece is here
repeated, only so given as to be exalted above the
imme-
185
diate personal relation.
And
it
looks almost as
if
the
Apology of Socrates, changed as it thus is into a defence of the Socratic modes of thought and action, has rather
changed than
lost its personal relation,
and become a de
fence of Plato.
Least of all can this repetition lead us to agree so far with another writer as to believe that the
Gorgias must have been written soon after the death of Socrates, because assuredly Plato would not have
reproached the Athenians a second time with so detailed
a
history
of that
act
of which
since
repented.
For when we
we have
these repetitions
com
pressed within so short a period as to excite a feeling of satiety relative to the subject of which they treat ;
a process quite in contradiction with that richness and abundance which characterizes the Platonic composition,
and which,
On the contrary, the purpose I have indicated, of justifying himself by a retrospective view of what had lately happened, for his continual political inactivity, and at the same time of showing
how
fearlessly
he intended
to
course
this is a
purpose which he
may
well be
con
ceived to have entertained at a somewhat later period. Though indeed, as Plato, after having lived some time
at
Megara with
to
what
at
have returned to Athens, for any long time at least, I have suggested can hardly have been the case an earlier period than after his return from his first
travels.
A A
186
abundant occasion
kind.
for expression
of sentiments of this
For
in the
disfavour as
own
false reports respecting the Aristophanes, and similar Plato also experi tendency of his exertions ; and thus
Let enced something of the same kind soon enough. but the reader recollect how in the Ecclesiazusae of
of which Aristophanes, the representation
as early as the
is
usually put
the political ninety-seventh Olympiad, views and new doctrines of Plato were exposed, and he
will
have no
difficulty
in
conceiving
how
easily
Plato
a similar result.
to his friends
hoped perhaps have recalled him from abstract thought and brought him nearer to the world thoroughly, I say, to justify
to
relations implicated in the concerns of public life that his travels had friends who
would
them
his persevering
of a state, in his
own
philoso
come those
outbidding anything in the celebrated Athenian states Protagoras, against the most man of all time, with a slight reservation in favour of
very
strong
expressions,
the living, as
in
if
which
he
puts
the
mouth
arises
of
the
imputation of Laconism
against
himself,
at
in
order to
is
so
called
and
spontaneously
from
the
most
simple
and
every-day experience. Nay, even what he says cursorily upon the subject of may, in its more accurate application, be
poetry,
187
connected with the same circumstances.
Much
of the
natural hatred and spite of bad persons in the possession of power towards wiser men seems brought out exactly in the form in which it in order to touch, with a is,
slight justification
and correction,
first
Dionysius.
And
this
the
supposition, that
we
monarch had not already at so early a period Socraticians about his person, and proceeded with them in a similar way, was chosen with
the
same
referential
purpose,
it
in
order
that
to
show most
as
strongly
how
impossible
was,
Plato,
had
perhaps begun even at that time to be the opinion of some, should have sought the friendship of an unjust
slight
These however are the only ones certainly, of the time at which the
;
and we could indeed place but upon them, did they not coincide so admi rably with the position which must be assigned to it, between and after others, the period of which may be
dialogue was composed
little
reliance
more
right
decisively fixed.
to
s
According
as
to
this
it
would be
consider
it
the
first
first
or
Plato
as his school
had become
so firmly established,
and
so
widely extended as to induce Aristophanes to give a comic representation of it. For unless all accounts of
this
journey are
it,
previous to
one objection however to this date, which might certainly be brought by an ingenious person, and which I will not suppress. know of a philoso
is
There
We
phical
may
very
188
fairly
be started,
about
this
work,
into
period at
which
the process against Socrates was still going on, and we then have a very easy justification, in the supposition
that at that time Plato
with
it
but
this
supposition
not
hold
after
his
this
work
in
Sicily.
In
this
but two hypotheses from which to choose: either Plato, contrary to his usual custom in this par ticular, has kept so accurately to the time in which he
places the dialogue, that he does not mention this
work
it
and
says,
this
it
may
was
certainly be conceived,
Olympiodorus
written
in
the
eighty-fourth
tendency,
style
;
as,
sophistical
utterly rhetorical
it
generally under
makes Gorgias
probably not without a meaning, that he does not pretend to be anything but an orator.
say,
189
II.
THE^TETUS.
difficulties
itself,
which
it
and as
to
accused by those who are uninitiated into the con nection, he may perhaps wish for a fuller introduction to the understanding of it than he will here meet with.
it is
at
the
place
we
For when
the
stated to be the
how
Gorgias
is
intended
pursue object more on the practical side, the Theaetetus more on the theoretical, the perplexity must
that
at once become considerably less intricate, and some notion will be given of the real subject of the dialogue,
in which,
otherwise,
at
first
sight,
every thing
seems
the subject of the argument, nothing apparently re mains but ignorance so that this hitherto sealed work will be explained at the same time that the correctness
;
For according of the Theaatetus must object be to show, that no science can be found unless we com
whole,
receive
additional
confirmation.
to that view,
the main
pletely
separate Truth and Being from the Perceived and Perceptible or Apparent. Only that in this dia
logue, as the sciences generally were not so strictly sepa rated and individually defined as the arts, Plato himself
having been
almost the
first
to
attempt
this,
the dis-
190
cussion does not here enter
sciences, as in the
the
but treats
element, or of knowledge in the strictest sense of the word. And not only this, but it was a prin ciple of Plato, as well as his object to show, that both
of their
common
counterparts of one another, that the search for the good in pleasure, and that for pure knowledge in the sensuous perception, are grounded upon one and the same mode of thought, that,
investigations
are
in
their nature
There namely, which the Gorgias exhibits more at full. fore it is shown betimes, and no one will wonder how
this subject
came
to
upon the ideas of the good and beautiful, and upon the method of considering them it is shown that in the mind of the follower of it,
itself
knowledge
as he
who
can only refer to pleasure, and that, seeks only pleasure ends in the annihilation
others, contradictory
of
all
even to the inward feelings themselves, so also he who, instead of knowledge, is content with sensuous impres sions, can find no community either of men with one
with God, but remains confined and isolated within the narrow limits of his own per
another,
sonal consciousness.
nor of
men
These
allusions
the theoretical and the practical, and consequently be tween the Theaetetus and Gorgias, are found scattered in almost all But the exposition parts of the dialogue. of the theory, that knowledge ought not to be
in the province of the senses that,
sought
as
of pleasure
is
in the transition
is
191
forms in its any of the objects of knowledge the framework of the whole. gradual developement,
attain
of a general
standard
of
knowledge,
all things,
and
all
Becoming
alone
remaining
to
the
exclusion of
Being, as well as the principle here tried throughout, which sets up Perception, and Perception alone, for
knowledge, do
system.
all
refer
to
and mutually upholds them by means of each other better than their authors had done, who
ciples himself,
in
perfectly
understood
themselves,
it
and
thoughts.
And
is
not
before the Platonic Socrates has thus armed the theory of Protagoras against his own preliminary objections,
as
subject admitted
of,
and
exhibited
in
different
and
to
to
show
affects
be
falls to
pieces of
first
knowledge and matter of instruction, itself, and can never attain its object.
the theory of Protagoras
itself,
is
Thus,
on two
of
all,
attacked
sides,
in
order to pre
vent any misunderstanding, pronounces victorious. First, upon the side of the contradiction involved in the pro
position which
arbiter of knowledge.
still
men
place a knowledge
above
as
is
proposition
destroys
itself,
inasmuch
the
number
the
of those to
whom
now
measure
the
of
certainty,
and
the
predominant
itself
maintains
it
against
is
192
it
hold for the time being, that what appears to every one, is, as regards him, yet that it cannot hold for the useful, or for any thing which concerns the future*.
may
Now
tradiction to the
way
which Plato has already con elsewhere, when he showed that the
in
knowledge of the future is not a particular knowledge, but that only he who is cognizant of the present can
possibly be in a condition to judge of the future, he would nevertheless be mistaken. For, in the first place,
Plato here places himself at the point of view of those to whom the future is a particular, and then the whole
series
still
be drawn without taking the antecedent into consider ation. Because, for instance, only what the physician thinks about the future fever is the truth so also, by
;
consequence, only what the physician thinks of the pre sent state of health is the truth, and therefore the know
from mere perception. A conse quence which Plato himself would have drawn somewhat more definitely, had he not been carried onwards by a
ledge of
it
is
distinct
press of accumulating investigations and applications, all of which were intended for this dialogue, as indeed he
leaves throughout
many
conclusions in
it
to
be drawn
by
also of Heraclitus
Next, and in a manner resembling this, the theory which had been already contained in
is
attacked inde-
See Thesetet.
E-rt
el
i
p. 178.
A.
iiv
TOIVOV
evdevSe
fjia\\ov
c
TTUS
T<?
o/jioXoy^aeie
ia
TCWTO.
rov
lSov? epwrwti, eV
not
TO
ia(j)\tfjioi/
ov.
,
<TTI
orav yap
&c.
193
pendently,
that,
grounds that
it
is
shown,
neither
subject, nor a subject to a predicate, because even during the finding and the fitting, every thing ceases to be what it was, and thus, whatever resembles a knowledge or an enunciation
is
according to this theory, strictly taken, a predicate could be found and adapted to a
destroyed*.
consequence brings us very close to the conclusion which Plato had in view, which is, that the subject of these untenable fluent operations is itself an untenable fluent,
which sense, as regards the immediate alterations of the body, Plato had already admitted the existence of
in
After simple and undeceiving perception. the expression of the same idea, attributed
to
this,
lastly,
immediately
Theaetetus,
notices
is
especially
contradicted,
have
wherein
for
perception itself, properly considered, points to operations in nature and origin entirely sepa
Socrates shows
how
and how, provided only we begin with securing the notion of being, it thus becomes at once manifest, that perception on no possible supposition
rate
it,
from
can attain
to
being,
and
that
truth
therefore
must
necessarily be sought
beyond and without its range. the dialogue is advanced as far in refer Thus, then,
ence to the theories hitherto tested as is possible under the conditions of the indirect process adopted, and now takes another turn in order to consider more
closely
*
P. 182. D.
877
pcov.
To
co?
COIKCV,
iravTa. KiveiTat,
7ra<ra
ctiroKpicri*;,
7rcp\
OTOV av
fjitj
diroKpiOU TWS, el Be
TIS
va
fj.r]
<TTtj<rt)jL6v
aJroO?
TU>
E B
194
the discovery
that here also
last
all
made.
that necessarily
and the discovery made of the immediate activity of the mind are brought back into the sphere of the senses,
for
it
is always only in this sense that conception (&>) For with reference to the of in what follows. spoken
of knowledge, a
it
set
up affirming
that
is
right
examined whether knowledge can lie within this more This investigation produces narrowly limited sphere.
first
of
all,
and simultaneously with that of true knowledge; an attempt which Socrates it, declares at the end of it to be unsatisfactory, because
false conception,
and from
this,
upon an incompre whence he concludes hensible mistaking of knowledge, Hence that the latter must be found before the former.
false conception at last
must
still
rest
too, there
as
grows a very important consequence, though before, not expressly drawn, that it is impossible that pure knowledge should lie within the same sphere as error, and that truth or falsehood cannot be predi
cated
of the former,
but
only possession
or
non-pos
is itself
session.
the distinction set up and very shortly dispatched by and which, by means of the ex generally recognised,
ample chosen,
Gorgias
again
refers
to
the
times and in
This, again, paves the way to the last attempt here made to grasp the nature of knowledge, starting with
195
the assumption, that
it is
reasonable
largest
explanation.
is
occupied by an accurately considered, though only incidental, investigation as to an assumed opposition, not however tenable throughout, in the
space
relations of the simple
the
is
and compound to knowledge in and then again the principle itself very soon dispatched according to the two significations
sense assumed
;
given of reasonable explanation, which Plato especially distinguishes, inasmuch as the refutation of the last is
also
good
at the
first.
Wonderfully ingenious,
ticular
when we consider
these par
grand divisions one with another, is the uniformity of execution in the structure of the whole and of the
particular parts.
To
how
limited in comparison with the beginning appears at the end the sphere within which is still
knowledge sought, though not found and how near at last is what proceeds merely from sensuous impression, independent of ideas,
;
brought
it
to a deceptive similarity with knowledge, though can never exalt itself to a level with it. It may be
said as
it
and
mere perception, here represented, to right conception generally, from this to such conception as is full and clear
is
enough
to furnish
graduated
ness, so
and
so to
speak, the
common
its
conscious
is
rejected with
is
all
pretensions to
at last started
which mani
but
P. 201
D.
(i\r]6rj
/jiev
co^av
^tj
7ri<rrtj/jLt]v
6KT09 eTTurrrjw;
avftoff} xa\
KO\
tav
e<TTt
ovo/ndv,
t ve
196
at
the same
that lower
consciousness
true
is
assigned to
it
element of right which it contains is conceded to it and defined, which even the terms themselves imply in which
those untenable pretensions are stated.
For we
are
by
no means
to believe that
what
is
refuted
by Thecetetus, or by
investigations
which with
reference to the
So
from
it,
assuredly to be pre
served
this in
and used
detail will
but better opportunities for noticing occur in the notes on the particular
Again, each of the several parts is constructed The Protagorean prin precisely in the same manner. for example, is more finely worked out at every ciple,
passages.
fresh addition to the dialogue, and
is at last
confronted
by
time present.
itself is
con
tinually more pointedly disengaged from perception, espe cially with reference to arithmetic, when every reader
will certainly recollect the Platonic principle
which Plato^s
disciples certainly did not forget, I mean that Geometry is a thing distinct from pure knowedge generally, and
false conception is
rid
by
A\\o%oiav
TWV OVTWV
ovrto
<ydp
Tiva
ovaav
\]/ev%fj
elvai
8oai/, orav
TV]
a i/Ta\Aaa /jiei/cK
2>e
eu/cu.
ov
/xei/
aet
Soaei, erepov
a i/0 eVe
oa
197
sophistically
discussed.
At
last,
however,
the
whole
explanation given of knowledge is made to fall to pieces by the question, how even that true conception which is recognised most generally and authentically as right,
The same thing happens at last to the notion of the reasonable explanation which is taken up quite from the most idiomatic usage of the Greek
can be knowledge.
language, and exhibited in
is
its
logue rejected by the question, how it is possible that the conception of distinguishing quality can be wanting in conception generally, or the knowledge of that dis
In knowledge generally*. manner, in short, every particular investigation fully and seriously pursued is most suddenly at the conclusion
tinguishing quality explain
this
regularly ridiculed away, and thus we last conclusion of all suddenly turns
subject of the
may
to
the
whole dialogue, as
far,
that
as the
although as o
is
not so triumphantly
a comparison which
must
the
explicability of
knowledge
is
the
same theoretically as
is
practically.
particular
in
uniformity is discoverable in yet another For almost in every discussion of any point of view. occurs question in this dialogue a digression
The same
is
made
to
the
and
right,
though
these
subjects
nowhere
thus also
come out
And
198
an
extensive
itself,
digression
is
introduced
its
into
the
main
;
dialogue
containing
but which, as regards the immediate progress of the inter dialogue, seems to be an extremely capricious no better and ruption, not less violently brought in,
kept within rule and rein, than that so justly censured I speak of the whole passage prece in the Phasdrus.
ding the last refutation of the Protagorean principle where the distinction between the tyros in philosophy
arts is
come out
nature as perfectly opposed And indeed this narrow sphere of the personal. soon after the be digression seems purposely placed
to the
ginning, that at all events the attentive have a clear point by means of which he
reader
may
may
find his
way among
the complicated
By
itself
immediately and, among the earlier dialogues is almost solitary in so doing, with the Parmenides as
a continuation of
it,
of view.
And
in
works occur
the dialogue.
able
;
These
for
instance,
is
the
way
in
which not
the
only
the
also
Eleatic
doctrine
to
but
especially
to Plato
Melissus
to
who
in
is
particularly
named,
as
appeared
the lonians, to
whom however
philosophical
thing with
a truly
tendency.
For
if,
as
he
199
expresses himself, the lonians
able, so,
moved even
the immove-
the
untenable to
and
Parmenides alone
by
his
hypothesis of an opposition between the intelligible and apparent, of which we may regret that only rough
outlines
and particular traces have come down to us, appeared to have found, or at least to have divined
the right road, although even to his doctrine Plato has
objections to
make
in
a subsequent dialogue.
Even
in
what Plato here says about Parmenides we may easily detect the inclination to consider the doctrine of that
philosopher more thoroughly at a future opportunity, in short an announcement of what he afterwards carried
into effect in the
it
Sophist.
who
is
by
among considers undeserving of much notice, and a hint im plying how little any one should venture to make Par menides the object of his satire, and how difficult it
was
to
those
whom
Socrates
penetrate to the
real
meaning of
to
his
doctrine.
Both
refer
manifestly
enough
the dialogue
of that
name, and to a variety of misapprehensions in the un derstanding of it which from these allusions may be
easily surmised.
of the philosopher, several of the antitheses cussed in the Parmenides reappear elsewhere in
tion
elucidations of what
there barely stated as briefly as possible, so that the position of the Theaetetus between the Parmenides and
And moreover, Sophist is thus in every way justified. besides these that are contained in the general plan,
there
occur in
detail
several allusions
to
the Gorgias,
and among
these
too,
individually
considered,
those
200
which presuppose the Gorgias have a great advantage over those which look as if the Theaetetus ought to be placed before it. In two other respects, moreover, these two counter One of these parts especially resemble one another.
points of similarity is, that in both dialogues a variety of perfectly similar matter occurs incidentally. Thus
also in the Theaetetus important passages
from the de
it
were com
mented upon. For Plato expatiates in a peculiar man ner, and one which almost warrants the conclusion that
he must on some occasion have exposed a weak side
upon the extremely natural and very pardonable ignorance of a philosopher in all civil mat ters and More skilful persons may decide usages.
in
this
respect,
whether
in
this is to refer to
traces
some other writings of his, or to some fact of which still survived. Moreover we find in several pas
*
sages a manifest defence, partly of his indirect mode of speculation in general, as in the explanation of Socrates
midwife practice, partly directed against a variety of objections which must have been made to his writings,
in
which
many
him.
well
Thus
as in
for example,
the
Gorgias,
philosophical matters
under which,
the
dialogue,
a position of the
So that, these opponent can be regarded as confuted. vivid expressions which recur so frequently in the course of the two dialogues rightly considered, we shall remark
a concealed and gradually gathering indignation, which
201
afterwards strives to vent itself thoroughly in the Euthydemus. Secondly, the two dialogues have even in
philosophical bearing some polemics in common one another, quite of a different kind from what with we meet with at an earlier period against the Sophists. For, as in the Gorgias, the philosopher especially con
their
is
manifestly Aris-
whose system the principle that nothing is tippus, naturally just, but only becomes so by capricious esta
blishment, occupied an important place, so also the first half generally of this dialogue Aristippus is the person
especially in view.
towards greater perfection in knowledge, and the exis tence of a distinction between the philosopher and other
men, we learn from all the sources of information we and this furnishes us with a key to explain possess and why it happens that Plato represented this how
;
by
Socrates,
and we
who
is
find
denoted
by those
of Protagoras
exclusively, but
we
find
him with
in
his pro
long di represented themselves do not occupy gression as one of those who with philosophy in the proper way, and some perhaps
pensity
good
living
that
may
cratic
even think
fit
to view
So-
that midwifery as at the same time a protestation in no way learnt from Socrates. that philosophy was
also
c c
202
they are interwoven witli the whole, so completely without detracting from the universality of
with bearing, so that the reader, with of very particular allusions which do not the exception interfere with the progress of the whole, and which
its
which
purely
scientific
every
one
may
easily
be content
to
take as embellish
ments without thinking to find in them any thing par ticular, may understand the whole without having been aware of those allusions. The second half gives great
occasion
lemics
only,
I
to
suspect
against
regret
the
the most general way, that he maintained the principle of the impossibility of con
say,
in
tradicting
successfully
any position
whatever.
These
polemics appear to begin in this dialogue at the com mencement of the section about false conception, and are elsewhere concluded under more definite and ex
tended views.
The
we know
that
of his
relations
Plato
make
it
probable
much
has reference to
yet be much besides of a polemical character which it is now almost impossible to decypher, with the exception
traces.
What
than
is
said of the
particularly
strange,
and
it
may
be
doubtful
whether
others
themselves are
themselves;
in
meant
under
it
their
is
name, or
actually
to
which case
scarcely possible
avoid thinking of
Plato having sojourned in Ionia, probably on that great when, according to some accounts, he wished journey,
to penetrate even into Persia.
Historical testimonies upon which to determine the time of the composition of the dialogue are not to be
203
found, with the exception of what follows immediately from the allusions to all those circumstances, that the
schools
cratic philosophers had been already formed. Not much can be built upon the mention of the battle at Corinth
in
the most to
also
be inferred from
is
certain
upon other grounds, that the dialogue cannot have been written before the middle of the ninety-sixth olympiad.
should however by no means be warranted in con cluding that the fight thus mentioned is the same which
We
Xenophon
on
the
book of
find
his Hellenics
contrary
we might
easily
just
as
much
reason for thinking of less important events which may have taken place subsequently, when Iphicrates had the
command
in
that
quarter.
We
have
however every
reason for considering as historical, both the character of Theaetetus and what is said of him, though not the
literal
Suidas mentions
him
in
two characters,
;
as
hearer of Plato
to
we
:
same person he also mentions him as a phi and mathematician, and knows that he taught losopher
the
at a later period in
Heracleia.
So
Proclus
also
mentions
it
him
among
this
celebrated
mathematicians.
Hence
may
easily
be inferred that
expression
may be
allowed, he passed
and
is
very properly represented as quite young at the death of Socrates. From this point of view, that is a striking
description which
is
sketched with so
much
fondness arid
put by Plato into the mouth partly of Euclides, partly For what philosopher would not have of Theodoras.
204
befrn
this.
glad to possess and immortalize a young friend like What Theaetetus here produces about the square root has very much the appearance of having been at
that time something new, but whether
it was a discovery of Theaetetus himself, or one of Plato^s with which he
ornaments his
pupil,
cannot
take
it
upon
is
myself to
not necessary decide. to say anything, as he is sufficiently known, and the only question which could be a subject of curiosity,
With
regard to
Theodorus
namely,
why
he
is
is
found
and
urgent with him to unite in con why ducting the dialogue, cannot be satisfactorily answered
Socrates
so
Meanwhile the more probable out of the dialogue itself. the fact is of his visit to Athens, the less probable the
account becomes that Plato went
to learn
his science
expressly
to
Cyrene
from him
there.
III.
MENO.
mind the end of the Theaetetus,
in
and compares
it
manifestly the
it
decided reference to the plan we find there concerted, may fairly be matter of surprise to him that the
Sophist does not here follow immediately upon the Theae tetus. And there ought indeed to be very sufficient
grounds to justify
us
in
disregarding
so
clear
and
But for this very apparently so intentional a notice. reason these grounds are of such a kind that they cannot
be perfectly understood by the reader until he can refer back from the Sophist to the Theaetetus, and the matter
205
which the present arrangement introduces between the two. Only every one must at least allow that that
does not contain any compulsive necessity, or exclude the possibility of the insertion of several dia For how easy logues between the two just mentioned.
notice
it
is
to
may
we
now
either called
explain
certain points,
even
seen
that
he could not
appropriately comprehend in one dialogue all that was necessary, in order to attain to the results he wished,
and that he therefore subjoined intermediately several smaller ones, without however snapping the main clue
might even have been his original intention, when he ended the Theaetetus, to continue the same persons in the Menon, making
after
it.
Or
it
find in
this dialogue,
and then
may
have been
subsequently
influenced
by some
motive or other to prefer the choice of others for this purpose, and to apply the intimation formerly thrown
out to a later work.
stance, explicable as
it
In short,
is
in a
as
it
the
does really connect itself immediately with the Thesetetus, and must at all events be placed between
Menon
And this, as far as and the Sophist. this place admits of an elucidation of the subject, will, it is hoped, be clearly enough manifest from the follow
that dialogue
We
of
first
part
the
Theaetetus
206
knowledge and ignorance he prefers setting aside
up, Socrates says that for the present the states of
is
set
Learning and Forgetting as lying between the two, and clearly speaks of them as if they involved a problem which he would suspend until another time, in order
not
is
to
lose
sight
Now
and on
this
precisely
the
problem
stated
in
the
Menon,
and
this
at once,
account, give up all idea of placing the Menon before the Theaetetus. Neither is it solved otherwise than
mean by
a mythical
hypothesis,
so
that
we here
find
after this
precisely what according to his own method, question had been once started, was necessary
to be done. As then in the Sophist, as well as in other dialogues manifestly belonging to this series, the
same question
cally
:
is
treated
more
dialectically
to
and
scientifi
the
Menon
naturally comes
stand nearer
to
wrote the
Menon, had
as
as
much been
scientific
we
shall find in
mythical
treatment
of
it
in
longer have had any meaning, but Plato would have referred the reader by a different method, with which
in
his
writings,
works
in
which
will
this
And
several
the
same conclusion
another
question
ensue from
likewise
consideration
of of
which
pervades
these dialogues, I
soul.
mean
idea
of the
When
it
is
considered
is
how
of
in
all
the
little
Gorgias and
Theaetetus
this
first
more
than
out.
hypothetically
assumed
and
mythically
sketched
207
and then
in
up
as a
ground of expla
it
is
elsewhere, and in the Phaedon particularly, demonstrated and expounded with a higher degree of scientific clearness,
method of proceeding must allow that it is only by assigning this position to the Menon, that this continuously increasing distinctness which gradually
with
Plato
penetrates to the
culiar to
very centre-point of the subject, pe can enter into the discussion of this, Plato,
first
thing which
Plato had
to
do
after
was justified
in
in thus
is,
so
far, that
communication of knowledge must stand or fall with it. However, this is certainly no proof for those who are able to consider the Phaedon an earlier work than
the
until
Gorgias.
But we
cannot
notice
these
opinions
Now if it is kept according to our own arrangement. in view, on the one hand, how these two questions, that of the possibility of communicating knowledge, and that
of
immortality, are brought into connection with one another ; and on the other, how the question of the
possibility
of attaining
to
knowledge
is
here
reduced
within the other, of the possibility of attaining to virtue, and of the nature of virtue generally, it will be seen
that
belongs quite as immediately to the Gorgias as to the Theaetetus, and that the view taken of the relation of these two dialogues to one another
the
still
Menon
is
the
Menon
more confirmed by means of it, inasmuch as is intended to draw the two still more close
them with one another, and
208
who might not perhaps yet be able to comprehend how the main problems of the two how in dialogues are connected with one another, and
this
for
those
readers
is
And this view connected with the principal subject. of the Menon, confirmed by all closer consideration
the more nearly
which,
we take
it
in
connection
with
those two dialogues does the more closely and sponta neously connect itself with them, and this so immedi
ately that
it
is
Hence scarcely anything anything else between them. will be necessary here but to put down the particular First then, the projection and development of points.
the idea of right conception, and the distinction pointed
out between
it
must present
enunciated.
itself to
and pure knowledge properly so called, every one as the last result of the
Theaetetus, though not in that place regularly and fully And this in the Menon is not only as
as
proved and expressly put among the little of which Socrates can maintain that he knows it, but it
is
sumed
evident that
the
the decisive
possibility
is
respecting
of teaching
virtue,
(7ToXiTt/e; aperrj)
a corollary from
the
the subject of the Gorgias the last results of the former. In like manner the Menon gives us an immediate con
tinuation of the Gorgias, inasmuch as
in
it,
it is
demonstrated
quite as
method of attaining
in
as
by the pleasant
the two
necessary to discuss
for
themselves
that
upon exclusive
and original
principles,
And
the connection
may
209
not be overlooked, the interlocutor
ciple of Gorgias,
is
introduced as a dis
to a dialogue of
that philosopher. Moreover Menon an swers precisely in the sense in which Gorgias and his friends must have understood the beautiful. And as
Socrates
with
the
last
result
so
of
the
is
Theastetus
of
the
is
confirmatively
repeated,
it
enunciated,
also
to
that
still still
Gorgias
last,
and
it
is
shown
be
not the
higher.
and that
The same
is,
when we look
;
to
what
for in the
Menon
this is
what we
find in those
dialogues, that
we
are compelled
to infer
existence of
still
circumstances.
further similar relations and connecting The same use of mathematics for ex
amples as
in
that
dialogue.
blem which
precisely the instance in which the incommensurability of two lines with one another was most immediately, and
certainly
also
first,
made
palpable.
This consistency
in the
matter
the
little
that
to
attribute
to
the
still
higher
symbolical value;
is
especially if
we remember
that Plato
his
in
the
habit of introducing
his
remembrances into
This however might remain for ever nothing but a weak supposition, or perhaps be altogether precipitate and false; but clearly this application of these subjects,
which no where
the fact,
that
else
210
employed upon the same subject, whether it were more in a mathematical or a Pythagorean Again, the examples which occur in point of view.
logues
Plato
was
the
Menon
taken
from natural
with
philosophy
is
are
in
most
the manifestly Theastetus in illustration of the doctrine of Protagoras, and is intended defensively to show that Socrates did
connected
what
adduced
meant them.
is
And
Gorgias
tion
as a disciple
of Empedocles
here expressly
associated with
is
the Pythagoreans, and moreover, atten thus drawn to the inward connection between the
like
dialogue which bears his name and the Theaetetus. manner the Menon connects itself with both
In
dia
logues by the similarity of its polemics. For the allusion to Aristippus, the bosom friend of rich tyrants cannot
be mistaken, when
Menon
even
when he makes
s
the limitation,
not,
according to
Xenophon
that
this
own
opinions,
should only be done by legitimate methods. In like manner every reader will think of Antisthenes
conceded somewhat contemptuously by all and repeatedly asseverated, that a sophist cannot teach
where
it
is
virtue,
for
Antisthenes maintained
s
master Gorgias
common
to
with
the
Theaetetus
and Gorgias
a
as
similar allusion
in
For
the
Thesetetus
is
express
it,
and
in the
somewhat
gratuitous
mention
made
of
prophesied, and in
and
211
logy recurs in a very remarkable manner, so here the future accuser himself appears, and we see his anger rise exactly as Socrates describes it in the Apology ;
them
dialogue as in
into
this
Menon
falls
coincidently
dialogues.
And
still
same
and more particularly by what by questions from Anytus, and says himself about the Athenian statesmen. For Plato assumes
Gorgias
further,
Socrates extracts
appearance of changing into a more favourable opinion what he had maintained in the Gorgias; but
the
he
does
this
apparently
only,
and with
sufficient
quantity
of irony which at
It
the
to
be a regular apologetic enough. recantation with which Socrates presents them, intended
seems,
indeed,
convey that there have always been among the poli Athens many honourable and just men, and that he would here only maintain that their virtue did
to
ticians of
not rest upon knowledge, and that this was the cause why they could not also teach and communicate, and
this explanation
seems
all
the
more powerful
as Socrates
its
milder
application, even Aristides himself, whom he had before exalted so far above the rest. But this man, whom
as
far
as
communication
to
is
compelled
the
other
give up, remains nevertheless free from objections of which no further mention is
here made,
and the
possibility
of his so remaining
is
founded upon the principle that there may be men in whom the correct conception which they once have con
tinues
unchangeable
and
it
is
precisely
this
which
is
laid
is
down
as
the
true
value
of
that
virtue
which
finished reason,
and
consequently
so called.
does
not
rest
The
rest,
whom
it
has
they cannot keep possession of the useful, are, with their true conception, which will not remain without knowledge, most gently
been already
shown elsewhere
merged and it
into the
is
same
class with
at
last
distinctly
declared
all
by
as
this elsewhere,
namely, that
these
shadows
to
one, if
can teach.
This leads of
between
latter
itself
to
a
the
still
further resemblance
the
Menon and
it
Gorgias.
For
in
the
we found explanatory
dialogues; and
may
so
be said of the
in
Menon
that
it
touches
cludes
their
many words a large share of common subject-matter of which the decision was
were
still
all
the
first
series,
and con
as
it
left
open.
with
the Protagoras and the dialogues immediately connected account of this relation much matter it, and on
too fully, is again taken up, almost too literally and out of the Protagoras, which already lay at too great a distance to admit of Plato s referring to it only by
one or
two
slight
allusions.
It
is
now shown
here
how much
enumerated, and are no longer allowed to be compre of virtue, if we separate them from hended in a
unity
knowledge; and
in
at
the
which,
in
the
Protagoras,
not only en
also
the
identification
with
know-
213
ledge,
and the
possibility of
communicating
it,,
is
solved
preliminarily by And in doing this it knowledge and true conception. that the more exalted species of virtue rests is said
certainly
the
established
distinction
between
of
it
upon knowledge, though upon a higher mode than that calculation of the pleasant, and is more
thus
over
communicable
in
the
sense
in
which
it
may be said generally that remembrancing, and the excitement and reanimation of ideas, is communication;
while the ordinary political aperrj is not communicable, but rests for the most part only upon correct conception,
to the upon a feeling which has never penetrated up If therefore, in consequence point of true knowledge.
of what was
to
first
remarked, the
Menon
of
is
indispensable
the
us as
which
is
form
strengthening
dialogues
so
it
series,
also
much not yet expressly solved in the first series. attention will show us Again, a slight degree of that the Menon thus becomes a fresh confirmation of
For that the arrangement hitherto pursued in general. solves the riddle of the Protagoras, and, not to go it
beyond Laches
what
also,
is
particularly
mentioned,
that
of
the
and that hence those two dialogues must be placed before the Menon and in connexion with one reader another, is clear to every one, and no intelligent
and saying that those dialogues were later in point of composition, and intended to be further continuations of what is here
will
think
of
inverting
the
relation
preliminarily said.
The same
is
anything
like
verbal
coincidence,
strikes
us almost as
214
an enlargement upon that dialogue, though without any deviation being admitted from the abrupt very diffe Here too, no one on rently pitched tone of this. comparison of two passages will find it to
possible entertain
refers retro
spectively
the
Phfjedrus.
Otherwise
we
shall
be
is resolved to recognise no whatever between the mythical and philosophical method of exposition, and intentionally to overlook what
This is the struggling to show itself spontaneously. we obtain from the somewhat complicated relations of this dialogue, after placing ourselves upon
is
view which
and corner-point from which alone an accurate of the whole can be made. Thus prepared, we survey
that chief
shall find
it
no
with
difficult
may
this.
stand
matter to judge how the case two other views very different from
Of
even
had not up
only
to a certain time
in
been
published,
but
circulated
entitled
private
by
learned
men
It
in
some
respects
to
much
attention.
might
however be
it
produced
under a
in
my
opinion,
that
under which Ast lately produced it. This view undertakes to deny our dialogue to Plato,
conceiving
it
that
contains
but
little
philosophical
matter,
not
precisely and better stated elsewhere, that it may therefore be almost dispensed with for the understanding of the Platonic philosophy, and is not moreover in of arrangement and treatment of the respect
more
subject
particularly
worthy of Plato.
And
certainly
in
first
whoever,
the proper
point
may
many
215
which
will necessarily
strike
in proportion
For
instance,
the abrupt commencement without any introduction is not very Platonic, and an introduction seemed here the
more necessary
as
we
learn
for
the
first
time,
and
of the dialogue, that quite unexpectedly in the middle a thing Anytus has been present from the beginning
else
in
Plato.
Moreover,
it
is
the turn could be justified only by an introduction that of the dialogue rests, that upon which the last part
Menon
is
in
want of a teacher in
civil
virtue
in
for
we
Again,
disproportionate of the dialogue seem only ca strides in the progress the supposition of some pable of being explained upon in the characters of the speakers, precipitate impetuosity which however no where comes out in the dramatic
representation
are not prepared for this by anything several harsh transitions and
the dialogue.
of
them
and
the
resemblance
to
the
upon what
compelled
principle
to
Plato
do a second
time
it
is
commu
But of
in
its
nature.
these
objections no
part
will
remain good
the
the
estimation
of
one
who
has
rightly
apprehended
of the dialogue, except that, with philosophical bearing Menon as one of the more us, he will consider the
careless
For,
and not perfectly finished expositions of Plato. shrink and all this objections
granted,
particular
the manifold
216
we have pointed
cution of details
the rather as
it
out, and
is
some negligence
in
the exe
is
be looked upon with indulgence, probable that the larger works which
to
the
before
him
in
his
with them.
to
And
that
all
truly
more strange
of a great
than
desire
the
works
even
master should be possessed of similar perfection, or to that he cannot have suppose produced those that are
not
so.
On
the
other hand,
shall
look
to
for in
as to the objection that a kind of investigation which we vain elsewhere, this is not after all
For by the assumption that virtue can only be communicable when and in so far
so
fatal
the
cause.
as
it
is
identical
part
itself.
of the original
what virtue
is
or
calls
is
not in
And
as
to
the
un-
Platonic propositions of our dialogue, his objection is in part tantamount to this, that he is unable to recognize
throughout that simply preparatory character of the dialogue which prevails over the larger portion of the
subject
to use
matter, and
words
in different dialogues
sometimes
in
a more
limited,
sometimes
in
more extended
in
sense,
and
in
scientifically,
life.
others
more
in the
manner of common
this,
Had
it
sepa
from
it
(ppovrjffis,
is
and
it
him
that
virtue and
started.
here to be
All
other
objections
in
give
way
partly
from
part appear to
me
to
217
deserve no particular notice; where so
excellent
that
it
much
is
undeniably
and Platonic, and we may confidently affirm would be impossible ever to discover any other
it.
probable composer of
The
to
it
in
manner,
the
is
that
which
attributes
Menon
it
is
is
called,
in
and
it
moreover
the
Socratic
first
intelligently prepared,
much
it
that
is
beautiful might be
in
demonstrated out of
it
to little
boys
school.
