Introduction to Plato's Dialogues

T

f*T

INTRODUCTIONS TO THE

DIALOGUES OF PLATO.

e4-^ Er^T SCHLEIERMACHER

, Tv

S

INTRODUCTIONS TO THK

DIALOGUES OF PLATO,

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN

BY

WILLIAM DOBSON,

M.A.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE.

CAMBRIDGE: BY JOHN SMITH, PRINTED AT THE PITT PKESS, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY.

FOR

J.

&

J.

J.

DEIGHTON, TRINITY STREE

LONDON: STRAND. JOHN WILLIAM PARKER, WEST M.DCCC.XXXVI.

&

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE

apparently

the

before

comes

work

present

unfinished state in which the

The Author

some explanation.

requires

public of the

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;

and we have thus

to

the loss

regret

ductions to the Timaeus, the

and

and

smaller

those

all

Critias,

of Intro the Laws, pieces

spurious

not

and second found in the Appendices to the first di of the three parts into which Schleiermacher

The German

vided the Platonic works. lation,

moreover,

critical

furnished with various notes, a circumstance

and explanatory;

consider

of

is

it

these

necessary

themselves

volume.

will

passages

be

found

in

find

will

sional allusions to those notes. to

as

mention,

to

introductions

immediately

trans

in at

Such the the

which

I

the

reader

them

occa

as

referred

Introductions

end

of

the

V

I

(

CONTENTS. PACT. 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION... INTRODUCTION TO THE PH7EDRUS LYSIS....

PROTAGORAS LACHES CHARMIDES

EUTHYPHRO PARMENIDES APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. j

-~

V^CJRJXD

ION LESSER HIPPIAS

HIPPARCHUS MINOS ALCIBIADES GORGIAS ..................

.

II 1{jiJ (

THE^TETUS MENO EUTHYDEMUS

-.J aiL_ 204

219

CRATYLUS

228

SOPHIST

240

STATESMAN BANQUET

264

PH^EDON PHILEBUS THEAGES

291

ERAST.E ALCIBIADES

325

277

309 321

328

1

MENEXENUS LARGER HIPPIAS

337 341

347

CLITOPHON REPUBLIC NOTES

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. could honour custom old to an ^discriminating attachment it is without so crude a compilation, put together as 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

and the other old biographies of Plato, com in other with what is found scantily dispersed

this

pared

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 best is it 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

of the philosopher, upon the sentiments

which might illuminate his works, from multifariously

told

and deformed

trifles, or epigrammatic answers, even were they of undoubted authenticity especially as, in the case of such an Author, the reader under

intelligent

takes to learn the sentiments from the works themselves.

And

as regards the

more important circumstances of his life, those more accurate relations, from a knowledge of which, probably, a more thorough of details in

understanding many seem to be

his

writings might be developed,

for ever so far

withdrawn without the range of modern

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

some personal guess what it

without however being able Nay, even with regard to the

relation, is.

more well-known circumstances of

his life, his

travels for instance, so little that

is

certainty

made

of them

for

definite

remarkable

can be with

out, that no particular use can be made the and of his

chronology

writings, and the most we can do

arrangement here and there to

is,

guess, with a degree of probability, at the place where the former Such par interrupt the series of the latter. ticular

to

conjectures,

more advantage

therefore,

will

be brought forward

in those places

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,

something relative to the lenes at the time

scientific condition

of the Hel

when Plato entered upon

his career, to the advances of language in reference to the expression

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

more accurately than has been hitherto

new matter

done, and some quite

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 would not be adapted to

gations,

particulars

even in this province,

and some

this place;

whether

in

the

to confute

of illustration, or of suspicion tending has been hitherto assumed, are better by

remain reserved for the particular places refer.

And what

pertinently

set

is

common and

forth

in

well

known

the reading

means

to

which they

is,

moreover,

the works of German

illustrative of the history of that period

as far as is

all

to

way what

writers

of philosophy,

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

and estimation of them.

For

these writings are through

out full of clear and covert references to almost every earlier and cotemporary. thing, both

And

in like

man

not possess a competent know ner, also, whoever does state of the language for philo ledge of the deficient

where and how Plato

is

cramped extends its grasp, himself he where and laboriously by it, must necessarily misunderstand his author, and that, for the most part, in the most remarkable passages. sophical purposes,

Of

to feel

the Philosophy itself

avoid giving any preliminary so easy to

do

so,

are here purposely to account, even were it ever

we

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

of every one to have, through an immediate and

more

accurate knowledge of them alone, a view of his of the and doctrines of the genius philosopher,

new

it

may

be,

or

at

nothing certainly could

events

all

more

own quite

And

perfect.

work more

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

diately with these works, let

him leave

all that external reports have taught him respecting their contents, and the consequences to be drawn from to rest mean

them,

while

but

upon

its

whoever from

already formed

how

own

far,

merits, his

and endeavour

own

knowledge

to forget

of

an opinion for himself, will

by means of the

classification

in

them

it

;

has

soon feel

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

up the only too general complaint of

being misunderstood, or even not understood at

all.

The

grossest indeed of these misunderstandings have been for

the most part

deserving

all

removed by modern exertions our gratitude meanwhile, whoever observes severally

;

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, will

general,

find

traces

of

generally

matter in point to

the

upon a perfect understanding to the hand, and that this is not yet brought which we might ourselves bring it even with gone

the insufficient means

we

possess.