Only
a pity that Plato was not in the habit of produc exercises in logic at al! 5 such things being rather ing
is
to
that
be found in the later compilation of little dialogues were foisted upon him, and that if he does here
to
seem
represent
anything
himself
under
this
form,
this is only
done
of a foreign ingredient.
more
more
artificial
and
fruitful
examples of his midwifery according to the ideas which he himself lays down in the Theaetetus and he declares
;
only moreover treat conceptions to consciousness, and does somewhat lightly the merits of mathematical elements
this
to
be
the
first
commencement of bringing
which
he
is
Pity, lastly,
that
it
is
not
quite
so easy
a matter to prepare
of
the
and
demonstrate this
tially
very
as
and
entirely,
Menon
with then
essen
particular
are
fragments detached
from
but
which
not
E K
themselves
understood
in
their
relation
to
the whole.
Hence
in
again,
a learned
dispute
as
to
what
may
really
be the
opinion of Plato upon the communicability of virtue, whether he is indeed in earnest with the whole question,
and whether
attainable
the decision come to, that it is only divine inspiration, coincides with other ex by
And among the pressed sentiments of the philosopher. are many so truly divine, that whatever they disputants
are to understand
inspiration,
and
sider for itself alone what depends upon something else, and they require not only a voice to warn them, but one to call upon and awaken them to hear when the
author imparts the answers to their sapient questions. For had they but understood his voice themselves they
would have given better attention to the way in which he states the
to
first
three
passages, question as to
whether virtue is knowledge or something quite distinct and separate from it, and then to the limitation that
in
apGTrj^ right conception may supply the of knowledge, and finally to the last sentiments place about the true statesman.
political
As
is
to
the persons,
not, as far as I
Xenophon with
consider
his father s
naeus Anytus of this dialogue and the accuser of Socrates as one and the same, and generally the way in which he is here brought forward speaks
the
him
in
his
mind
to
render
it
necessary
it
to
look
for
other vouchers.
to inquire
Hence,
the
therefore,
is
not necessary
in
who
whose
219
writings
crates
it
of
So
Menon
is
unquestion
in
of Cyrus,
so
him
as
does not de
His country^
and the friendship of the Thessalian Aristippus, who cannot be supposed to be also a are circumstances duplicate, sufficiently material and to
his beauty, his wealth
the fact.
IV.
EUTHYDEMUS.
if
IN the Euthydemus,
which
is
at
once the
is,
conversation, that
the same
whom we
already
know from
the
Lysis, are
engaged with the two sophists, Dionysodorus and thydemus, and how far it is from being conducted
lectically
in
Eu
dia-
Plato^s
sense,
with
view
to
rectifying
their
but
most perfectly
worked up
in
the
style
of
regular prize-fight only with a view to keeping the right if he considers how in words perfect Plato shows him
self
to
be,
though
this
is
but his
first
and
solitary
way
in
questions that may be started continu dwindles away, while at the same time the plea ally sure and the pride of the actors increase, until at last
the former merges into mere nonsense, and the two latter
220
confounds the ridicule of the intelligent with the assent
of the simple, and only puffs itself out the more and, if he notices the in which the whole ends lastly, way
;
with that undisguised burst of ridicule so cheerily rungout, he will, we may be assured, at once admire the
life
will
however
garded
quite
though no one can immediately doubt whether Plato could have composed any thing with this view, still every reader will require an occasion for the compo
sition
of a
piece
occasional,
and
will
given in the
strange enough that attention has always been exclusively given to this
sophistical
But
it is
logue presents more important matter, a genuine phi losophical bearing and a visible reference to other Pla
tonic writings, in that other conversation
;
which, though
but
interrupted and intermitted form, Socrates carries on with Clinias, and which, like the dialogues up
in
an
this point, treats of the communicability of virtue and the nature of the most exalted knowledge. This conversation may be regarded as an illustra
to
Menon, and therefore, mediately, Theaetetus and Gorgias, as it enlarges further, by an indirect method, upon the same subject. For the consequence which we have often only inferred from
tive continuation of the
of the
it
former dialogues as their proper result, without finding verbally enunciated, is so verbally enunciated in this,
were already evident, assumed and the with which the subsequent dialogues are en problems gaged arc here discovered and pointed out. By
and, as
if it
;
then, if
it is
we have
assigned to this dialogue, is sufficiently assured to it. And of this every reader convince himself
may
if
he considers the course of this conversation, the main points of which we will here note down in a few
words.
In
this
it
is
at
once
assumed almost
in
at
the
that
beginning,
pleasure
is
as
had been
proved
with
not identical
is
the
the
sought as a
common
object,
is
defined, only purpose of keeping to the ordi nary translation of the word eudaimonia, to be "right
doing"
(or,
"well
doing").
At
Menonic
position, that
every thing which is ordinarily called a good is not so in and for itself by virtue of the mere possession of it, but becomes so first by coming under the power of
wisdom
so as to be
it.
Ac
cordingly the proper object of desire is defined to be knowledge, to which Plato here deliberately gives the
there called
correct
conception.
But
this
this is
imply
or
that
distinction
that
but the ground of it is as fol ously or unconsciously at the beginning, where Socrates states the lows just
:
problem, the two, the search, that is, after wisdom and the diligent endeavour to attain virtue, are laid down
as identical or as connected in
ner.
man
show
He
intends therefore by
expressly to
what he meant by what is only thrown out at last in the Menon, that it is certainly necessary to seek that virtue and statesmanship which proceed from wisdom,
2-22
notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet existed, because without them those more common kinds which
are satisfied with right conception, can have no
perma
After the proper result of the Menon has been thus enunciated and elucidated, it is now en
nent existence.
quired further what that knowledge must be, and after it has been established, in part with reference to the
Gorgias, that
it
must be an
art
which
is
capable at
the same time both of producing and using its object, and thus several particular arts have been brought for
the conversation comes at last, less by the strictly scien tific method of and investigation, than by the analysis
real
unmethodical process of promiscuous adaptation, to the political or kingly art to which all others surren
der their products for its use. But now the progress ive advance of the is at an end, and the con dialogue versation changes again into a hesitative kind of specu lation which starts riddles and hands them over only
with
their
a few
hints
It
is
to
is
the
in
reflection
this
of
the
hearer
for
solution.
discover
to
in
if
the good
we
are always
quire after
circle
;
the
this
in a
in
Socrates quite
at
the beginning
started
the
question
create
it
a passion for
precisely
in
and
is
this
that the
relation
between
and the good, wisdom and art, is so multi And thus, as fariously repeated and brought to light. was before maintained, this conversation contains, on
the
true
the one hand, corroborative illustration of the preceding dialogues: on the other hand, the reader is to be
223
excited
content with the assumptions there made, as that virtue and wisdom are the useful, and
rest
not
to
certainly, quite in
part of the dialogue, it then becomes easy to take up another view of the remainder also. For the question arises of itself, was Plato, whom in the dialogues im
Euthydemus we have
in
found
occasionally
engaged
to
controversy
;
was he,
now
again
commence a
the
had quite gone by, against earlier sophists whose influence and exertions were suppressed without
time
as
it,
soon
as
ever
?
the
Socratic
schools
to
had become
regularly formed
superfluous contest
art,
likely support this such an expence of demonstrative by and to be so well pleased with himself in the ex
and
was he
ecution
of
his
task
as
is
here
manifestly
the
case?
Who
ment
then were these men, Dionysodorus and Euthy demus, to deserve such notice and meet with such treat
other of the
them more than any mentioned by Plato, so that we sophists may certainly maintain that they never formed anywhere any kind of school, nay, it would even seem that they were not generally men in very great repute. Xeno?
History
is
silent respecting
phon mentions Dionysodorus and speaks of the time when he taught the art of war, whence we must con
clude
that
it
is
real
fact
which
Socrates mentions
224
that they did this first, though probably more as tac ticians than trainers in the art of fighting, and only
Plato him applied late to philosophizing sophisticism. self in the Cratylus brings forward Euthydemus, but with a sentiment flowing immediately from the prin
ciples of the
which more
over no such sophistical misapplication immediately en this Euthy sues, so that we do not at once recognize
demus
in him.
Aristotle
also
with a few positions of the same kind as we find here, nature admit only though their formulae will from their
of an ironical application, and could never be directed and hence Euthydemus would not against philosophy On have deserved so cruel a treatment for their sake.
;
the other
hand
almost
all
the
ver
formulae which
bally, without
even
mentioning Euthydemus but ascribing them entirely to the Eristic philosophers. Moreover, there is an important passage in our dia
the
his brother,
referred
to
principle
of
Antisthenes,
if
that
Now no such thing as contradiction. with this several particular allusions in the dia compare of Aristotle, where he says logue, and another passage
that Gorgias, the
first
we
how
first
prin
ciples,
ticular
more
light
and consequently only communicated a few par maxims and not the whole art itself, more and falls upon the whole, and it becomes very
the name of those two sophists probable that under Plato intended rather to assail the Megarian schools and
Antisthenes.
for
might be inclined to spare the former old friendship s sake, which connected him with the
He
225
founder of them
Antisthenes
;
much
as
possible
indeed
notice,
was very intelligible to contempo and would spontaneously obtrude itself upon their which we can only discover by laborious means,
that
much
and a variety of combinations and From comparisons. the extravagant ridicule moreover the attentive reader is made aware throughout of a profound and bitter
satire
even
who
Still
something
trate
it
and explain.
For
if
allowed that the particular examples as they here occur deserve nothing else it is however not to be overlooked,
;
that the
its
lies
nature nothing but that scepticism, which always ac the doctrine of flux and progressive incom companies plete existence, generally or partially taken up, in its
particular application to
language.
art
If Plato therefore
sophistical
independently and
was necessary for him either to show short how closely it was connected with the principles ly already refuted by him, or he was obliged to penetrate
proper object, language; and in this also to point out together with the changeable, the un The first he certainly does, changeable and constant.
deeper into
its
but in such a manner that the greater part of the ex To the latter amples discussed have no business there.
F F
226
lie
appears rather
to
to point
preliminarily
than actually
to set
work
in
earnest
upon
indeed under the circumstances scarcely possible; and one may see that Plato does not draw from the
any
various character of his examples the advantages which Hence then the present themselves for this purpose. the examples there found inference manifestly is, that referable to the treatment of the sub are not
merely
ject,
and have not been determined by it. What other cause then produced them ? and did Plato indulge him self in this empty trifling, and continue it so long from mere pleasure in the exercise of dramatic power which
are at least not compelled to he applied to them ? hold to this, and to ascribe to Plato in this dialogue
We
mode
him.
of proceeding which is not generally peculiar to For if we consider the particular examples ac
to
their
them meaning, we shall find among much the appearance of allud several which have very
cording
ing
to
attacks
directed
the
partly
against
the
thoughts,
in Plato s language and expression partly against earlier writings; inasmuch as his opponents might have
And
thus we again
and
in
cer
this
tainly
without
feeling
much
surprise
thereat,
of polemics and extorted dialogue also the same kind self-defence which we had already found, almost gradu
in ally increasing
which
is
drawn
to the
it
Euthydemus.
only by
all
And
that
is
this
collectively
considered
itself
the
management of
the
227
For otherwise it might seem a vicious and a disproportion destructive of all more proceeding, exalted purpose, so to interweave as is here done mere
losophical spirit.
ridicule
of
things
utterly
worthless,
with
the
further
advancement of genuine philosophical It be objects. comes however quite another matter when on the one
side the ridicule
is
to science itself, and in which, by the method pursued personality is avoided, and on very
have relation
the other
moreover the
scientific
bearing
is
itself less
than
clear
moreover perfectly dialogue upon which we come after the Theaetetus, repeated only as it is and not
It
is
illustrations
rather
than
the
first
immediately represented, that Plato was necessarily brought back to this method from wanting to give free scope to the dramatic element which was not possible
otherwise than as a narration.
of this
dialogue has yet something peculiar in detail, not only from the two-fold internal dialogue, the mem
bers of which are quite separate from one another, but still more from the circumstance that the external one
between
Socrates
and Crito
to
whom
he narrates,
;
is
afterwards continued in a and though criticising spirit such a proceeding is not to be found anywhere else, it
agrees very well with the particular artificiality of this dialogue. Besides, this appendage contains further some
own, which have a different bearing from the dialogue itself, against the manner, namely, in which a certain respected class viewed and treated Philosophy,
its
polemics of
probably not without confounding it with Sophistic-ism. The same thing had been already alluded to in the
Gorgias, but probably not properly understood by those
228
whom
it
immediately concerned.
part
Hence the
practice
in
is
here in
part
and the person more distinctly indicated of Isocrates was the most important of
as the school
this
kind at
Athens, we can scarcely suppose otherwise than that the objections of this school were particularly meant.
V.
CRATYLUS.
all
THE
to
Cratylus has at
the
good
and
sturdy
seemed
he
difficult
to decide
does in
reality
that which places the origin of language in convention and consequently looks upon all the and
compact,
in
it
details
as
indifferent
it
and accidental
or of that
ascribes to
which considering production it inward truth and necessary correctnessj or whether he may not perhaps have secretly in reserve
that other opinion concerning language which
suspects
divine
it
to
have
been
introduced
among men by
be implied that
agency.
tell
Just as in
it
whether
is
intended
virtue
is simply practised without, and is consequently pro duced by custom in a kind of conventional manner, or viewed as matter of inward necessity, or whether it is
to
be regarded as a gift of the gods to men which comes to them according to the divine pleasure, and A still is properly on that account the only good. task was it to defend the great man in more difficult
229
the matter of the utterly false derivation
tion of the words,
is
and explana
among so many examples hardly one that can meet with toleration, to For even though we may say nothing of support. be disposed to excuse, and that the admirable
!
when
alas
there
regret
philosopher,
from
little
fault
producing so
portant a subject, still this resource can never suffice, because in fact the ignorance is too great, and even
against
our
will
inclination
something
stress
like
feeling
of
upon the obligation we are under to know the variety and extent of our ignorance, should have plunged into such trifling and
unmeaning play, upon a subject about which he mani
always
laid
surprise
we
feel,
so
much
On the other hand, much has nothing. indeed been gained by the discovery of modern times, that to Plato likewise all this was but play and jest, and that here, as in several of his works, we are to
festly
knew
this
view
for such a
again difficult to justify the profound philosopher mass of ponderous and pointless jesting, and
for his unexampled proceeding in allowing his unfor tunate propensity for playing upon words to break out in so astounding a manner; as a natural philosopher would be astonished to come suddenly upon a complete
and prodigious layer of a rare kind of stone which usually only appears distributed here and there in small
grains.
And
from
this
us
diffi
cult investigation,
the
jest
the
all,
namely, of affecting
this
in
serious matters,
and
230
a joke.
this latter
view in
content
to
a random
to
himself with
in
general,
for
by
such
method
open
the
up further
details,
traces so
and
old
taste
among
his
the
fruits
;
and
us
cates,
we commend him
it
to
employment
itself as
for
however
is
strike
and rather
to follow
work
to
and
try if it
us what
it
really means,
as also to ascertain
ticular
in
it.
how we
ease
That we may then be able to consider more at our the more important matter, it may be advisable
look at
to
all
first to
draw attention
and what
to
is
separately
jest.
what
intended seriously,
And
first
appears
be the
ground-work of the whole, that language is the artificial instrument of the dialecticians, and that appellations
must be given in conformity with the nature of things, does indeed sound strange when we hear it thus super
ficially
stated
but
it
bears
too
great
resemblance
are
already investigations acquainted, and follows too closely the fundamental laws of all Platonic speculation, to allow of our rejecting
lit
to
other
with
which
we
as
not
seriously
laid
this,
down.
But
the
illustration
less
which follows
upon
by
means of more or
are
and
their life,
clearly
inasmuch
as
Socrates
that
by
the
remark,
are
manner
not
individuals
named
231
which material things acquired their appellations, but
that
we must look
the
of
various
species
of
the
general
and
eternal.
Now
this is
again manifestly
said in
earnest, inasmuch
as these
names do
of language, as this core also, like the Greek, divided into nouns and verbs. But when again the dialogue
pursues
this
further,
first
rectness of nouns,
and investigates the natural cor in the names of the gods, which
we cannot well say, that as proper names, they would not have belonged rather to the first
section,
and then
in
their
relations,
the
those of the heavenly bodies and elements, the virtues, the various
other
phenomena
thought
of the mind,
and
itself,
finally
all
the
this,
poles
of
all
and
knowledge
is
when
infer
manifestly
jest.
We
from the violent method of dealing with the words, from the total neglect of the distinction between fundamental and inflected syllables, and the
commutation and transposition of letters, so that often times a scarcely similar sound is produced as well as from the unlimited share ascribed to the desire of
;
embellishment in
the
then
construction
of words,
so
the
very
first
in
in
order
entire
;
conceal
the
to
meaning, and
the
contradiction
when he
ration
ridicules
wisdom
as
an inspi
follow
quite
foreign
to
him,
which
he would
to-day, but to-morrow would purify himself of; when by the same process he educes a similar sense out of
it
destroys
232
itself;
when
or
the
he
appeals
in
one
origin
destructive
effects
quently declares this himself to be the excuse of one who would avoid giving any regular account. But this mass of joking leads yet again to something perfectly
serious, to the distinction, I
to
the
of what
is
the proper object of representation in language, to the distinction between the imitative and musical use of
the voice, and to the illustration of
how
in
conformity
for
with
in
it
the
original
significancy
this
is
must be looked
serious,
the letters.
And
certainly
because
purpose,
Plato
makes
Socrates
sketch
theory
on
perfectly corresponding to
those dialectic ground-forms which he has already brought forward in the Phsedrus.
But
the
manner again
in
which
this
is
illustrated,
by
way of example, in particular letters, and their mean for ing investigated, can hardly be taken for serious ; the way in which Socrates sets to work in this must
appear very frivolous to any one, who, however super the problems and solutions against one ficially, balances
another,
as
;
our annotations
will
do
in
the particular
passages
his
own method has a very vacant and ridiculous us, And should any one be inclined to think that air. all we find here wears such a harlequin and strange dress, and is intentionally made ridiculous only because
it
is
intended
to
lies
of Heraclitus
language,
let
him not
Eleatic style of
thought is intended to appear there is quite as great an But if accumulation of all that is random and vague.
233
there
is
any one
to
whom
the grounds
suggested for
sufficient,
a party to the sport, and referred to him, then let the reader con
is
More
over, from
admit of being
recognized, and
we
shall discover
how
And
in
inevitably
the
same conclusion,
view
of
that
Plato
upon language
comedy,
or
that all that
is
with
bringing
forward
whatever
sideration must at once make every not unintelligent reader of Plato inclined to leave those details to rest
at
own
perhaps only from the consideration of the and to begin the understanding of that whole, whole, if it is to be rightly estimated, at the other end ; and
intelligible
to
suspect
in
that
the
whole and a serious investigation are strangely inter woven with one another.
Now if we consider apart the serious subjectmatter of the work, the investigation into the nature of language ceases at once to appear alone entitled
to that character, although it certainly presents itself most obtrusively and in a manner sufficiently strange.
For
the
subjects
of
Platonic
G G
investigation
generally
234
occur in several works, and after they have been once discussed, they are subsequently viewed once or twice
again
from
different
until,
points,
or
clearer light,
as being
made
trace
are
taken
work.
thread,
But
up we
into
the
great
and
have
no
it
of which certainly
to
is
here spun
and
had
fate
grudged
subject
us
the
possession of this
totally
one dia
omitted,
logue,
the
and we should be obliged to say that Plato s position for relatively to language was that of a genuine artist
;
how
to use
it,
and
own,
method of
his
And this but had nothing to say upon the subject. indeed even now, notwithstanding that this loss has not occurred to us, is the opinion of many persons,
from being our own. For if we take in which he grapples to the opinion of Hermogenes, and instead of something com piled at random and confirmed only by convention,
though
notice
it
is
far
of
the
manner
language as a thing which followed in its as and process of formation an inward necessity origin of an idea, and as an instrument of art to be a type
considers
criticized
artist
who
uses
it
and
then of the way in which he compares the combina tion and connection of sounds with the connection and
combined relations of things, and regards the two as systems running collaterally with and corresponding to
one another, and which are therefore united in a higher; and how he recommends us to seek, in the physiologi
cal quality of sounds, the
in
ground of
all
that
is
significant
language, not so
much
235
but as expression of the nature of all this things; considered, we shall be obliged to confess that this is
upon the
subject
of lan
guage.
It is indeed true that
in
op
position
to
of assuming the
presence
in
may appear
of a weaker character,
and even in the light only of a subterfuge resorted to by one who was incapable of giving a satisfactory ac count of the matter ; but it is equally certain that it
only appears so because
it is
more
to
difficult
to
under
For only delivered in imperfect hints. sidered that this whole_proof proceeds
ciple that a-better -and a
worse* enters
this
ing
of
appellatives,
in
and
not
so
that
the
better
exists
asmuch
elements
one and the worse in another language, in as every language, beginning with the first
of
speech,
is
but that
-each.. appears in
of the variations which take place within the substance of eyery one^-and consequently with reference to their
it will be seen that the ca growth and progress pricious element in words according to Plato^s peculiar
;
Crat, p. 429. B.
2f2.
OuBe
;
%rj
ovo/ia,
ore
fame, BoKe?
croi
xeicrQai
TO
/txeV
^e ipov,
to
TO
de u^eivov
KP.
Ov
SfJTa.
K.
T.
A.
Where
.
Socrates
argument goes
prove the affirmative. P. 432. D. he says, ea KO.\ ovo/jia TO /mev ev KfTaOai, TO 8e /Jirj
Qappwv TO IVOV, J
.
236
principles as to imperfect existence,
isting merely in
must vanish
as ex
draw further deductions, in Plato s own spirit, from what he says upon the relation of language to know
to
ledge.
leave
it
In doing this, however, we shall be obliged to undecided whether he establishes what he here
whether
he did in fact only see thus far and no farther upon these principles; as it must indeed be confessed that the
naturally not quite so easily seen in the case of less necessary known objects. And this may be the part in which,
is
is
from fault of the times, Plato has not perhaps gone quite so far as a way would lead which we might be
able to point out to him, though his deficiency in this
respect cannot be considered as of his genius. But whatever
in
may be
with
him, thus
much
that
it
is is
clear, as
must
only by .j^moval of the opposition between th-~ci^nion of Cratylus and that of Tlermogenes that Plato s view of language is intended to come
see,
.
out,
though- -the. manner and means of effecting that removal are only just pointed put; and Plato himself
seems to have
considered
further
subject, according to
to be only
left
altogether incom
s
method, be considered the subject of an exclusive work. We should rather be led to believe that it is started only
to
237
by way of a kind of example, something like the art Hence then we must of speaking in the Phaedrus.
look further for a ground and purpose of the dialogue in other relations, and institute a supplementary in
quiry as to whether there does not exist in the work we are considering something beyond what has hitherto
afford instruction
will
upon
this point.
And
seeks.
the
attentive reader
^
soon discover
what he
of language
we
find notwithstanding, in the very first outlines of it, thus much at all events clearly enunciated as an imme that the relation of language to know diate ;
consequence
for a moment the ledge is such, that, even assuming divine origin of the former, it is in every way impossible for it to be regarded as the source of the latter, whether
and the object of discovery, or derived and the subject of instruction, and that if a dependent relation is to obtain between them, language must be considered rather as a product of knowledge, and exist
original
ing conditionally through it. the same time the use that
the ironical
part,
in
Now
is
if
we consider
from
at
made
justify
of etymology in
order
to
language
seriously
guage,
in lan tendency may be pointed out whole is and again the manner in which the
that
doctrine,
with the
it
begun,
unquestionably
a
spreading
sufficient light
over
the
whole, inasmuch
as ifr-4ays-- before
us such
a connection of that
whole
238
the same glance enables us clearly to determine the purport of the work, and also the place which it is to occupy in the series
with
the
preceding
dialogues,
that
is
language cannot of itself lead to knowledge, and that from it alone it is impossible to decide which of two opposite views is the true one or the false, is mani
festly of a polemical character,
on
some
these
efforts
polemics
to
essentially
belong
in
that
series
of
its
establish
the reality
of knowledge,
and
eternity
and impersonality,
this
difficult
which we
see
Plato en
it
gaged during
to
second period.
Neither does
seem
look
be a very
question where
we
are to
For
among
true
the
disciples
of
Socrates,
with
the
philosophy,
mere
empiricism,
the
offspring
of
lower
modes of thought, soon got the upper hand again, and in the Gorgias and Theaetetus Plato especially wages
war against
this,
good is not abstracted from the feeling of the pleasant, and that knowledge is not derived from sensuous per
ception or even from right conception, so on the other
unmeaning play again got the upper the play with the equally un hand among them substantial and exhausted forms of philosophy, which
scarcely preserves any subject to which
it
side a system of
can attach
itself
This abuse can be imputed to one except language. of the two opposite extremes which Plato always only has in view, that, I mean, involved in the doctrines of it the Ionic Philosophy must however, when taken
;
in
connection with
this,
present
twofold appearance.
239
One, when viewed with the apprehension of the scepticism of these doctrines as to the essentiality of knowledge,
and that
it
in order
to
exhibit everything as in a state of inextricable confu sion and inconstant variation, which is precisely the
which Plato exposes in its nothingness in the Euthydemus, and of which the sophistical philosophy, again reviving in the Megarian and Eretrian schools,
theory
has to bear the burden and the blame.
it
Another, when
is
when they
to
though
objects,
may appear
itself
does
nevertheless,
process
of affixing
the
But
seem to be almost deserted by history. For it does not appear that language was used in any particular manner as a means for the foundation of knowledge,
or as a canon whereby to judge of
it,
until
we meet
gramma
scarcely
and
it
will
But,
we may not lose ourselves deeper in details and obscure hints, when it is once remembered how largely
natural
philosophy of the Stoics borrowed from Heraclitus ; how Antisthenes is to be regarded as the founder not only of the Cynics but also of the Stoics,
the
only
that
these
latter
reverted
more
to
Plato,
from
whom
by
personal differences,
had
separated himself more widely probably than their scien tific views had rendered necessary ; and when it is
considered further that Antisthenes
is
supposed to have
240
expounded the work
while,
of
Heraclitus,
without
however
particular work
upon
the
on
the
other
hand,
several
works of
Heraclitus
occur which
;
their subject
is
it
the real object of these polemics. And hence also is very soon explained, why, notwithstanding that
imperfectly discussed, the Cratylus nevertheless became an exclusive whole, and took the precise form in
which we now
to
find
it.
For the
relation
its
of language
subject,
principal
manifestly
in the
entirely
upon
the
doctrine
adduced
know
it
for language,
as
is
stands here upon exactly the same actually given ground with conception, or rather is in reality one and the same with it. IJms. jwords are signs and types
of things, and in them a closer or more indistinct, a more or less pure, a clearer or more obscure impress,
is
possible
its
province traced
exchange
respect,
of
relation,
and
both
is
that
the
attention
drawn
tion.
a particular object of considera one however who remembers the position Every
to
as
numbers
which this distinction occupies in the Theaetetus, will allow that the essential matter of the Cratylus could by no means have been taken into that dialogue as
a digression.
And
so
much
order
say what was of most importance, required the result of the Menon, which we find therefore here
to
supposed, that
pass
by
knowledge does not, properly speaking, transference from one to another, but that
241
discovery and learning are the same things in all men, In like manner the relation to namely, remembrance.
be established
nects itself
between language and knowledge con further and more particularly with polemics,
against the strange and all-confusing denial of the pos sibility of error in the province of conception ;
in the
polemics
Euthydemus.
If,
then,
we remember moreover
temptation which presented itself to overwhelm the hostile Antisthenes with a whole bodv of ridicule, we
see the Cratylus
the
form
itself as it
whole, out of the Theaetetus and Euthydemus, and by means of its character, as well as what is connected
with
the
immediate
subject,
secure
it
its
is
place
in
this
series of the
as little devoted
Euthydemus.
Moreover
it
of this dialogue and the Theaetetus as, for example, at the beginning the decisively repeated declaration just
in opposition to Protagoras, from a point at which, in order to continue the dialogue, Plato had himself opened
a loophole for
immediately
in
exposed
tinction,
the
Euthydemus
and a
dis
allowed to drop,
is
between
whole
collective
mass,
explained
;
from the opposition between quality and quantity and there are many particulars of the same kind. Quite as little can it be said that our dialogue only states
the unity of the theoretical and practical as
we have
Gorgias,
is
already found
it
and
242
done partly by particular allusions in the etymological which remind us very strongly of the Gorgias, part, the manner in which the reality of the Beau
partly
tiful
by
and Good
is
of knowledge.
But
this, the
Cratylus also
advances the
scientific object of
way
it.
as the character
of this
series carries
along with
Two
are here to be taken into account, things especially of Types to First of all, the doctrine of the relation
the Archetypes;
tion to things
is
where
in
fact
language
and
its
rela
as an example, only to be considered to throw out but one by which Plato did really intend and their relation a first notice of the doctrine of ideas
the Euthydemus the the Sophist. Secondly, as in of which can only be absolutely kingly art, the object for itself in is set up as that which exists the
good,
all other arts, the identity of use and production, while or using, the object of which, whether as producing
is
are merely its instruments and subor only partial, dialectics are here dinate agents so, on the other hand,
;
as
the
art
whose object
is
absolutely
the
identity
of
only
its
instru
ment.
Now
this parallel
visibly
we
in the philosopher on the summit, uniting perceive statesman. Nay, in himself the dialectician and the manner placed this respect the Cratylus is in a peculiar means of the strange in connection with the Gorgias by
is
certain only
intelli-
243
upon the view we have taken of the whole analogy which is here set up between law and
gible
that
lan
guage, inasmuch as
exists
in
it
is
language
virtue
of a law,
that
as
This
is
introduced by the circumstance, that as, according to the saying of Hermogenes, language is to be regarded
only as the work of caprice and convention; though it must be remembered that convention, even tacit,
and
law,
merged
into
one
;
another
among us so likewise the sophists and the school of Aristippus explained even moral ideas to be the offspring of caprice, and only introduced from without by the ordinances of the law-giver, and even
by means of language
discovers in the moral
cessity
itself.
Hellenes than
Plato, on
the contrary,
judgment the
same inward ne
that he does in language, though this necessity cannot be outwardly expressed in either, purely and one profoundly acquainted with perfectly, except by
And
if
we pursue
this indication,
a further application will reveal itself for what is said upon the subject of the capricious element which enters
into the
works of the
as to
legislator.
is
Now
most part
is
for
the
that
ironical,
much
if
seriously
not in
of
the
etymologies,
the
explanations
them,
ful
we should
just,
still
and
or
how
is,
satirical
imitation
if
to us,
244
and obtain some in bably meet with Euthyphro again, For if he is not a person taken formation about him. it is impossible to con out of some satirized
dialogue,
ceive
how he comes
here.
And, what
is
we should then be
sions
may
For
is
it
is
certain
that
what we
the dialogue
is
not
all
directed
the object of the satire, but, at the as we have seen also in the Euthydemus, a large share
is
This
is
here
which Plato
may have found censurers who were in the habit enough, especially among of availing themselves of much not very different from And in this point this play in proof of their opinions.
sometimes
used
language
those
of view too
here pushed
in
extremities,
and
to
find our
dialogue
as
it
the
very
as
last
degree of
epideixis
from
its
own.
And
this
etymological
part
has been
the crux
of
the translator, and it was matter of long and perplex how to extricate himself from ing deliberation with him The introduction generally of the Greek the difficulty.
words appeared an intolerable expedient, and it seemed better to let the Socrates who was speaking German
once for
all
derive
On
the other
hand,
proper was necessary to preserve the ori and since both methods now stand in com ginal tongue; reader will at all events pany with one another, the
it
with the
names
in these
245
have occasion to congratulate himself that no one ex But as that which else clusively pervades the whole.
here in
where occurs only in detached particulars comes out a mass, so on the other hand it cannot be
what back
and when we compare the Cratylus with it stands most nearly con
we
shall
find
that
in
the
far
more beautifully with one another. Here, on the contrary, Plato appears almost overcome by the super abundance of philological jest, so harsh and abrupt are
the transitions in the latter part of the dialogue
after
;
some
short digressions, he turns back to what times, has gone before, as if it were something new rather than what had been already said sometimes he does
bring
forward matter actually new, but for which no preparation whatever has been made and which is harshly subjoined to what immediately precedes, in a
manner
to
it
that
to doubt, if
we were
consider such passages as these exclusively, whether is Platonic. This is particularly noticeable at the
point from
plained.
which the
is
ex
But
manner of doubt
is,
of
its
no great inclination to do so, and sketched as slightly as possible what still remained to be said. Of the persons of the dialogue, there is I fear but little to be said
:
Hermogenes
is
also
as
a not
Cratylus
is
mentioned
not only as a pupil of Heraclitus, but also as a teacher of Plato in his youth a piece of information which
246
does indeed rest upon the authority of the Metaphysics of Aristotle, but has fortunately too little influence
upon
it
it
necessary
for
us
to
test
more accurately
in
this
place.
VI.
THE
SOPHIST.
first
at once and at the two perfectly separate masses, one of which, glance distributed into the two extremities, starts with the idea
of art, and endeavours, by continuous division and ex clusion, to find the nature and true explanation of a Sophist; while the other, which forces itself into the
middle of
the
this,
problem of
possibility of co-existence and community in ideas, speaks of the existent and non-existent. If therefore
we regard solely the construction and connection of the whole, we must look for its essential object and chief
matter in that external mass, and take the internal only
for
well-chosen or indispensable
mean
for
attaining
that object.
For
it
is
the investigation concerning the Sophist, that a necessity arises of assuming the possibility of a non-existent, and of and as establishing something as to its admissibility soon as this has been done so far that the
;
original in
vestigation
can
be
so
continued,
this
investigation
completely up they conclude simultaneously. If, on the other hand, we look to the importance and scientific bearing of the two parts, the external falls into the backentirely
comes
in,
and
fills
247
ground
as
the
internal,
almost insignificant ; especially as the subject of it had been already touched upon in several points of view, and we do not in fact here learn anything new as to
the nature of the
in the
is
Hence
this
question
be considered as the subject of a work so important even in point of extent, than the other part, which is in itself so much more philosophi
far
entitled
to
cal.
this part not only is the nature of the -which was at that time the subject of such non-existent,
For
in
else
where, and, as we
to
may
clearly see,
that of positive perfect satisfaction, but also existence itself profoundly entered into, and the methods
Plato
it,
some important
features.
So
that, looking
to look for
to this circumstance,
we might be disposed
the real subject-matter of the dialogue solely and im in the middle part of it, and to believe that
is
such
this
matter
passes
into
mere
in
shell
and
To
in
may be
added,
that
the
method
pursued
the enquiry after the nature of the Sophist, it is impos sible to overlook the spirit of ridicule which indulges
itself
out the close connection be partly in pointing tween the business of the Sophist and all manner of
mean
in representing him occupations, and in particular in a great variety of ways as a pedlar, and then again anew the image of a sly beast constantly takes up
And even the method applied very difficult to catch. of finding the object sought, merely by continuous sub
division, is here
For
248
although
lectic art,
it
constitutes
is
and
elsewhere
Plato,
recommended by
the subject
led,
is
still
appears
of
here,
when
hand
is
as
when,
example,
first
all,
exchange
made a
as
subdivision
ing of exchange;
parallel
of fighting, and then again fight and these two were originally placed
to
and similar
actually ridiculed
by Plato
is
shows, from
attempts, that
means, but only particular marks collected by which it may be known, as indeed at last, when the subject
is
correctly
starts
and exhaustively exhibited, he no longer thus from a general position, but from a deter
this external
is
minate notion.
part
still
latter
full
light
without the
For, to go no further, the idea that the de scription of the Sophist might be a merely subordinate work, must be rejected as mistaken, simply because the
statesman
and
philosopher
are
required
in
the
same
manner
of
as the
a great seem, Plato did not perfectly execute, but the purpose of it must clearly have been to complete the expo
sition
Sophist, and thus the foundation is laid This trilogy, indeed, it would trilogy.
the description
of the method of operation used by their masters in an entire whole, to be rendered the more vivid by the
method pursued.
And
249
together with
tion for
it
the
inclina
and the
in
it
are to be represented as
existence.
his
is
removed from true knowledge and real Nay, as the Sophist only appears fully by being definitely discovered, and not before it
far
place
so dis
covered, so,
place
is
on the other hand, the discovery of his and the dimness and obscurity of facilitated,
fallacious opinion
made
intelligible
by starting from the well-known occupation which he And thus, even pursues and can only pursue there.
here
in the middle point of the second part Platonic works, we find a confirmation of what
of the
we
said
at
The more
the
closely, then,
more we must be
here nothing to be rejected as mere shell, but that the whole dialogue is like a precious fruit of which a true connoisseur is glad to enjoy the
is
outward peel
at
the
fruit
itself,
because grown as the former is into the whole, it could not be separated without hurting the pure and proper
relish
of the latter.