And

thus that feeling

which of satisfaction seems to be somewhat premature, understand to able now be maintains that we

might

Plato better than a

excite

he understood himself; and

smile to observe

how

unplatonically

it

may

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.

by

all

that,

which I mean, in the philosophy of Plato estimate to an duly

ability can only be understood by connexion a of purpose in the the pervading presence divine it to of his writings, and, as far as possible, this view, when not obvious at first sight. And in

an attempt like the present be dispensed with, easily to

especially,

not very

a supplement, to what others

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

difficulties in the

understanding

province

of Philosophy of thoroughly

a sympathetic thinker, any one except

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

most choice vehicles of the the name of Phi

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

and

sciences,

parts of the whole devotes

which

in

it

is

one of the separate

to every

its

work or

particular

regularly built

section,

to

up, according plan, with rooms and stories, so that any one whose memory and fingers do not refuse to measure and work,

may

point out,

if

not without trouble, at

error, every particular detail

all

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

attractive look of firmness

;

at

random, they have still an and arrangement, and it is con-

sidered easy to understand not only the details in them

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,

which

fragmentary,

has

only

to

deal

with

particular

and which, from disconnected pieces, with which it is difficult to be sure whether or no

investigations,

regard to

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

cent/e point and does this method

ground upon which they stand, yet assume an appearance of ease and for the reason that it defines and names certainty, at starting the object in view, and makes at once straight

for

it.

In this sense even the dialogistic treatment has

been often applied; and

many

a reputation of being a

happy

a

writer has crept into imitator of Plato, per-

haps

still

more Socratic and Plato

make nothing

of

for this loose

method of

spoiled

seem

s

who

clear than he,

form of

art

discussion.

yet

could

but a loose dress

Whoever

then

is

these methods

which by use of the expedients

Plato to afford, will necessarily find everything in

strange, and

devoid of meaning or

either

For although the

division

mysterious.

into different

of Philosophy

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

unity and their

importance, and

made

as

of the the

it

greater of

object

pre-eminently in consequence every aim, the various problems are But where multifariously involved one with another.

his

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

seldom verbally enunciated, and

be compelled secretly to confess that the to have had the modest Philosopher does not appear but of of subjects,

and he

will

intention

treating

only

particular

that he either was completely devoid of

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

in vain to search in his

even for the very first writings for any thing entire, nay, of a consistent and pervading philosophical turn principles

on the contrary, that every thing and wavers, and that scarce any thing

of thought or doctrine in

them

vacillates

;

whatever stands in regular relation to the rest

;

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 ;

from

times

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,

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

transferred to the thing judged. to

honour

cussion, as

that

it

has

it

is

not necessary

yields in itself a sufficient testimony against it

adduces accusations about contradic

and want of connexion, it

But

depreciating view with a lengthened dis

For while

itself.

tion

this

does not, however, prove rightly understood the details ; otherwise

whence those strange

it

inquiries, in

what persons mouths

Plato has brought forward his own opinion at least upon a question which, as it ; supposes that

this or that subject

form is only a somewhat useless and more than illustrative embellishment of the confusing perfectly his dialogistic

common method

of expressing

thoughts, can only be thrown out by one who does not understand Plato at all. This view, therefore, is founded upon nothing, and explains nothing, but leaves the whole problem as

it was and without be before, contradicted may, going further,

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

for such an attempt

is in

this point of

much

view so

the majority of those the writings of Plato

more pressing,

as

so

mean an opinion upon

cannot

resist a certain feeling

who pass still

the

of admiration for the Philosopher.

Now

we have no

as

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,

pointing to very

not very dubious merit, so that if these would advance uninterruptedly in their admiration,

subordinate

men

all

if

find something more in him they must themselves wish to Hence, therefore, others, than they have hitherto found. correct a of with quite as little insight but with more

good

will,

induced partly by particular expressions of

Plato himself, partly also by a far-spread tradition pre served from ancient times, of an esoteric and exoteric in his Philosophy,

in the

have adopted the opinion that

own peculiar wisdom writings of Plato his and those or at contained all, only in secret allusions, either not

is

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

more and sometimes

less of their subject-matter,

for

and

in

his

secret

the contrary, sought genuine wisdom, on doctrines which he as good as not at all confided to extensive investigations have been these writings;

entered

upon

in

nay, order to

determine what

Plato were exoteric and what

esoteric,

and

writings of so to

dis

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

and

difficult to

find out is

point of view, and there scure

and hard

is

so only in a relative

may always be something ob

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

for

exposed.

For

these

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

denoted

as

esoteric

which they would not most in

concerning

commit themselves without the timate circle of connections;

limits of their

and

it

is

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

among

times, on

that was

the contrary,

the Hellenes.

In later

chiefly called esoteric

which could not be communicated

in the

of instruction,

the admixture of

to

which,

after

popular method the

Sophists with the Socratic Philosophers, certain teachers

condescended, and the distinction therefore referred im mediately to the mode of delivery ; and only mediately, and on account of the other first, to the subject-matter.

Plato

now

these two

;

stands in

the

intermediate period between but in whichever of the two senses it should

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

For the

ensue.

last

braced by those, of

it,

as

signification

hardly be em such an application

could

who would make

that the works col they start with asserting

and consequently must committed to them have allow that Plato might as easily what was most difficult and mysterious in his wisdom,

lectively

as

are hardly intelligible,

what was otherwise.

And

as regards the first signi

which Philosophy, concerning he purposely delivered himself, without the interior circle of his confidential friends, either not at all, or in mys

fication, of doctrines of his

terious hints,

it

must be

either regularly maintained

and

demonstrated that such was the case by a connected ex

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

Therefore, of

historical traces.

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

For apart from of the subject. support of their view ascribe to would and unless they theosophistic matter, sciences which he could not Plato some sort of

in

physical

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

some opinion,

his

own

either directly

and

distinctly,

as far as a notice of the principles goes,

with in these writings. the

what

distinction of

And is

is

those indeed

esoteric,

or at least

not to be met

who reduce

merely to the war

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

be upon these points may

read distinctly enough in his scarcely

believe

that

his

writings, so that one can

scholars

needed

still

further

instructions about them, from the publication of which he shrank, or to a puerile contrivance which

what might indeed

indulged loud voice with closed doors, have been as well said with open

ones in

And

itself

in

delivering in

a

lower.

a

as

quite

little

would

really

genuine historical traces be discoverable, supporting the opinion of a distinction between the esoteric and the

For

exoteric in Plato.

ject-matter, and we are to have been contained

same manner the

first

in

if

it

refers

merely to the sub

to suppose the secret in the

esoteric

which the commoner are

doctrines

the

writings in

in the exoteric

;

and most indispensable point must then be to

make it probable, somehow, that those writings were made public in some way different from these, since otherwise the less

;

but of

whole endeavour doing this

have thought. that

Aristotle,

no

would have been one

seems

use

seriously

to

how should

And, further, it happen who indisputably was concerned with

a true understanding of the true Philosophy of Plato,

and from whom,

as

many

years an intimate scholar of

that philosopher, nothing could easily remain concealed, does never, notwithstanding, either appeal to other sources,

or

appear to found his own writings upon a On the contrary, he ap

secret understanding of these. in

every instance in the most unconstrained and manner to the works simple open to ourselves, and even when, as is now and then the case, other lost writings or peals

perhaps oral lectures are quoted, these quotations do in no way contain any thing unheard of in the writings we or different from them. If therefore possess, completely these either did not contain at

all

the true doctrines of

13

Plato,

or

how could in

only conformably to

secret

interpretation,

especially considering the

Aristotle,

which he attacks

a

his master,

manner

have been able to escape

the most severe censures from the genuine followers of

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

that

who

are involved in

them

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

ness of the same,

Philosopher to

it

view,

is

dissected

and

in

detail,

divested

of his superfluities and combinations, and with as

For

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

as

if

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

lament over, or to dream

riches of Platonic wisdom.

Thus much

of,

other lost

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

being understood is brought more to even certain that he who is thus to

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

neither facilitated nor advanced there

but that, on the contrary, whoever should exclusively to even the best exposition of this

by

:

to

an

stick

kind

imaginary knowledge only, might easily attain and on that very account remove himself still further

14 from the

For though he must be accurately ac

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

means

alone,

the whole.

of

these

will

parts

not

attain,

by those

to a

knowledge of the proper natures of So also will those spectators of the analysis

fail

altogether to attain to a

sophy of Plato, for in

that,

knowledge of the Philo if in any thing, form and

subject are inseparable, and no proposition

understood, except binations it.

And

in

its

own

place,

is

to be

rightly

and with the com

and limitations which Plato has asssigned still less

will they

himself; and least of

to

all, will

comprehend the Philosopher his

purpose have succeeded

in their case, tending as it did not only to exhibit vividly his own thought to others, but by that very means

vividly

to excite

and awaken

theirs.

Hence, therefore, to that analytical exposition which we have now been in pos session of for a short time, in a perfection far exceeding

former attempts,

it is

a necessary supplementary process

to restore to their natural connection those limbs,

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

such an undertaking

is

subject and

great

too

far

any

such

not, perhaps,

ever

to

connection,

and

unsuitable to

the

will best

succeed,

which Plato himself appear from the first conception to his writings and their suggests to us with regard Phgedrus.

in the trifling

always as

to

hear him propound a somewhat Treating the subject in

and which we

objects,

shall shortly

which manner, he complains of the uncertainty attaches to written communication of thoughts, whether the mind also of the reader has spon conformed to such communication, and in

taneously

to

itself, appropriated it mere ocular apprehension of the

reality

vain conceit

what to

it

excited in the

is

much upon

words and

this,

that

letters

a

understands

it

Hence, that

and

the

with

whether,

mind that

does not understand.

build too

or

it

true

is

folly

reliance

be placed only upon oral and living instruction. must be hazarded But, he continues to argue, writing

can

at a venture,

and more for what

it

is

as regards

the

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

writer

nothing. alted

what in

preference it

this

instruction

means and upon

no other ground but this, that in the case the teacher, standing as he does of the learner, and in living communication rests, will

presence with him, can

and what

not,

standing

when

this

oral

for

advantage

tell

find

every

and thus it

assist the activity of his

fails;

rests,

moment what he understands

as

under

but the actual attainment of

any one must

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

may always be supported by

its

Father and re

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,

jections of one

who

written sentence has no answer to

Whence

inquiries.

it

is

at

make

to

any further

once clear, in passing,

to

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 removed from that preeminence which he gives But in every way, not accidentally only,

farthest

to its opposite.