This being supposed, we cannot now overlook the remaining characteristics in which this external part
of the dialogue from whom too
is
For the reader, pre-eminently rich. much does not lie concealed under the
cover of insignificant things, the knowledge of which is here brought forward, will see Plato, in part de fending combinations made in earlier works and which
had
the
perhaps
been
assailed,
smallest thing
may be
;
words,
almost
250
becomes as soon as a systematic process necessary this to which it has been hitherto strange, adopts subjects and at the same time to bring to notice a particular
indifference as to the affixing of appellations
;
ennobling
moreover the purifying Socratic process, and pointing the ridiculing moreover out its
proper pedagogic place
:
of the rhetoricians and politicians arrogant method who used to confound things the most different, and, such trifles, as if it profited nothing to distinguish
and the
is
sophist
under
among
the explanations
that
which the stranger the process of the philosopher, left in doubt, whether he is to allow is
continually
it
to
obtain
as
an
explanation
of what
sets
a sophist
is,
up
the
close
connection of the sophist with the demagogue. more If we look only to the inward, and in itself
philosophical, part
will
of the
appear
it
strikingly
as to whether there begins with the question resolved can be a false in speech and thought, simply of a non-existent, and of into that of the
For
possibility
its
or whether non-existence possessing any attributes, The arguments cannot be predicated of anything. forward on the positive time brought usually at that and with which we are already of the side
acquainted
from
question, notices
of
them
in
the
Theaetetus,
are here a second time ad Euthydemus and Cratylus, on all sides, and vanced, strengthened and confirmed of assuming as soon as it is shown, from the necessity
the possibility
of a non-existent,
that
the existence of
251
mere fallacious appearance and error must be admitted, and as what they are to be admitted, this part also is at an end, and the dialogue goes on into the in
vestigation
about the
with
Sophist.
also
Accordingly
to
this
it
would
it
seem
that
reference
part,
what
begins and ends with, namely, the question relative to the non-existent and error, must obtain for the proper subject-matter; and on the other hand, that what is
between the parts of this investigation and oc cupies the middle of it, must appear partly to be
let
in
only a mean for reaching that end, partly a digression not unwillingly seized upon. But what reader, when he looks to the tenor of this digression, will not be
compelled
to
apprehend
in
it
immediately
the
most
valuable and precious core of the dialogue, and that the more as here for the first time almost certainly,
in
the writings of Plato, the most inward sanctuary of philosophy is opened in a purely philosophical man
ner,
and
as,
generally,
existence
is
better
and more
of the
noble
than
non-existence.
For
in
the
course
investigation about the non-existent, exactly in the way in which this arose as a something higher in that about the
Sophist,
the
question arises
as
to
the
community of
ideas*, upon which all real thought and all life in know ledge depends ; and the notion of the life of the existent,
and of the necessary identity and reciprocality of ence and knowledge is most regularly disclosed.
there
*
is
exist
And
P. 251. B.
Crj
TTOV
a\\a TO
Koi
ayadov dyadov, TOV Se avdpunrov avdptoirov Ti6ia^ev je avTovs Xeyeiv, el fiouXet, Trpwrov
p.ev
Kotvtovia<;
E.
els
252
more important, or any method peculiar to the views and method of Plato, more suitably adapted to con duct pupils and readers to the point than that which
is
here pursued.
the
first
how
far
this
most
inward,
point
of
extent,
from important kernel of the whole, exactly according to nature s method, forms itself into two halves exter
nally, quite separate
man
the
For
first,
starting
with
persons
the
statement
of
impossibility,
that
these
who continue
the
real
life
to
of opposites
all
pointed
same time
it
is
can
subsist
neither
without
rest
neither without
station
out constancy nor without progression, but in each pair And let no one be misled requires a union of both.
by the apparently
sceptical surprise at this required of opposites, inasmuch as this is the last amalgamation point at which the indirect method of demonstration,
at the highest
find ourselves,
must terminate.
matter
And
being pointed out, a descent is made from this sphere of the highest existence into that of opposites, which
are here represented
rest*,
posites
by the great one of motion and and it is shown that, first, community with op is founded upon the self-identity and diversity
-f-
P. 254. D.
t TO TavTov
KO.\
60.7 epov.
253
of the existent as
common
properties, and
that in this
sphere of diversity the existent exhibits itself neces sarily, and in a variety of ways under the form of the
non-existent,
in
so that there can never be any opposite of that highest existence itself considered as respect
such,
but he who has not penetrated to the light of in general, advance further than
knowledge, and the igno That, therefore, the nature of
fact
true
philosophy
is
in
here
enunciated
for
is
him who
generally capable of apprehending it. Only let every reader notice the manner in which these conclusions
mean, that Plato starts from the point which every one necessarily finds himself, the sphere of conception, which is indeed at the same time that
at
are
drawn,
of contradictory opposites, showing that the establish ment in this of any propositions respecting the existent, carries with it the same difficulties as the exactly establishment of propositions respecting the non-existent, and that any one who thinks but to conceive or state
anything, must first acquire a title of possession by virtue of which he can do so ; and for this purpose the
glance
closed
into
for
that
all
higher
sphere
penetrate
of speculation
into
it,
is
dis
who can
the
defence
repulsed,
in
against
pretensions,
not
to
only be otherwise
as
the
of sophistical contentiousness. And because our present the advance commences from dialogue this point, and presses forward up to that, the
highest,
immediately and
without
calling
in
the
assistance
of
mythical expedient, or otherwise deserting the course of the purest dialectics, we may fairly regard the Sophist as the inmost core of all indirect
specula-
any
254
tions of Plato,
in its
and to a certain degree as the first, and kind as a perfect image of the philosopher himself. The latter moreover for the reason that as Plato
as
it
were from the comprehensive sur in vey and penetration of all earlier Grecian efforts the province of philosophy, so also the inmost and most real substance of our dialogue results from a test
himself grew
ing of the
principles
of
all
earlier
philosophizing, of
recall
to
much
for
as is necessary,
and
at the
same time
which
it
I regret that as
to every point
might be necessary and desirable to clear up, it does First of all then, that not also seem possible to do so.
position which
asserts
it
is
which
is
the
utter
impossibility
of
the
non-existent,
its most especial and preg and supported out of his own peculiar source, works, and it is accordingly demonstrated to him, with reference to existence, that it is not attainable under
referred to
Parmenides as
nant
and know
ledge,
by him who
starts
from
simple
unity without
existent multiplicity, under the conditions of which the could not be under every form, not, consequently, both
as a whole,
in
and
as in a state of progressiveness.
It is
every way significant, that this refutation of Par menides is put into the mouth of an Eleatic, and it might easily suggest itself that in what he here says,
Plato only had in view a more correct explanation of the much misunderstood Parmenides ; did not the ex
pressions of the
he forms
as a dialogic personage, ple of the Eleatic wisdom, but, in an extremely remarkable manner the trans-
255
ition
as
it
the
Py
in
thagorean
this
Timaeus.
We
have,
therefore,
certainly
we could
by no means maintain with Simplicius, who otherwise says here and there much that is instructive about our
dialogue, that in the dialogue of the Parmenides
Plato
;
adopted the
in
is
existent
unit
from
the philosopher
and
it
the
Sophist,
contradicted
him throughout.
I
fear,
Only
1
a pity that
we have
not,
enough remaining
s
of Parmenides to enable us to
conceive Plato
opinion
philosopher, and especially for the reason that Plato nowhere expresses himself decidedly upon the philosophy of Parmenides as to the sensible world,
about
the
feel ourselves
authorized to re
much upon
What,
this
notwithstanding that he
it.
we
to
of the ideal
who
who con
without
existence
that perfect
sider
existence
man
as
participating
be surprising if many readers were to hit upon the idea that Plato here meant himself and his own doc
trine
;
this
doctrine also
in the perplexing contradiction cannot be discovered, that this, on the other hand,
only pushing
*
his
indirect
method
to
extremity.
But
P. 248. B.
6ie\o/Jii>ot
\ejTe, rjyap
Kcu
ce
(rta/jLCiTi
\o<yi<r/j.ov
^v^rj
7T|Oo<?
de\
Kara
0are,
yevetrtv Be
a\\ore a
256
the contradiction in this doctrine were to be removed, then also the distinction between perfect and imperfect existence must be and thus Plato would destroyed,
if
false
statement of his
own
doctrine.
And
moreover, that
to
something
refute,
is
here
must be
obvious to every reader of any penetration, from the whole tone of the argument, from this giant-combat, and this defence from the region of the invisible*. It
easy to see that he has in view a per well-known doctrine. Now we know Parmenfectly ides to have assumed the possibility of such an im and a world of appearance separate perfect existence,
is
moreover
from perfect existence and in opposition to it, and thus, that man has communication with the one by means of perception, with the other by reason, would also be
as
at
Parmenidean enough. If then we are to risk a guess to why Parmenides is nevertheless not mentioned
all
here,
and
his
it
is
entirely
ticism
upon
doctrines,
we might say
part Plato had not so much Parmenides in his mind as other philosophers, against whom also he disputes elsewhere without naming them, I mean the
original
and
lars,
first
Megarians.
in
many
particu
as the ancients testify, approximated to Plato, under whose influence and co-operation their school had first formed itself, and thus, if we are to give as much
it
is
KctJ
p.r]i>
eo/Kg
<ye
ev ai/ro?? olov
<yi
Bice
Ttjv
O!
K.T.A.
pel*
<yrjv
ovpavov
KO.\
TOV
ddpaTov
-KO.VTO.
\KOV<TI
257
certainly necessary to
do,
that
even
without
the
province of regular dialectics, they out of the Eleatic system, and of this
to account this passage also as an instance, unless some one can give a better founded
explanation.
As opponents of the
Aristippus,
also of
latter
materialistic empirics,
of Democritus and
in his
for
mind the
the two,
Again, no less
may seem
whom,
the
to
precedes,
for
instance,
who
look upon
existent
and in particular as double or triple, since so many have equal pretensions to be considered, and then again
when we come
fectly
to
is
per
satisfactory.
loss
;
At
to
first
the reader
to
may probably
is
be quite at a to be referred
the
know
language of our dialogue Plato could wise denote what Aristotle calls the setting
principles,
up of
in
these
references
all,
in
clouds.
Least of
the
whole
however, will the appearance and tone of passage allow us to surmise the existence
of an allusion here to any thing abstruse, and advanced And quite as only by a few less-known individuals. little, certainly, to the Pythagoreans, although it might
otherwise be said of them, most appropriately, that their existence is threefold, divided into the finite, the inde
finite
school
is
and the privative, but as no reference to this occurs anywhere else in the whole dialogue, it
it
in this passage;
but as Aristotle also at the beginning of his books on Physics says of all those who assume
K K
258
the existence of a fundamental matter and two opposite
functions,
that they set up these principles, so also Plato has here especially in view the old Ionic philoso This seems also to receive confirmation from phers.
the a
circumstance of his
threefold
separating
those
who assume
a
from
those
twofold
existence,
though he does
superficially.
For
it
is
may be supposed
to
have
was given,
simple
to to
be
comprehended under the functions, as seems It is only have been the notion of Anaximander.
named, that as
far as
we know
threefold
parts of the
with
one
another
would
to
apply.
Should,
still
be liable to
case,
much
may
perhaps be the
that
we
are on the
Muses*,
are
docles
intended.
express testimony of Simplicius, but the comparison of our passages, as well with what we know of the two men from other sources, as also with
only
the
the
way
in
is
elsewhere
to
establish
also
the fact.
Quite
as-
undeniable,
as
Tennemann
has already
observed,
who do
community
every thing independently and for itself, or tain the proposition that a false assertion
*
who main
enunciates
P. 242. C.
259
nothing.
fail to
force themselves
upon
several
the
of
in
those
the
readers
accompanied
us
prosecution
through
dialogues.
A more
the other,
is
Sophist and
one side,
every even though it should be considered in a negative preliminarily, point of view alone. Hence it is natural to start the ques
close
indicated not only externally by the more passive condition of Socrates in these three dialogues, but must also be of itself clear to one, from the
connection in
the
subject-matter,
whether by a comparison of the three it may not be discovered from the dialogues themselves which
tion,
the earliest.
With
can arise as to
the
and
as
Parmenides
critics
have
certainly
in
hesitated,
and,
the
Introduction to that dialogue, have considered the last named as the later of the two. Now, disinclined as
I
by anticipation to what is to come, I would ask any one who knows the Timaeus, whether the foundation of the Timaeus is not laid perfectly and
dialectically
am
to
refer
by the way
is
in
which here,
in the Sophist,
the existent
posites,
brought down
as
as
well
by
the
here upon
the subjects of identity and diversity, and whether it is not clear that our dialogue generally comes much nearer to the Timseus than the Parme
nides
does?
This,
however,
to to
is
intended
to
be
said
is
260
reader only
one
compare the Sophist and Parmenides with another, and observe whether anything whatever
resembling an announcement of the dialogue named after the latter philosopher is to be found in the manner
in
the former Socrates appeals to his conver sation with him; or whether, on the contrary, it is not
which
in
manifest that the notice marking the age of the inter locutors* is there introduced with reference to and in
justification of this dialogue,
has
being intended to bring the appearance Parmenides to the recollection of the reader. If we
the
of
compare further the particular corresponding passages, as for instance that about unity and totality, we shall
unquestionably recognize in the Sophist a surer hand, And we may even find and a more enlarged method.
the
key
a
to
all
that
in
in
the
Parmenides
appears
to
have
double sense,
the
in
way
in
which essential
existence,
and existence
is,
another
sense,
by
partici
pation that
the originally existent and existence in the sphere of contradictions are here kept
so also
and
separate
so
that
it
would be strange
to
have already
however,
let
given the solution here, and then to have set the riddle
afterwards in the Parmenides.
the reader but look to the
first
Above
all,
and the problematical character of the expressions there as to the existence of ideas, and then consider whether
this
character
could have
found place,
after
the
dis
tinction
had been
between knowledge and conception, and that between mere conception and appearance had been further
subjoined here in the Sophist.
*
P. 237.
nT(i/
tjiT
throw a glance of comparison, not upon the Parmenides alone, but upon
it
But
may be
useful
here to
the
remaining
of the
dialogues,
with
the
view
of
availing
ourselves
opportunity of testing from this im portant point the arrangement we have hitherto pursued.
is
that
antisophistic
in
dialogue of which this is a principal component part can be conceived to have been written subsequently to the present, for it would have been as unseasonable in the author as putting the salt on after So supper. complete a process as we have here, by which the sub ject has its place assigned in the order of must
things,
from
its
member
For
a
in the investigation,
work
as
in
it
which
is
the
the
so
predominant
in
as
precede
the
speculation. Moreover, the Protagoras supplies us with yet another, although subordinate point, of comparison. For what was said
vice is here mani and protected from misconception, by the instancing of two species of it, so that we may say that, in this point of view, on
festly intended
in
and
be illustrated,
Sophist brings the Protagoras into agreement with the Gorgias, and on the other, that it forms the transition to that ethical character which
the
predominates in the books upon the Republic. In the which is indeed more anti-rhetorical than antiGorgias,
sophistical,
we
find
the application
type,
and imitation, in order to explain from them the nature of what is false and bad, manifestl with thr
262
appearance of being earlier than
is
it
is
here,
because
is
it
there put only hypothetically, while here it Moreover, the larly deduced and established.
regu
Sophist
rhetoric
known, and sets up a connection between and sophistry, such that they both coincide in the idea of mere appearance. And as the Euthydemus
to
thing
generally
in
is presupposed in the Sophist, and every thing which Plato could appeal to that dialogue is briefly
that
non-existence cannot
is
self-evident,
that
when
man
asserts
falsely
about a thing, he does not speak of the thing at all ; so also, any one may easily see that much that was too shortly touched upon in the Euthydemus, is here
demonstrated more
If we compare further at length. what the Cratylus and Sophist have in common, we can scarcely doubt that the illustrations about types
and imitations preceded the application here made of the same thought especially if we notice the easy
;
way
in
is
satisfied
nation,
type
is
re
semble a
first,
explanations as to
and
in
in
part
while in the Cratylus we find extensive how the type can only be externally the same with the archetype ; and even
in
the
is
manner
first
which
in
the
Sophist
easily
the idea of a
type
introduced,
we may
himself so
observe
the
have
expressed
as
to
the
he had not
be
immediate
points,
in
of things and
actions.
From
an
these
every
appearance
of
inverted
order
263
the arrangement of the dialogues will easily
admit of
being destroyed.
And how
beginning of this dialogue, knowledge, not as resulting from an act of production, but of appropriation ? and how, with his accuracy, should he thus have allowed himself to maintain this
point without further discussion,
if
readers
now
to
much
fully
is
separation of the Sophist from the Theaetetus, notwithstanding the two are placed so closely in connection with one another.
justify
former
occasions,
also
to
the
For
while,
with
regard
these
to
some
the
of
the
dialogues
their
introduced
between
with
the
two,
manner of
been
connexion
clear,
Theaetetus
has
made more
it,
and
again with regard to others, how they are presupposed by the Sophist ; these two circumstances taken in con
junction, become
too
of these dialogues to allow a doubt to arise as to their But it is also imme place with reference to these.
rests diately certain, that the Sophist
upon the Theae and would be perfectly unintelligible without the tetus, distinction previously established between knowledge and
conception, and the suggestions in the Theaetetus respect ing the first, which constitute in fact a sufficient foun
is
is
essentially
Let any one, however, conceive the Sophist to have followed immediately upon the Thesetetus, and
consequently to have contained in can now take for granted out of
itself
all
that
he
the
Menon,
and
264
Euthydemus
to
especially,
it
would
have composed,
further added,
and
to
its
present
difficulties
such
superabundance and
been
of
matter had
then
have
been perfectly unintelligible. Only it is not here in tended to be said, that in completing the plan of this dialogue, Plato projected in his mind those other dia
logues purposely with a view to the future;
is
but this
only to be
understood
in
the
sense
in
which one
may reasonably speak of the natural course of the de velopment of inward conceptions from one another.
Hence,
as to
the assignation
made
at
the
end of the
at
TheaBtetus
the
be
explanation,
any reader,
not satisfied with that given in the Introduction to the Meno, can do this for himself.
VII.
THE STATESMAN.
at
how
every reader Statesman, as the second part of the trilogy announced in the Sophist, is connected with that dia
the
IT
must be
once self-evident to
logue.
But although
annexes
it
takes
place
among
the
same
persons, and
as
it
it
itself in
a continued conversation
in
were with the investigation concerning the Sophist, would be too much to think of viewing the two as and on that account one There reality dialogue.
265
on the contrary, reason to believe that some time in tervened between the publication of the two, especially
is,
we are to give any weight to several particular sen timents in our dialogue, which have fully the appear ance of being intended to defend the Hence, Sophist.
if
we have not
hesitated
to
follow
method of separating the two dialogues from one another under the titles that have come down
fidence, the old
And notwithstanding their intimate connection. indeed the similarity of the two is of such a nature as to direct us rather to place them in juxta-position
to us,
as
as parts of a whole.
to
For they do
in fact,
correspond
construction
more accu
any other two dialogues of Plato ; and whatever difference is to be met with appears only to be the result of the general distinction, that in the
rately
in
something genuine and excellent. Although even in this our dialogue approximates again to the respect
is
Sophist, for
at
collaterally
the
same
with the meritorious object, it time, and with great pains, deduces and
just
as in
the
all philosopher, sketched out collaterally with the elaborate de Thus then our dialogue justly scription of its opposite. the middle place in the occupies designed trilogy, as
meritorious
events
object,
namely,
the
at
it
does in fact form a middle term between the Sophist and the promised description of the Philosopher, as
as
is
near
latter
the
character
of
the
266
impossible not to recognise a great coincidence between the two ex For in the Statesman, as isting parts of this trilogy. well as the preceding part, the object of the whole
Even
in the
very
first
outlines
it
is
problem
is
a delineation,
and
it
is
to
be discovered
in like manner by subdivision of the whole province of art, though proceeding upon a different principle of the Only, as in the case of the Sophist, separation. whole process was not seriously meant, so also neither For scarcely, had this been an essential is it true.
to Plato part of the whole, could we have attributed For instance, under such errors as are here committed.
the department of Command, in so far as it is a part of the province of knowledge ; the office of the mere
exercise publisher of commands is comprehended, in the of which no knowledge, properly speaking, is necessary, and which we accordingly find afterwards numbered
among
in
the merely serving arts. Again, at the end of the whole subdividing process, swine are made to stand
closer
and
more
direct
relation
to
man
than
to
horned cattle, whereupon Plato himself exhibits a little that pleasantry, and afterwards tells us more seriously
man
to
is
that of man.
Similarly
also
in
the
repetition
of
it
the
said
that
this
with
a
in
what
is
said
seriously
touch also of jest ; if that were not the case, would have been justly censured by that well-known bad joke of Diogenes with the plucked hen, which bears accurately enough upon one of the subdividing
processes here pursued.
Plato
And
after the
delineation
has
267
been discovered,
it
turns
the
out
not
to
be suitable, but
more adapted
in
to
For as regards the latter, much that the province of other arts must be belongs sepa rated from the character under that ex
historical
comprehended
to
planation,
in
order thus
This separation now, from a digression upon the enough nature and the use of examples, and which can only be introduced in this place to defend the method em
properly so called.
clear
the statesman
because, as
is
I say,
is
new
process,
is
as
that
as
in
in
the
Sophist,
tried,
method was
in
the
statesman
as
relation
sophist
does
art of
with that
weaving, explained by the former method of subdivision, and as the explanation discovers itself to be one that might have been far more found
The
however,
itself
easily
by
immediate inspection, a digression is here subjoined upon the method of measuring great and small, and upon the measure which every And upon thing has in itself. this, every thing is separated, first from the art of weaving, and then conformably to this example, from that of statesmanship also, which is merely subservient
to
it,
or
is
connected with
the
its
province, as remotely co
art.
operating
this, the
to
And
in
argument
point,
true,
from the
though there
is
268
in
the
art
all
of weaving, and he
artificial
is,
therefore,
notwith
dis
standing
cussion
preparation, by means of a
upon the various forms in the constitutions of somewhat hardly, it might seem, attached to states, And that class which is only subservient to the state.
the connection, which does not appear very clearly,
is
properly
governors governed according to existing laws, if they remain true to the supposition, that such laws are the work of
;
this
that
of
such
states
as
are
a really skilful statesman, are only servants and in struments of such a master but, as soon as they
;
presume
to
throw
off
this
character
of servants,
and
become
and counterfeit statesman, who again, as an imitator, and a bad imitator, corresponds accurately to the sophist,
and
is,
therefore,
and quack.
description
We
of the
see manifestly,
forms of
states,
with
the
exception perhaps, of the few passages relative to their unequal value, is only treated as a means of discovering
the false statesman
;
for as
according to the exer cise of their respective duties come next in the general description, so that at last, the statesman s art remains
statesman
those
who,
as that
which
all
is
to
men
their
supreme over all others, and assigns duties, and then again by a harsh
natural
transition,
connection
being
the
Sophist,
was
incidentally
so
artist,
here
269
the
statesman
it
whom
duty
is
described as a combining one, upon incumbent as his chiefest and almost only
is
to
connect
together different,
and therefore
reci
procally repugnant, natures. If now we look only to what forms the chief thread of the whole, and to the last result, these may certainly
And that indeed, not only to appear scanty enough. the great mass of modern politicians, whose highest
problem
wealth
;
is
ever only
for
how
little
must
at once be clear
enough
is
men from
when
the begin
agriculture,
ning of that
as
process
of separation,
treated
well as trade,
to
reference
the
state.
But
who bring
views
barren,
with
them more
exalted
moral
and
scientific
as
and
last, and only object of the statesman, although to a certain degree an important one, might still not their expectations, and the less, as it does not satisfy
appear
even
once
to
be
this
what
particular
end
to refer;
the
same, or
are to be exercised.
And
as
in
next
suspect,
that
scription of the sophist is manifestly drawn up with an eye to the then state of science, so also here, that of
the
statesman
may
as
litical
nes
as
inasmuch
noblest
in
the
the
views
are
taken
madness of
parties,
and certainly
relieve
the
state
270
from
these,
or
as
preserve
the
it
free
represented
art.
highest exercise
statesman
present dialogue, exactly composition obtain as in the one preceding, and that therefore it may not be in vain to look for the most
the
important conclusions on points which they miss in that immediately connected main-thread, in matter which is
given merely as digressive and incidental. as regards the form of the state, first
For
of
instance,
all,
Plato
gives us clearly enough to understand, that from the rarity of political wisdom the real state can scarcely
admit of any other than the monarchical form but if we, as he also does, leave the real state completely
;
out of the question, and only regard the Statesman as prescribing his laws to another state which is to be an
imitation,
all
three forms
named
s
to
obtain
as
such
but
from
the
statesman
business
or regulating duties alone, it cannot appear under what circumstances he will give to any one state any one of those forms; or when he
of
combining
natures
would prefer
the
fore
to
And we have
us
to
there
digression
upon
the
merits of the
gives
different
forms,
that in
understand
bined
trated
proportion one, or in
as
courage and discretion are com a few, power also must be concen
;
in
him or them
while,
in
proportion
as
the
two are separated, the power also must be loose and disunited, and the state consequently weak in the same
proportion as that main object of the statesman
imperfectly accomplished in of the statesman s art is
it.
is
still
greatly
by
that
271
other
digression
in
upon
the
idea
to
of the
measure,
subject,
it
introduced not
to
reference
defend
the
method pursued.
to
For
subject
s
is
not
out reference
definitely
his
principal
that
art,
Plato
like
explains
that the
statesman
every
in
its
consequently, the true statesman as the scientific phi losopher, must bear within himself, and also, together with right notions of the good and the just for by what
except by this proportion are these two to be defined? implant it in others, that he may be enabled in con
formity with
off the
this,
and
in
common
own
to every part of
it.
With
state
in
to
the
highest
object
of
the
that great
myth
golden age is criticized according to the rule, that no wealth in natural things or facility of obtaining sus tenance, can have any value unless the conversation
and dealing of men with one another and with nature so that at last, nothing conducts them to knowledge
;
remain concealed
from them, which must therefore clearly be the aim of that political art which in the end, when combined
with
all
others,
may
part
Meanwhile,
that
similarity
between
the
Sophist
as
consists in
the fact,
mediate
adduced
pieces,
still
and we must,
further, as
follow
up
that
purport
well
272
as
a few steps.
which appears to have been an Egyptian tradition mentioned by Hero suggested by for if any thing resembling it occurs elsewhere, dotus
as Plato does certainly suppose the single point
which he
forms into a great and important image to be well known by tradition, such resemblance has escaped the transla
tor,
this
far
more comprehensive
tendency. relation of the Deity to the world, or to judge how far it might be available to search in it for the doctrine
ascribed to Plato, that the principle of evil exists and
originates in matter,
To
to
this
down
com
and of the mighty revolutions of human affairs, and at par especially also, of their remarkable retrogression
which he found even his own country involved, especially in a political point of view; and
ticular times, in
it
is
certainly
part of the
is
that
this degeneracy also explained from the absence of from the presence in the state living knowledge, and
of
that
mere imitation
in
which
the
resemblance
to
truth vanishes, more in proportion as the imitation con But whoever considers this description, tinues
longer.
and follows
discover
pression
at
life
it
in
out more according to our method, would not erroneously, the first finished ex it,
views,
of these
earlier
much
again
reproducing
itself.
moreover remarkable,
273
and a task very much
this
to the
myth
with
that
in
the
For
it
is
who pays attention on perus hoped ing this myth, to the manner in which the Protagorean one is here taken up again, will consider what was said
that every reader
about the
In like manner the idea of measure here, has a par ticular, though but slightly indicated reference to the
called, in order
by which it might be conceived that they are only great or small in comparison with one another, so that the same action
would
to
courageous,
and
with
reference
the
other, of a contrary character; or indeed in comparison with the one courageous, and with the other mad and
precipitous,
and that
it
may
measure
in
themselves.
And
given in the Sophist, as the two species of vicious states, disproportionality and disease, are thus shown in their
connection, and the simile here constantly employed with reference to the statesman obtains its proper significa
tion,
now becomes
the physician
inasmuch as he
gradually temper, and together with true notions of the good and just, implants at the same time in all its natural abilities, which, as long as they want
corrects
its
must stand up in rebellion against one another, their true and proper proportion. So that now, by means of a complete adoption of true and correct conception into the idea of knowledge, from
this
essential unity
M M
274
which
the former
in
must
still
first
view returns
all
more exalted
objections,
which
all
knowledge, and
elucidation
vice ignorance.
also, and one which interrupts the main thread of the dialogue, concerning the different forms of the states as they were apprehended and framed by
the Hellenes, is very visibly intended, in connection with comprehensive views, to explain without conceal ment Plato s opinion of the Hellenic States, and of the
constitution
in
particular,
and the
extreme perverseness with which the influence of philo sophers upon the states was depreciated there by the
merely oratorical demagogues, and as much as possible obstructed by them, in order thus to justify at the same time, and place in the proper light what he him
self had in vain endeavoured to perform elsewhere, as a framer of states and teacher of princes, and to proclaim in defiance of all satirical censors, that though he had
not condescended to govern, he nevertheless considered himself and every philosopher as the true statesman
and king. This naturally leads us to observe this further similarity between the present dialogues and the pre
ceding one, that the former
as the completion of one
is
likewise to be regarded
that, namely, against demagogues, rhetoricians, and state-quacks, and that after the thorough handling which they here receive, nothing more was to be brought
mics,
up
as
upon
once a species of perversity has been so fully exposed, particular and incidental ex pressions may indeed be continually called forth
at
now
an end.
When
upon
275
the
same
subject
by
particular
occasions,
when
an
author thinks he
may
an answer,
but such
will
expressions, however pointed they may be, always say less than what has been said before,
after
and hence,
cious
such an exposure as
Plato,
this,
by a judi
readily
writer
like
they
will
not
be
brought forward with such freedom and unsuppressed abundance as we have been accustomed to find them in
other dialogues, which do, therefore, from this circum stance prove themselves to have been earlier written.
To
upon
this
subject,
would be
and accurate a counterpart to our Intro duction to the preceding dialogue, as the Statesman
to write as full
to the Sophist. Only we would request our readers to look at all the dialogues, beginning with the Protagoras; for the particular character to which we
itself is
calling attention runs more or less through and to observe, independent of the similarity of purpose in all, how also the strength and efficiency of
are
now
all
depend upon and correspond with the gradual growth and development of the scientific ideas, and keep pace with that progress, and also, how the
the
polemics
dramatic and
ironical
skill
ceases here
its
to
be so pro
pretensions more in
made
a
And
suffice
servation
will infallibly
the same
time as
justification of our whole arrangement up to the present dialogue, if we take a retrospective survey of that For, first of all, arrangement from this point of view.
it
is
manifest
that
the
Statesman
lays
holds
of
it
the
also
the
first,
and
276
that here as well as there,
briefly
of what had been discussed at sufficient length in the when we recollect in what a help
Euthydemus,
less
Nay,
condition
Socrates
in
that
to
dialogue,
because
the
that
they
condition
discover
observe,
is
same kingly art, we must at the the Statesman presumes what the reader
time
In
like
manner
it
is
clear
upon the idea of imitation, as established in the Cratylus and Sophist, and upon the theory of true conception, which is continually developing itself from the Theaetetus
onwards
perverse
less
as
in the
Gorgias upon
as
the
tendencies
common
state-quackery,
its
being
itself,
positive,
and containing
own
reasons in
is
said
in
that the Statesman again Statesman finally also, resumes the Protagoras, nearly in the same degree as the Sophist does the Parmenides, and that what is
the
of virtue in general, particularly said in the Protagoras and of all the virtues in detail, and in the Laches and
discretion,
which
are
here
apparent opposites, have preceded what we find in the quite of Gorgias on the same subject nay, that all matter
brought
forward
as
must
as certainly
is
here
sum
med up
in a
a political possible for Greeks, namely, and thus preserved entire for future discussions. one, Hence, then, the Statesman together with the Sophist
point of view
constitute
the
middle point
of the
second
period
of
For
form
ele-
the
277
coincides in mentary, tentative, and indirectly delivered, such a manner with the germs of pure philosophical that the two appear as one and the same.
speculation,
And
become more
distinctly
united in a peculiar manner in both separate, they are And in the Statesman this is done by the dialogues. the historical as view, only mythical indeed, taken of
subject
to
the
world
it
itself,
law of nature and conformity of the and in this point of view, our myth, a*
is
is
generally regarded,
such,
and, as
corresponds
approximation
Platonic Republic.
VIII.
THE BANQUET.
having read the two preceding dialogues look and now seeing the Symposium follow, might ask,
A PERSON
to
ing
Sophist,
why
the Eleatic
Socrates enquired what place the Sophist, Stranger, when all these occupy both in Statesman, and Philosopher
dependently
and according
to
their
distinction,
form,
as re
and relation to one another, has answered only And we the third. lates to two of them, and not
him on the one hand, that this Eleatic might repeat to because it would have been a sacrilegious
act
Stranger, to describe
the
sophist
to
first,
has
that
already
mixed
the
up with
him, as
his
attempt
discover
character,
description
278
to
that dialogue;
in
dependent of this
leviated
in,
with
the already
did not
philosopher
also
by
Whence
who
trilogy,
of view, does
consider
it
indeed
continue
on
less
narrow
it will appear in general more beautifully and nobly completed by the dialogue now before us, and the next that follows, the Phoedon. For in these
contemplation, and in joyous communication of the re sults, in the contempt of danger and exaltation above
external things, in the purity of all his relations, and in his inward divinity under that light and cheerful ex
body and But if mind, and, consequently, of existence generally. we were to repeat all this, and no other answer, certainly,
terior
;
in short, in that
perfect soundness of
could be given, it would strike the majority of readers with surprise, because it is unusual to consider the two
dialogues from this point of view, and few only would find in such an account any thing worth notice, the ma jority nothing; because in the two dialogues, even if
more importance
of Socrates than
is
to be
attributed to
still
the description
is
usually done,
279
.1
larger
part cannot be
thrown
entirely
into
the back
ground, and as regards the present dialogue, it may seem as difficult to explain how the preceding speeches about love are to be connected with this panegyric of Alcibiades,
as
is
that panegyric
as
if
the
But our regarded principal part. answer was intended to apply only to the first inquiry, a half which does not pretend to be more than the
former
the
whole.
On
Sympo
sium with the Phaedon, as well as the place which we assign to the former, depends no less upon the lovespeeches than upon the episode of Alcibiades, and our
opinion
only goes to uphold that, from the point of view here established, the whole may sooner appear as
really
we
one united whole, than from any other so that might maintain that whoever considers the Sym
;
posium only with reference to itself, and independently of this connection and purport, as is usually done, sees,
as
far at
least
as regards the
composition, only
beautiful indeed,
as
it
Silenus-form,
still
and
infinitely
more
enclosed within.
to
light,
we must connect
started
in
the
Symposium
which
also
with
the
problem
the
Sophist,
an
nounces a complete trilogy. Now, in addition to the and the Statesman, the third object of Socrates Sophist
*
enquiry is not merely the idea of knowledge and wis dom, but a philosopher, a man also like them, who,
life
of the majority of men, moves notwithstanding a man among men. Consequently, it is not the abstract essence
280
is
to
be described, but
life
its
of the visible
is
this
manifestly
principal point
in
all
his
explanations respect
ing philosophy,
herself
has put
to
on
mortality,
and
as
displays
subject
the
conditions
of time,
a pro
of gressive and expanding power, so that even the life a philosopher is far from a repose in wisdom, but an
and, attaching it to every pro of time and the jecting point, to create in the whole whole of space something upon which an immortality
endeavour to retain
it,
may
is
And when
the
name of
love
given
to
this
endeavour,
only
living
formation, not
of true conceptions
good and just, with which the statesman is engaged, and of which even the great mass is susceptible, but
rather the formation of knowledge in the few who are capable of it, is regarded as a species of procreation,
this is far
it
but from being merely a poetic comparison was absolutely necessary that Plato should look upon both as one and the same, and only view that spiritual
;
procreation
larly
and simi
named energy,
natural
birth
the
was nothing but a reproduction of form and idea, and, consequently, the the same eternal
Now that the immortality of the same in the mortal. of every means of production generally is the recipient
beautiful,
the
same,
that
is,
in
whose particular
is is
life
visibly
peculiarly
innate
this
no elucidation.
the beautiful
When,
is
de-
281
scribed,
the
business
of the
is
object,
to
every other
and object
easily appears to
what Socrates here again repeats, as matter of former dis cussion between himself and Diotima. For it is scarcely
possible that
fact, that this wise lady,
any one should be misled by the single when out of the more general
she
seeks for
idea of desire,
in
of love
love
the
more
contracted
sense,
it,
excludes
this
the
of
from
narrowed sphere.
any one should take occasion from this circum stance to object to our explanation, let him only try
whether
it
would have been possible to place the sub which the purport of Diotima s speech
1
required,
setting aside, by way of beginning, the endeavour after wisdom also, as coming under the idea of desire, in order to obtain for love as its general
without
peculiar
from
the desire to create. But starting the whole discussion this, manifestly displays the uninterrupted gradation, not only from the pleasure arischaracter,
ing from the contemplation of personal beauty, through I that which every larger object, whether single or mani- L_
fold,
may
is
occasion,
in
source
that
is
s
to
the
mind
but
also,
life
the gra- A
procreation
of
natural
to
through
I
of
correct
conception
all
up
that
participation,
in
detail,
in
master-skill
NN
282
that
immediate
knowledge
which
alone
beatifies
and
it
is comprehends within itself all other good ; to be shown how it is in philosophy only, that the
so that
greatest
good
is
the object
of that
an ever-enduring possession, and to make this highest to it alone object immortal in a mortal subject, belongs
as to the highest species of love.
thus appear, accordingly, to have discovered the essential part of our whole work of art, in what So
crates
We
For
about Socrates. says about love, and Alcibiades the former exhibits to us the proper nature of the
it
philosopher,
a totally different external form, but when more closely considered almost accord of the establishment ing to the same method, by means
may be under
of a general idea, and by the separation of the other and Statesman, the nature of species, as in the Sophist
these
real
two characters
is
described,
while
the
life
and
to
which,
as regards the
before
picture,
us in
that
last
panegyric
half
of
Alcibiades,
out,
in
is
a
at
which
though only
so
far
worked
Yet
to discover
the
whole in
half,
love-speeches are to be
looked upon only as embellishment, or as devoted en it tirely to other subordinate points; but, although be an unsound Eros to love any one of these might
speeches,
self,
or
regard
it,
as
of
any importance in
it
as
as
sion
Eryximachus the physician describes that pas his own, yet must they have been necessary
in connection with the rest,
when taken
each in
its
and consequently
and, certainly,
place and
its
kind, beautiful
283
we may
understood
,/
begets upon mortality only what transitory ; and the desire to do this,
tality
is
is
mortal and
a morbid
are
passion,
and
the
left-hand
love,
with
which we
Eryximachus,
given by Pausanias, mentions the cooking art, and consequently reminds us of the Gorgias, and the opposition in the constitution of man there treated of, so that we see how
enlarges
description
instance,
who
the
and
influential
upon animated nature. Thus, they show also, how, if they who have not understood the real nature of the
subject, but start only
feeling, collect
and explain the particular phcenomena, these pheno mena all present a partial and one-sided appearance ;
and the particular
in the speech
details in
of Socrates,
who
conditionally
and
partially
true,
what
is
We learn wrong, and supplying what was wanting. also in them, to examine by comparison what the com
mon language
of that period comprehended as belonging
to the appellation of love,
respect, particularly the speech of Eryximachus is remarkable, whose phy siological and medicinal notion of love is ludicrously
it
in
this place.