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

be certainly as much preferred to that of his

him

master, as the scholar excelled tive Dialectics, as in richness intuition.

wrote so

As

as well in construc

and compass of subjective

then, notwithstanding this complaint, Plato

much from

the period of his early

manhood

most advanced age, it is clear that he must have endeavoured to make written instruction as like

to that of his

as possible to that better kind,

and he must also have

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

;

Plato considers

thought so much as spontaneous activity, that, with him, a remembrance of this kind of what has been al

all

ready acquired, must necessarily be so of the

first

and

17 original

mode of

Hence on

acquisition.

that account

alone the dialogistic form, necessary as an imitation of

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

exhaust the whole of his method, as

it

has been often

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

the written imitation of that Plato

s

and

in his oral instruction,

object was

it,

still

when we consider

to bring the

still

more

in

further,

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

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

been

the

creation of being driven to an inward and self-originated himself surrender to 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

done by the mind

s

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,

and often several hints thrown out

.

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,

and from him alone, the matter which considered or discovered, while

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 it

by a few unconnected who has the figure already own mind, can easily fill up and com

ject in view, this is only sketched

strokes, which, however, he

before

him

bine.

These are something

in his

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

would be the only

signification in

which one could

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

to Plato himself,

it

spirit

;

or if

it is still

to

be referred

can only be said that immediate in

struction was his only esoteric process, while writing was

For in that certainly, after he was only his exoteric. assured that his hearers had followed him sufficiently

first

as he desired, he could express his thoughts purely

and

perfectly, and perhaps even regularly work out in com mon with those hearers, and according to outlines framed in

common

after

with them, the particular philosophical sciences,

having

first

and connection.

grasped in his mind their higher ground Meanwhile, since in the writings of Plato

19 the exposition of Philosophy

is

in

the same sense pro

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

what has been above

follows, follows,

I say, that there

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

Plato ended with separate

if

expositions of the several philosophical sciences,

it

might

then be supposed that he had also advanced each

for

gradual progression, and we should be compelled two separate classes of dialogues, an ethical

itself in

to look for

and a physical

But

series.

connected whole, and

it

as he represents

ever

is

them as a

his peculiar theory

to

conceive of them generally as essentially connected and inseparable, so also are the preparations for them united

manner, and made by considering their common principles and laws, and there are therefore not several

in like

unconnected and collaterally progressing series of Pla but only one single one, comprehending

tonic Dialogues,

every thing in

The every one

it.

restoration sees,

then

of

this

natural order

an object very far distinct from

made

is,

as

all at

an arrangement of the works tempts of Plato, inasmuch as these attempts in part terminate hitherto

at

and extravagant trifling, and in a part proceed upon systematic separation and combi nation according to the established divisions of Phi

in

nothing but

losophy,

in

vain

part also,

only

take particular points into

20 here and

consideration like

a whole

logies,

there,

without having any thing-

The

classification

into

tetra

which Diogenes has preserved for us

after

Thra-

view.

in

merely upon the almost dramatic dialogues, which gave occasion to ar

syllus, manifestly rests

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

Not even

is

are

it

at

all

as

we

find

them.

the resemblance carried on so far as that,

as every dramatic tetralogy

ended with a

satirical piece,

which irony and dialogues epideictic polemics are most strongly preeminent, were on the contrary, assigned to the concluding portions the

so also in this case

in

;

they are all heaped together in

Quite tetralogies. was had to an old tradition, and one,

as little regard in

itself,

two

at first

sight extremely probable,

that Plato,

pupil of Socrates, made some of his actually dialogues public; for how otherwise could those which

when

a

refer to the

condemnation and death of Socrates be the

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 ? first,

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

ately instructive

sceptical, to

those that are

and exponential, and

immedi

in this case it

is

almost ridiculous that so suspicious a dialogue can boast of having suggested

this

solitary idea.

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

which Plato has himself, with

ness, projected a combination

or

;

sufficient clear

when such

is

implied

by some external circumstance, leaving all the rest sub Meanwhile both attempts ordinate to that arrangement. how soon the true arrangement show to serve may only excepting very few traces suited that kind of criticism which the

of the Platonic works was of

and how

it,

ill

lost,

Alexandrian Philologists knew

how

to apply,

was

to dis

cover the principles of a correct arrangement of Philo Less external* indeed, but otherwise sophical works.

not

much

better are the well

known

dialectic divisions

of the dialogues which Diogenes likewise has prepared for us without indicating the author of them, and ac

cording to which moreover

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

is

more

to separate than connect,

matters which do not profess to indi But the great cate the exponent of the natural order.

and

it

relates to

division

certainly, if

and

instructive might a be guide for mark properly understood,

into

the

investigative

at least in ing the progress of the Platonic dialogues, be can the main, since the former preparatory to only

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

methods again quite unplatonically arranges the works

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

hibitions of criticism in the details. tonic principle

is

most strange ex The same unpla-

followed also in the

Syzygies of Ser-

ranus, which are therefore perfectly useless for

the

ar

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

own country Myths of Plato

of Jacob Geddes the Scotchman, and our

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

that any future translator should arrange

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.

whole discovery amounts but to logues

upon

this,

that certain dia

of Plato reciprocally illustrate each other, and he takes occasion to write a few at

this principle

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

how can

found,

an argument be undertaken upon a principle of reci which of the dialogues thus reci procal illustration ? For procal

And

is

to be

as regards

prove

the

Eberhard

reference

a

and according to what law

first,

in

all

s

?

attempt, he sets himself to Plato s works to a common

of the Phi object in his Philosophy, which, independent of the Athenian losophy itself, lies in the formation

youths of rank to be virtuous

Now

citizens.

in

this,

in which the po notwithstanding the very clear manner

this

object

difficult

is

sition is enunciated, it

was to have been

at

to determine

the

whether

same time the

basis for the discovery of all the higher speculations of somewhat overit would be Plato, which, I

suppose,

hazardous to maintain, and even disregarding the in

which

it

is

as

involved,

determine what

is

Philosophy must

the virtue of a citizen,

it

is

circle

certainly far

too

subordinate a ground

to rest the Philosophy itself upon.

But

to

if

the opinion

is

Philosophy independent

mean, that Plato invented his and particular object,

of that

must be supposed, while the tend to that object of education, and

that this, the Philosophy, are

writings

to

were worked out in the manner

in which,

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,

would be

like

all

enough

must be

accidental,

and thus

it

to a string of pearls, only a capri

concatenation of productions, which, torn out of their organic place, would be, considering further the

cious

the object

in

failure

total

ornamental finery. tained

others,

by

in

a useless piece of

view,

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

In

phers.

all

these endeavours,

tion

of the natural

from

all

therefore, the restora

order of these writings, in refer ence to the progressive developement of the philoso phy, is out of the question. Quite different, however, that has hitherto been done

the attempt

made

Philosophy; the to completeness,

the

Platonic

Tennemann

in

at all

first,

the character of

is

system of the Platonic events, with any pretensions s

to discover the chronological order of

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

In

this undertaking,

discover,

like

investigator

by

the

relation of the

the

author of that

indeed, his view

is

method he adopts, the

treatise.

directed less to

real

and

essential

works of Plato to one another, than to

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.

the present

is

And

to

that

undertaking,

a necessary counterpart

;

the other hand, that method, resting as

generally,

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

own method, which goes internal. It may not indeed be of our

entirely

upon what

is

necessary on that ac

count that the results of the two should perfectly coincide, for the

reason

that

the external production of a work

is subjected to other external and accidental conditions than its internal development, which follows only such as

are inward and necessary, whence slight variations might easily arise, so that

what was internally

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

manner, their respective correctness. ever,

points

discover,

how

proceeding upon this method, but few definite

in

and

;

We

somewhat

for the great majority of the dialogues only

indefinite limits

between which they must

fall,

and often an extreme limit only on one side is given. For in strictness the historical traces should not extend

beyond the

life

of Socrates, within which indeed

all

the

dialogues come, with the exception of the Laws, and the

few which Plato makes others narrate, and in which,

an ad consequently, he had a later date at command vantage, however, which he has not always employed ;

so

as

to

leave a

more

the anachronisms which

accurate

trace for

us.

Now

he occasionally allows himself,

do indeed excite a hope of some little further historical evidence, so that one might wish that Plato had oftener been guilty of is

of

this fault;

but even

this slight

advantage

made very ambiguous by the consideration that many these facts may have been introduced on a subsequent

recasting

of the

works

in

which Plato had naturally

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. unused with hitherto another be expedient perhaps, yet transgress

26

Thus

reference to this method.

given to Socrates,

if

which,

the predominant rank

the dialogues are placed in

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

;

the choice of the other

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

But

as time advanced. limitations,

that

this is

beneficial,

drawn can decide any

thing,

it

many

might

be

and no inference thence but only yield a slight

So that by

increase of probability.

subject to so

use of

confident

any

more delusive than

all

this

method

it

might

hardly be possible to attain more than what it has been applied to in that work with praiseworthy moderation, it

though,

hypotheses. consideration

may At

be, all

upon

not

always

to

according

correct

events, the results arising from the

internal grounds of the Platonic works,

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

called in to assist, in order to gain certain points

of which that order also

by means

may be brpught into connection

with the external circumstances. order of the Platonic works

is

/Now,

if

the natural

to be restored out of the

disarrangement in which they at present are, it would seem necessary to determine first what pieces are really Plato

s

and what are

not.

For otherwise how can an

attempt be made with any degree of certainty, or rather, in case of anything foreign being mixed up with the works of Plato,

how can even what

is

genuine

fail

to appear

quite in a false light, if violence be used to place what

is

2? in

imgenuine petent

and

connection

to take

the

with

Or

it ?

problem given

is

to

it

be com

a standard,

itself as

to declare,

slashingly enough, that what will not itself to that connection cannot belong to Plato? adapt

Scarcely any one, I suppose, would be found to favour this process, or not to see that this would be an ex decision of

tremely partial

upon quite

a question

different grounds,

and that

be answered

to

is

it

impossible

that a notion arising from a consideration of the works

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,

of unimportant doubts touching

the adoption or rejection of which

may

only a few be a matter

of great indifference. Such, for instance, will be the of all those who opinion repose upon the long prescribed authority of editions.

This authority does indeed coin

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,

therefore,

Nay, we have

and

would be the only dubious matters.

still

a better evidence in favour of this

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

passed the matter over in silence

anywhere a variation from

it.

if

he had discovered

But how,

I

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 few poets,

a

of

exception

insinuated themselves into

have

all

spurious productions considerable collections of

works of particular authors preserved from antiquity, so that it would be matter of wonder if those of Plato were

make an

literature exception, especially as philosophical has in a less degree employed the industry of critics; to

but in Plato

s

case,

an additional circumstance comes

the importance of which does not seeem to have been sufficiently considered, that

in,

in this respect

those

critics

a considerable number of

have already rejected

small

which they found at hand, dialogues out of the collection it is For to Plato. as not clearly manifest belonging

from

this fact that

at

when

the period

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 the time dialogues documentarily descended from of the genuine academicians ; for, generally, as long as

these

who preserved

men were

to be found,

tradition

with zeal for the

the genuine Platonic it

cause,

is

not conceivable

foreign work should have been commonly foisted upon Plato. Upon what ground, therefore, did these critics found their judgment when they adopted some

that

dialogues and

rejected

others

?