And
284
introduced by means of the
interruption occasioned and for that very by the hiccough of Aristophanes, reason is not again particularly referred to in the speech And as these speeches show us the dif of Socrates. and the not-philosopher, ference between the
little
in
do they also, in enunciation and expression, partly by means of a loose, unconnected extravagance, partly by a corrupt musical
their
so
rhetoric,
sophistical expedients
our dialogue and the two preceding, in which likewise, as we have endeavoured to show, the polemics against
the
sophists as pretended dialecticians,
and demagogues as pretended politicians, constitute no small part. In like manner these speeches, of which
cians
each
is
distinguished
from
the
other
by a
peculiar
manner, which the translator has endeavoured as far as to imitate, are certainly not deficient in Pla
possible
tonic polemics.
For
it
is
that
these peculiarities
tended to
show
introduced were generally accustomed to speak ; since, as several among them do not seem even to have been
authors,
as
Phaedrus,
to
Pausanias,
Eryximachus,
and,
supposing them
have been
alive at
were far from being generally appearance of the Banquet, known, it would have been lost labour to imitate them,
285
than well-known orators and authors, and indeed such as laboured after a which was the creation not theory of philosophy, but only the instrument of a false Eros, where one cannot avoid of the thinking
particularly
later
al
Aristophanes
whole
style,
turn certainly excepted, so beautifully imi tates those of the poets themselves, that it seems to me to bear a striking to that told Pro
similarity
the comic
tagoras in the dialogue that bears his name. upon the whole,
by So
that,
Sydenham may
that
certainly
this
have been
the
right
when he conceived,
imitated
in
dialogue
those
persons
may
be not so
much
actually
introduced to speak, as others represented name, only that he himself followed too
under their
slight
hints,
in
his
particular decision;
where
to
we
will
not
imitate
so
the matter
as
it
much
the rather,
belongs
not to our object to follow out such points. But, on the other hand, without these the relation
speeches,
of
the
Symposium
is
to
other
dialogues of
so
earliest,
open
refers
it.
much
that
these
dialogues
intentionally
will
introduced
into
Every
by
this
reader, for
instance,
naturally
be reminded
work of the Phsedrus and Lysis, as when we were engaged with that we were compelled dialogue
to refer in
To the Phsedrus there anticipation to this. appear references sufficient in the first speeches, espe cially where the relation of the lover to the beloved object is spoken of, to render it unnecessary expressly to bring them forward. But several of these speeches
have, more especially, a peculiar reference to the Lysis,
286
as
they respectively take up respective points of what was there laid down as the ground of friendship and
love,
logue, of the over-sceptical tenor of which complaints might with justice be made, finds here its appropriate
solution.
ral
Thus Phasdrus
the
way
lays down in the most gene endeavour after the good as the ground,
it
as
Pausanias, though he does not expressly say it, speaks more of resemblance whence he gets a twofold love,
:
Eryximachus fur
there is a sympathy between oppo and Aristophanes lastly gives a comic principles, dress to the theory which maintains that love tends to
a .union
as
of counterparts.
His view
is,
that
not all
good, appropriating and informing, is the counter part of being, but that the notion to be entertained,
in
speaking of the good as the object of love, is a supplementary completion of the sensuous unity of ex
istence.
And
is
criticized
by
sets
up;
whence
is
it
is
easy
to to
see
reject
how
the
far,
and
in
what
sense, he
compelled
and how he would certainly have adopted that theory if it had only been a little more accurately defined.
And
with
here
we can
illustrate,
from a particular
side,
and
a view to showing its correctness, the arrange ment we have adopted of the dialogues up to this point. If we first consider the Lysis, it now becomes incum
bent upon us to show satisfactorily that this dialogue must stand nearer to the Phaedrus than to the Ban-
287
quet, and
it
why
to
it
must do
so.
And
this
is
seen,
as
me, evidently enough from the different appears form under which the notion common to the two dia
is
stated in both;
the Lysis, indeed, quite inartificially, as being derived from the common conversation of ordinary life, so that it can be considered only as a feeler in refer
as
something, as
cessary
were, which might be true, if the ne confirmation were added. And what confir
it
mation then
surprise
at
?
is
there here,
his
the
theory
brought
of
a
wise
Diotima
in
The analogy
mean
precisely
similar
department, namely, the notion, treated of in the Theaetetus, of true and every reader conception will certainly be put in mind, even though it is not
:
another
is is
no real opposition as the peculiar ground of the certainty with which this theory may be enunciated. If, therefore, these con
of non-existence
namely, that
it
when
why
ciated the ly
?
We
in
that
dialogue only
Thesetetus, and
when
its
once
place
time,
there,
to
it,
it
becomes easy,
force
it
we would
assign
to
to retrograde a
dialogue at
and remain in
its
;
natural
position
if
immediately we bear in
there
made upon
the
weakness of
For
Plato
s
as soon
we
have
become
fully aware
that
whole
288
that in
which he
in that
character
of the sexual passion and the sexes; and, consequently, if we are not to be surprised to find here precisely
the
thought, we must allow that in the Symposium love is discussed in a more judicious, manly, and, that style being supposed, more perfect manner, than in the PhaeAnd this because the philosopher is now no drus.
relation longer satisfied with that youthful idea of the between the lover and the individual loved, even in its
most sublime
sophical
sense,
as
a representation
of the philo
impulse, declaring it only proportioned and appropriate to the notions of a beginner; and because
the desire to
generate
object,
is
now no
longer
according to
and in
itself
immediately divine,
principle,
in
though only
in
so far
in
as
that
principle
exists
the mortal
being,
;
show that
ledge herself appears as mortal is ever immutable and self-consistent, but only as that which is ever renewing itself; and therefore, confined
between two periods of time, is in each several instance only recollection going back to its eternal and perma
nent archetype ; and she endeavours to show that love cannot in any way generate the eternal nature and im mortal essence of knowledge, but can only generate for
it
its
vivifies
289
it
in the individual,
to
another,
makes
whatever pains she takes, are available only to those who know from the Statesman, that the finite, as such, is never the immutably permanent and self-identical,
and who, being already acquainted with the doctrine of the suggestion of knowledge, and the relation it
bears to
its
Menon
and elsewhere, only require some still more palpable assistance. So that from this point also, the place we
have
assigned
to
the
Symposium
is
acquires
additional
justification.
more, our general arrange ment receives remarkable confirmation from what Dio-
And what
love.
tima says of the gradual advances in the mysteries of For this gradation harmonises most accurately
with
tion
the
in
continually developing philosophical specula the works of Plato, so that he here, uncon
sciously
perhaps,
as
is
often
the
case
with
beauties,
most elegantly exhibits a mirrored likeness of himself. For first of all, the Phsedrus with its enamoured pre ference for one object, is excused as a work of youth;
then
the
beginner rises
to
the
contemplation of the
the
political
such as
we
find
in
it,
the
with
the
dialogues
connected
the modifi
still
Then come
cations of knowledge, in their plurality indeed, but as modifications of knowledge, consequently, with
the
consciousness of the peculiar character of knowledge as exhibited from the Theaetetus onwards; and thus the
mind
rises at
absolutely
beautiful,
as
it
is
and, as producing
in-
290
dividual beauty in the world, both moral and material? will manifest itself to us in the last and later division
of his works.
For the determination of the time also when the we find yet further some evi dialogue was written,
dence, though of an
uncertain
character,
in
the
in
ana
the chronism already censured elsewhere, by which, of Aristophanes, mention is made of the destruc
speech after tion of Mantinea, which followed four olympiads at the death of Socrates, and it is certainly true that
the time
when Plato
been fresh in
men
recollection must have been as vividly suppose that this renewed at the time when preparations were made for the restoration of the town, and do we not therefore
still
and second? piad and the hundred The characters, with the exception of the otherwise
sufficiently
well-known poets, have been already intro duced in other dialogues of Plato, and in Wolf s In
troduction
to
his
edition
of
the
Symposium, enough
for the satisfaction of every reader is compiled together But why these persons in particular, and about them.
their
mouths by Plato,
of them, might be a
many
s character as found Only we might regard Agathon ed upon historic truth, and we find Phaedrus here, he was described in the dialogue that partly because as a bears his name, as a great friend to speeches and
still
more
decisively
As
his
to
regard
291
friendly relation to Socrates,
sation
for as an honourable
compen
from the
what
Apology
especially
when we take
clouds
;
perhaps also to
show how
entirely all
bad
feel
ing had vanished in him who had in earlier times written that beautiful epigram upon the poet, notwith all the satire which the latter had aimed at standing
the
philosopher.
IX.
PELEDON.
IT now becomes incumbent upon us to explain more accurately the proper meaning of what has already been
said
preliminarily in the Introduction to the Sympo sium, as to the relation and connection between these
two dialogues.
us,
Now,
if
the reader
by way
of experiment,
that the
Symposium and
that
the
the
of
connected
with
the
other
two
already
Sophist and the Statesman, we would then, in order that a more accurate view of the
subject
fact,
may
is
that in
speech
of
Diotima
the
passion
for
wisdom
in
expressly excluded out of the idea of love, order that this province may be assigned solely to
is
as
were thus made to another place which might at once, and of itself, be regarded as a prefatory indi cation of the Phaedon. For it cannot certainly be
denied, that
if
the good
is
ev
Symp.
292
then wisdom for
its
own
sake
is
to
be the
predomi
nant object of the love of wisdom, so that this feeling as essentially belongs to a man s life and conduct, as
the communication and engrafting of
wisdom
the
in others.
And
the
it
is
peculiarities
of
philosopher,
his relation
to
sophist
and
the
statesman
as
is
fully
defined.
For the
as
states
man
their
such
also
creates,
but only
kind the superior natures which are thus diately between the furthest extremes,
made
most
susceptible
of
knowledge
so
that
the
of his love out of philosopher best receives the object the hands of the true statesman, in order then to
create
and perfect
in
that
object
the
is
higher
also
life
of
knowledge.
in
dialectic
And
the
engaged
confined
in
separation
as
he
is
to
world of sense,
he
adheres
obtain
plea
sure
and
vanity,
will
only
the
terrestrial
copies,
and
thence
The
to
acquire the
self-existent,
and
to
preserve
knowledge, and, therefore, in order to exalt pure himself to the archetypes, in which alone it is to be
in
found, he seeks
they dwell, the influence of
this
is
his soul, in
which
work
alone,
and go
free
from
sense
and matter
desire
to
collectively.
And
that
passionate
that
wish
for
death
at
in
described
here,
the
beginning of
work,
and
out
of which
all
the
it
following
investigations
develope
themselves.
this
But,
for
will
is
wish
death
in
the
philosopher
Plato
opinion,
still,
it
does
not
293
form the most principal subject-matter of the Phsedon, but appears only to subsist as an introduction, and an
occasion
subordinately giving rise to the souPs upon immortality, which that to which the chief importance
that
all
the discussions
constitute
clearly
is
attached.
Now,
subject of immortality, at least, goes equal shares with that of the wish for death, I am not going
to
the
deny, only
let
it
that the
possibility
repeatedly interwoven
specting immortality, and that as regards our author, the two are in fact most For intimately combined.
the endeavour after knowledge could not exist at all under the form of a wish to die, not even in a philo sopher, if it were necessarily, at the same time, a wish
if the soul is to apprehend the L which is not subjected to origination essentially existent, and destruction, and to all the conditions of imperfect
^
for annihilation.
And
__
---*--..
M -i
.-
-I,
--.
n^-
existence,
it
can
only
do
so,
(according to
the
old
principle, and one, which in this argument must be always born in mind, that like is only apprehended
by
like,) as
manner
with
as regards
is
is
knowledge men, and conversely, the reality of knowledge the ground upon which the immortality of the soul
most
certainly
and
easily
also,
understood.
Hence,
in
the
former
dialogues
investigated,
investigated
knowledge was always presupposed and and one may say, that, simultaneously
immortality
;
in
which
was
dialogue
closely
294
combined.
the connection
of these two points in the sense in which Plato meant no longer hesitate to place the Phaeit, will certainly don and the Symposium together, and to recognise the relation of the two. For, as the love there
reciprocal
described
exhibits
the
endeavour
that
to
connect
the
im
such,
away
from
the
mortal
and
with
the
two
are
one
another.
knowledge removing further from the and appearance, and to sphere of imperfect existence from it, it is but a return be at last entirely separated
be continually
fairly
in this
condition,
it
as
it
is,
not
to interest itself
con
not endowed with soul, first, to tinually in every thing move longer knowledge in other souls destined to
engraft
in
this
sphere.
itself
And
its
if
the
soul
exerts
to
introduce
love
truth
into
others,
the
only
proof
it
of
for
them
that
can
be
given
truth alone, and fly as far is, semblance of it. Now, of these as possible from the two essential characteristics in the conduct of a philo
that
adhere
itself to
in each of our two dialogues sopher, one predominates did although their necessary connection respectively in that respect not admit of a complete separation,
;
also
entirely
corresponding
to
the
character
of
the
For, as the second period of the Platonic composition. of Diotima could not description of love in the speech at all without reference made to pure contem exist
plation,
so also in this dialogue, where, properly speak
is
represented,
wo
find
manifold
295
allusions throughout
live
to
with sympathetic
common
as regards Socrates,
in order as
is
were to
represented as
already essentially completed in his own peculiar circle. And this leads us also to remark how the dramatic cha
racter in both dialogues appears so very analogous, and indicates the same relation. For, in the Symposium,
eminently exhibited in the joyousness and pride of life, though it is not forgotten at the same time how he is plunged in philosophical contemplation, and can postpone all else to that ; in the Phsedon, on
is
Socrates
the contrary, what appears most prominent is the tran and cheerfulness with which he expects death, quillity as the liberator from every thirjgf that IrUeTrupts"" con
templation
theless
interrupt
accustomed
social
practice,
but
even with the fatal goblet will observe the sacred cere monies of the festive meal. It is, indeed, al
generally
lowed that
scription
little
is
to
be met with
in
its
in
the
way of de
this
more beautiful
but
kind than
of
the
not completely dying filled with the greatness of the subject before the two of the same man, that images given here and in the
Socrates;
still
the
mind
is
into one.
should be asked why, if the case stands Plato has not done this himself, and in thus, general worked up into one piece the description of the phi
losopher in his two-fold character,
since
we may
reply,
that
himself, this
question on
the one hand goes too far, and it cannot be incumbent upon us to give an explanation of the
296
tact;
it
is
to the progress
which even
at
the philoso
phy
to so
all
itself
of Plato had
it
made towards
upon the form
perfection,
and
;
the influence
that
had
of his works
without total separation, there yet prevails in of them a preponderating antithetical character, and
the
are
nected
exactly
in
are.
the
the dialogue
particularly
we
are
influence
is
reflected in
the opposition between soul and body, two things which, but regarded from without, are quite distinct enough ;
still,
when the
be completely
rest,
For the
however,
been
this
so
strictly
and
literally,
third part of the trilogy which logues constitute the was promised in the Sophist, as if Plato, fearing the same form, had now deter frequent repetition of the mined to exhibit the philosopher in a different way,
and because, instead of the somewhat dry ironical sub drama division, he had again chosen the most elegant
tic
was by that perhaps induced to divide his subject, and thus constructed the two dialogues with one another, and sketched them at the same time. For this would be too dry and mechanical a process for us
form,
he
to think of maintaining
it.
easily
have
let the trilogy go unfinished, thinking that his readers now turn a speech in the Phaedrus to the con
might
struction
of
philosopher
after
the
manner
of
the
earlier
297
and
later in
point of composition,
been
the case,
still,
which he might But even supposing this to have and this is all, properly
to
speaking,
which we maintain, in his progress or his career as an author the same problem must necessarily have re turned upon him under another form. For our two
as the Philebus forms the first, second point of transition from the dialogues that have and were characterized preceded, by the indirect pro cess to those that follow, which belong to the immedi ately constructive class. And, when Plato was
dialogues
form
the
once for
all
to
upon method, and wished yet connect together what he had surveyed
already used, and what, although without where enunciating the results with every equal precision, he had also in reality taught and established, when he
by
the one
wished to conclude the old matter as well as prepare way for the new, what could be a more natural result than that he should describe the of a
the
according to his
now
deed,
come
a
way?
It must, in
always remain
remarkable
circumstance,
and
one that might point to an earlier period for the com position of this dialogue, that that dramatic character,
the dialogues immediately preceding had al most vanished, and in the Philebus again is likewise
in
which
much
these
suppressed,
comes out
were in
place,
its
in
two,
as
it
last
But, in
there
is
the
first
every
no other dialogue, and least of all is it the case with the earliest, as the Phsedrus and Protagoras,
p P
in
is
so
completely part
and parcel
with
never
it
the
this
itself
subject,
or
so
intimately identified
it
as
dialogue,
in
its
and
could
therefore
display
And
in this display may have given occasion to the Symposium, first, which we know certainly upon of other grounds not to belong to the earlier works which cannot be denied Plato, that apologetic tendency of to exist in it, and for which a living representation ad the Socratic mode of life must have been of great
vantage
of his
in
own
the Phsedon, probably, Plato s recollection Sicilian affairs, and the wish to show how
was that a cowardly fear of death should impossible it It exist in the breast of a true disciple of Socrates.
is
therefore
by no means the
that
Symposium
alone
determines
as
the proper
Phiedon in the works of Plato. place for the that it is that combination of should we
say,
Rather
all
that
so
that particular relation pre point; and then, whether sents itself in a light more or less clear, can make
but
little
difference as regards
first
And
that
it
of
all,
it
is
only on
those
that
the
are
from
that
the
works to
would be
the
in
previous account
the per*
son of Socrates here gives us of his own advances in the turns in his philosophical career ; speculation, and of
how,
for instance, he
the study of that philosopher, the idea of the good, and the supremacy of reason as the highest norma of
299
all
cosmical
contemplation,
first
shot
upon him;
how
by
the dialectic
method he convinced
himself of the
unsoundness of the Empedoclean doctrine of physics, and therefore, so long as his own ideas were not sufficiently clear and distinct to follow them out and
plenarily
as
and
this applies
par
his
speculations
upon
in
the
Eleatic
and
Heraclitic
culations,
result
of those
alone
is
found
the
constant
as
connected
with
the
changeable, and real unities as connected with plurali ties, and that it is only upon them, and the relation
of things to them,
that knowledge or
science of
this
any
And
principle
first
restraint,
and
with
much
reference
made
to
the
construction of science, that every reader who is familiar with the Platonic turns, and the value of Platonic ex
pressions,
must very
easily
see
that
this, the idea of the good had ceased to be too strange to him, or too obscure to him any longer from prevent
that
to.
principle the
two
are
here alluded
But every
really
attentive
this
de
cided inclination to pass at once from the Phsedon to the Timaeus, until he reflects that in Plato s specula
generally precede the physical, and on the other hand, that the idea of the good itself was still susceptible of more accurate explanation, and
indeed,
tions,
tions
the
ethical
more
especially
at that
time
still
and
we have,
therefore,
yet
pass through
the
Philebus
300
and the Republic, of both of which the germs mani
festly
it
And again, appear in this place in the Phaedon. can hardly escape any one of sound and unpreju
mind, that
still
diced
the
doctrine
of
the
in
its
soul
last
is
in
our
of
1
dialogue
imperfect,
though
in
stage
mythological chrysalis sheath, as in the Phsedrus, but like the just emergent
longer
butterfly,
developement,
no
whose wings only want to grow to maturity, And a process which a few moments may complete. this circumstance in the case of the Phaedrus, points
For the manner in which very nearly to the Timaeus. the soul is here described as producing life generally,
and as related
proximate to and we observe here exactly the appearance of an authors only producing so much of one subject,
to to
immutable essence, does indeed ap strict definition, but still is not definition
to
itself;
is
to
be devoted,
every
reader
must grant
still
As then
all
these allusions to
its
what
is
to
come,
place before the last great works of Plato, though in such a manner as to bring it near
assign the Phaedon
to them, so also, all references to the dialogues
its
already
given determine
to the dialogues
in
For,
if
we look
that
in
in the order
which
they
here
published,
we
find
that arrangement the connection which obtains between the Platonic doctrine of knowledge and that of im
mortality
strokes,
has
not
as
inasmuch
is
but only in as, wherever perfect and immutable existence spoken of, in opposition to that which is imperfect
mutable,
and
mention
is
also
made
in
some
way or
301
other
the
of immortality.
It
is
first
brought nearer, by
the
doctrine,
way
in
is
which
in
the
is
Menon
that
into
knowledge
in
recollection,
tangible form,
and to this Plato himself appeals here the Phaedon, perhaps more definitely and expressly
a denial
than he anywhere else alludes to an earlier work. of this appeal would scarcely leave us
For
any
thing remaining, but to suppose that the speech of the Socratic Cebes refers only to colloquial discussions, whether of Socrates or of Plato, and that the Menon
said by Cebes, though but by some one else, a Plato, however, which it would be difficult to supposition, make appear probable to any one who understood the
after this
was composed
had been
not indeed
then by
represented quite clearly contained in the Sophist had preceded; and the ease with which Socrates admits all principles relating to this point to be taken for granted
the
investigations
as long since dispatched,
well
re
ference, inexplicable.
The
theory follows in this place, being the first in which is found ; but here it is quite complete, and that part of the dialogue in which it appears is indisputably
it
agreeably with this sup position, the Platonic Socrates himself clearly lays most
that
And
the soul
by
a similar necessity
and moreover, that there is a similar mode of the ex istence of ideas and of the soul, without the sphere of
that imperfect existence in which
it
appears in
life.
To
disciples this
is
principle
to
which
they
firmly
adhere,
simply.
302
because
it
is
of the reality of knowledge, and they who understand Plato otherwise, or at least foist upon him any other
conception of immortality, as if it were that of which he is immediately certain, and the result of his demon
stration,
this passage,
it
not
to
themselves
without intending
that,
with
those
according
somehow and somewhere, a special and external being, or I know not what, out of nature and out of the mind.
For, with the exception of what is necessarily connected with that higher and truly immortal existence of the
here also followed out as a regular theory, that, namely, the repeated appearances of the soul in
soul,
is
and
the
body always proceed out of the abundance of that immortality, and are real repetitions, and not new crea
with
the
tions;
exception
of this,
Plato
arranges
all
other conceptions and minor points subordinate to that doctrine, as something not homogeneous with it, nor of
considering them
partly
amusing conversation,
and exorcisement
of the baby within us which foolishly fears death, while Thus, they have in part quite a different bearing.
for instance,
ances
the repeated and always perfected appear of the soul in the life of the body are quite
with,
and correspondent to its different places upon the earth, in one of which it may see more clearly, and be less exposed to disturbing influences
homogeneous
than in
another;
but what
it
it
sees
must
still
is
be only con
ception of clearer impressions of ideas that every glimpse of higher and really immortal existence is vouchsafed to
303
Hence, both do in deed serve more to specify the whole province of the soul in the kingdom of imperfect being and of corpo
it,
but only
in
knowledge
itself.
to exhibit or define
more
closely
immor
1
objection,
among many
immortality,
bodies
does
prove
their
an objection which
somewhat harshly and unexpect edly directed against Simmias the disciple of Philolaus, is not covertly meant against the Pythagoreans, who
thought that they had in the doctrine of Metempsychosis demonstrated the immortality of souls, and therefore, produced no more accurate information upon this point;
a deficiency upon which some regret is expressed in an earlier part of the dialogue. Only, let no reader be
misled by
to
this,
suppose
that
that
and by the mention of the harmony, Simmias probably brings forward his
the
is
argument,
soul
may be
after
all
but a dis
position of what
the Pythagoreans.
On
were perfectly agreed with Plato, that only virtue and vice could be regarded as arising from a disposition of the soul itself; and the argument may be rather
considered
as
exclusively
to
in
the
spirit
of the
strictly
atomical system,
this
so that
might scarcely be possible to decide, from whom in is put is particular the dress into which the thought are any to And if there either borrowed or adapted.
whom
the answer
appears,
let
partially
at
least,
obscure
it
and unsatisfactory,
refers
more and
less.
304
and those which,
as
expressing independent
in
existence,
for
themselves
from
this it may be discovered, although it is not quite after our manner of viewing the subject, how far the theory of the disposition may be placed among the former,
and the soul only among the latter. Now without taking into consideration
reference to
this this
general
point,
the previous
dialogues
up
to
by means of the connection between the doctrine of knowledge and that of immortality, further allusions to
other earlier matter
more or
less
Thus,
in
example,
are
also
we
and
further put in
is
mind of
a passage
the
Menon, by what
it
would
seem
here said of public and civil virtue; as if Plato here wished to show
may even
exist
without being
based upon any independent or true principle ; and that view in the Statesman, of the natural qualifications
this
forms
as
it
two.
it
So
also,
spoken
of,
and
described to be rationality, the way in which the Protagoras is referred to, and every possible misunder standing of the dialectics there employed is once for
is
supposes the existence of all the intervening dialogues between that and the Pha?For we are now first enabled to learn, what don.
all
now removed,
necessarily
to
the
subject
of
that
dialogue, comparative degrees of pleasure against one another, cannot consti tute any kind of knowledge. Moreover, the derivation
the
estimation
of different
305
from the dead, of those who are in the natal state, which is here taken generally from a natural law af
fecting every created being, has been already given in the Statesman in a mythical description, which every
one
also,
So
is
laid
foundation
of,
ral speculation
is
said
and earth are participative of the na which must thus necessarily possess
comes between that work and the Timseus, as prepar ing the way for the latter by more minute explana
tions
and accurate
closely
definitions.
we consider
the
what
is
it
here
is
we
in
the
Gorgias,
much more
at
dispas
so
sionately
introduced,
:
and
while
we must
as
earlier
than
the Philebus,
of view, nay,
to prepare
this
seems almost as
the
way
for
still
necessary discussion of
subject, which was to be more mature, more tran But for all quil, and with more regard for nature.
who from
survey
parison
the Phaedon as their point of view, take a of the works hitherto communicated, the com
of this
dialogue
with
the
most attraction from the manifold points of contact be tween the two. And, it will probably be the case
they put aside the Phaedon for a short time, and then fix their attention upon the Phas
with most,
that
if
it
306
to
them too
two
the
and even many in which they discover a ; foretaste of the Timaeus, and they might on that ac count consider the Phaedrus as later than the Phaedon ;
whence
explain
to
myself the
its
fact,
that this
opin
followers.
Whoever,
consequently in a con
the
two,
can hardly, I
to
feel
surprise
when
;
he sees
wiser,
perfect
so
that
it
stands to the Phaedrus precisely in the relation of the dying Socrates to him who still hopes to learn much
from
the
people
part, to
in
the
market-place.
further,
mythical
go
no
!
how
much
more
In this dialogue we hear no sober and judicious is it more of a supercelestial region, and of a dazzling gaze
and no necessity arises to assist the dry un it is certainty of them by an indistinct image; but sufficient, in order to demonstrate the revolution of the
at
ideas,
though con structed indeed upon lore of poets and wise men, is taken from later sources, and such as contain more of
soul, to give a theory of the earth, which,
Nay, though a
for in
special
mean
we
every
particular,
nevertheless, scarcely be disposed to disagree with any one who might suppose that what is said of Socrates treatment of the J^sopic fables, is a justifi
*
cation
tonic
of the fact,
that
in
the
majority
of the
is
Pla
myths
so
little
original
invention
contained.
And how much more finished is the philosophic talent in the Phaedon, how much more definite the connection
307
of the author
s
own
views,
how
the
differently,
first
compared
is
with
that
youthful
joy in
elements,
the
and
complex knowledge
the
young Plato might more easily make Socrates speak so like a youth, than in the Phaedon so like a sage.
Nay, even
if it is to be supposed that Plato, when he wrote the Phaedrus, already professed an acquaintance with the Pythagorean which does however to writings,
us never seem necessary, how very differently is this school treated of, when it appears in the light of distant
complete
then,
as
what
to
is
insufficient
in
their
doctrines.
And
the
proof given
the
soul
;
in
the
Phaedrus, of the
immortality
of
our dialogue upon that point? Or, must not every one see, on the contrary, that Plato set aside this proof, and as it were disowned it, be
cause he
does,
or
God, who
is
the
real
original principle,
the Introduction
to
the
Phaedrus,
except
perhaps,
on the one
first
to
Phaedrus Simmias
ranked
above Phaedrus as
an occasion of arguments, because he occasioned those in the Phaedon and on the other side, those particular
;
passages in
308
enunciated with greater precision than appears suitable
to a
first
piece,
pose
the
and
in
But any one must see except in subsequent dialogues ? at once how little that circumstance will avail against
all
that
we have
passages in the Phaedrus arose from the dialectic ten dency of the dialogue, even when the Platonic philo
sophy
was yet
in
an
entirely
undeveloped
state,
so
that there
may
first
they were
introduced on a subsequent elaboration of the work, although they look sufficiently as if they
so introduced.
had been
to
the
Phaedrus,
there
would be nothing
to
say
in
that
favour of so early a position of the Phaedon, except so elaborate a description of Socrates would have
been in
its place only a short time after his death, that the passage in the Theaetetus about the flight from this world, is intended to be an elucidation of the wish
and
Phaedon
This
analysis, into
which
all
subject
of the dialogue,
has at the same time spontaneously worked itself, will, it is hoped, secure to the Phaedon its place between the
Symposium and
the
Philebus.
Beyond
this,
we
find
no immediate chronological traces, though several indi cations do indeed point to a somewhat advanced period.
We
the
will
draw attention
in
to
two only.
Hellenic
In the
in
first
place,
way
the
myth de
as
scribes
education
the
309
worst district
his disciples
upon
to
earth,
but also
expressly
advises
seek for
among
dress
the
races
late
of barbarians,
period,
of a
where from
probably with the Pythagoreans in particular, the pas sion for the wisdom of the East was excited, and has
dations
an entirely different bearing from particular commen elsewhere bestowed upon the Egyptians, or
Locrians,
or Geta?.
And
in
the
next place,
an
ac
quaintance with the writings of Philolaus is manifestly here supposed, and the dialogue itself sufficiently teaches
that these
in
at
that time
it
become naturalized
to
his
Athens
because
is
only
Theban
friends that
losopher,
who had
is
a knowledge of the doctrines of the phi lived there, is attributed ; and a dif
usually observable in enquiries
ferent style
made
after
writings already
known
at
Athens
a degree of probability, that Plato certainly acquires these books home with him from his travels brought
as
X.
PHILEBUS.
the earliest times to the present, the Philebus has been regarded as one of the most important of the
FROM
also,
as one of the
most
difficult.
Even
those who, strangely enough, consider the great majority of his works only as play and pastime, do
yet think that he
is
310
grown
into
in
who have
view of
its
fortunate in
tails,
most universal bearing, have not been so their endeavours to penetrate into the de
to
perplexed style of expression, and confusion of language upon these points; while they who speak
subject a
easily
and
intelligibly
of the
same,
display
little
else
than the narrowness of their own capacity to see the meaning of such works, and consequently a very defi
cient criticism.
Now
its
in
this result
occupies,
and
with
the
earlier,
will
it,
contribute
to
the
understanding of
adhere to the indications already given. And, next to these, every reader who pays sufficient regard to the structure of the whole, and the way in which the con
nection
a
clear
is
interrupted
and
again
is
taken
up,
may
get
meant beyond what is conception said actually following exactly the recommendations we
of what
;
were obliged to give in the case of the Sophist, to which dialogue the present bears an especial resemblance
in
its
principal
features.
For here
also
we have a
to
which
of the two, namely, in the life of man, the prize is due, pleasure or knowledge, proposed for decision just at the beginning of the work, and as soon as the ques
tion
is
satisfactorily
it
answered
the
dialogue
its
concludes,
as if in this
had
entirely exhausted
subject.
But
is
on closer consideration,
weight and importance
is
we
see
that
much
that
of
intermediately introduced, not essentially connected with the solution of that problem,
311
or of which, at least, as
much
this
as
in,
much
besides.
And
circumstance excites at
the question
started
that
just at the
by no means the only one, not perhaps contain even the main purport
is
commencement
For,
after
the
dialectic
foundation,
which proves that we are not at the outset to consider pleasure and good as two names of one thing, and consequently as identical, and after the allegation of
proof, that neither pleasure nor knowledge are in
selves sufficient,
this is certainly
them
said,
neither of the
two ever appears in reality unmixed with the other, Socrates might have advanced at once to that mas
explanation of pleasure according to its inward essence, and of desire, and of the intermediate state
terly
false pleasure, of
between pleasure and pain, and might have shown how which several kinds spontaneously pre
tions,
from these explana cannot partake of that admixture with knowledge And if he had there necessary in the life of man.
sent themselves to his notice solely
harmless in
all
its
degrees
even
to
the
lowest,
and how every species of it is capable of being combined, and is already naturally combined with pure
pleasure,
the
satisfactorily
thus
have
entirely
gress to
dropped out, supposing this uninterrupted pro have been adopted, consists chiefly of the second
which those two pairs of ideas, that of
the
the defining,
dialectic piece, in
the indefinite,
pounding
312
come
into application, in so far as
it
belongs be disposed to maintain that they are set up here Rather should we say, that only for that purpose. the passage connects itself with that in the Sophist,
will
pleasure that
to
the
whole.
For
in
the
cu),
and constant, and, correspondingly, the necessary union of existence and knowledge in that
ledge, of the fluent
principle which
is
supreme and
original.
And
in
like
starting from the same point, he investigates more closely the mode and manner of created existence, and of the origin of the fluent and
manner
in this dialogue,
constant elements in
it.
For,
in
if
thing
connected
with
form
all
way
be called measure or definite magnitude, there remains nothing to constitute the abstract essence of matter but
the
indefinite,
entirely
of
apprehended comparison which is precisely the same with the absolutely mani
fold,
tially
as
and
never self-identical,
existent.
Now
the fact
thereby,
although
certainly
unin
two
passages,
in
fact
is in part the result of the same subject being here viewed from a different side, and conse
quently needing different forms of expression; and more over, Plato wished to avail himself of the language of
the Pythagoreans, and that the more, because he
is
here
313
already upon his
way towards
show, by so doing, the coincidence between his of thinking and theirs. This
indefinite,
own mode
and
therefore,
the principle of definiteness, here expressed particularly under the schema of number, because this expresses the mean between the infinitely great and unity, are the two sources of created existence; while the real cause
and compounds these two, the eternal nature of Zeus, expressed also under the name of Reason, in which the Sophist had already pointed
it
of
is
This doctrine is certainly expounded very and imperfectly, both as regards the necessities briefly of the reader, and also as compared with that to which
is
supplement, although the exposi has the advantage of not being given in so indirect a form, but more And this part of positively.
tion here
it
to
serve
as
our dialogue might be added to anything in the others that have preceded, if anything can be found tend
ing to justify the opinion, that a full understanding of the philosophy of Plato from his works was only
in
them, could
mind
his other
while,
from others, the best part remain concealed. But we have not been so badly dealt with; attentive readers
who
have
followed
hitherto
the
developments of the
doctrine of forms and original existence, and that which is derived from it, will follow also here. But even to
such
it
surprise,
that
Plato,
when he denotes
causative as reason
or
mind, appeals only to the general feeling of mankind, and when he establishes that principle of indefiniteness
as
314
nature of Zeus, but only bound up with it, in so far as the monarch mind dwells in it, this is a point
upon which,
of the
as the
subject
lies
close
properly
philosophic
speculation
approximates to that which he believed it possible to explain mythically only, not even the immediate scho
lars of the philosopher
were more
scientifically instructed
body and
indefinite.
here said incidentally only of the soul of the universe, intimating rather than explaining
is
Again, what
the
mode of
reference to this
speculation
little
upon
or nothing to do with
dence of pleasure or
This
also
mind how,
soul
is
in that dialogue, the immortality of the demonstrated from the nature of consciousness, to
which
all
opposites
are
subjected
in
it
the sphere of apparent existence, and an alternation, as were, established between a personal existence of the
soul,
With
is
connected the extremely remarkable enlargement which is here given to the doctrine of recollection ; for every,
even
bestial,
desire
is
in
this place
considered in
the
same way
is
as, in the
this doctrine
if
those de
sires also,
the
first
time,
must
315
be based
upon a
object
recollection
of
that
state
which
is
now
the
is
of
them.
And
the
purport
also
of this
is
clearly
instinct
to
be
Now
if
we
im
mediate object of the dialogue, the comparison, that is, of pleasure and and then ask for the knowledge,
connecting link whereby those hints and this discussion are combined together into one whole, we shall find
the answer immediately in that passage in which Socra tes says, that if pleasure were the good, it could be
so only in
the
then
there
would be
and
none whatever
bodies,
and
all
other beautiful
good
things.
He
good
at the
therefore cherished
to
confining the
it
the
life
of
man
but of
same time over the whole sphere of extending created existence, and it must also have been a great object to do this, with one who had made the idea
of the good the principle of the knowledge, not only of man himself, but also of that of all other things.
And
he
wished
at
the
same
time
to
establish
this
common
well
in
the
object of
the
compound, these investigations being only intended to show the relation in which the good stands to it. For
after
and
done,
himself,
first
of
as
all,
as
is
likewise
here
that
material
things the
they
object
only the idea of them, as that which the former try to resemble, though they must ever fall short of perfect
similarity,
then, and
not
till
then,
could he pass
to
316
the
speculation
is
upon man
as
this
well
as
nature, and
the
Philebus
eminently, in
respect,
the
immediate
From
ficult
this
to
be
much that was dif point of view then, understood or overlooked by the majority
of persons
How, for be pretty easily explained. descend to the fourth instance, knowledge and pleasure instead of taking the second and third. and fifth
may
For
and
places the end the two opposite theories therefore the formal elements of the
at
are
united,
compound
to material things, depends, and which are also common ranked first, and that which exists in men in par are
ticular,
and as the compounding power, is admitted to be ab of the first place, obtains solutely good and worthy
And the reason is this, it is not here only the third. here the divine and most supreme mind that is spoken is exalted above all of, for the true and divine Reason
and is presumed to be re struggle for the precedence, in the highest cognized and acknowledged as the good
sense,
but of that
as
which has
itself
entered
into
the
compound
scurity
such.
to
not
truth, which
Socrates
of every compound, and without which none whatever can exist, is now according to what is here said, made
convertible with mind.
planation, that mind,
certainly
fore
also,
first
We
in
ex
as
and there give reality to material things, stands be the mediating power, rightly
elements
of
the
tween the
general
created
good and
317
those which are peculiar to man. Another point too, be understood appearance not less obscure, can
in
only
upon a
identical,
similar
view of
it.
It
is,
why
Socrates
first
explains proportion and beauty as to a certain degree and then again separates the two in the most
decided manner.
And
the explanation
is,
that
it
is
by
the presence of definite measure generally that a thing first attains and becomes a thing; while individuality
beauty,
although limited
to
by
definite
measure,
is
the
must now be
what sense our dialogue intervenes immediately and next between the Phgedon as its immediate ante
cedent, and
the two
constructive
works,
the Republic
if
is
we would go back to the farthest possible point, grounded upon the Parmenides, but next and im
mediately upon the Sophist, to the dialectic profundity of which it is supplementary by sensible and palpable clearness. And partly on this account, and in part be
cause the reference to the Republic, and, consequently,
the ethical character,
has
not,
like
the
though
good
mankind,
foundation of the books upon the Republic, because it is only after a decisive subordination of pleasure that the idea of a really common life can be estab
lished
otherwise
it
merely
remains
to
mediate
the
very naturally
recommence
point.
318
the principal matter now of the dialogue, which concerns the comparison of pleasure and knowledge, it be said that it again takes up and perfects the
Of
may
Theaetetus and
the same
we place
of false
these
two dialogues.
is
conception
set
exactly
in
up
the
Thesetetus, though
lost
in
that
dialogue
its
it
to
the
many
under
sceptical
and
relation of perception to that con generally, the whole which contains at once the assertion and the ception
judgment
sure,
in
itself,
it.
supposes
the
Theaetetus
and
is
supplementary to
And
the disquisition
upon plea
manifestly an excellent and finished physiological view, is in like manner partly a repetition of, and what is said in the Gorgias, partly supplementary to, and penetrates far deeper into the nature of
certainly
the subject.
as
it
And
is
more
the present dialogue, in proportion mature and judicious than that, is also
Plato here justifies as necessary the harsh treatment which the advocates of pleasure there receive, if, without thinking of the persons, the theory
more
charitable.
is
to be exhibited in
its
true
light
yet
how
slightly
Nay,
the
art
of speaking,
there
degraded so low,
we
here find an extenuating sentiment. Even tragedy and comedy are spoken of in a different feeling, although
the ingenious
find
manner
point,
in
upon
class
that
that
certainly
his
repug
nance, at
this
time certainly
composition.
of
of
Not
319
Republic had at that time been actually and the sentiments we meet with in them are written,
upon
the
here to be defended.
said
by way of preface
to the form,
its
it
as
re
As
in
is
indeed
the
Philebus,
inward
construction,
nearly
indirect
enough resembles
series.
the
its
main
dialogues
dress,
of
it
this
But
in
outward
may
with justice be accused of a degree of negligence, and it will be an universal opinion, that in this probably
respect
as the
it
does
not
furnish
majority of the Platonic works up to this point. That peculiar dialogic character which we are accus
tomed
come out
into proper
relief, the dialogue does not form itself spontaneously, as the origination of the subject is put behind the scene, for which the dramatic position which Philebus
thereby obtains is no compensation whatever. I should rather say, that Plato disdained making preparations for introducing a subject which at that time afford ed matter of general discussion and In like
dispute.
manner
ions
the
transitions
are
the
result
neither
of
the
and objections of the interlocutor and his par ticular disposition, but the whole lies in the ready head of Socrates, and comes out with all the
person
ality
In
transition clearly to the properly constructive works, the dialogic charac ter begins to be only an external form, from which
short
we may
see, that
here in the
Plato cannot escape, partly from habit, partly he will not dispense with Socrates. Perhaps
cause
because
it
is
be
he
feels
the
320
lie
do not indeed produce any very particu logue, which lar effect: the conversation sometimes becomes meaning
less,
and somewhat pedantically twisted in order to in troduce something more than the ordinary formulae of So that one might
character
is a certain say, that there
answers.
unpleasant
spread
over
these
conversations
is sur upon pleasure, that we observe that the author hitherto feited with the indirect method of proceeding
all
his
APPENDIX.
I.
THEAGES.
THE spuriousness of the Theages has been already recent times so often pointed out, and from such a variety of sources, that a particular allegation of proof in support of that opinion is now no longer necessary. For, such readers of Plato as can pride themselves
in
upon any degree of critical perception or skill, will have ere this discovered the grounds of it themselves, and as regards those of a different description, such a
judgment
is
by a
sufficient
frequent repetition of
present instance, they
and such a
find.
repetition, in
the
may
The
of this
fable,
if
expression,
little
a
are
pupil,
mentioned
the
final
Apology
sentence
dead
before the
philosopher.
wise
known
we know, Theages is not other than from two notices of him in Plato
far as
As
himself,
of showing
whether
he received
much
or
little
benefit
the acquaintance of Socrates, late enough certainly, after the Sicilian overthrow. In the dialogues of Plato, in
deed, the adoption of a pupil is never brought so forward or made so immediate an object our author, however, has had in his mind, as a model to work
;
322
in
how though without understanding of it into to interweave the more profound meaning
the
Thesetetus,
his
composition.
For Plato
is
principal
passage,
influence
which
to
show how
not
upon
his
disciples,
entirely
to
the consequence
to
ac
cording
method of proceeding, exactly Socrates succeeds with some pupils and not with
a
similar,
others,
or predetermination; by virtue of a divine ordinance this point he has fallen into a and in illustrating
strange
distorted
amal-
voice;
crates
o-amation of this divine ordinance, and that personal preO sentiment which, with Socrates, becomes a heavenly in the Apology, where So whence the
is
the
little
dialogue
in
the Theaetetus
that
make
daemonic
intimating as
it
were by
this,
owed
himself to feel a decided presentiment ; hence there might be for a time among his hearers those who were
easily
incapable
advantage from his philosophy. But he makes the voice come in then, and not before,
of drawing
would attach himself, bemust have a cause, then certainly the inward feeling worthiness is to be re voice to decide, whether the un of seduction from without, and garded as the effect love for the true and good, the return of a
when an unworthy
disciple
genuine
or,
323
of the internal nature, and the return on the contrary That Plato in that passage alludes to ungenuine. particular cases besides the Aristides whom he names,
is
whether of the disciples of Socrates or his own, will be clear to one, but even this particular allusion every
does not seduce him into going beyond the character which in the Socrates attributes to that dae Apology
monic
sign.
mean, that it was merely a warning Our author on the contrary, while he enunciates
sign,
literal
this
in almost
the
Apology, does,
this
in
exceed
as
principle,
power which comes regularly to the assistance of some persons and works This influentially for them.
indeed immediately attributable to his superficial and confused views of that in the Thesetetus, and passage
is
more remotely,
fact,
that he foists
upon the daemonic voice a particular and personal ex istence, and changes the daemonic feeling into a little
daemon, a conception agreeable to no genuine Platonic passage, and which must be recognised as quite uncrates in the
supportable, from the manner especially in which So Apology contradicts the accusation brought
against
him of
infidelity,
as
was
there,
we hope,
satis
factorily shown.
And
found
stories
other dialogues foisted upon Plato, for the most part to resort to necessary
as in
it
is
little
to
taken from antiquity or foreign parts, in order disguise the poverty of the subject-matter, so in
this,
two
little
stories
are
to
introduced about
foretell
the
this
daemon
such
results
power of as must
have depended entirely upon accidental circumstances; power of which Plato never knew any tiling, and
324
which
is
phon. that misled by a passage in the Euthyphro, in which with the voice of Socrates his own person connects in individual impulse, by virtue of which he predicts, The two the Ecclesia, some accidental event or other.
stories
not even justified by the expressions of Xenosuffered himself to be Probably, the composer
moreover present,
in
themselves,
a sufficiently
For one of them, which concerns strange appearance. is not brought to an a well-known Platonic
personage,
end, and
is
it
we
to suppose
or whether he found generally known, or whether he did not elsewhere in the same form,
to extricate himself out of his talk
it.
know how
had begun
when he
an undertaking, the nature of which is utterly unknown would it to Socrates; not to mention that we have, with very into company seem, the wise man brought
inferior
in
people,
and of a
class
Plato.
bad imitator appears from under the mask he has put only too manifestly
In
other
respects
also,
the
on.
be
politics
stated, badly the proposition that the stated, out of the Euthydemus, the works of all other arts rules over
is
How
or fails
art
!
to
of
How
induc
this
clumsily
tion,
and
at
random
aping
the
Socratic
examples which are no examples never satisfied, but begins yet once nothing, and is still
again
in
as they illustrate
just
as
tedious
form,
only
!
to
display
common knowledge
only
that
of
common
things
How
for
Theages,
an
opportunity
may
be given
harping
of Euripides, is obliged to delay be upon a sentiment he does not really want to be a thinking himself that
325
he had previously admitted an incli nation towards it, as if the innocent boy were a second
tyrant, although
whom, however, he bears otherwise no resemblance at all. And how Socrates twists the proposition for him under his own hands,
a Callicles, to
as if he
Alcibiades or
statesman,
be a good
slightest
citizen,
without having
as
to
!
him
in the
degree
how
But
far
to
the
distinct
enumerate
that
is
is
ill
as far as the
subject-matter
concerned
much
of the lan
guage there
its
Platonic colouring enough to copy off the whole dialogue, and we would rather conclude with
is
character
for
brevity,
and imitate
it
in
this
re
spect.
II.
ERAST.E.
little
THE
spuriousness of this
force
dialogue
is
proved
in
it
with equal
from beginning
well
as
to end.
most outward
matter,
in
dress, as
far
by
it
its
most inward
of the latter
so
as
it
contains enough
further,
sons,
is
description.
To go
no
the
evinced by the namelessness of the per abrupt manner of Socrates in his opening-
questions,
narrator,
Still more, general assent which was awarded to him. undoubtedly, every reader will discover upon a nearer
326
and
irony,
to
its
ex
ternal form throughout makes immediately the most decided pretensions. The opposition between polite lite rature and gymnastics, never before laid down in such
marked
persons of two uneducated fellows, who can scarcely be conceived to be lovers of Athenian boys of noble
family, the one a kind of athlete, the other professedly a master of polite literature, though not a single polished
word, nay, not even an harmonious sentence, though music is one of his accomplishments, is ever heard from him. If it is asked what is the proper subject-matter,
we must look
is
for it in the proposition that philosophy not multiscience, for with this the dialogue begins,
and concludes again with it, a distinction to which in deed the Platonic Socrates may refer occasionally, or
treat of it ironically,
when he has
who
having written a single work, could hardly make the subject of a regular dialogue, unless he wished to work
out
cate
this
disguise,
in
or incul
vain for
kind
first
in
the present
this
instance.
But
exercise,
dialogue,
so
awk
ward and unmeaning as it is, would be far too bad. For after Socrates has already allowed himself to ad
mit, that only moderation
in
everything, and
not ex
cess, produces advantage, he does not at once draw the immediate consequence from this, that philosophy must
therefore be a
passes
first
to
it
is
is
multiscience, but
and which
again he lets drop which to a reader of Plato must appear utterly strange;
327
and then again takes up the preceding one in a differ ent manner quite from the beginning, and this, in
order to deduce from
tained,
it
less
amounting
is
losopher
a useless and superfluous character as long as there are masters in the several arts; just as if he
it.
This
is
to
is
which
it
followed lastly, by yet a third, whose show that there are kinds of knowledge in disgraceful for a man, such as a philoso
to hold only
pher must
in
be,
that second
rank beyond
that
rise.
no way connected with the subject, and which is serviceable to no end whatever, is mixed up with this
!
last part
appears to have a tendency to use of language which occurs a justify a remarkable few times in Plato s writings ; but the way in which
administration
the doctrine of the identity of the four cardinal virtues here harped upon in the most trivial manner, is
is
only to be explained from the fact that this doctrine was one of the commonest mountebank stages ; and
superficial
recollection,
some
the
On
sought
or
for,
necessarily
present
themselves for
saying
affirmative
that negative
by a
different
to be found,
are
without any
of Plato,
use
of them.
notion of multiscience as
328
a ground-work, and following somehow the analogy of what is said in the Euthydemus upon the subject of
the kingly art, to lead to the true view of philosophy,
skilfully
members of
it
the
dialogue
this
as
we now have
of view,
and
finish
further in
to
point
this.
might
accomplish might even be supposed that the first idea and ground-plans of the dialogue, which do indeed betray some such
purpose, may perhaps be mediately or immediately the work of a more skilful hand, or that some traditionary
notices of Platonic conversations
make an attempt
Hence,
it
may
be at the bottom
itself as
it
of
it.
But
to imagine the
performance
still
lies
more
decisively
trilogy
still
sequently as the representation of the Philosopher in addition to that of the Statesman and Sophist this is
the strangest notion
that can possibly be entertained.
III.
ALCIBIADES
I.
IT
is
well
known
upon Plato
to the
best introduction
other
writings
of Plato
afford
329
sions, and that, notwithstanding, there is nothing in it too difficult or too profound and obscure even for the
least
prepared tyro.
But we know
invent anything original, have, not without success, ela borated introductions to the wisdom of others, and thus this opinion of learned men might continue to stand in
full
possession
to
of
all
its
re
present dialogue, though before the judgment-seat of a quick-sighted and accurate cri ticism the work should be discovered not be one of
ference
the
Plato
first
s.
It
is,
indeed,
but
little
profitable to be
the
to
communicate doubts of
this
kind, and
to
ex
them
for the
faculty of critical
sparingly distributed, and among those, perhaps, who are not deficient in this respect, an accurate knowledge of the author, without which,
perception
is
but
rare.
however, a judgment cannot be formed, is still more And then come at once the great multitude of
those who, incapable of investigations of this kind, pro ceed in defence of what is traditional in such a manner
as
neither
are the
who
And yet these those afore-mentioned, he suggests such doubts as those of which we speak
to
instruct
or
satisfy
us.
men
to
whom,
after
In the present instance, however, it is imperative upon us not to shrink from declaring our
opinion upon the dialogue in question. let us once for all undertake to
has to look.
And
that
therefore,
this
little
say,
work, which, with those who are accustomed to admire in the gross, has been ever a subject of most
especial
commendation, appears to us but very insignificant and poor, and that to such a degree, that we cannot ascribe
it
to
Plato,
even
though
any
T T
number of
those
who
330
think they can swear to his spirit, profess most vividly
to
We will, however, apprehend it in this dialogue. only declare our opinion, without making any very great over others to coincide with it; and exertions to
gain
main generally the and in the annotations, points upon which it depends, to the particular instances tending occasionally to point reader may then take it as he to confirm it.
to
establish
Every
to
will,
and others
whom
it
the trouble,
can turn the subject over and over, and bring the con
clusion
more home
to the
of readers in general.
First of all then,
we venture
thing in particular,
in
if
any respect,
must
strike an attentive
reader already
of Plato; that the dialogue acquainted with the spirit a first perusal of it, will leave upon his mind
upon
an impression of singular want of uniformity to which Particular passages, very he is totally unaccustomed.
beautiful and genuinely
Platonic,
may be found
spar
in a mass of worthless ingly dispersed, and floating matter, consisting partly of little broken dialogues
busied
Of nothing, partly of long speeches. as it these, the first is so tedious that the god, when, to defer the colloquial seems, he resolved
about
especially
until an opportunity meeting of Socrates and Alcibiades these speeches, did neither had arrived for delivering
The
second,
with a
celebrates Persian display of strange statistical notices, and Lacedaemonian virtues and riches; the virtues more
in the
riches
and
laudatory
descriptions,
in
a style
331
throughout unsocratic.
feel
Accordingly, the reader will also himself utterly unsatisfied, and regret that he has
been compelled to wade through useless digressions raised upon the most trifling subjects, and that on the con
trary,
or,
is
so to speak, the
cup
is
broken before
is
tasted.
first impression has been overcome, he thinks to inquire more closely into the real mean ing of the dialogue, if such there be, he will feel at
will
certainly
allow
first
of
the
that
the
little
subject
that
it
of
it
professes,
upon I mean
a
man.
Viewed from
kind
in
without,
the
whole
bears in
its
construction
dialogues
contained
our second part. For these, so to speak, have first of all an external thema, expressly enunciated, and yet
forming to a certain degree only the shell of the whole, and then another concealed one, connected with the
former,
and
containing
more
it
is to prove to Alcibiades he must acquire from him other kinds of know that ledge previously to devoting himself to the conduct
of public
affairs,
all
that So
lishing
this
proof,
might be taken
brought out pure and distinct ; for in the first place, Socrates does not show that he alone has the power of
teaching Alcibiades what he stands in need
this
of,
and in
the next, again, he goes beyond thema, and by way of conclusion, is induced to make some remarks
332
upon education
in
general.
And
still
less
does the
constitute of itself a
For that Alcibiades has complete and regular core. neither discovered nor learnt what is just, that what is
just
the same, and then again that Peri and here more than cles, though an excellent statesman, ever in any other Platonic dialogue, extolled without
and useful
is
a trace of irony, has, notwithstanding, imparted his sa have no connection gacity to no one, all these points and each stands where it whatever with one another,
is,
only in
its
im
perfect
for a
state of
mind.
Finally,
moment, that
in these speeches to
On
the
contrary,
very
the
doctrines are
said, not
even
slightest
them
is
to
be met with.
Thus,
Alcibiades might have extricated himself out of a very inconvenient dilemma by the slightest mention of the
doctrine of recollection; again, other matter
is
connected
but in both instances these references untouched, and we are only reminded
ternal
are
left
totally
in the
most ex
manner by one passage of the Laches, of the of the Protagoras again by a Gorgias by another, and
It
third.
readers
secret
treasure
and
in these speeches,
but rather
the
little
that
is
here
said
at
the
this
end,
upon
to
the
necessity
of
self-knowledge.
at
first
Now,
does
certainly
come forward
fundity,
with
many
to
pretensions
the
pro
but
presently
turns
most
superficial
333
matter, and
fectly
we
vulgar sentiments, which we find elsewhere ex pressed with much more elegance. Accordingly, if we are to name something as the proper subject-matter of
the
dialogue,
scarcely
insight
into the
as a
is
commended
our
means
for the
dialogue incapable discussing this subject in the most meager style so that the morsel except seems in fact not worth the whole apparatus, indepen
;
of
dent of the fact, that the particular members of this Neither apparatus are not in any way connected with it.
in the composition, generally,
such an inward relation of every detail to one single It is equally in point as we find elsewhere in Plato. vain to look here for the strict dogmatic connection
which we find
that
in the
apparent
of the dialogue, under which every thing seems so the more to grow purely out of the subject itself.
much On
the
contrary,
Socrates
intrudes
in
drags out one thing after another, generally, though he makes many words, breaking off the subject shorter
than
is
his custom,
in
fact,
every
an
eristic
character,
it
no other
manner.
Platonic
in a similar
And when
is
we
reflect that
not
a sophist, who is to be exposed in his worthlessness, nor even a boy who must be content to be the object of a
little
bantering for the profit and advantage of others, nay, not only a noble Athenian, but that Alcibiades, who is universally celebrated by Plato as the richly
334
endowed minion of
to maintain that
his instructor,
we might be
inclined
between
the present dialogue. For instance, this thing with the mute character which he boasts of Socrates,
having so long played with his minion, and this careful watching which could be neither agreeable to him nor
worthy of him, now introducing himself with a long speech, the like of which he hates as he says elsewhere,
still
more, pro
fessing himself the only teacher capable of instructing in the art of politics this character is indeed manifestly
In the opposite of the Platonic Socrates. representation of his relation to Alcibiades, moreover,
the
direct
all
is
avoided
as
pedantically as possible,
fact,
to the
passed.
to
reconcile this
is
treated
of in the Protagoras and Symposium ? In the Prota Pericles is still alive, and yet Socrates and Alci goras
biades appear as old acquaintances, who must already have conversed much with one another; and what Alci
us in the Symposium, must also be taken from the time of his bloom ; for he can hardly intend to say that he wished to force himself as a minion upon
biades
tells
Socrates
when
then
his
And
how completely
!
himself
ap
find
whom we
elsewhere represented
At
first,
but he soon changes and shows himself prodigiously shamefaced and shy, so that he cannot ever be put
into
harness,
although
Socrates
is
constantly bringing
him up anew, and frequently without necessity and with out justice, and leading him off again dissatisfied with
his
answers.
In
short,
is
however
in
we may consider
it,
own
other Platonic dialogues, or else Plato s And dialogues are so with reference to the rest.
feel this,
we cannot indeed
afford
him
any advice, but only congratulate him that his notions of Plato can be so cheaply satisfied. We would, how
ever, yet
further
draw the
attention
of
others to one
or
perhaps
in
the
sequel
for
we are not
sult
any way inclined ourselves even to start more accurate conclusions might re
particular
the
mode
in
dialogue originated, and has come down to us. what is most Platonic in it may be indeed in
imitation,
For
part
sometimes
more
close
and
sometimes
more
the subject;
matter
may
in fact, it is of
have
literally
written
it
thus,
it
may be perhaps
instructions
relation
;
based upon
to
own
as for
of justice
example, the discussion upon the a very avail profit, which was
com
munity
are in
of ideas.
fact
pen
And
we consider fur
part
is
greatest
here not
336
worked out, but only laid down as a thema, the ab ruptness or awkwardness of the transitions from one
part to
another,
especially
when
a
piece
of worthless
begins, and
and empty
dialectics
ends or
new one
is
how
the
superior
matter
which
torn
asunder and
deformed by these foreign additions might stand in far more accurate connection, we might almost be tempted
to think
that an
or other
got hold of a sketch of a dialogue of his master which had probably come down from earlier times, and which the latter did not finish but reject,
distributed
into
and
other
still
dialogues,
later,
some
this
as
the
But
it
dialogue,
at
Plato had
finished
himself,
would
scarcely
have
been
called
little
Alcibiades.
colloquy with Socrates. For his boiling vivacity would not have borne to have attributed to it the character of a passive interlocutor,
appropriate
a
such
though of the best kind, like Theaetetus for instance, and Plato could scarcely have thought of engaging him
in
violent
;
cles
so that
polemics against Socrates, as he does Calliit may certainly be fairly maintained that
Alcibiades
1
,
instead
of two
which up
Plato,
to
the
present
he did not
even
337
IV.
MENEXENUS.
it is
No
reader of Plato,
properly philosophical writings, to which, inasmuch as no philosophical subject is treated of in of it, the Menexenus has as little claim any part
to belong as the Apology of Socrates. The occasion of the latter, however, is clear and manifest; but what can have induced Plato to venture at a late period into the province, to him entirely strange, of regular
state
little
speeches,
may
for
very possible
us now to decide; at least, nothing appears in the work itself which could give a deter minate direction to the That conjectures of ingenuity.
the
speech
is
placed
in
some
relation
to
the
funeral
to
Thucydides has preserved to is certainly manifest, but when Socrates refers both one authoress, and that authoress this is
out of which
it
a
to
jest,
will
extract
much
the
tion,
earlier, is this a much more available indica inasmuch as the aim of the two speeches is so
that
we do not
see
why
opinion,
laid
if
it
any way contained what we and we might feel more satisfied with it was a later author pronounced
by
starting, that such a speech must from the begin beginning with a pane gyric upon all the exploits of the Athenian people.
who had
down
as a law at
u u
338
Another thing which may
that Plato probably
easily strike
any one
is,
a counterpart to one of Lysias, and in fact, when we compare the funeral oration of this rhetorician on the
it
is not possible to overlook a great similarity in point of arrangement, and an equally great diversity in point What is loosely connected of character and execution.
together
in
Lysias
is
means of
which
is
the connection of distinctly enunciated ideas, impressed upon the hearer by means of words,
is
whose sound
an echo
of their
sense,
brought into
element in the strong and prominent relief; the tender sorrow is compensated by manly advice, and the whole
speech
aim.
same time pervaded by a more exalted But had this contrast been the actual object in
is
at the
we not suppose that Plato, who so well un derstands how to give a hint, would have found some
view, must
in
the
dialogue which
we explanation also leaves us where intended were, might we not venture to say, that Plato by such a speech as this to give a practical answer to
the objection occasionally brought up against him, that his dislike to the art of speaking was the result of
incapacity to prepare speeches, which Socrates in his dialogue is so often obliged jestingly to acknow
his
own
ledge? and that he chose in particular this opportunity for doing so, because in the Corinthian war one of his
own
the
friends
to
had met
this
his
death
his
partiality
exhibition,
severely
censured
inasmuch
339
rative here given, none but the fair side
is
ever presented,
and
all faults
particular,
enemy of
and
the
embellished
represented
manner
And
therefore
it
is,
treats it as such an easy matter to flatter the people before the people, and hence too, that the speech is ascribed to Aspasia, who must have been pretty well versed in the art of seductive embellishment. And in
like
in the
say, that as Plato Philebus relaxes his overstrained polemics against the art of so likewise he did the same at an speaking,
in
earlier period
For
that
the
Menexenus
in
fact
nothing but
an
attempt to improve,
all
direction,
these speeches in
;
only flattered
is
all
that
is
is
there
into
manifest
vivid
throughout,
consciousness
state,
an
endeavour
true
to
right
the
idea
this
bring of the
to
in order
by
means
to
And
the
dif
with
the
Philebus.
For appealing
to
the
great
difficulty
which exists of explaining the whole, if we take it in a serious point of view, and to the way in which even what Plato must have been most in earnest with, I
mean
the
recommendations
to
virtue,
is
itself
beyond the
by
repetition
pushed and
340
bantering,
it
as
in
the
styles.
And
who
can
tell
how much
a skilful
critic,
having once
and the commentaries upon them, might not bring forward in support of the same something more profound and various than what Dionycertainly
in the orators,
;
But
find
in
as far
we
may
will,
and conjecture according to his own notions what Plato meant by it much, however, will be gained at once, if
;
to
attribute to
the dialogue which contains the speech, a similar value with the speech itself, nor pay it the same regard, for
then, at all events, the difficulty vanishes,
which arises
different views
We meet with any confirmation in the dialogue. are indeed fully aware that by many persons even the
introduction has
and
has been
that
is
much admired by
But with
how much
when it has unplatonic has this been the case name of Plato. Certainly, once come forward under the
even supposing Plato to have written this in To troduction, it is not particularly worthy of him.
at
least,
go no further,
it
for the
with
no discriminating reader, we presume, will receive much deference of Menexenus, who pleasure from the awkward
will
only
take
in
hand public
affairs
when
Socrates
341
nor from the pointless way in which Socrates expresses his opinion, that he must certainly be a great orator by reason of Aspasia^s instructions, nor from
it,
permits
the coarse jest, that he nearly got a beating on account of his slowness at learning, and that he would even
It
is
certainly a
is
probably
set
himself to
construct a dialogue out of the speech, and thought it impossible that a Platonic creation should come into the Such a person may then have world without Socrates.
easily
Diogiven in Aspasia an awkward imitation of tima, and thus have fallen unsuspectingly into an ana chronism with which none of the others of Plato are
at
mean, that Socrates delivers a to something speech referring completely and entirely after his death, and that that did not ensue until long
all
comparable
he professes to have this speech from Aspasia, must have been already dead long before him.
thus
it
who
And
would be
the
in vain
to look for
ing
in
more such
tress.
promise given by Socrates to produce yet state speeches from the mouth of his mis
V.
THE LARGER
is
HIPPIAS.
certainly purely phi
THE
losophical.
beautiful in
as
extent, as
it
well
as
immaterial,
as
would certainly be
trouble,
and quite
342
dialogues
to
which we
larger series.
in
have assigned a place in the But the reader, if he looks to the mode
is
which
this
subject
treated,
will
certainly not be
in this place
Major only
For it is throughout sceptical to a Appendix. a mul which characterises none of the others degree
;
titude
of
different
all
explanations
of them
all
of
the
beautiful
are
taken
up and
is
refuted.
to
And
of
even, when
is
the upshot
taken of
in
con
ducted
find
liar
is
it
or
to
referred
consist
this
process
refutation,
we
only in
of the bad positions, which teach that the origin and that the beau not in power but in impotence
!
and good should not be separated and this last, indeed, is the only point upon which Socrates expresses In consequence himself with clearness and precision.
tiful
;
of
this
absence of scientific
tone,
we cannot number
the dialogue
among
Thus,
it
does not
stand
In whatever. progressive development with any other the persual of it, certainly, every reader is immediately
reminded of the Philebus, and it is only on account of this connection, and not with a view of indicating,
even in the most remote degree, a period at which the Hippias might have been written, that we assign it its
For in the Philebus, Plato expresses present position. himself with the greatest precision as well upon the subject of the connection of the beautiful with the
good, as upon that of the nature of the beautiful itself, and considers it not only in its moral bearing, but also according to the first elements of that which we
call
beautiful
in
material
things.
But no one
reference
to
will
in-
there find
even
the
most distant
the
343
vestigations here pursued, nor the Hippias is any proximate
to
again
in
any
part
of
preparation discoverable
what
is
In short,
must be
that a scientific treatment of the subject, the beautiful that is, in speaking of the present is almost
dialogue
so
completely
is
is
it,
all
such
the
and quite
as certain
that
impression which every reader must receive from the whole is, that a polemical purpose is the predominant
in it. And under this purpose the dialogue has in view two remarkable explanations of the beautiful. In one of them, that the beautiful is the fitting, we easily
as
is
only
some
thing
capriciously
consequently
agreeable
in
and
fitting.
Only
may
dialectics, without following his usual practice of exposing somewhat severely the notion which is the basis of the theory. With regard to the other explanation, that the beautiful is the pleasant
apprehended by sight and hearing, pointing as it certainly does to the same principles as Plato lays down in the Philebus, it would be very interesting to know
as
who
Plato
it
s
was that brought forward this explanation time, or whether it was invented by himself
in
in
he
in
is
certainly given
hand, notwithstanding that we very cannot now point out the author of it, it is impossible to believe that the substance of these explanations which
as lying
344
Plato puts into the mouth of Hippias about gold, and the pretty girl, was derived from any other authors.
And
thus
it
is
himself,
how
impossible for any one to avoid asking it happens that Plato exhibits the not
undistinguished sophist as guilty of such an unheard degree of stupidity, as not to be even in a condition
to
is
to be
explained here under a far coarser form than anywhere else, not excepting even the Euthydemus, where the persons are
The
probably
in
no instance
as
it
is,
strictly historical,
and
it
would,
its
exaggerated
effect.
own
This manner, or rather absence of anything deserv ing the name, scarcely reconcileable as it is with the propriety and polish of Plato, may perhaps excite a
suspicion in the minds of many as to the genuineness of the dialogue, because we might certainly meet with
very naturally in a less experienced imitator, who felt that it was necessary for him to give himself an easy task if he was to succeed in any degree in the irony
it
and
And
excited,
much
it.
certainly
at
will
firming
Thus,
the
dulges in
induce
it
is,
a piece of sophistical dialectics, which might us to believe, that not anything, being what
can be useless, a piece of art which would not be unworthy of any of the persons in the Euthydemus.
Were
it,
it
this a parody of anything of the kind resembling one should think that Plato would rather have put into the mouth of the sophist than of Socrates. On
the contrary,
Hippias meantime exhibits in his beha viour a plain common sense which he is not quite able
345
subsequently to keep up, and with a moderation which is not very carefully returned on the side of Socrates.
Then,
strikes
in
the
it
certainly
first
us as something
that in the
half
of the dialogue
from Socrates, who there contradicts himself, and that for the most part in an unnatural and precipitate manner, without being
the latter
all
in
it
of the dialogue, but, in fact, going out of his way for the purpose. Lastly, the play with the man in the
back-ground, to whom Socrates is always obliged to render an account, is brought out into almost too coarse
relief to
for
the
man
Menexin
by name
the place of the man, without, however, its being made clear that he meant only himself from the first, and in
effect
whatever
is
pro
so,
to this expedient
notion of making these grounds very importantly valid, and we could not justify the placing of this dialogue
in the
same
which we have
is
strictly
and
There
an abundance of plea
whole,
and when
we have
that this
and that
in the second
a variety of contemporaneous matter is criticised under the name of Hippias as well as of Socrates, we
shall
as
well
be readily disposed to pardon the exaggerations as the extravagancies of the humour which
xx
346
prevails in the dialogue.
We
ma}
how much
self-defence.
The
earthenware,
kitchen-furniture,
those
who were
things
;
trifling
listener
is
to
be regarded as exemplifying in the highest degree the practice which sometimes occurs when Socrates asks his
interlocutor
this or that objection.
how he must answer a third person making And who then can say how many
may be here concealed in con sequence of which much that remains is even more Even the senseless beautiful than it appears to us.
other personal allusions
answers
of
Hippias
may be
parodies
in
of
others
like
them, or of the
superficial
manner
consist
in
thing without penetrating into But why Hippias in parti the real essence of them.
or
that particular
cular
is
upon
it
name
for
to these, is a point
information.
Only,
not very probable that Plato should have chosen him twice, and each time for the unfortunate hero of
is
have no
internal
relation
is
whatever
to
one
to
be considered Pla
tonic, and the other not, the victory will be with the
larger
of the
in
two.
For many
traces
exist
that
the
author
the composition
which the larger dispatches in a few words, are spun out in the former with dis and the banquet of speeches to proportionate prolixity,
the man,
which
crates,
in
is
the larger dialogue the Sophist invites exactly concluded in the smaller.
So
347
VI.
CLITOPHON.
the
writings
of
Plato,
Clitophon stands, not among those condemned as spurious, but in the middle of the genuine list, and has been in like manner adopted into all the editions
up to that of Stephanus, who, like other later editors, has followed Serranus. And thus it finds a place here, with the same as all the other right dialogues of that
collection.