If

it

should

that they had, with regard to all not rejected,

be

said

certain

and sufficiently old evidence of their recognition by those who lived nearest after the time of their composition,

we might

rejoin that the silence of contemporaries,

who

do not take the case of a future confusion into considera tion,

and require an occasion

for

every

quotation,

is

29 neither collectively nor in detail a

ground

for rejection,

have judged they might, therefore, very easily various In like manner, also, grounds of sus wrong. the sufficiency of the be raised

and

against

might

picion

proofs applied,

examples both

as several

even in modern times have shown at

how

in

former and

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 then Hence arises, late. trial at every period, however especially

doubts

will

meets with,

attentive reader

many he that much suggest themselves against in not did men a question whether these

as in the

mind of every

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

their criticism start

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

approximate same period

that from the

at

which these authorities were

the commonly recognised, among

well

circumstances attaching to the Erastae

known

suspicious

and Hipparchus,

a stock of doubts has lived, which perhaps only require to

be planted in a better

to a considerable extent,

places.

But

if

critical soil to

and

our confidence

spread perceptibly in many other

strike out

in the authenticity of the

30 collection

however

thus

is

to allow that, itself

be

any one endowed with any, be fain

shaken,

little, talent for such investigations, will

its

in

each particular work must

strictness,

own voucher

that

it is

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

might be doubted whether for

us,

at the

is any other valid evidence but Aris Meanwhile even with him various grounds of

present time, there totle.

suspicion

come

in,

partly on account of the doubtfulness

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

circle in this case,

the

and founding,

it

judgment passed upon the quotations of on one previously formed upon the Platonic Hence, any quotation

in the

may

be,

Aristotle writings.

works of Aristotle introduced

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

learn

we

find

this

therefore,

easily to

When,

distinguish.

employed upon passages out of

our Platonic writings, or even only on ideas distinctly contained in them, we may then conclude with certainty that

Aristotle

had these writings

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

To

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

Socrates. general, as one of Plato or of

among

doubts are not sufficiently strong to require such a pro ceeding,

while those to

objections

the

hardly make that by this method we can

who know them

result,

will

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,

then, lies that critical ground

upon which every

further investigation must build, and in fact no better For the Dialogues thus authenticated form is needed.

a stock from which so

likewise,

to

judge of their

them

in possession of

For

affords

And

origin.

that of arrangement,

of the case, that

nection.

the rest seem to be only offsets,

connection with

that a

whereby

all

when we have

it

the

best test

for the next task

follows from the nature

that stock

we are

at

once

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.

As such, of a character which

in

both respects, as well

32 as regards their genuineness as their importance, entitles

them

constitute

to

the

first

rank

among

the Platonic

works, we count the Phaedrus, the Protagoras, the Parthe

menides,

Phaedo,

Theaetetus,

Philebus,

and

the

Sophist

fore,

we have a

further, both

Politicus,

together with the In these, there

Republic,

Timseus and Critias connected with

and

it.

firm footing-point from which to advance

in the task of deciding

the genuineness of

the rest, and investigating the place which belongs to each

of them

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 ;

naturally supporting each other mutually in a variety of ways, as, it is hoped, the following investigation will shew.

Now

the

task, that of testing the remaining our collection, and thus investigating whether or not they belong to Plato, is not without difficulty, first

dialogues in

for the reason that the character to

that are proved genuine

is

be drawn from those

made up of

several traits

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

and what rank

marks we ought

to assign

come

which

especially to look

Now

to each.

there are three

under

consideration particularly the peculiarity of the language, a certain common range of subject, and the particular form into which Plato

things

usually moulds

matter in

it.

Now

as regards the

:

language, the

would be fortunately dealt by, if whatever could be drawn from that, any proof regarding question

the origin of these pieces. But if of there are them, losophical part

whose claims

to

we look

among

be considered as Plato

s

to the phi

the dialogues it

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;

while the rest take their subject-matter

from the range of the undoubtedly genuine dialogues, and are so manifestly inspired by the same so immediately

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

or an imitator

a scholar

faithfully followed the footsteps of as regards the properly dialogistic

But

master.

his

come only from

this point,

who

part of the dialogues, scarcely any one could presume to select first from the common property of the period that

which

particular,

was the

and from

work of the Socratic school

in

this again to distinguish with cer

tainty the peculiarities of Plato.

great compass

which the

Or, considering the language of an author who

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

whole to be judged, considering the great

and subject

in value is

;

all

difference

these circumstances considered,

there any one now-a-days

who would venture

fess himself sufficiently skilled in

Greek

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

not is

of

so

would undertake

the piece

much

the

?

for that reason alone

Rather might we say that of

indication

the

strange or the absence of what choice

and

may draw down

embellishing the

native,

dialogistic

sentence

dialogues already accredited

is

as

it

is

presence of what the want

formula , that

of rejection upon those far as the language is

34 concerned.

those

Among

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

And such again might be the case when we would judge of the genuineness of the remaining works

alone.

according to

For

the

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

class.

this

of these recognised

But Plato would thus

dialogues.

be deprived of a right enjoyed by every one

else, that

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,

and so much so that strongest

upon

proof,

that

it

cannot be believed without the

from the period of his entrance still earlier, he always

his philosophical career, or

Or, thought the same as he did afterwards. be to the accurate coincidence of regard paid

if

less

all

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

s

must have the same im

portance and the same relation to the main idea of the philosophy, it would in that case be forgotten that external circumstances frequently occasion the production of heterogeneous works of a somewhat limited size by

35 an author, stances

who without

the influence

of such circum

would never have produced them spontaneously.