The defence of its legitimacy, however, is a task which we could not pledge ourselves to undertake with success. The very commencement, where Socrates ad
dresses
Clitophon,
who
in
is
depreciation
to
in
say
him
that
go no further,
is Then it can completely unplatonic. not in any way be conceived that Plato should allow his Socrates to be But put down in such a manner.
even
we would assume that the dialogue is only a and that the refutation would have followed fragment,
if
immediately, still it is far from easy to see for what purpose Plato should have introduced generally such an attack upon Socrates an attack which, in all his
writings,
is
and by the
little
If then
is
that
this
is
piece
for
not
yet
room
There
is,
indeed,
question
348
several of the lesser Socraticians the
wisdom of Socrates
itself in its negative character only, especially presented and exposure of the in
of other methods.
Now,
if
this
method
is
piece
might be regarded as complete. This Socrates is then to be represented as actually reduced to silence, and this method might thus be intended to convey a
the objection made against Plato of far exceeding the real Socrates. from various sides, And perhaps it was under this supposition that the
justification
against
ancients
assigned
the
Clitophon
it
its
place
before
the
Republic, to stand, as
culpatory introduction, because this dialogue appeared to them to be the first place in which much that
extended
was
in
particularly
first
and
the
the
place,
insufficiency
ought to have been represented more fun on the side of doctrine and knowledge, than damentally on that only of admonition and excitement, for which
wisdom can only furnish a mean. And then again, it would be strange that the dissatisfied person applies
directly
to
a sophist
like
Thrasymachus.
It
is
cer
tainly, therefore,
more probable that the dialogue comes the best oratorical schools, and is
And we must
be much confirmed
is
actually a
of
all
that
art
appears
against
the
sophists
as
teachers
of the
of politics,
so naturally found an application to the teachers of the We art of speaking, who were Plato s contemporaries.
349
are most vividly
to this
pur
pose in
the Protagoras,
first
the
Euthydemus,
Alcibiades
gence of certain Platonic periods is here imitated with a richness which cannot well fail to make a lively im
pression.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
this
dialogue
to
is
to
be ascribed
to
the
Platonic
in Plato s
school,
spirit,
and
then
be looked
cer
upon
as conceived
we need
tainly consider
to
be only an intro
duction,
and
must
suppose
to
that
Clitophon
defeat,
was to be converted
satisfactory
a serious
and
brilliant
still
justification
this
of
Socrates
was
yet to follow.
But
the
can hardly have been the in the first place, the return of the
is
conclusion
to
commencement
too
decided,
and,
in the second,
350
PART
III.
REPUBLIC.
we compare the compass of this work with even the largest of those which have preceded it in our
arrangement, and consider that it is a second repetition of a continuous dialogue advancing without interrup tion, and, moreover, one that began first, in the evening,
WHEN
vividly convinced
by
said in the
Symposium,
that he
whom
Socrates
once gets into conversation must hold out the whole others night, and even to the morning dawn, though
may have
sleep,
all
made
is
off
or
surrendered
themselves to
his
and that he
as little wearied
by repeating
own
or other persons arguments, as of investigating and developing truth from the first in common with In this character he here appears, inasmuch others.
as he repeats again
mediately
the day
large
first
succeeding
before,
and such
was
first
also
held.
when
For of the
which
are
at
party,
the
individuals
composing
crates and
in
partly as accompanying So and partly as already present Polemarchus, the dwelling of the latter, the majority disperses one
mentioned by name,
at
least,
they do
is
spectacle which
in
not
introduced holiday torch-dance, to the continuous and self-evolving argument of Socrates concerning justice and
the republic.
after
351
first
disputed with
testified
by stout
to the task,
appearing however to be of any particular whether Glaucon or Adimantus sustain the importance
conversation.
without
the author appears by this dress to convey a wish that his readers should in like manner conceive
if
Now
in
itself,
arguments themselves are to be supposed de livered without interruption, and again related without a pause, the division, on the other hand, into ten books
is
the
This
is
division,
notice
it,
cer
work
always quoted according to it, this division must be always kept, but it is not so easy to make it probable that it comes from Plato himself. I, at least, cannot pre
suppose that if Plato had found it necessary to divide his work, he would have been likely
vail
upon myself
to
to project a
dismemberment of
it
so perfectly mechanical,
and bearing no relation whatever to the subject-matter one which every reader who would search into the in
ternal connection of the
if
set
aside,
it
he
would avoid
falling
confusion.
For
is
only with the end of the first book that the first part also of the work concludes, and in like manner, the
conclusion of the whole commences with the beginning
of the last book, but beyond this, only the end of the fourth book and of the seventh coincide with an im
portant division in reference to the subject-matter.
All
352
the remaining books break
oft
in
cussion in
in
them
be
turned
then,
to
commencement.
case, that the
Since
the
it
books
pretty
easily
much
be
the
may
standard, and as
would
come out
sufficiently
libra ceeding in which, clearly, the transcribers and the ries must have been all that was had in view.
this Accordingly, if we totally reject the notion that an original subdivision, or one connected with the
is
go
to
find
the
work
itself,
we must give the composer credit for having attempted by every method to recompense the reader for the
want of regular external
divisions,
and to
facilitate as
much
as
possible
the
apprehension of the
connexion.
For with exemplary accuracy the point of commence ment of every important digression whatever is distinctly marked, and at the end, again, reference is made to the
point from
In like manner,
is
generally
all
spared,
every reader with nay, that any degree of attention to keep the thread it seems almost impossible to fall into any uncertainty
as
to
Now,
In the confidential, introductory dialogue between So crates and Cephalus upon the subject, especially, of
353
old age, the latter mentions the legends respecting the infernal world which at this period of life particularly
and extols
it
as
the
most important advantage of wealth, that the rich man can meet what awaits him with a more confident spirit,
as
he has been
injustice.
less
to
commit
To
by the
a very
current
And
here
is
Cepha-
already too
far
advanced in years for such dialogues, resigns his place to his son Polemarchus in order to attend to the
sacrifice
out
of
doors.
And
Polemarchus
then
en
by Simonides, which Socrates, however, destroys in like manner by the application of his frequently tried method.
Upon
this
the Chalcedonian
Thrasymachus comes
sophist, here
for
and there
reminding us of the rough jests in the Euthydemus, and occupies the place of Callicles in the Gorgias of
Plato,
the
is
only
tage
it
the stronger for his own advan tends to the hurt of the weaker
party
be just, while injustice is wisdom, and the Socrates defends unjust life the only one desirable.
himself
of governing powers, which universally provide for what is best for others, and indeed for the weakest, and by no means
by the analogy of
all
the
arts
for themselves.
And
their
cherish
exorbitant
notions
observed
among
YY
354
itself,
ever, do not follow this rule, injustice, it is argued, can scarcely be called a part of wisdom. To this is at last annexed a proof of the position, that injustice,
from giving strength, and by that means con ducing to advantage, is, on the contrary, since it
so far
naturally
excites
discord,
of
a
is
weakening
tendency
own proper
and not
perfec
and that
the
is
confessedly
Thus
victory
first
injustice.
with
also
the
of
Socrates
but
with
of justice has
still
was, perfectly
is
untouched.
And by
as
this conclusion
the book
so
clearly
enough marked ments up to this point can only have any value as preparatory to what is to follow.
an introduction,
that the argu
And by
maintained of
this
all
is
virtually
in this translation, as
many
any
virtue
whatever, inasmuch
they
all
failed
to
Thus
the Protagoras
treated the question of the unity and communicability of virtue, but without defining the idea of virtue it
self;
is
discussed,
in
and in
And
since,
the question
opposition between friend and enemy forms an important element, even the Lysis might occur
of justice,
the
7n/e\e?(r0m
icai
355
to
the
occasion.
Hence
it
is
cer
any object, but rather with one very and very judiciously attained, that book of the work before us recalls those earlier
view
to the
ethical pieces
memory
we
the
look
to
the
method of the
or
to
and the
is
style. Throughout, indeed, the tone here given an echo of that in the Protagoras more than in the others, and that dialogue likewise treats the ethical ques
tion
reminded of
more generally than any of those works. We are it by the pomp of the appointments and introduction, by the number of persons all possessing
by the preference of the sophist long speeches furnishing no proof, by the appeal to
celebrity,
lyric poet in ethical matters, in a word,
;
some
for
the
by almost every
thing.
And
if,
as
is
Thema
of
with the place which we have assigned to that dialogue, as a transition, that is, from the first main division of the Platonic works to the does not agree
ill
second.
This method of
is
recalling
is
to
recollection
by
resemblance what
gone before
nently suitable to a writer not permitted by the form of his works to appeal in the later immediately to the
earlier
;
but
still
the entire
phenomenon
reached
is
not
to
be
explained from
this
circumstance alone, as
easily
this object
by particular we would completely understand Plato s meaning, we must not overlook the fact that all this resemblance between the work before
might
allusions.
have
been
more
On
the
contrary,
if
The crowd
of persons disperses,
356
and no one takes part any longer in the dialogue ex cept Glaucon and Adimantus, although at a more ad
vanced period
all
are once
more represented
as present
and summoned
stirs
to
Thrasymachus
on one single occasion more, and then quite only appeased and pacified, as it were to shew that all Even the enmity with the sophists is at an end.
method is completely changed Socrates no longer comes forward with questions in the character of a man who is ignorant, and only looking for greater ignorance in
found
god, but as one who has already seeks, he advances onwards, bearing along with him in strict connection the insights he has
the
service of
the
what he
acquired.
Nay, even
in
point of style,
it
is
only the
immediately
to
succeeding
speeches
of the
two brothers,
any resemblance
attractive irony
strictness of
argument
is
The whole
store of the
youthful virtuoso
troduction, and
to
glitters here once for all in the in then extinguished for ever, in order
make
is
it
as
well
as
possible
understood,
that
all
beautiful and pleasing of this kind occupies a place in the province of philosophy only in preparatory
that
investigations, the object of
which
is
more
to stimulate
to
advance
the results of philosophical investigations is to be given, such embellishment would contribute more to distract the
mind than
assist
subject.
And
in
these
preparatory
it
arguments
some
may
be useful shortly
the
attention,
as
they prove
of importance in
357
sequel, without being here
made
particularly prominent.
The
that
first is
any authority, the profit thence arising is entirely separated from the proper object of the exercise of the art, and aptitude in the acquisition
exercise
of profit
is
rather
set
up
as
particular
in
art
which
with
man
possesses
conjunction
first
the
we have,
and espe
art
manifold ramifications.
counterfeit
art
For every
it
may become
when
comes to be
for the
this
way and a means calculated And we have also from of gain. acquisition
treated only as a
is
made
the basis of
many
of the
subsequent propositions,
as
especially such
rises
purely
is
practised must be
so
much
profit.
more
free
from
point
all
is
The
second
we may even
at that time say, notwithstanding many circumstances favourable to the case, too easily granted by the inter
who are most adapted for governing do yet only engage in it because there is a punish ment for refusing, which is, even if there be no other,
by
so
that instead of governing themselves they are governed Meanwhile we should not consider as others worse.
important
in
it
as
regards
his
true
its
is
general form,
since
way
in
afterwards brought into application justifies In the itself by an extremely brilliant illustration. third place, further, it is to be observed that Socrates"
which
358
last
discussion
with
Thrasymachus begins
separate
to
take
something internal, and so likewise injustice as something causing discord and distraction when it in
habits different parts of one and the same whole.
it
And
is
by
the form
is
and method
what
in
treated of in
follows.
The
preparations for the line of proceeding resolved upon, occupy the second part of the work, comprising the
second
book.
and
third,
and
the
And
the
continuation
On Socrates expressing his regret that the notion of justice has not been yet discovered, Glaucon subjoins a fresh set of arguments in favour of Thrasymachus,
as conceiving
inasmuch as
justice
is
to have given up his cause too soon, has by no means been yet proved that more advantageous than injustice. For, that
it
him
only
to
be
useful.
test,
it
But
is
necessary
rather
to
conceive
the just
man
the appearance of injustice, while to the on the other hand, concealment must be con unjust man, ceded, and he must be furnished with all the appearance
bearing
all
of justice.
this
And
it
after
injustice in
imperative upon the praise of justice to say nothing of the friendship of the gods, and that nothing partaking of the nature of a reward should
states,
what
effect
they
each
have
on
man
in
and
for
359
themselves.
If then,
by
this postulate,
Plato does as
it
in the
were supersede himself, and declare the demonstrations Gorgias and Phaedon insufficient in what relates
to this point, a
first
purely ethical ground is now for the time gained thereby, and the same Socrates un dertakes the more subtle and laborious problem, and
to
lays
down his plan of proceeding, which search for justice in the state, where
characters,
is
it
to be,
first
must be
in
larger
and,
to
the
in
return
order
to
see
is is
the same
And
this
plan
the
executed
exactly
as
is
in
the
in
same order
here
the next
third
main division
Re
public
itself
with a view
to
that,
its
it
origin
for
and the
it.
way
in
which men
here
it is
are educated in
and
all,
And
of
are
remarkable,
originate
original
in
first
of
how
Socrates
the
basis
all
makes the
which
not
state
is
the necessities,
the
difference
of men,
for
since
every thing by and consequently cannot, by prac tice, be equally accustomed to every thing, without, however, hinting even by a single word how they who
equally adapted
requires,
nature
which
life
are thus
to
as
to
compensate
But,
their
mutual
he
looks
deficiencies,
are
state
be
the
found.
though
upon
work of
it
necessity,
his
opinion
certainly
was
must originate from a random search or not that accidental meeting of individuals, but the general Hel
lenic
hypothesis
is
the city
and the German reader cannot be suf reminded that in Greek Stadt and Staat (urbs and eivitas) and the state political, are one and the same.
360
a perfective compensation of natures, and that necessity is only set up as representing the social nature of man,
local
converting proximity among men into a regular condition of mutal aid and support, in order thus to keep men
and the
business
of
the
state
consists
in
in a peculiar
manner united
in a fixed proportion.
is
And
side,
not
without a definite
it
represented as a compound,
it
is
impossible
human
should exist
if
wanting.
We
feel
any one of the component parts be at once that more doubt attaches
to
to that hypothesis
war
and defence, with which the whole organisation of the Platonic state is most closely connected, arises only
from an endeavour
after
prosperity
an endeavour, of
which Socrates himself particularly disapproves, declar ing the only properly healthy society to be that most
simply constituted
union
which confines
itself
to
the
indispensable according to this, so long as the state is in the enjoy ment of that health, no other species of legislation
necessaries.
But
could consistently appear in it, except just that which Socrates at the end of this part passes over as insig nificant, that, namely, regarding barter and affairs of
contract.
Now,
then,
if
we apply
this
organisation
itself,
of a
well-ordered
condition
all
upon a morbid
state.
Perhaps, however, the praise bestowed upon an entirely undeveloped social state as being the only
is
not to be taken so
has been
at
echoed by
the
For,
although
others
Socrates
particularly
361
luxuries and arts, which are in the sequel for the most
may
admitted,
tion
still
there
are
simple
not
without
full
consideration, I
am tempted
it
impossible to
live.
The
upon
it is
proper bearing of
the reference to
susceptible
tions,
in
this too
is
therefore, probably,
the
mind,
in
of
great
multiplicity
attrac
and manifold
a definite form, or the opposition between good and evil itself. the theoretical representation develope Only
of the state
sacrificed
itself
does
indeed seem
to
is
be too much
that,
to
that
relation,
when
it
intimated
because in the mind the separation of the functions is the ground upon which the whole doctrine of virtue
that follows
rests,
that,
therefore,
also
the operations
particular profession
distinct
from
all
others
so
that
Plato here appears as a sworn advocate, the oldest phi And not losophical one probably, of standing armies. even, upon his own theory, with perfect fairness ; since
it
can only
be said
is
of the leaders
of the
army
that
their
work
an
common
fighting men, on the contrary, whether we look at what they do or what they suffer, comprehending in them nothing, an aptitude for which might not be acquired
by means of a gymnastic education, combined with the practice of any other trade, while every citizen must
be able to give that security which a firm disposition
to
preserve
the
existing
order
z z
of things
supplies,
so
362
that
the
be,
Platonic
army,
however
sufficient
the
men
may
ease
which he
if
state of things,
vicious might have avoided this he had taken the common soldiers
from the working classes, and only made the leaders a he did not do so, because then the spi separate order, in the mind would have had no proper rited
principle*
in
the state.
And
thus
we
how
state is in
and
for itself,
is
only
by
it is
more easily in it. recognise justice This subordination is still more confirmed by what
it
what
natural advantages they must enjoy, the state, under the easily admitted
who
are to defend
this pretext that the also will be useful for the investigation of justice,
mode
is
of their education
set
is
discussed.
And
thus,
what
all
here
up
as the
are to be judged, that they myths used in education do not inculcate a belief that the gods are the authors
of evil,
is
dual mind.
with
effect
For the
against
spirited principle,
if it
is
to fight
destructive inclinations,
will
be de
;
bilitated
by the
same
exist in
the gods
be able to press powerfully forward and the fact that to abstract truth, if it can be met by deceit to the gods metamorphose themselves and practice the constitution and But upon indulge their passions.
as little will
363
arrangement of the commonwealth such a fancy has no immediate influence, but only in so far as it corrupts
individual minds.
same may be argued of every thing in this part of the work connected with educa
tion,
The
that
it
refers
most
to
the
individual,
and that
in
a purely ethical relation, in order to effect in the mind a harmony of government and obedience, and that
may perform
it.
its
own
office,
gard
state
is
first
the principle,
the
that
the
than
bulk of individuals
composing
whence
its
tranquillity depends
its
upon
their
excellence
upon the
com
As
only of the state are to take part in the government of it, who are not in a condition to do anything except what may advance the good of the whole, we have that
the
maxim,
that
those
of the
defenders
principle already shadowed forth which is not brought out distinctly until towards the end of the work, namely, that reason alone can judge of what is wholesome for
man
life
alone can
besides
his
of
own.
To
this
purely
ethical
bearing
in
which be
Republic.
superficially
this
;
But
and
for
this
described,
this
is
as
description
said
at
only
length
the
is
to
be
un
what
full
upon the
the
in
sometime
at
afterwards.
On
part
contrary,
law, which
the
end of
this
made good
364
opposition
in
;
to
Adimantus,
of
as
in
that
happiness
in
must
a
exist
the
whole
of
it,
the
well
state
and not
particular
riches
division
as
the
maxim
be
that
and
from
poverty
the
this
must
an
equal
are
degree
not
withheld
these
perfectly
intended
Republic.
when a well-meaning
somewhat
upon a
fact,
basis so
that
purely ethical, is to be made of the Plato thinks to bring about that wholesome
a false pretence, or,
as they
stability
of character by
say,
by
may be
the
truth
of childish recollection,
with this part of his This timidity, however, is to be taken more argument. in jest as if Socrates was apprehensive that persons
and
entirely, every
thing mythical.
in to
it
is
good
is
is
or fiction.
Now,
is
in
is
representation only
the present instance, the form of fiction, while the essence of the
true, and almost every single point subject-matter is otherwise brought forward in strict connection with
the
fundamental
views.
For
the
variety
of
natures
most secret operations of planetary life, and an educa tion which is to do nothing else, so long as the pupils
365
are
still
further
unable to guide themselves, beyond developing what has thus come into existence, is fairly
same
principle.
And
it
results
accordingly on all sides as matter of divine ordinance, that a commonwealth must go to ruin in which un
suitable
call,
attain
to
the
government
can
so that
on
this
may
Neither, again,
be
fairly
cautious
fear
in
explained as simply the result of a Plato of the fate which befel his
upon the worship of the gods, and consigns that task to the native We at least, knowing as we do, Apollo.
how
done,
little
any time modern philosophers have ever who thought to found a new worship of the
at
worship which was not national, and since he is here by no means fabulously compiling actual earthborn
matter upon a soil perfectly new and devoid of history, but every thing, however different from all hitherto
proceed in a spirit entirely Hellenic. Plato in the books up to this point, And, although declares with sufficient spirit against all fabling, that has a tendency to degrade the idea of the Supreme
still
known, does
Being, he was at the same time too profound to assi milate himself to certain sophists in their rationaliz
ing annihilation of the gods, and not, on the contrary, to hold in honour the strange tissue of natural feel ing, and historical legend in the Hellenic theology, and
to
attempt
to
turn
it
to
good use
for
his
citizens.
366
Hence be
it
prefers committing
mysterious depths of the central point of the earth. And here, when the fundamental outlines of the
far,
And
the
commencement of
Socrates
calling
is
marked
distinctly
to
enough
the
by
rest
upon
Adimantus
also
summon now
Polemarchus and
This
part,
of
all
first
of
the
manner
in
which
they
it
themselves
in
state.
And
is
is
then,
after
has
been
shewn that
this
process
how
it
be applied to the individual mind, and to be so applied, the same virtues are also
to
exhibited as existing in that subject. Now it is here, first of all, remarkable, that
the
e four otherwise weH-fcnnyp ^Q^^O] are j^"^ repre sented as exhausting the idea of the good, and that
without any proof whatever being given, or any such been communicated in any other And having piece.
yet it is upon this hypothesis that the correctness of the whole proceeding rests for it is only by assuming that these four constitute the whole province of virtue,
;
that
it
must
even
necessarily be justice.
And moreover we
have
been
suppose
work.
that
proof to
known
from
oral discussions,
lost
For
or to have been communicated in any such a proof could not have been
367
thoroughly explained, and accordingly the whole of the in the last case be superfluous,
in
there would
be no reason
why
the
proof as well
have been
repeated in writing.
tified
upon
this
erected,
contains itself in
by
which
the
explanations
of
these
virtues
are
obtained does
by immediate palpability claim the con viction of the reader in such a manner that he de
siderates
nothing
further
first
for
his
satisfaction.
Since
investigated in
the Republic,
the completeness of this investigation rests entirely upon the proper relation of the three classes into which
Socrates divided the inhabitants
;
and
if
and
indeed no one can refuse to allow that the state, through their agency, must be good. And strange indeed to
every one must the brevity and conciseness appear with which this is shewn ; nay, this brevity in the execution
appear to be at the same time the fairest justification of the whole ethical preparatory process,
does
itself
as
well
in
the
earlier
books of
this
work
as
in
the
preceding dialogues.
section
still
However
is is
also
every thing
referred
the individual
mind
in
Thus, kept in view in a manner not to be mistaken. the case of wisdom, the general law that it is not
by any particular knowledge of anything in the state, but by that of the state itself, and its manner of ex
istence,
that
its
the
state
is
wise,
is
set
up
especially on
account of
In like manner
368
the observation,
if
its
somewhat
too
easily
conceded,
and
which,
truth
were disputed,
would perhaps be
that
this
state,
know
can
citizens,
in a only very small number of the seems to have been produced more with re
exist
ference
to
the
mind.
For however
is
strange
it
may
the
the
smallest
component part
certain
mind,
of
it
is,
notwithstanding,
that
into
principle
desire,
spreading
is
as
it
does
such
manifold
the
ramifications,
principle,
the
largest,
and
therefore
consistent
simple
itself,
which
ever
continues
never other than the most internal, to be the smallest, Also in the case naturally appears j
is
with
and
of courage,
immediately that
the fact
that the explanation given is of civil courage, is to be referred to that the courage of individual minds not only
the remark,
comprises in itself what is developed from civil rela tions, but that to it every thing belongs which the reason can offer to set in opposition to pleasure and pain/ By such indications then the application ac
cordingly of the explanations given the individual mind, is still more
again,
cipitate
it
to
the
virtues
of
abridged.
Next,
that
all
must appear to the reader a somewhat pre method, and obscure from beginning to end, the other virtues are honoured with an in
while justice alone, notwithstanding that it is the precise object of the investigation, not only remains left to the last, but is not even
vestigation,
immediately
and directly found and described, which would certainly be the clearest method of proceeding, but only comes
to
light
indirectly,
as
which remains
after
The
to
first
point
last,
then,
virtue
is
left
untouched
the
369
may
the ground
that
there
occasion
to reduce
the
is
satisfactory
explanation;
but
this
not
the
only one;
justice last,
and the discovery of it by such a method, connected together, and the following may be given as the account of the matter. Virtue in general had been already explained above, and in the
are closely
cursorily
more extended
sense,
it
to
is
means of which
condition
to
perform
its
own proper
same
state
function.
Now
sup
and
in the
to us
appropriate functions in the state, while the third, that of those who work for hire, comprises a multiplicity of functions, which are not
properly functions in the state, each individual seeking only his own advantage by the performance of his own. In this manner, then, the four virtues into
separate
two
classes,
for
its
these
by reason of
peculiar
so
to
own
virtue
wise,
also
it
itself.
For be a
wisdom of
ever
so
is
it
the
it
guardians,
the
and be
still
is
so
only by
its
class,
namely,
of
Now
it
is
the
wise,
when
in
legislation
it;
its
and guidance, that is, when obedience is rendered to and in like manner only brave by the courage of
champions, when
these, like
370
the
necessary
services
and
thus
with
more honourable
division in the
since those
selection
who
love
small
And thus four virtues would be namely, and industry. distributed among proportionately and homogeneously
the four main divisions in the state;
and certainly, as
could very easily regards the Platonic Republic, nothing But obedience and be objected to such a construction. the par industry are not discretion and justice, and
ticular
virtue to
which
at
all
all,
that
is
said
refers,
would
nor,
thus not
be
found
neither
in
the
state,
by
this
however, manifests
as
well
here as elsewhere to
be the main problem. Going back, therefore, to the four virtues first assumed, and considering that dis cretion and justice are differently circumstanced from
wisdom and bravery, at least in so far as that these two latter can only be attributed to some, while the
two former can be neglected by none, it follows that discretion and justice are indeed to perform what obe dience and industry answer for, but that they must be not
exclusive virtues confined to one division, but universal
and
they
extending
exist refer
in
to
all.
But even
thus,
inasmuch
as
the
more honourable
only
and
operation to the particular incapacity and as they deficiency of the less honourable, exist in the latter, only to the appropriate virtues
in
of the
former
hence,
therefore,
these
latter
virtues
must necessarily precede the others in the exposition. But in what manner discretion and justice are them
selves distinct
from
each
other,
and
why,
without
371
regarding the circumstance that justice most properly forms the conclusion, discretion must precede it in and for itself the absence of any explanation upon these
points
makes
this
the
in
so
the
state,
but also
the mind.
is
For the
to
command,
to
is
in
reference
government and obedience, each of these positions far more difficult to explain than it is to
these
distinguish
two
virtues,
discretion
and
justice,
from
the
it
other two,
or
even
these
and
therefore appears not inappropriate that after the three first virtues have been discovered, so many particular and laborious preparations are made, in order further
to find
it
justice
as
For
which
may
that
to
is
justice
gives
its
appropriate
all
power,
as
not
so
much a compound
alone
this
;
of
three
virtues,
discretion
in
by means of justice, and con sequently becomes operative; and then, again, on the other side, that in these two together the whole per
passes into
fection
of the
part
state
is
wisdom
is
only
that
of justice
first,
and courage, that which belongs to the second division; inasmuch as it would be clearly unjust, if the lovers
of
wisdom
were not
to
develop
ideas
and
appoint
others,
and repulse dangers themselves. And further on, in like manner, where the explanations given are
to
justice,
the
familiar
common
are
brought
for-
372
ward*,
it
even
the
discreet
man
would avoid
merely by a freedom from ex Meanwhile, let no travagant and unnatural passions. one take this to be a critical censure upon the matter
these
itself,
which
lies
work.
most upon the de which Plato, scription of these four connected virtues,
This censure
at
the
manifestly
enough, only took up in a true practical sense from regard for an existing theory, as they had already passed in a similar manner from common usage
of Socrates.
But
at
instead of these
liberty,
four
virtues
Plato
set
was
perfectly
as
on
if
the
one hand, to
only
the
up wisdom
in
the only
virtue,
he
saw
in
whole mind
state
of activity
one. courage, or, on the other hand, justice, as the only He might either say, that the state and the mind are
virtuous by means of the efficiency and power of that so from a right and single part, or that they are
in all
the parts.
That
Plato,
sufficiently
clear
in
which he as
the
last,
is,
signs
to
justice
this
with
reference
to
the
state,
agreeable
extenuation
For,
if
wisdom
is
supply their vacancies from the collective mass of the people, have alone a
takers in the government,
also
who
share in the civil virtue, and even the next more distant
champions, no less than the great hireling multitude, are excluded from all participation in it, and reduced to a state of obedience so strict that
circle,
the
Book
iv. c.
16.
373
the two rebels ing party has ordained, and if one of from ambition or self interest, the parties do not bear
the
guilt
themselves,
but
only
the
weakness
of
the
But since Plato defines justice as that vir governors. tue which does in fact include all others within itself,
all
the
essential
in
elements of the
the
state
it.
morality part view, therefore, the choice made must appear meritori
ous.
tionate
of
But with
reference
to
the
individual
mind,
we
mode of
thinking, unhesitatingly
wisdom to be prefer the opposite course, and, defining a height the sen the only virtue, however immoderate suous desires reach, we should rather look for
might
the
cause of guilt in the weakness of the reasoningto that subordinate faculty any principle, than attribute
And upon of the whole. peculiar share in the morality the same ground we should at once take an exception
the premised explanation of discretion, inasmuch as the expression of a free agreement among all the parts of the mind with reference to the government of it,
to
is
more
in
scientific
And
yet this
virtue as a har Pythagorising view, which conceives mony, which first appears in full perfection when dis
cretion,
powers
considered as a free agreement of the inferior with the superior, is placed upon a higher
consists only in a
com
all
manding
position
being
usurped by
reason
above
this view, presumptive claims of the inferior powers, avoid designating as heathenish in an which we cannot
especial
sense,
but too much the key of the most closely connected with every which most shocks us, nay, which appears
is
yet
is
374
to us utterly
For
this is the
immediate ground of the theory, that the moralization of a society must be the result of a right system in
the procreation of the
members of
it
morality
of
the
individual
chiefly
being born under a lucky star. Now, if it would in deed have been too aristocratical in the state, especially as a Hellene could not easily conceive such a
society
to
deny the possession of the social virtue to the great bulk of the people, and yet, in the applica tion of this to the mind, an theory equalization cannot
totally
fail
to
;
arise
destructive of the
see
tions
state,
we
then
how
the
of virtue, however, ingeniously it is fenced round, and however artfully executed, is still not without danger, and we see how even the greatest in a scientific
genius,
construction,
simplicity.
ferior
much
is
conceded to the
in
powers of the mind, as that they have of themselves a share in virtue, still, when these three
the governing, the defending,
to
subdivisions,
be
pointed
out
separate from one another, it appears somewhat capri ciously assumed as a general rule, that
experimental
the courageous principle, though it is not always found in alliance with the reason, does never at all events con
nect
itself
with
is
the
passions.
in
corruption
found to exist
On
the
opinion
which
praises
the
excited
and
degrades
375
even the very principle which Plato attacks with such in the introduction righteous zeal in the Gorgias, and
to this work, in opposition to
Thrasymachus, could not, without such a league, have spread so far and gained But criticism upon these subjects is such ground.
disarmed by the very important declaration, we must not overlook, that a really accurate
almost
which
and
thorough
of these
is
not
to
be
Otherwise, however,
functions existing
in
particularly
by the application of the method of ex them in the gross in the prominent and cha hibiting racteristic traits of different nations, is very fine, and
shows enlarged views of the subject although many a noble Hellene may have been very ill pleased to
;
learn that
the
much
extolled spirit
is
still
only to be
indeed
it
is
destructive barbarism of these nations can be preferred to a cultivation, narrow-minded indeed, and mechanical
only,
as
but
still
of use to the
that
of the
Phoenicians
and
Egyptians was.
But
speaking, was, not only to idea of justice, but rather to decide between define the the just and the unjust mode of life, which of the
since the problem, properly
two
is
the
more
desirable,
after
the
investigation
of
justice,
and
rebellion
the
rest
and Socrates,
although obliged to grant to his interlocutor that the matter is already dispatched, and that it is unnecessary further to follow out the rest, announces notwithstand
ing that he
will,
for completeness
modes of
throughout
376
their
ment.
fourth
whole career, under the corrupt forms of govern As then he announces this at the end of our
the beginning of our fifth book, he does execute his intention in the fifth main divi accordingly sion of the work as contained in the eighth and ninth
and
drawn away into other investigations by Polemarchus and Adimantus, backed also by Thrasymachus, and these, occupying the fifth,
at
books.
But
present
he
is
and seventh books, form the fourth main divi sion of the work but notwithstanding their important
sixth
;
compass and still more important subject-matter, they are yet, both here, and still more at the beginning
of the eighth book where the original thread is again taken up, most distinctly marked as an occasional and
grand
division, stands
prescribed, will
first
com
pletion of the model state, the particular education of those in it who are destined for its government and o
more ac
to
curately
than
has
hitherto
;
regard
as
with
thing of very great importance, not at all reference to the question of justice, but to the
;
any way main question respecting justice in the individual mind, and the relation between a just life
books
to
application in
that
and happiness,
against.
is
at
once by
first
Now,
the
this
377
peculiar to Plato, while the second, which treats of the
cultivation of these
to that which they has naturally a far more themselves, general tendency, and is, considered as a continuation of what was said in the first book respecting the general
are
to
unite
in
means of education
it
were a universal
synopsis for
all
tematic regulation of
the most extended sense, as a sys life was generally, in the Hellenic
Now
which
treats
of
the
connection
of
the
sexes,
it
it,
it
does
intro
his
not appear to me that the way in which duced, Socrates reluctance to enter upon
*
is
and
wish to avoid the subject, refers to the circumstance that he was here about to introduce into the language
and
of the people a thing contrary to all current opinion, as yet unheard-of. I rather discover in this the
as
was already be from the oral lectures naturally might communications of his pupils, and had ex
it
:
perienced some satirical treatment consequently, if we suppose this to be the case, the allusions of the comic
poets to the Platonic
nothing for
before us.
tical
is so completely a matter of cri without the limits of argument, that feeling lying can do nothing but invite those readers who are
But
this
state
378
of the
similarity
of
both
the
sexes
where,
sex
that
is
though
the
it
is
certainly
this
is
allowed
that
female
weaker,
no powers are to that sex to qualify women for every kind wanting
of
human
activity
in
this
respect,
doctrine stands in
decisive opposition
nant views and practice of Plato^s time. Now though has upon the whole struck into the same Christianity
road,
in so far
as
it
has,
generally, brought
the con
male,
still it
does in any way belong to or partake in those approxi mations to the Christian mode of thinking which will
be found in Plato.
On
which he
developes,
starts,
as
well as
that,
are
such
Christianity,
we must
against them.
the
main developed
to
by
of a correspondence
refers,
its
gymnastic exercises
order
to
would be deducible, he
position,
to brutes,
prove his
without
occurring to him,
penetrate
into
how
the
ever
profoundly
he
endeavours to
the
depths
of nature, that
ingly
with
the
gradations
in
organic
life,
and,
con
sequently, in the
human
as
race,
little
must be
to
at its
maximum.
arises
And he
from
the
seems
in
quite
reflect
what a wide
distinction,
reference
that
to
common
occupations,
fact
in
periodical
recipiency and pregnancy is not man, but free from all influence of the
379
/f)
seasons.
Meanwhile
this
so
manifestly and pre-eminently physical, sufficiently shews that Plato took it not in a Socratic but a Pythagorean
point of view.
And
as,
ceeding upon the greater similarity of the sexes, intro duced into the world the purest idea of marriage, and the most perfect form of domesticity, Plato s view on
the contrary misled him on the ground of this similarity to an utter destruction of both ; and this is what every individual of sound mind among our
contemporaries
would gladly erase out of this work, even to the very last trace. But these traces lead very far; nay, I might almost say, that here is concentrated all that was mis
taken in
the
and
we have a
to
nature
Even
Plato, to
whom
in
this
honour has
been ignorantly awarded, is so confined within the merely sensuous view of the sexual relation, that he
to
recognises
produces;
that a spiritual element in sexual love remained utterly unknown to him. Now in the Platonic state a
pas
sionate
object,
inclination of this
kind cannot
itself
attain its
but
it
is
those
they,
persons
in
And
greatest
possible
advantage for the commonwealth, and yet prevent any discord arising about much wished-for beauties, have
recourse to a fraud, not publicly indeed, but privately authorised, and consequently, with truth and honesty,
380
sacrifice
to
essential element
of
personal
But
from
the
same
sense
of
beauty inclinations also in men towards youths might and Plato by no means regarded even be developed of the plastic power of nature sufficiently the right
;
high to wish to overcome such a direction of passion by shame, but these inclinations were to be favoured
as
might
prospect of obtaining the most by beautiful out of the two sexes as a reward ; and the
be
nourished
the
susceptibility
common good
is
is
numbered among
;
a thing
Nay, we
tioned
is
sanc
even
the
is
noblest
natures
as
an
important
a system
motive,
of
life,
but
difficult to see
how,
in such
any
other
source
of
free
personal
inclination
remains.
if
On
we must
that
certainly allow,
the
principle
to
once
granted
the
guards,
in
in
in
order
prevent
to
any
self-interest
arising
them
to
opposition
the
all
spirit of community,
are
it
be ex
cluded from
private property,
that
follows only
much
too easily
no home and no
in
marriage,
creation
and then a
of
community
an
the pro
to
and education of
result.
their
offspring appears
be
the
most natural
is
When
to
extended
frater
nization
extolled
best
this
as
regulation,
reply, that
calculated
cannot
of that
common
school-house, resembling in
dimness
381
the place of the subterraneous pre-education of the earth-
state
this
law none but a very small community could exist and continue, such as the Platonic one is to be, and as
also in
America
lately,
similar principle
of
common
profits,
of the
And in such subordinate forms the de human race cannot be fulfilled, but only
based throughout upon the system
as organic unity
by great
in its
civil unions,
The
are
made upon
to such a subtly compounded commonwealth, cannot, all of them together, contribute any great advantage. Other wise there are interwoven with the exposition of this
with regard to relation of war, containing strong censure of Hel lenic immorality, although in this also Plato is not
theory
maxims of
national law,
especially
free
tion
from the contracted views arising from the opposi between Hellenes and barbarians.
This
first
section
only designed as a model, with a view to defining under what conditions perfect justice, and an indivi
is
possible,
be
satisfied
greatest
this
possible
approximation
of those
who,
in
as possessed
well
their
industry
and
employment
382
ocular pleasure, from those who, as possessing the more
honourable natures, are qualified for the cultivation of the faculty of pure knowledge, and can raise themselves
out of the confused multiplicity of material things to the contemplation of the pure unity of ideas, and, con
sequently, to that of which the Platonic Socrates in the earlier dialogues so often shows those to be incapa
ble,
who
are
are partly
affairs,
duct of public
themselves engaged with the con partly with the education of those
who
to
govern.
effect
But
this
requisition
is
intended
also to
have the
that
com
monwealth,
of
those
class
from
the
may
also
be always
in the
government, hands
men
alone
is
who
to
philosophise.
Here an
be understood by philosophis ing, naturally comes under consideration, and this is given by Plato in a somewhat forced discussion, in
which,
referring back
to
his
elucidation of what
principles
as
far
as
he
could without directly quoting himself, he palpably pre sumes all that we know from those dialogues of which
the Sophist
is
to
And now,
while
he
explains,
is
a nature which
must
also
possess
verning, he suddenly transplants his reader out of the fantastic world of his Republic, though but for a short
time, into the existing circumstances of that period, in
order to gain a small space for self-justification against an accusation, which has been often, and even a short
time since,
again
renewed,
charging him
city,
with
deser
endeavouring
to
make
the
youths
distinguished
life.
When
383
Socrates has enunciated that principle,
the
side
Adimantus takes
of the
opponents,
selves seriously
to
the
state
order
the
to
defend his
that
position,
assertion,
the subject cannot be judged of upon the utterly cor rupted state of things of that period, and expounds
how
in
such universal confusion the true philosophical and then base indi
of
the
hireling
class
possess
themselves in
These
descriptions, in
one of which
those
it
is
resembling
him,
while
the
other
is
especially
pointed at the rhetorizing sophists, continually suggest to the mind the subjects of the earlier Platonic polemics,
in
order
also,
to
justify
to
his
conduct.
And
at
the
same
time,
ration,
in
the
assistance of theory,
men
of this
description
thus,
will
forward.
And
this
second section of this part, in which the education of those who are destined for the government is to be
be the highest object to which good of knowledge in man can apply itself. But the faculty it is to be regretted that not even that master-genius,
represented to
rarely to be met with in speculative demonstration, but
here displayed, is thought capable of coping with this subject; but the satisfactory discussion of it is referred
to
I
know
not
what place
still
this ;
384
only most nobly extolled in images, and by a further extension of imaginative lan guage, in such a manner, however, that undeniable re
while
here
the
good
is
ference
is
made
to
what
in the
Philebus
this
is
partly sketched
and partly
style
worked up
is
of execution
;
far
upon more
subject.
And
here
the
gratifying
than
there
as
by the good
all
as
its
typical
emblem does
an
excellent
affords,
by
application
of
the
resulting
relations,
a clear and unimpeded survey of the whole subject, how that reason bears the same relation to the intelligible
as the eye does to
the
visible,
and that
as light
and
the eye
recollect
what spontaneous
are eye in the exposition of earlier theories not themselves indeed the sun, but more connected with
to
the
than anything else, so also human reason, requiring as it does such an effluence from the good in the exer
it
tion
of
its
power of knowing,
is
is
not
the
good
it.
itself,
most of
all
connected with
into
And
im glance subject, properly treated of in our author with much mystery, in what manner Plato conceived the identity of objec
affords
us
deep
not
tive being
it
is
effluence of the
which imparts
terial
things
and
and
to
reason
the
power
of knowing, which
And
this
means
is likewise the truth of their being. to say that the reason cannot know
anything otherwise than with reference to the idea of the good, and by means of it, and that to the whole
385
we might indeed say, the per no being whatever corresponds, and ceptible generally, that there would indeed be nothing but the eternally inconstant flux of the non-existent, if flux were not
visible, or
range of the
stayed by the living operative influence of the idea of the good, and thus something at length produced, which still although participating in the inconstant and rest
less,
may
yet
To
all
indeed, the reader only meets with slight allusions, but they carry the attentive mind, in conjunction with what is brought forward above in the general explana
this,
tion of
which now develope themselves to such results. But if, on the one hand, the two provinces of the visible and intelligible are placed parallel and compared with one another, neither is that subordination of the one which we have already been made here wanting. The sun, it is said, is only acquainted, a type of the essential absolute good the corporeal light bears a precisely similar relation to the spiritual, and
to
in
the spiritual region is nothing which every mind gropes about which
enchanted by the charm of the terrestrial sun, and, without endeavouring to rise higher, lingers among the
material things illuminated by it. And as the whole range of the visible world stands in the relation of a
is
kind
it.
Now
here
it
may
surprise
us that the subjects of mathematical thought, number and figure, are described as types of the ideas ; mean
while
we should continue
to
be well
satisfied
that
this
3c
386
tion,
and we possess
use
of
at
the
Platonic
number and
the
in which philosophy, and to the relation in this respect. to the Pythagorean school Very remark
relation
lectic,
able also are the elucidations given with regard to the between the mathematical method and the dia
connection whatever although they stand in no with the former theory, unless by the introduction of
a middle term, here not even alluded to, in so far, that can be considered also is, as mathematical hypotheses
as
types of real
premises or
first
it
principles.
Thus,
at least,
sistent in Plato to distinguish himself from those who think themselves able to define the essence of things
and fancy that they the philosophical sense of the word, while
figure,
But if connections. they are only forming mathematical have been material things already at an earlier period
described as constituting the true in the sphere of the still mathe visible, and called also types of the ideas,
matical processes, as belonging to the province of the the precedence of them, and intelligible, have justly
among
the
for corporeal vision has objects of intellectual activity intui its object the types; belief, real things; abstract real knowledge, ideas. tion, mathematical subjects; and To this gradation, then, the whole series of studies of to correspond ; is those intended for the
government and that we may the better survey this, and learn to estimate the reciprocation between studies and practice,
Socrates
suddenly
transports
us out of the
midst of
of
life
is
im-
387
possible
to the
for
them
to
turn
themselves
with
their
eyes
types,
that
is,
visible objects,
and being,
is
such vivid colours, that one scarcely sees, even though the illuminated were to give up their own
represented in
which they enjoy above, and to bestow it there, why it should be even worth while to lead such
happiness
a destitute
life,
in
which there
so that
is is
and nothing
also that
to
lose;
is
he
patriot who, as
here demanded, applies to this point magnanimous sentiment, that it is not an object
that any one part of the whole should be prosperous above the rest*. But if, notwithstanding all guidance, the great mass of the people ever continues what it
was before
existence
to conceive the
of
principle,
or
to
have an idea of a progressive improvement comprehend then even the most magnanimous selfing the people
devotion can only
as
it
receive any
compensation in so far
possible,
in
is
by
this
means alone
the case of
to a better lot.
And
the
if to this
we add
in
is
consideration
that
population
Plato
state, to
not even
which we are now again introduced, to multiply itself, and that the relation
between the producers and the consumers must appear to him confined within very narrow limits, we may say
that the problem of the Platonic state,
and consequently
of collective
human
no other than to preserve human nature without de terioration in its once So that our given relations.
philosopher appears in the character of the strictest ar^
vi,
c. 5.
388
In what manner, then, the small selection of more noble natures is to be tried, and by degrees practised in and accustomed to
stability.
their better lot, is immediately developed by Plato by an elegant reference of this image of the cave to the once selfit is at original one of the sun, in which
sun
itself
can only be acquired by manifold preparatory exercises. As then the common corporeal and mental exercises of
the
children
were
unavoidably
much
conversant
with
typical
matter in images, by reason of the mythical volved in them, and the world of real material things, and consequently of faith, is the scene of the whole
development of infantine
exercises of the
life,
so
also
the
preparatory
are conversant
subjective thought,
which
is
constituted
improperly
so
called,
all
each
for
itself,
though
always
ing,
setting aside
all
and
practical
reference
material
things
number in the abstract, figure exclusively bearing upon in the abstract, and in like manner motions and rela
tions in
the
abstract.
The
next
is
the setting
up of
these sciences in their connection with, and their rela the nature of absolute existence; and those tion
to,
only
who can
follow
up
contemplation
of
this,
But
it
is
and
after
they
389
time very unequally between that enviable scien even tific life and the joyless service in the cave, that to the pure contemplation of the idea these men attain
their
of the good, and to government; to which last, how ever, they have only to devote intermittingly the smaller
part of their time, dedicating the greater to contempla tion, until at length in due time, and extolled by all,
they close their mortal career. And with this, Socrates, after having
first
given a
cursory hint as to the manner in which, provided only first of all that true philosophers but once had the power in their hands, such a state might actually exist,
has fully
acquitted
set
himself of the
whole task
which
him, and returns back at the be ginning of the eighth book to the point at which this great digression was imposed upon him, and we now
Adimantus had
take our
leave
of
this
singular
Republic.
And
the
if
may
I
same,
little
would
call
attention
to
the
point,
how
own
nation
how
highly,
on the contrary, he thought of the Hellenic nature, as he not only ascribes to it a pre-eminent development of the knowledge-seeking element in the human mind,
but even
so
lates
rare
union
to
of
qualities,
and
in
these
all
strength,
engage successfully
in
these exercises
and
trials,
so
many
individuals,
he will never want including even the female sex, that rulers, although no one attains to the highest power
before
his
fiftieth
year,
and
then
several
are
to
re
by
turns.
own
390
populous
cation
states
to effect
this,
difference in our
method of edu
be
made.
as to require
Meanwhile, however, we have gone so far from all those who would exercise great
society, a combination of scientific
influence
upon
accom
plishments with those requisite for war, and vice versa. And if we cannot desire that they who have to exercise
the highest power should possess the most dialectic ge nius, with us the supreme power does not comprehend
so
much
as
in
Plato;
upon the fact that they who live most in the kingdom of ideas, by exercising a manifold influence upon education,
will also
in the formation
of public opinion, which always, though unconsciously, the exercise of the supreme power. regulates Nay, even though temporary mischief might not always be
avoidable in so doing, we might pretty confidently leave to the emulous principle in our nature, in the de
it
velopment of which we are so far in advance of the ancients, to decide where self-seeking and counterfeit
sophistry
is
sopher, and
Now
this
perfect
purpose of exhibiting justice in the gross, after those general outlines also have been sketched which do not stand in immediate connection with this
a nearer
object,
approximation is now made to what was to have been done at the end of the fourth book,
to
we mean,
of of
life is
answering the question as to what mode And here the same method
were
For
391
imperfect characters also must exhibit themselves under
in
the
im
model,
these,
and
it
is
desirable
with
this
view to describe
in a continually retrograde
most perfect injustice is brought most corrupted state. This Fifth grand division of the whole work, which now brings the ori
to
ginal question
a decision,
ninth books.
sort
The whole
what Plato frequently and us to understand, I mean, that distinctly enough gives his Republic never has in reality existed, and that
of contradiction
with
there
exist.
is
not
even
it
ever
should
For
and
if this
the
case,
how can
among
he, notwith
existed
the
Hellenes,
for scarcely
any mention of others is made, as a gra duated series of revolutions, which he developes, his What, therefore, torically, from that ideal conception ?
is
here historical
is,
have,
series,
rarely,
succeeded
one
another
and by this method only the various from perfection are to be made degrees and that only with a view to a better under manifest,
of distance
same
in
standing of this gradual degradation of moral worth individual minds ; and this retrograde career which the individual mind runs appears always as the prin cipal subject. Starting, therefore, from the perfect Re
public, which exhibits the
gross, Plato
arises
s
union of
is
it
all
virtues
in the
next problem
;
to
from perfection
for
appears
to
392
see
how what
the initial
his
imperfect continually deteriorates after change has once taken place. Now, since
is
only exist for any length of time by means of the intermixture of the sexes being conducted by the philosophers upon correct principles,
perfect
is
state
can
it
tion
and Plato, therefore, has recourse to an unavoidable fatality by means of which, at some time or other, the
same wisdom
an important
in
this
department
is
is
not
observed.
this
If
deviation
ever
made from
there
immediately ensues a deficiency of properly tempered natures and then the consequence of that must be a
:
diminution of public spirit, and an excitement of selfinterest. This then tends to a dissolution of the mutual
relation hitherto
kept by the
as
also
destined
relation
for
the
government,
to the people,
and
in this is at
of the utter ruin of the constitution, and consequently of all in which virtue can be seen in its enlarged and
general form.
ple
that
times in
is
accordance
with
the
further below,
how
ditions of descent
from one
the
become such
as
to
carry
within
themselves
worse,
and how they then by degrees summon into existence the constitution which is in conformity with them.
must be allowed that the images here given moral characters are not only drawn with of different striking truth, considered in and for themselves, but
Now,
it
also
Pla
tonic
philosophy,
constitute
definite
gradations.
The
393
first
point
is
been
is
once
which after the small part has suppressed by virtue of which the mind
that
at
wise, the spirited principle (TO OvjuoetSes) then gets the upper hand, and is attended only by the principle of desire, whether under the form of love appearing
of money or love of Or, secondly, if the enjoyment. former principle sinks to the bottom, then the various
passions exist
the mind,
chy.
upon friendly terms with one another in or some single one usurps universal monar
on the other hand,
the
But,
manner
in
which
is
it
not
is
by and for
itself,
but only as
civil
different
consti
tutions;
manner
immediately intelligible, but properly they should, ac cording to the principle stated above, have only been intelligible from the predominance of the analogous dis
position in
it
the great
if
majority of individuals.
So that
if
looks as
which,
ac
curately considered is only here as an apparatus, obtains a prominent independence, and unconditional importance, This contrary as it were to the inclination of the writer.
is
particularly
shown
in in
constitution
of mind,
mind and
any political relation, while the melancholic on the contrary, although it is self-evident that temper this might in like manner assume a despotic character,
is left
without the psychological foundation in this con nection, as indeed it did not usually appear in the case of private individuals in the same and to the
way
394
tyrants, properly so called, especially such as Plato
had
himself become
this
form
very
in
all
extravagance.
The
reader,
how
little
ever,
easily
passes
onward over
all
these
features
carries
it.
Among them
mysterious psychological factor is especially prominent, at the opening of the ninth book, an idea which is
in
seldom quoted when the preindications of Christianity Plato are mentioned, but which to me appears to be the most profound sentiment he ever uttered in this
feeling.
It
is,
that
the
lie
germs
stir
even
in
of
the
most
perverted
extravagances
concealed
in
the
noblest
suspension of the will in dreams, as they on the con horrible actions trary, may break out into the most
its
supremacy
in
the
indeed undeniable generally, that the image mind is not only the most important part with reference to the whole tendency of this sec
of the tyrannical
tion,
inasmuch as
it
is
that
which
its
exhibits
injustice
in
at
sive impression of the boding anxiety with which Plato saw in general in the degenerate democracy of his native country such tyrannical dispositions developing them
selves.
Upon
now
that
this
description
of the
tyrannical
mind
inter
there
properly completing the whole work, of the proposition that the just life alone is the truly desirable, and the unjust the contrary.
mission,
multiplicity of proofs for one and the same proposi tion, if they are not merely different forms of one and
395
the same proof, and consequently the multiplicity only
apparent, do certainly excite our suspicion, because a want of confidence in each particular proof appears to lie at the bottom of that proof: and here it might be
further said in particular, that upon any reader
whom
the previous description of a well regulated supremacy of reason does not convince as well as charm, all fur
lost. And yet we should without an important and striking ex planation with regard to the relation of reason to the other two parts of the mind, if Plato had not subjoined these proofs. Now, even if it is not quite the case
have been
left
with these that, accurately taken, they are but one and the same, they are yet connected with one another in
The first, strictly understood, very natural gradation. concerns only that state of perfect For if injustice.
the desires become multiplied, and, forming the largest part of the mind, agree about a change of the govern
ment,
they cannot all be satisfied alike, it cannot then indeed be said that what the whole mind
wills
because
takes place,
nor
yet
this
itself.
it
does
is
not
in
will,
but
part
remains
free
and
unity with
this
Hence
further
particular proof two general ones, each implying the tripartite division of the mind, and supposing that each of the three parts has its own par
upon
ticular pleasure,
rise to
a particular
and that the supremacy of each gives mode of life. Now if these modes
this
may
be done by a
since
if,
says Plato,
there
is
no umpire to decide between them, there being nothing more existing in the mind, it is asked which of them can be qualified to pass a correct judgement upon the
others as
well
as
upon
itself.
396
And
then again
it
may be
whether the solid content of pleasure which they afford cannot, purely as pleasure, be measured and estimated.
And
said
in
this
last
proof
much
is
upon the
distinctions
of pleasure
the
Phsedo,
but above
point,
all in
Socrates crowns this perfect proof for the good cause of justice by a new image of the mind. I say new, because no true reader will be able
to avoid, on occasion to that description
its
to our work.
And
in
driver.
Now
if
we compare
we
shall find
art,
it
;
yield
an excellent work of
if
and
even
in
words
a
it
developes
much-admired, and we
admirable brilliancy of description That at present under and elegance of application. on the contrary, seems coarsely and almost consideration,
may
add,
truly
extremely prosaically, is step by step in correspondence And should an with the preceding didactic exposition.
attempt be made to express it as an image, it would, as Plato makes us feel distinctly enough, turn out a random performance, and acquit itself but little better
than those well-known ascetic counterfeits of the
heart, in
human
which the
It is, however, excellently all evil thoughts proceed. conceived for the purpose of clenching all the doctrines set up in this work with regard to the mind, and ex
hibiting
in
detail
the
different
all
relations
among them,
as
it
and
is
the
more
effective
will
chisel,
in
But
if
we consider how,
397
arrangement
be of any value, Plato s entire doc trine of the mind, in so far as he treats of it in a
is
1
to
preponderantly ethical view, is confined as it were be tween these two images, we are then drawn deeper into the comparison. Neither of the two indeed repre
sents the
distinct
telligible
human mind
elements
as a perfect unity, or
makes the
in
it
which
from a
in
still
the
more a
is
The
in
subdivision
in
we
here
now speaking
the
it
comes out
the
much
is
better relief,
is
of
principle
of desire
utterly
wanting.
And
thus
to attribute
the luxurious
the earlier
picture,
which
has something of a coquettish character, partly to the rhetorical form of that work, and partly to the youthfulness of the composer, while in the one now before
vis
we
to
imitative
which,
strong
contrast
with the
work
pro image recapitulates perly ethical in the collective subject-matter of the work itself, it certainly appears to be a perfectly fit conclu
sion
to
And
as
this
all
that
is
the books
is
themselves.
For such
as
it
really
is;
the problem
the moral
solved,
inasmuch
;
the
superiority
of
life is
proved
is
which such a
And if possible are laid down. within the limits of the problem, questions, not falling
life
to
the great
398
answered, this noble image itself has as it were the spunge passed over it; for as when, after the com
sively
is
again broken
this
away,
exists
Socrates
expressly
declares
that
republic
earth,
only
in
upon
and he leaves
standing only
as
a heavenly model,
according to which every man is to regulate himself, and can then perform the duties of this constitution
only, and of no other.
would go away
At the end, then, of the ninth book every reader satisfied, and miss nothing connected
with the subject. But it can in no way be intended to be only an exhibition of the Socratic gluttony in conversation, when, as if he were yet far from the end,
Socrates subjoins immediately something new, and that as if he were afraid that without even taking breath otherwise interlocutors and hearers would not let them
;
selves
be again brought
the contrary,
to the task.
On
sion,
real
grand
divi
concluding piece, because it is clear that Plato must have felt himself imperiously called upon to make this addition before quitting his work, or he would
not have done
follows.
so.
first
The
The
ject of poetry, a subject out of whose province some matter is discussed in the third book, and being renewed
be here dispatched. It is, what the pre vailing character should be in the descriptions given of men in order to be employed with advantage in the
in this,
is
to
education
of youth.
And,
as
in
that
book,
this
399
question
is
decided
their
which
these
descriptions
always
involve in
ultimate
result,
whether
unjust
men
can be happy or just men miserable. This subject accordingly could not have been taken
up
earlier
that no one
than in this place, though it must be allowed would have felt the want of it, if it had
it
remained where
that
was.
to
For
all
it
is
now
clear
at once
Plato,
strict
according
poetical
in
appearance,
this
would have
had
fine
justice
in
department of the
arts
treated
that
the
rules
while he does indeed profess himself satisfied provided one amid only the just man proves himself a happy
tortures
and
insults,
to
which
to
even
our
own
critics
make.
rally,
the general explaining this point, he again takes up accusation against the art of imitative composition gene which had already made its appearance in the
third
book
the guards
there
arts, he here enlarges more upon the disadvantage which must ensue only from hearing and seeing mimic ex
hibitions.
Now
there
may indeed
be
truth
in
what
Plato says, that poets would be bad poets if they were is not it only to represent perfectly just men, but on that account necessary that men of contrary cha
should be so represented and extolled, as to And quite as seduce others to follow their example. little can it be overlooked that Plato proceeds upon a very narrow hypothesis, when he thinks that every
racters
one
is
inclined,
at
least,
in
solitude
to
effeminate
restrain, as well as
400
they would always relax some thing of their strictness towards themselves in relation
that
to what, if publicly exhibited,
perly
apply to
the
dramatic
and dramatising
art
of
poetry in
inferior
and
to
the
and method of
in
which, however,
in
Plato
does not
its
And
it
must surprise us
to
the more,
never
be able
defend
it,
itself,
it
as
to
likewise
There does not however appear, utterly unworthy indeed as such an ingredient would have been
a
and death.
of such
this in a
work,
the
slightest
trace
that
Plato
wrote
humour
excited
by the comic
his
poets,
notwith
having already
before
this
satirized
Republic
put
from
hearsay,
it
forth.
But
is
because
the dramatic
only
conversant with
the
mind
fariously deformed
from truth,
thing
true,
state of
in the
affects
this
it
which,
it
to
Plato,
represents
the
more
if unintermitting. of the third book he seeks corresponding passage to expose himself to the censure than in
antagonism with
as
And
any
a
it,
because, as he says,
as little as possible,
and only
in
of
the
make use of
401
mimic representation, a rule which he himself trans gressed so far, he now seems on the one hand to
wish entirely to renounce this method for the future, and on the other tacitly to justify himself upon the
ground, that,
sophists,
rhetoricians,
racters
the
reverse of praiseworthy,
so
far
from
bestowing upon them any commendation calculated to seduce others to imitate them, his only object was to
expose their real worth and to exhibit them as warning And as Plato spoke at last of his Republic examples.
only as a model to which approximations are to be made, so he comes in the present instance also to a very
mitigated conclusion, implying that
if this
art is not to
still
its
seductions,
not.
As then
Virtue
sake,
and from
not be other
to this,
embracing a subject which must indeed form a match less conclusion, as it returns to the rewards of Virtue,
and thus
it
refers
us
rather
to
the
second
book.
For,
is
rewards,
is
now
satisfied,
truth requires a return to that point. been hinted at the point, as has already
commencement
in
is
to
be about rewards
the present and future life, the immortality of the soul is first of all treated of, a doctrine which, independently of
all
other
s
considerations,
every
reader
acquainted
with
Plato
to
method and
out
of
art
this
pained
miss
And
nearly
as
402
surprising does
it
is
occupying space So that one might almost think that Socrates would rather have referred to it
quite
cursorily
dispatched
not
already
made out
it
elsewhere,
and
have made
his
friends
concede
as a
deed more to do
such a condition, and we should only regard this as a supplement as it were to the more copious
that there
is
discussions
in
the
Phaedo.
Now
here given is such that if it is which in the two earlier dialogues is always assumed, and in the Phagdo is to a certain degree illustrated
to
is nothing be conceived
self-existent
being, only
it,
quite distinct
from
it
is
in
at
to
the
that
proofs.
Moreover,
follows,
the immortality is to appear most strictly in the form of the transmigration of souls ; after the proof
of immortality is general, it is further proved that the number of souls always remains the same. In the Phaedo also this doctrine has been already indirectly
laid
between
down, as a circular career is so placed intervening life and death, that no other way remains in
which animation by the introduction of souls can arise ; is not brought forward
to
relatively
same way, and consequently that dialogue, more remote from the this subject, is
In this
in
last
too the
constancy
the
number
403
of souls
in
is
sketched.
is
But when
demonstrated
the
Phaedo
immortality
also
is
upon
compound can
not compound, it might be objected that in these very books Plato com On this account, there poses it of three essential parts. fore, Socrates now takes up the same point conversely,
is
be dissolved,
much
that
is
is far from appearing here but comes partly encumbered with originally is, was foreign additions, partly also deprived of much that
originally in
it.
What
else
that that
is
overgrown by his long sojourn in the depths of the sea, in the same way as the soul, as we already know
is here immersed in a dim abyss, various forms under which the prin are to represent the of desire appears, so that only the reason, either
ciple
unwieldly encumbrance
grination
for us, according to our
is
but
little
Only
it
is
difficult
mode of
kind
so perfectly the
can also
is
same with those of men, that the latter become brutes, and the former men; and it
how
to his
adopted
only
in
own
theory.
The
souls of brutes
must
as
we are taught
in
the Timaeus,
consequence
404
human life, banished as they are to such an can attain to no recollection whatever. organism, They
of their
first
are accordingly those souls which appear deprived for the most part of their original nature. But against this it
may be
velopes but few and simple desires, they are less burdened with those foreign encumbrances than the human in
souls,
which the whole army of desires displays itself, furnish indeed one ground for ing placing the two in comparison with one another. This theory also agrees, therefore,
with
that,
which
in
the
right
in the
human
all
race, discovers
efforts to
upon which
justice
form
mankind
wisdom and
manner
of the
it
are
to
be
founded.
psedagogic
And
may be
regulations
Platonic
state
receive
new
light
from what
sent
life
is
in that passage above which places the choice of a new life between unavoid able destiny and free-will ingeniously combined, every thing depends upon the soul being in a proper con dition to choose, and not too the strongly possessed
upon the
For
by
may have encountered in its former earthly existence, to be able to seize that which is in conformity with its inward essence, and calculated
impressions
it
of
what
to as
promote
if
its
improvement.
Only
it
that art of
sexes
might
come
this
some
difficulty,
if,
notwith
method a soul quite foreign and standing, upon unsuitable, in no way connected with this state, can insinuate itself into it and it is not very easy to see,
;
under what particular divine protection this circumstance must be placed, that such a misfortune may not occur
405
before
itself;
it
is
significantly
it
felt
in
the
unless
is
to
be said that
a far more
all
who
is
dear to
the
this
In
the
that
interchange between
the return
the
region
to
of imperfect
the
existence
to
bears a
the
manifest
lives
similarity
interchange
which
of
the
the longer
guardians of the state are to be subject, between period which they are to devote to philo
sophical contemplation, thus surrendering its right to the wish of the philosopher for death, or rather for
being dead, and the return for one day only to the burden some employment of government in the cave. So that
even in
the
this
point of view
Plato
will
not be denied
of the universe in the regulation of his But Republic. he has left almost all this for the reader only to dis cover, and the whole section, indeed, most manifestly bears the impress of having been intended to awaken
in every
way
to
pains
upon
the
subject
of
justice, and never to consider anything as more profit Such is the tenor of its commencement, such of able.
its
conclusion
object might be only alluded to, and what is further enlarged upon is only to be regarded as digressive. But we have also here in close connection with that
tive poetry,
grand object the aversion expressed to the art of imita and especially towards Homer, whose heroes quite pointedly furnish most examples of souls that make
406
a bad choice
wise
the choice of
And now
at
that
analysis
the
end of
if
the
question
results
very
naturally
arises,
the
case
as
our
the
to
us
while
we
pursued
that
dissection
accurate
manner,
the
question
raised
and moral
does
fact predominate throughout, so that every thing not relating to this is only to be regarded as digres sion the question, I say, arises, whence the work comes to bear the title of the Republic, in comparison with
in
How
it
happens
that
the
since
has
always been quoted under this name, and under no other, so that it at least goes back to the imme
diate
disciples
of Plato was,
Plato
it,
mediately at least, the author of since in the opening of the Timaeus Socrates him
himself
appears to be speaking of these dialogues when he says that they have discussed the main ques tion of the constitution of the state ? And so far is this
self manifestly
from being an incidental or subordinate notice, that on the contrary, the whole idea of the Timaeus and Critias,
which Hermocrates was to adduce, is Must not, there immediately developed from this. most confidence be placed in this Platonic Socrates fore,
as well as of
that
himself? and would he not smile at the analysis of the Avhole here given, the upshot of which is that justice
is
the
grand subject
Is not
an argument
in
favour
407
of the supposition that he did
struct
his
Republic
as a
mere
afforded
in
it
by
are
the
elaborate
execution
will
with
which matters
discussed,
justice
sition
it
?
which
And
if
there
in the
allusion
are
we
to so
were
in all respects
the written
also
introduced the ideal of a Republic only as a scaffold These are, indeed, im ing for his theory of virtue?
portant and weighty grounds ; but our view also of the work in its whole connection rests upon no authority
but the same Platonic Socrates, whose own advices we have most accurately followed. Are we, therefore, to
believe that in the
its
he has only played with proper subject, and that he begins all at once in
itself
work
the
Timasus,
and not
?
before,
to
take
serious
view
of the question
But
to
exclusively would be
to
least
quite
as partial as
not
to
whatever.
that
But
if
we are
start
upon
is
the
supposition
the representation of
the proper grand object, it would be hardly possible to conceive why the appearance of the contrary
the state
And even if it could be ex pointedly produced. plained why Plato combined the investigation concerning justice with this grand object, still the form and the
is
manner
in
which
this is
It
natural to introduce the main subject at once, and then, after the internal existence of the state had been de
scribed,
to
say in
408
such a whole consist;
individual
resolved
in
to the
mind,
this
;
and the
point
of
view,
would
problems, have
still
un
resulted
most naturally consequently, a perfectly converse rela tion between these two grand objects and the essential
parts
of the
work referring
if,
to
obtained.
And
indeed,
upon
this supposition
would
be more easily conceivable that the regulations about the commerce of the sexes should be treated of with
copiousness which now appears, then too, on the other hand, all that is in connection with the rewards
the
fall
it
much
is
farther back as
mere
by the
the
fact
style
the exposition, constituting as it does a return of the end to the beginning, very properly con cludes the whole. Other discussions, such as that upon the nature of dialectics, upon the conditions of this in
tellectual like
that
activity
and
its
and
in
indeed, a similar relation to both suppositions, and the question how they are necessarily connected with the
grand
swer.
both cases equally difficult to an Accordingly it does not appear that by the method actually pursued even the slightest step is gained
is
Thema
in
for affording a
only to be regarded as a representation of a normal constitution ; although, on the other hand, if it is to be merely a defence of justice, a disproporis
whole work
tionality
remains,
matter,
and
an excess
the
of
unnecessary
and
subordinate
which
has in
409
conceal.
What
Socrates
Platonic
here
double-faced
Janus?
In
the work itself the backwards looking face speaks, and to that we have until now listened; in the Timseus
the front one lets itself be heard.
position
And
the
the
fact
agrees,
that
in
work
itself
so
and
particulars
investigations combined, whole tissue into which are worked many which are as keys and talismans to what
affords extreme
satisfaction;
while in
mem
So
ber of a
new
series of theoretical
expositions, in which
to
Timaeus,
crates;
to
all
Critias,
this
follow
and
that
may
two-fold relation seems to be the key yet have continued obscure in the
The
in
particular,
to
all
defined,
earlier
and
the
and
preparatory labours upon ethical points, and the doc trine of the Republic has no other concern with this
task,
Socrates
professes from
the
be
But as the idea of virtue is on the ginning onwards. one side so essentially connected with the idea of the
good,
which
in
Plato
and,
view
on
the
is
the
dialectic
science,
other
come under
in
the
right
regulation
of
it
life,
first,
getic
ground
of
morality,
it
is
work,
as
well
of ethics,
410
and
as
it
Now, we observe
even a conception of an absolute freedom of will, such that by means of it man may at any moment, and
independently of all previous conduct and existences, be any thing that he likes ; but according to him this
free will
is
so connected
here plunged, that a com bination of the elements of the soul may arise in which
existence
in
which man
the existence of a
is
is
all
that
possible,
of education which can enable virtue to develope itself And thus the constitution of the to its full extent.
state
attains
high
natural
that
at
this
pounded
is
the
same time,
in it of the continuation
argued, the various tempers in different minds arise, should be placed under the dominion of common reason,
and quite as natural that the theory of dialectics, and with it at the same time, the polemics against that imi
tative
poetry
which,
according
the
to
Plato^s
conviction,
most
effectively
crushes
endeavour
after
truth
Every
step
is
professedly
to a
declaration
that
the
state
cannot
exist
in
actual
practice, but only with a reality such that the further an actual state is removed from this standard the less
virtue can
appear in
attains a
it.
And
thus,
the
Republic in
more important prominency than at our work first appears, but yet never such as to become the proper
411
and main subject.
The
relation,
before us to the following dialogues is distinctly marked Plato himself, as one not to be taken into conside by
ration
in
until
we
are
arrived at
development of the philosophy of this series. In the dialogues that succeed, no one but Socrates of
the
the whole
company
;
to
whom we
are
here introduced
may have
a sure
sign
that
the
original
plan
is
only
It
the
key
stone
to
all
that
has
hitherto
appeared.
does not
become the commencement of a new series until its re This is indeed a repetition which we now petition.
possess,
just said,
repeats
it,
we do not here
but we see
learn to
whom
the
Socrates again
opening of the Timaeus that the hearers were the aforenamed, and a fourth besides who is not named. These persons then, as is clear from the we there meet with had expressions
first
from
wished especially to hear Socrates arguments about the and although he was in consequence state, obliged to repeat the whole discussion, the Republic was to
subject.
title,
It is therefore to this
all
circum
and
who quote
ever
first
all
seemed how
of
all
first
the
and original
of the work.
Socrates on the following day requests as a repayment from those who desire him to repeat his arguments, that as masters in the province they,
Now, when
of practical
self,
life,
will
his
own Republic
living motion
with reference
412
to internal as
wish
does
in
no
way
this
contradict
the
confession
previously
Republic exists only in imagination. For, although as near an approximation to it as is pos sible is the highest point at which all others are to
aim,
in
still
made, that
the
life
of a
state
;
living representation
only
of exposing in their nakedness all immoral, and there fore corrupt, politics. Socrates had already this return
in
cursorily
explained, with a view of establishing a ground where upon to found his claims to it, in what manner generally
such
a state might
But philosophers had once the power in their hands. on this second meeting every thing does not come off
as
he had anticipated
the
subject
to
mitted
also
the
be content with what they resolved. Now, they he must have patience to listen to the resolve that
romantic history of his
that the subject
is
state.
For Timaeus,
in
order
true beginning,
first
of
all to
which nearly
all
more ancient
nings of the
human
race
to exhibit
that state according to its internal and external history, not indeed as Socrates appears to have intended, now
for
the
ancient
time existing and localized, but as the Athens, of which he has received information
first
from foreign legendary lore. Thus, accordingly, our work, under new authority, comes into a still more com
prehensive
series
than
that
which
Socrates,
according
413
to
the
although annexation of that philosophy which concerns the his theory of Nature to this work appears to overreach
expressions,
plans,
still
his
own
had
in
view.
But,
original
not
only
is
the
necessity
for
it
declared in his
the
first
outlines
drawn according to which they are to set this subject. For the principle already
the
to
work upon
laid
down
in
Phasdo,
that
nature must be
is
conceived from
the
Philebus
pronounced be absolutely the highest: and further, we here find stated pretty early as a principle to be generally
that the Deity
is
is
established,
can only every thing without distinction, but that he be the cause of good, and it is upon this principle espe Timaeus of the formation cially that the theory in the The necessity for a science of the world is constructed.
of abstract being in general is clearly declared by the remark, to the principle of which so striking a promi
accurate know given in these books, that an the method ledge of the mind is not to be attained by is wanted can be nothing hitherto pursued. Now, what but a knowledge of the relation between the mind
nency
is
and objective existence collectively, and of the place which the mind is to occupy in the system accordingly.