In occasional pieces, properly speaking, like these, it be fairly demanded that those ideas of the

cannot

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

own

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 his

particular line,

characterize

liarly

their

author, nor advance his great

views of art, or, what

is more, he may in them, pur and for sake of some posely perhaps, preparatory exer cise, remove himself out of his accustomed circle of

and even the method natural

subjects,

to him.

There

are clearly in our Platonic collection several pieces which

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

according to

might,

to show, that alone, nor

look

to

this

These

to mistake.

liable

deviations in

the

analogy,

treatment

be a

it,

process very

difficulties, then, clearly

we should judge

tend

neither from the subject

from the language alone, but that we must more certain something in which

a third and

those two unite

For even

the

Form and Composition

in the language,

what

relation

to

the

in general.

most proof con tenor and whole the

affords

not in particulars but in peculiar colouring of it, which at once sists

closest

of

composition,

In

stands like

in

the

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

as an analogy, the limits of the applicability of

which

not be drawn with certainty ; but it is, in every essential point, a natural of Plato s notions consequence

can

still

with regard to philosophical communication, and must

be found, generally, to the same extent in latter exists. For it is nothing but the

therefore

which

this

immediate putting into practice of those methodical ideas which we developed from Plato s first principle as to

mode

which writing operates. So that the same of the which idiosyncracy philosopher justifies us in

the

in

looking for a pervading connection throughout his works, does also reveal to us that which the surest canon yields

for judging of their genuineness,

and thus the

solution

of both problems grows from a common root. Now the dress has been above as dialogistic already represented the external condition of this dialogistic form, and its

almost

indispensable scheme, conceiving the purpose of

but only where, imitating

oral

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 and circumstances become persons 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? on the other hand they shew us almost universally that he admits it most co the

in

absorbed

as

subject,

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 putably thing which, to the feeling of every reader, must distinguish as unplatonic the dialogues rejected from correct

downwards;

antiquity

upon which

basis

that

old

as

it

critical

is

also

the

judgement

dialogues without Introductions are to be disavowed, except that this formula expresses the fact

rests, that all

but

very

ward and

and imperfectly.

partially

And

to

the

in

form belongs the composition resulting from the pur

essential condition of the Platonic

every thing in pose of compelling

the

mind of the reader

to sponta

that frequent recommence neous production of ideas ment of the investigation from another point of view, ;

provided nevertheless that unite in the

common

all

these threads do actually

center-point

;

that progression, often

the appearance capricious, and only excusable from loose tenor which a dialogue might have, but which

in

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

the dialectic play with ideas, under which, however, the relation to the whole and to the these are the original ideas is continually progressing

individual instance

;

:

conditions all

really

some of which must necessarily be found in Platonic works that have any philosophical

38 Meanwhile

bearing.

show

racter can

it

must be evident that

itself in its full light

this

cha

only in proportion

the importance of the subject-matter, and we here see first how, when we are employed upon Plato, the to

task of proving the genuineness of investigation of

its

right place,

For

verify each other.

recommends

itself

by

its

any dialogue, and the mutually support and

any dialogue which at once language, and which manifestly in

treats of Platonic subjects, the is

stamped upon

much

with so

what

easier

is

to

the

more perfectly this form we may not only pronounce it genuine more certainty, but since all those

back to what has gone before and forward to come, it will necessarily be so much the

arts point

to

it,

determine

or between

which

what main dialogue it belongs lies, and in what region of the

to it

development of the Platonic philosophy it can furnish an illuminating point. And in like manner, conversely, the easier the

list

it

is

to assign

to

any dialogue its place in of the others, these relations must become more

marked by means of those expedients, and the dialogue appropriates

united

in

both appear

with the greater certainty, to Plato. in which Platonic matter is therefore,

itself,

These dialogues,

proper proportion

with Platonic form,

and

sufficiently manifest, constitute a second class

of Platonic works, which, even without looking to the pretty valid evidence which likewise appears in

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,

the genuineness of that dialogue becomes, especially as the other elements of the Platonic character must be

39 For even the thoughts them then betray less of the spirit of Plato, and

less distinctly perceptible.

selves will

the language also will have less opportunity to develope

power and beauty, as so much of both connected with those peculiarities in the composition. Thus, as the distinctness of the form diminishes, the

itself in

all

its

is

conviction of genuineness does so likewise in

all respects,

more suspicions and doubts come into gradually becomes less credible that Plato,

until, as

its

place,

it

to

whom

was so easy and natural to refer from all particular ideas and separate opinions to his great original principles,

it

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

Platonic, and a preponderant probability at least

must

favour of them to prevent their rejection, But even sup and that with the most perfect justice. matter could and that the to the balance waver, posing

be shown

in

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

not be at will

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

out, for,

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

the arranger seeks, and

their genuineness can either be not

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 collection

which do not

in any degree within the and whose genuineness, there philosophy, fore, cannot be judged of according to the same rules fall

province of

with the others./

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

eyed and better furnished criticism.