And
itself
Timaeus connects
with the books of the Republic is a declaration of the essential identity of ethics and natural philo
The same principle also is expressed under sophy. another form in the last fable about the migration of in which at the same time For this the souls.
myth,
the system of the world brought forward in the Timaeus is meant also to declare it as a is graphically prefigured,
414
Socratic view, that every soul, in the intervals between
its
is happy in the contemplation espe of these general mundine relations, and strengthens cially and recruits itself anew ; whence it follows that during
appearance on earth
life
also that
renewed
is
recollection,
which
is
likewise his
is
leading principle,
employed
fully in this
in speculations
enlivened
human
in
It is
which, as we have
series is
former
in
inter
also
the
latter
element has the preponderance, as natural philosophy is itself ethicised by the idea of the good which is placed at the summit of it ; and therefore the
formation of the world,
as
mode
of
acting,
furnishes
standing
that
creation,
deliberation,
and
The
state
must include,
imitation
to
is
and un
distinct
of the Deity.
as
But what
Critias
dertook
say,
well
as
what
Hermocrates would
have said, was undoubtedly to have been ethical, only certainly, if Socrates wish was to have been complied
1
with in so doing, directed to a comparative application And from this point of view not only to political life.
might the whole of the subject-matter contained in this work be intelligible, but it would also be an easy task
for every one to
make
it
clear
to himself,
how
all
pre-
415
vious works determine to this, and
all
out
in
them centre
designed
the
in
it.
But
at
how
great
a period
splendid
Plato
plan
of this
and
structure,
of his
and whether or not out of many, especially juvenile works, several points were at a later
them, which they had not before, to the philosophy of this, is a point which now probably it might not be
very easy to decide. Only it can scarcely be doubted that when Plato wrote these books he had already resolved to subjoin to them the Timasus and the
Critias.
NOTES.
PH^EDRUS.
Page
72.
I CANNOT help maintaining what is here said, notwith standing what Boeckh adduces (Heid. Jahrb. i. 1). I can neither discover the coincidence with Philolaus, nor put
such firm faith in the genuineness of the fragment ascribed But this is a subject which can only be ..discussed in another place*.
to him.
P. 73.
We
are not
to
look
for
too
much.
Ast, in his commentary, has construed this passage very It is, however, too profound for my apprehension how the poetic life above is indeed removed from all real
literally.
when below it and thus appears co ordinate with the poetical and gymnastic life. Again, I know not in what sense a higher conception of the true and beautiful can be said to belong to the ^/o7/xaT/o-TtKo? than
representation of the true and forms the fourth kind of real
beautiful,
life,
And
thus
leave
it
to
others to
enjoy
LYSIS.
P. 78-
To have had
the Lysis in
his mind.
Whoever
reads,
2.
10.
(p.
59.
A.D. p. 63. B.) Magn. Mor. n. c. 11. (p. and Eudem. vn. 2. 5. (p. 162. B. C. p.
* But see the extract from Boeckh
s
111. E.
volume.
(Tr.)
3d
418
NOTES.
totle
1590.) will scarcely continue to doubt of this, although Aris neither names Plato nor the dialogue, and one might
is
feel some suprise, if he really had it in view, that this not done more frequently and thoroughly.
PROTAGORAS.
P. 82.
I
Perished.
learnt this
Andocides.
Athenoeus,
does not
but only concludes from the comedy of Eupolis, brought forward Ol. 89. 3, and in which the extravagance of Callias is exposed, that Hipponicus must have
adduce
tnis authority,
To
justify
Plato.
See Bibl. of anc. Phil. v. 122. Every thing else that this author says about the chronology of the dialogue is very bad, and betrays but little study of the Protagoras, and some ignorance of the history.
P. 84.
Absent abroad.
When
does not
at
it is
make much
said that Protagoras lodges with Callias, this against the supposition, as Callias was
more
an age to superintend his father s house. There is perhaps difficulty in that subsequent passage which says that Hipponicus had formerly used the chamber as a store-room; which is intended certainly to give us to understand that
Callias
liberal
manners than
his father,
But, perhaps
too might be
at
field, is
This
is
clear
is
where
his accuser
Pythodorus
called
whom
NOTES.
Menagius over-hastily
while there
is
419
asserts that he is unacquainted. Mean a possibility that this accusation may have taken place at a later period, and Pythodorus may only be designated from his participation in this revolution a pos
sibility
probable
P. 97-
by
Philostratus,
:
who
3e
71/01)9
/xt e Trj (refjivoTqTt KCU irov K.ai epfj.t]vevovTa, vTrTid^ovra /xaKjOO\oy(arepov TOU (ru^^erpov, rtju e ai/ avrov fAvdai /JiciKput e-^apaKTtj^ Plato, knowing that Protagoras expressed himself with pia-ev.
t
was notwithstanding careless withal, and more diffuse than neat, imitated his style by a long speech. Only it is inconceivable how Olearius came to refer this to the
dignity,
but
Theaetetus,
when
it
manifestly
relates
to
the
myth
in
our
present dialogue.
Another poem.
I.
122. X.
CHARMIDES.
P. 108.
In
his
challenges.
p.
See Plato
Letters,
Ep. vu.
324. D.
Notorious attempt.
Xenophon
P. 109.
tells
this
Mem.
Soc.
i.
2,
33.
As Xenophon
represents
it.
Mem. Socr. in. 7. dialogue which should be com pared generally with this, that the reader may convince himself that there is here no such imitation or connection as to render our dialogue liable to
suspicion,
420
NOTES.
PARMENIDES.
P. 122.
From
See Charmid.
p. 169-
McyoAow S/ TWOS,
(pi\, dvcpos
3e?,
c.
P. 129.
The
supposing them to be true, that Lysias Athens, and that his father had already died before Lysias set out to travel to Thurii. Dionysius agrees with the first account, while the last is only supported by the composer of the Lives of the Ten Orators ; an author
to
of
found in
was born
despised by all sound investigators. By it the made in the Republic would be completely de stroyed, for Plato s brothers could in that case never have been in conversation with Cephalus. By the first account, Cephalus immigration would be placed so early that the
sufficiently
supposition
dialogue between Socrates and Parmenides could not then have taken place. But this would indeed be a subordinate circumstance, which Plato might easily have overlooked. He
represents Cephalus as a person
and even
who often came to Athens, presence at this time does not look like an immigration, but a visit or a journey on business whereby the impossibility of this dialogue having taken place, if Cepha
his
still
becomes
greater.
2,
in
such matters about Dionysius, how much is accredited in formation, or when he only follows an opinion generally I may take this opportunity of advising the reader adopted.
where the question turned upon the chronology of the life of Lysias, that the accounts of Dionysius, and not those in the Lives of the Ten Orators, are
that in the Phaedrus likewise,
universally followed.
And upon
this point a
said, only for the reason that F. C. Wolf, in his translation of the Republic, has taken the opposite course.
remain to be
Both agree
at the
it
time of the
archonship of
e.
Ol. xcn.
1.
at that
falls
LXXX.
2.
On
NOTES.
the contrary, the
"Lives"
421
in Ol. LXXXII. 2.
place
it
Accord
ing to both accounts he goes at the age of fifteen years to Thurii; which, according to that of Dionysius, falls in quite correctly with Ol. LXXXIV. 1, when the colony was actually
1,
eight years later, when something important was to be dis tributed there. The confusion of the last account proceeds
from the circumstance that the author makes Lysias stay at Thurii till his sixty-third year, and consequently contradicts himself; wherefore Taylor s endeavour by means of an emendation to bring the first account to agree with Dionysius is useless. So also the notice of the early death
also
of Cephalus may be only a supposition, because the writers could not explain, what is nevertheless very easy to explain, how Cephalus should have permitted his sons, and one of
so young, to go abroad. And it might be a question whether the assumption, by no means general, or resting upon any sufficient testimony, that Lysias was born at Athens, may not have arisen only from the fact that nothing was known to the contrary. Then, like many others, he may
them
perhaps have travelled to Thurii without coming straight from Athens, and his father may have fixed his residence at Athens after this emigration of Lysias, and not before,
being persuaded to do so by Pericles, as indeed Lysias him
self so distinctly asserts.
P. 129.
See Plutarch de
frat.
am. n. 484. E.
"As
his brothers a celebrity by introducing them into the most beautiful of his writings; Glaucon, namely, and Adimantus
the
Parmenides."
and Antiphon, the youngest of them, into For the rest, Plutarch would hardly have
wished that Antiphon to share with this one the celebrity of having transferred his tastes from philosophy to horsebreeding. Proclus also recognises this half-brother, and thence
concludes very rightly that the dialogue between Cephalus until after the death of
Socrates, without, however, expressly declaring that he con siders this Cephalus to be a different person from the father
of Lvsias.
422
NOTES.
P. 131.
If any
one.
lately
done
I
see his
Essay
that
I
life
and
writings,,
p.
250.
may
add,
should not envy those readers their opinion to whom Ast has satisfactorily proved that the Parmenides was written
at the
earliest
is
after the
Theaetetus,
since in
once so decidedly commenced of those problems which in the Parmenides are but slightly indicated. For,
solution
at
Ast has by no means distinctly shown in what respect the Parmenides completes the Theaetetus, and even the Sophist and Statesman. Nor even if we allow that Socrates here, in the pains he takes and the problems he enunciates, shows himself to have arrived at the summit of dialectics, will, therefore, the investigations which Parmenides conducts and in which Socrates is perfectly passive, constitute the completion of those in the above-mentioned dialogues. The notion that from that perfection in the enunciation of the problems, and the success of Socrates endeavours, Parme nides may be intended to represent the erring philosopher, must appear to all persons accurately acquainted with Plato I agree, too ridiculous for anything to be said about it.
however, with Ast, that in
of virtuosity in investigation
dialogue the representation the principal point, and it is the circumstance that it contains
this
is
upon
this,
as well as
upon
only germs, that the arguments rest for the position which I have assigned to it, so that I find it unnecessary to enter more accurately into what Ast alleges in favour of his own
opinion.
APOLOGY.
P. 134.
start.
These words seem now 110 longer suitable after Ast s total and uncompromising excommunication of this dialogue. But I believe there are very many persons to whom even my opinion will at first sight seem too bold, and hope that
few only
be persuaded by Ast
in
is
tricate criticism,
upon
the stage
NOTES.
423
to the
conceited sophist, and that the whole of this defence belongs common and counterfeit art of rhetoric.
P.
136. Which Diogenes. See Diog. Laert. Lib. 11. s. 41. We are there told that Plato wished to defend Socrates from the rostrum, but that
at the
first
Attic wit.
word the judges put him down by a But this tale is too little accredited and
itself for
sally
of
too
im
probable in
vaToi, TMI;
dvafltlvat eVl
anything to be built upon it. (UXar^a TO ft^a, K a\ ezVelV NewVaro? wV, J avtipes *A6tieVl r6 fir^a dvaftcivTW rou\ gi^cco-ras K/3o^<rai KaraKaT(t/3r)6t.)
TOVTfO-Tl,
P. 138.
Much
in
to
change.
s
These
sufficient
imperfections are,
Ast
opinion,
among
the
grounds for excommunicating the piece; but an imitating sophist, and one who proceeded according to the rules of rhetoric, must have been far worse than the one here
otherwise is, to commit such faults. But Socrates may com mit them, because on every occasion he is hurried onwards by his higher objects, and the whole defence in particular looks like an occasion, such as common life
for following his calling.
might present,
Of
For Socrates must have defended himself, and I should have wished Ast to have hint as to given us some
how, in
slight his opinion, Socrates dispensed with this task.
HIPPARCHUS.
P. 157.
Two
great Masters.
Valckenaer on Herod,
p. 398.
and Wolf.
Prol. p. 154.
Striking out.
Even
chus
is
really a
little
work of Plato
but of
importance.
424
P. 159.
NOTES.
For even
the
Menon.
the
Other points of resemblance between our dialogue and Menon are mentioned by Boeckh. (in Minoem, p. 40.)
MINOS.
P. 163.
Minos was
never.
For an account
at the
in
Olympic games was called so has been already cor rected by Boeckh. (See Pref. in Minoem.)
GORGIAS.
P. 175.
In
the Protagoras. in
the
Protagoras
beginning
358. P. 180.
It
From
the
Lysis.
the reader to decide, whether he can more easily conceive this to have been the case, or, on the contrary, that these hints afforded matter for his composition
must be
left for
composer of the Lysis. Only, in that case, the com entitled to be considered a more still remain poser than Ast will allow him to have been. ingenious person
to the will
P. 185.
No
trace appears.
None,
otherwise,
at least, according to
my notions. Ast indeed thinks and would conclude hence that Plato composed
Socratic process,
when
think
it
humour
refrain
in
and, as
extremely deep.
But
from saying more upon this point, and leave the case the hands of every skilful reader. In
the Ecclesiazusce of Aristophanes.
different
to
NOTES.
genslern,
it
425
Commentat. de Platonis.Republ. p. 7678. Should be objected that this comedy did not perhaps contain so
allusions to Plato as
is
many
clear
generally believed,
it
is
still
and especially Socraticians, enough are comprehended under its satire, and among them Plato was more effectively hit, inasmuch as he was distinguished above the rest by reputation and rank.
that philosophers,
P. 187-
Athenaeus, in the well-known passage, xi. 507, Ed. Bip. p. 384, writes strange things concerning this subject, which authors have copied from him, and hence have dreamed of a relation between Plato and Archelaus which is perfectly
iv.
impossible.
as follows
"
In the Gorgias
he censures not only the person from whom the dialogue takes its title, but also Archelaus, the king of Macedonia, both as a man of low descent, and as one who had killed his lord and king. And this is the same Plato of whom that by means of his close friendship with Speusippus says, Archelaus he was the cause of Philip s coming to the govern ment." Then, after bringing forward the passage of Speu But sippus referring to this point, Athenaeus continues whether or not this was actually the case, God knows." In
"
truth
it
what Speusippus
inferred.
Plato,
but what,
the
by means of a
died in
with
is
Archelaus,
to
who
have been the cause that ten years later Philip supposed came to the government. And how? Listen. Carystias of Pergamus, says Athenaeus, writes as follows in his Memora
bilia.
he wrote
Speusippus learnt that Philip spoke ill of Plato, "As if it were not known that Philip owes even his kingdom to Plato. For Plato sent Euphraeus to Perdiccas, who was influenced by him to assign some province to Philip. And as Philip maintained there an armed force, he had, when Perdiccas died, the means in readi ness, and could put himself in possession of the kingdom."
in
When
a letter as follows:
Now
is
or
any
of accusing
him
Unless
we do
426
in the strangest
NOT ES.
and most ignorant manner, the Alcetas whom Archelaus slew, and the Perdiccas whom he succeeded, and
the far later Perdiccas
who
all
together.
Too many words already for the contradiction of such misera ble prattle. Only we see hence what bad authorities Athenaeus
followed in what he says against Plato, or what inconsiderate use he has made of his collectanea, without even taking care
What Speusippus other he really did say it, and may serve for the correction and completion of other accounts, which make Philip remain in Thebes till the death of
if
Perdiccas.
THEJETETUS.
P. 192.
contradiction.
(p. 100)
and Charmides
referring
to
passages
in
each
dialogue
P. 203.
So Proclus.
his
first
MENON.
P. 219.
son of Anthemion.
story about the love of Anytus for Alcibiades, at one time speaking of Anytus the accuser of But Socrates, at another of Anytus the son of Anthemion.
Plutarch
tells
little
it
for
might not be well to build too much upon this story; it seems to be almost at variance with what is said in
by Xenophon, that the son of Anytus was still a growing boy, and
we
cannot
of Anytus
trade ;
first
it
-could hardly occur to his son in his to fall in love with Alcibiades. years
hence
by an extensive younger
NOTES.
427
The same of whom Xenophon. But when Gedike thinks that he can be the same as occurs in the first book of Thucydides, and that this Menon, who in the campaign of Cyrus owed his office of commander
his youthful beauty, also led an army at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, he may, if he can, come to an agreement with dates as to this point.
to
EUTHYDEMUS.
P.
220.
Though no
one.
Even Ast
this
rejection,
ground, but only sophists occasionally, he does not think that he could have
dedicated a particular dialogue to this purpose. As if Plato did not treat of many things in this dialogue occasionally, and expressly in the others; and as if his dialogues of this nature had not always a variety of objects, and not one
merely.
to look for
as to Ast s discovery,, that it is but lost labour any other bearing or object in this dialogue, and his accurate method of ^d examining explaining it in con sequence, both are now before the world, together with my introduction, and every reader may try and choose. But any one inclined for a jest might say that he should not be
since published, does not take up because Plato so often exposes the
And
sorry if another author besides Plato were to be whom such a dialogue as this could be ascribed.
found to
P. 223. Xenophon. In the third book of the Memorab. of Socrates, chap. P. 224.
i.
In the Cratylus.
Aristotle also.
Ed. Bip. in. p. 599, with which com Soph. pare Rhet. ii. cap. xxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. iv. p. 292.
El. cap. xx.
De
Another passage.
De
Soph.
El.
if
Tennemann,
cap. xxxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. in. I mistake not, has already
p.
639.
expressed
the
428
supposition that
tisthenes
is
NOTES.
when
Plato mentions these
see
o\^</xa0es,
Anrefer
meant.
We
how
this
does,
indeed,
still
some
PH^EDON.
P. 291.
In
the speech
of Diotima.
See Symp.
Phsedr. p.
p. 205,
24-6.
206.
P. 294.
To
interest itself.
P. 301.
Here
P. 304.
in the
Phcedon.
See
p. 72, e. 73, a.
The Protagoras.
P. 68, 69.
P. 305.
As
it
is said.
Politic, p. 269.
THEAGES.
P. 321.
In the Apology.
P. 33, e.
Two
The
other
is
notices.
in the Republic,
B. vi. p. 496,
to
where
it
is
him
keep
to philosophy
by
politics.
parenthetic digression.
.
P. 150, 151.
In
the Apology.
P. 31, d.
P. 324.
1,
24.
c.
19*
In the Euthyphron.
P. 3, b.
ERAST^E.
P. 326.
The
other professedly.
in to
There
is
Diog.
imply
NOTES,
429
that this critic thought that the nameless /xouo-ixos of our dia logue was Democritus. But the passage is probably not free
from corruption, and Thrasyllus can scarcely have intended this piece of folly, but only meant to say that Democritus was a philosopher such as the other person alluded to in the passage had described him to be, who resembles an athlete
(TreWaflAos), something in every thing, good in nothing. Moreover the same passage contains the most ancient doubt
Avrpa(na\ HXartovds
el&iv.
MENEXENUS.
P. 337.
Which Thucydides.
in
his
life
it
of
thus tacitly giving us to understand that Thucydides only ascribed it supposititiously to Pericles, while on the other hand he celebrates
mention
another oration of the great statesman delivered at an earlier Dionysius also says that in period, during the Samian war. But may not his opinion Plato here imitated Thucydides.
Plato,
when he makes
that
Socrates
much
was omitted
in the speech she made for Pericles, that earlier and more genuine one?
P. 340.
When
Socrates.
If Menexenus, as
we must
of the Phaedon, was one of Socrates more intimate friends, it is scarcely possible that this should only appear so acci
dentally as it does; if he was not, then this is a stupid and pointless expression of respect. But we must not overlook the fact, that even Aristotle
(Rhet. in. 14, p. 376, Bipont.) quotes from the dialogue which surrounds the speech, under the head of ^o^KpaT^
ev
E7nTa0<ai,
it is
before Athenians.
430
NOTES.
BUT in determining the relation between the doctrine of Philolaus and the works of Plato,, I come a second time upon a question, with regard to the solution of which our countryman Schleiermacher and myself have been many years
"
at variance.
are or are
It is whether traces of the system of Philolaus not contained in the Phaedrus of Plato, and I
cannot help a second time answering it in the affirmative, and defending my friend s opponent against him in a matter, from which, moreover, not the slightest inference can be drawn
for or against Schleiermacher s
Platonic works, with which I fully coincide. Now that, first of all, the possibility of Plato s acquaintance with the writ
ings of Philolaus cannot be denied, appears from the above investigation ; for the accounts as to the sale of the Philolaic books in Sicily have proved incredible, and it is more
pro
bable that he published in Thebes, where he taught, some ^ thing which, considering the short distance of Athens from
sciences.
Thebes, might be early known in that mart of arts and But even supposing that he wrote nothing during
still it
scarcely conceivable, with philosophizing, which Anaxagoras, So crates and the Sophists had excited at Athens, that none of the ideas of the neighbouring philosopher should have pene
is
the lively
zeal
for
trated to
that
the mental light should have remained among the sensual Boeotians, while Copaic eels for the Attic palate, and Bceotian wicks for the Attic lamps, came to Athens. And are we to
heard ; a point
which can only be made out by comparison with the frag ments and extracts preserved ; the spuriousness of which, I am firmly convinced, can never be hereafter proved. Now,
NOTKS.
431
in the Phaedrus, the souls, in their circuitous route through the universe, for the purpose of contemplation, start from the house of the gods, in which Hestia alone remains behind,
and climb up, upon it, to the highest sub- celestial arch ; break ing through this, they come at last to the super-celestial region, where they contemplate the formless and pure essence of
things, that
is,
represented.
Not
intending again to defend all particulars referring to this point, contained in an earlier essay, I am nevertheless compelled to
recognise it as perfectly Philolaic ; not, however, in such a sense as that Philolaus said exactly the same, but as grounded upon the Philolaic conception of the form of the universe. Hestia remains alone in the house of the gods: is not the
who in Plato leads the pro on the other hand, the supracelestial region exactly the Olympus of Philolaus? Observe, moreover, that these conceptions are perfectly unplatonic. Plato himself considers the earth as the centre-point, as is said in the Timseus; he knows nothing in his system of such a
cated here
not,
we
is
find in the Phaedrus; but that not the dwelling of the gods and
is
clear at once
from
this,
that
those souls which cannot follow the gods in that procession, fall down upon the earth, which must therefore, certainly, be
this conception also
something different from the dwelling of the gods ; and that may be explained without obscurity, and
r
without confusion, out of the Philolaic system of the w orld, I have shown in the treatise de Platonico systemate ccelestium globorum et de verd indole astronomic? Philolaicce, (p. 27 32). Then
little
again the assumption of a super-celestial region is quite as Platonic; for as Aristotle remarks, (Phys. in. 4.) the developed Platonic doctrine places nothing without the heavens,
not even the ideas, which are not indeed in space at all ; some foreign matter, therefore, predominates in the Phaedrus, of
For in the but, though foreign, not unsuitable. Pythagorean super-celestial region is the Unlimited, a formless entity, the pure first origin ; and it is precisely the formless,
pure essence of things which, according
to the Phsedrus, the
4*32
NOTES.
But enough of this. Moreover, it from what has been said, that in the Timaeus no appears coincidence with the Philolaic doctrine is to be found; and the only point they have in common is, that in the Timaeus the soul of the world proceeds from the centre, and the whole universe is again enveloped in it, and Philolaus
souls contemplate there.
also regards the central fire as the chief seat of the soul, or the divine principle, and represents the All as surrounded with the soul. It is not therefore my opinion that Philolaus, as,
according to some authors quoted in Simplicius, was the case with certain Pythagoreans, considered the central fire as the formative power, situate in the centre of the earth, and nou as rishing it from thence, and the counter-earth (aVrfyflwi/)
the
which, when applied to Philolaus is perfectly un suitable: but it can scarcely be overlooked, that the central fire has the same relation to the soul of the world, which,
moon
according to some physical conceptions, the brain, according to others, the heart, has to the human soul."
I.
Works
published by John
W.
Parker,
,,
Gospel-Narrative according to the Authorized Text of the without Repetition or Omission. With a Continuous Exposition, Marginal Proofs in full, and Notes, briefly collected from the best Critics and CommenEvangelists,
HE
[tators.
By
Dedicated, by special permission, to Her Majesty the Queen. the Rev. JOHN FORSTER, M.A., Her Majesty s Chaplain of the Savoy. Third Edition, Royal Octavo, 125. ; large paper copies, 165.
The Psalms
fcical
|
Commentary.
Cambridge.
Two Volumes,
in Hebrew; with a Critical, Exegetical, and PhiloloBy GEORGE PHILLIPS, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Queens College,
Octavo, 32s.
Religio Quotidiana: Daily Prayer, the Law of God s Church, and Churchmen. By the Rt. Rev. RICHARD MANX, D.D., Lord
Connor, and Droinore.
Foolscap Octavo, cloth,
gilt edges, 4s. 6d.
m
i
Joint new
fidited
Twysden s of Schism, as
Historical Vindication of the Church of England in stands separated from the Roman, and as reformed 1 Elizabeth Edition collated and revised, with the M.S. Additions left by the Author for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by G. E. CORRIE B D
it
Christ to the Conversion of Constantino. Prof. Oxon. Small Octavo, Qs, Qd.
History of the Christian Church, from the Ascension of Jesus By the late EDWARD BURTON, D D. Reg-
A
i i i
its
By W.
w Primitive
Primitive Christianity; Exemplified and Illustrated by the Acts Christians. By the Rt. Rev. R. MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and
Octavo, 125.
jB.D.,
On the Early Fathers ; an Introductory Lecture, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. 2s.
by
J. J.
BLUNT,
2
The Early
Sufferings.
Select List,
No.
I.,
of
Works
Customs,
Trials,
By
the Rev.
Manners,
4s.
andi
History, Revenues,
and General
105. 6d.
By
the Rev.
H. SOAMES, M.A.
Spiril
A
Rev. J.
tution, Ministers,
Worship, Discipline, and Customs of the Early Church. E. RIDDLE, M.A. Second Edition, 185.
th(,
By
the Rev.
W.
College, Cambridge.
Post Octavo,
of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Translation of the Bible, and the Book of Lord Bishop of St. Asaph. Prayer. By the Rt. Rev. T. VOWLER SHORT, D.D.,
the Union of the Churches of England and Ireland ; with a Survey from the Papa Rev. R. MANT Usurpation in the Twelfth Century to its Legal Abolition. By the Rt. D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore. Two large Volumes, 17s. each
From
the Reformation
t(
The Church of St. Patrick ; an Historical Inquiry into the Inde pendence of the Ancient Church of Ireland. By the Rev. W. G. TODD, A.B., Trinity College, Dublin. 4*.
__
A New Edition,
By
its
Octavo, 165.
A
Legends.
Influence on Society.
Witl
Accounts of the Inquisition, and State of Popery in Ireland, and Specimens of Romisl
The Civil History of the Jews ; from Joshua to Hadrian. Rev. 0. COCKAYNE, M.A., King s College, London. Second Edition. 4s. Qd.
By
the
published by John
Bible
\R.G.S.
W.
Parker;
Maps a
;
Series of new and accurate Maps, with Explanatory Index of Scriptural and Modern Names. By W. HUGHES,
An
y
Illustration of the
Method
the Early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ. By W. WILSON, B.D. idited by the Rt. Rev. T. TURTON, D.D., Lord Bishop of New Edition, revised, Qs. Ely.
of Explaining the
New
Testament
Jhurch to the
or,
The Testimony
of the Catholic
Councils, Liturgies,
By
from Ancient Fathers, the Rev. HENRY BAILEY, M.A., Fellow of St.
as exhibited in Quotations
olm
College, Cambridge.
Octavo, 155.
on
by the Prelates,
Popery.
Scripture, Councils, and Church of Rome, for the Maintenance E. Cox, M.A. Octavo, 125.
The Book of Psalms, newly Translated from the Hebrew, with and Philological Notes. By W. FRENCH, D.D., Master of Jesus College, New Edition, 12s. Cambridge, and Rev. G. SKINNER, M.A.
Critical
Ordo Saeclorum; a
icriptures,
Treatise
and the Indications therein contained of a Divine Plan of Times and Seasons, the Rev. H. BROWNE, M.A., Canon of Chichester, and Chaplain to the Lord Bishop.
)ctavo, 205.
A New
Edition,
Two
Volumes, Octavo.
80s.
Notes on the
3H,
Parables. By the Rev. RICHAKD CHENEVIX M. A., Professor of Divinity in King s College, London, and Examining Chaplain Lord Bishop of Oxford. Third Edition, Revised and Improved. Octavo, 12s.
By the
Rev. R. 0. TJBENCH.
Octavo, 12s.
What
St.
is
Christianity
By
T. V. SHOKT, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of
Asaph.
25. Gd.
Exposition
of
the
C. TRENCH,
M.A.
85.
Gd.
With Notes. Mission of the Comforter, and other Sermons. Two Volumes, Octavo, 25s. of Lewes. By JULIUS CHARLES HARE, M.A., Archdeacon
I.,
of
Works
of
Christ the Desire of all Nations ; or, The Unconscious Prophecies Heathendom. The Hulsean Lectures for 1846. By the Rev. R. CHENEVIX TRENCH, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Oxford, and Professor of Divinity in King s College, London. Octavo, 55.
their
Relations to
Christ
ianity.
in
Lectures on the Prophecies, proving the Divine Origin of Christ Warburtonian Lectures. By ALEXANDER McCAUL, D.D., Professor of Divinity King s College, London, and Prebendary of St. Paul s. Octavo, 7s. Gd.
Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews: with a Review o] Mr. Newman s Theory of Development. The Warburtonian Lectures for 1846. By the Rev. F. D. MAURICE, M.A., Professor of Divinity in King s College, London, and Chap
lain of Lincoln s Inn.
Two
Series of Discourses. I. On Christian Humiliation. By C. H. TERROT, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh ; late Fellow
Octavo,
7s. Gd.
II.
On
of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
The Liturgy
By H. HOWARTH, B.D.,
as
it is, illustrated in a Series of Practical Sermons Rector of St. George s, Hanover Square. Second Edition. 45. 6d.
Practical Sermons,
United Church of England and Ireland printed verbatim from the Authors Complete in Three Volumes, Octavo, 7s., or Eighteen Parts, Is. each.
:
the
MSS
The
Series of Sermons, with copious Notes M.A., Principal of St. Mark s College,
By
St.
Parish Sermons.
By Archdeacon HARE.
Octavo, 125.
By Rev.
F. D.
MAURICE,
M.A
Short Sermons for Children, illustrative of the Catechism and Liturgy of the Church of England. Preached in the National Society s Central School by the Rev, C. A. JOHNS, B.A. 3s. Gd.
published by John
W.
Parker.
The Literature of the Church of England, exhibited in Specimens Writings of Eminent Divines, with Memoirs of their Lives, and Historical Sketches the Times in which they lived. the Rev. RICHARD CATTERMOLE, B.D. Two By
tie
|>lumes,
Octavo, 25s.
ted
Illus-
mv
Down
the
JL
By
the Rev.
GERALD
"
]2mo.I
fi.<?.
jjj
"llr
Garrick
Jhgland. D
of Reading
with J.IVL\^OJ MU.VI Cb J. CXI 111 111 a Notes, and a Preliminary Discourse on Public Reading
Octavo. KB. fi/7 Octavo, 5s. 6d.
Liturgy
of
the
Church of
in Elocution.
ing an Enquiry into the Liturgical System of the Cathedral and Collegiate Foundations the Anglican Communion. By the Rev. JOHN JEBB, M.A., Rector of Peterstow | Herefordshire. Octavo, 16s.
Demy 12mo.,
to show its and the Authority on which they rest of Jesus College, Cambridge, and Minor Canon of B.D.,
lUustrated, so as
7*. 6d.
Explanatory Notes on the Prayer Book Version of the Psalms, By the same Author. 7s. 6d.
Practical,
hndays, Fasts, and Holydays throughout the Year. fear of Tiiiey. Demy 12mo., 6s.
Parochialia;
George
aph.
45.
s,
consisting
Bloomsbury.
By the
Rt.
of Papers printed for the use of Rev T. V. SHORT, D.D., Lord Bishop of St
Infants,
s
by the
Office for the Visitation of the Sick; late Archdeacon COXE. Is. 6d.
Horse Liturgicse
fcrmony.
I.
Tom ore.
I
the Rt. Rev. R. MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Printed uniformly, Foolscap Octavo, 85. 6d. each.
By
Liturgical Discrepancy.
II.
Down
Modern Hagiology
of
I
^,j3ncy
some recent Legendary and Devotional Works. By Rev. J. C. CROSTHWAITE Two Volumes, Foolscap Octavo, 95. LA., Rector of St. Mary-at-Hill, London.
Works
By
the Rev.
ROBER
EDEN, M.A., F.S.A., Late Fellow of Corpus Christ! College, Oxford. Demy 12mo., 5 The design of this Work is to give plain and simple explanations of the Theological and Ecclesiastics
terms which are used in describing and discussing religious Ordinances, Doctrines, and Institutions, withou entering into the controversies which have arisen respecting their object and import.
The Statutes
relating to
Institutions of England, Wales, Ireland, India, and the Colonies ; with the Decision thereon. By ARCHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS, M.A., F.R.S., Barrister at Law. Two larg
Edited by HENRY BOWMAN, Architect. Illustrated by Views, Plans, Elevations, Sections and Details. Royal Quarto, 21. 5s. ; or, in Twelve Parts, at 3s. Gd. each.
Specimens
of
Ecclesiastical
Architecture
in
Great
Britain
Sacra Domestica;
large type,
with provision
for additions in
Printed
ii
Among the Prayers for family use that are already extant, there are many which, though not exceptiot able in any point of doctrine, are not well adapted for the use of the younger, and the less educated portions some families; either from the language not being sufficiently simple, or from the too great number an variety of topics introduced into each Prayer; the result of which is, that either the whole Prayer become too tedious in length, or else each expression is too concise, or too general, to suit the apprehensions, or to kee up the attention, of some part of the domestic congregation.
By
M.A
Lord Bishop.
of Morning and Evening Devotion. With Collects for the Feasts and Fasts. Rev. A. HORSFALL. Second Edition, 2s.
Daily Prayer Book, for Families and Schools ; arranged fror the Services of the Church, after the Form and Order of Morning and Evening Praye] By J. T. BARRETT, D.D., Rector of Attleburgh, Norfolk. Third Edition, Is. Gd.
College, London.
The
Voices.
Psalter, or Psalms
of David in Metre,
with appropriat
Tunes; in Score, with or without Accompaniments, and in separate Volumes for the Fon A Descriptive Catalogue of the different Editions may be had of the Publisher.
Canticles
and Hymns
the Church, for Morning and Evening Service, set to appropriate Chants, every Syllafo being placed under its proper Note. Octavo, 15$.
published by John
Sacred Minstrelsy
;
W.
Parker.
forks of the Great Masters, British and Foreign. Arranged as Solos and Concerted ieces, for Private Performance, with Accompaniments for the Piano-forte and Oran. wo handsome Folio Volumes, half-bound in Turkey Morocco, 21. 2s.
Christmas Carols ; arranged for one, two, and three Voices, with
companiments.
Small Quarto,
4s.
wessors.
atherme
Bishop Jeremy Taylor; his Predecessors, Contemporaries, and A Biography. By the Rev. R. A. WILLMOTT, M.A., Incumbent of St.
s,
Bear Wood.
5s.
By
A.
Two Volumes,
with Portraits,
By
of Hales
First
Lives of Eminent Christians. By the Rev. R. B. HONE, M.A., Owen, and Honorary Canon of Worcester. Four Volumes, with Portraits
Volume
contains the Lives of Archbishop Usher, Dr. Hammond, Evelyn, and Bishop Wilson .Second, Bernard Gilpin, Philip de Mornay, Bishop Bedell, and A. Horneck; the Third, Bishop Ridley Hall, and Robert Boyle; the Fourth, John Bradford, .shop Archbishop Grindal,and Judge Hale.
The
By the
late Dr.
D OYLY.
Octavo, 9s.
Bishop T. BARTLETT, M.A., Rector of King-stone. Octavo, 12*., with a Portrait. Dedicated, permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Butler,
.Memoirs of the
Life, Character,
and Writings of
Luther and
German Reformation.
his Times, or, History of the Rise and Progress of By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A. Foolscap Octavo, 5*.
Indications of the Creator. Theological Extracts from the Hisand the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. By the Rev. Dr. WHEVVELL. Second 6s. Qd. lition, with additional Preface.
Creation by the
*
*
pJTtOctev/
NatUral Hlst ry
Agency of God; being a Refutation of the Work f Creation B y THOMAS MONCK MASON,
y he
first Edited from the Original MS J H * A LE N M A Examinin Chaplain to the Lord ^ T n of Her One ^tl Majesty s Inspectors of Schools; 3s.
-
fne Articles.
Examination Questions and Answers upon Burnet on the ThirtvJ New Edition, Is. Qd.
Select
Works
published by John
W.
Parker.
Paley s Evidences Epitomized, with the view of exhibiting hi? Argument in as small a compass as possible, without omitting or weakening any of Second Edition, with Examination Ques component parts. By J. W. SMITH, B.C.L.
ifc
tions.
3s.
An
Index to Butler
Prof, of Divinity at Oxford, corrected by Bishop Butler, and the Oxford Editions. By the Rev. T. BARTLETT, Bishop Butler. 2s. Qd.
English
Testament,
in
Parallel
85. Qd.
Original
ROBINSON, D.D.
8s.
The Morning Service for the Sundays and other Holidays throughout the Year ; arranged from the Book of Common Prayer, and Administrator the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland ; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches. In one Volume. The Evening Service
throughout the Year.
Sundays and
other
Holidays
In these Editions, separate volumes are devoted to the Morning and Evening Services respectively. Th order of the Book of Common Prayer is strictly observed, with the addition of the First and Second Lessons for every Sunday and Holiday throughout the year, printed at full in their appointed order. By this means the Morning [or the Evening] Service, in a complete and continuous form, is wholly comprised in one volume.
Thase Editions of the Services are printed in two Sizes, which following rates
;
may be
at tht
JAN 11
1974
PLEASE
DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS
CARDS OR
SLIPS
UNIVERSITY
OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
395