All therefore that

now remains,

since the marks of genuineness and the thence resulting different circumstances of the Platonic

writings have been briefly sketched, lay before the reader the

first

is

in like

manner

to

principles of their con

nection and the arrangement resting thereupon, in the way of a preliminary survey of the whole in general.

For

to

show

in detail

how every dialogue

must remain in reserve

rest,

tions

;

while here

strikes into the

for the particular introduc

we can only give an account of the

principles which are the basis of the general plan.

If then, to continue, tracted selection of the in

we keep to the somewhat con more important Platonic works

which alone the main thread of

this connection, as has

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

been already mentioned,

to

is

and the

the Republic for instance, the Timaeus

sition;

Critias.

thing coincides in assigning to these the

Every

last places, tradition, as well as internal character

in

different degrees of the

serious old age

viewed

;

though most advanced maturity and

and even the imperfect condition which, But more than all

in connection they exhibit.

the nature of the thing decides the question; inas much as these expositions rest upon the investigations this,

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

objects treated of in those works, It

ture,

may

indeed be

Man

himself,

and

Na

the case that in point of time

a long period intervened between the Republic and the Timaeus ; but it is not to be supposed that Plato during this

interval

maining

composed any whatever of the works re any that would pro

to us, or even, generally,

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

we have express testimony with

written after the books regard to these that they were But these books, together with the upon the Republic.

Timaeus and it

Critias,

should be

presenting

said

ethical

form an inseparable whole, and

that

and

the Republic, as political

later than those dialogues in

science,

properly

if

re

though written

which the nature of virtue,

and the idea of the good capability of being taught, are treated of, might nevertheless have been very easily

its

written

earlier

than the dialogues immediately prepar-

the

to

atory

Timaeus,

those namely,

endeavour

which

to solve the problem of the inherence of ideas in things,

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

would thence follow

it

icus,

which

same

is

in particular, that the Polit-

preparatory to the Republic, in exactly the

was written

relation as the Sophist to the Timaeus,

and that by a considerable period than the Sophist which does, nevertheless, in conjunction with the

earlier, itself,

Politicus, constitute

but one dialogue, and

is

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 poses dialogues not belonging to this first

class,

and

this

splendid structure contains, as

it

were

let

into its foundation, the key-stones of all these noble arches

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

edifice

mediately within their own range, one might, not being able to divine their destination, pronounce and objectless

imperfect.

If, therefore the

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,

and did not add

until afterwards the elementary

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

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 is

dialogues he would read in this order, and then leave him to his own feelings as to the inverted process and the miserable expedient

the

that

investigations leading

back to the principles will now be necessarily instituted with persons knowing nothing of the preceding expo sitions, so to cut off all natural references to them.

Moreover, instead of those references which he will in vain look for, other relations would spontaneously force

themselves throughout upon the mind of any one reading in this order, clearly pointing to the opposite arrange

ment.

hoped that no one will object that the case the main, be the same with the order here pro

It is

would, in

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.

being done only mythically does not only accurately to excite his read agree with that main purpose of Plato

its

ers to spontaneous origination of ideas,

nition of

even

which our whole arrangement

in itself a clear

proof of

how

upon the recog rests,

but

it

is

firmly convinced Plato

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

much that a new proof

as the transition of tific

form, affords

mythical into a scien in favour of the correct is

ness of the order in which all this

may be most

clearly

44

The

perceived.

for

therefore,

necessity,

assigning the

last place to the constructive dialogues, is in

of view so great, that

if

every point well-grounded historical traces

were to be found of an

earlier composition of the Re public prior to any one of those preparatory dialogues, though none such has yet been found, and, what is

more,

be found, we could not avoid

will not

most

serious

Plato, and reconcile

contradiction

with

telligence.

instance

As

then,

of

unreason

these

the

our judgement upon embarrassed how to

we should be much

this

falling into

with

his

vast

constructive

in

are

dialogues indisputably the last, some, on the other hand, of the remaining ones distinguish themselves as clearly as the first

;

for instance,

continuing to adhere only to those the rank, Phasdrus, Protagoras, and ParmeFor these are contrasted with the former, first

of the

first

nides.

by a character of youthfulness quite peculiar which may indeed be most two, but even in the last

mer

will not

escape the attentive

Moreover by the circumstance, that

eye.

to them,

easily recognized in the first

as

by the

for

the rest are presupposed, so, conversely, many references are to be found throughout to these latter as all

previously existing

;

and even looking only to the par

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

with a definite purpose and with

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 thoughts, particular allusions. But the most important thing yet in

them

is

their internal

45 for

matter,

of what

is

them are developed the

in

the basis of

first

breathings of Logic as

that follows,

all

instrument of Philosophy, of Ideas as its proper of the possibility and the con object, consequently

the

These

ditions of knowledge.

therefore,

in

conjunction

some dialogues attaching to them of the lesser kind, form the first, and, as it were, elementary part of with

the

Platonic

The

works.

others occupy the interval between these and the constructive, inasmuch as they

progressively of the applicability of those princi

treat

of the distinction between philosophical and com in their united application to two pro posed and real sciences, that of Ethics, namely, and of

ples,

mon knowledge Physics.

between the

In this respect also they stand in the middle the constructive in which the practical and

theoretical are completely united,

and the element

in which the two are kept separate more than else in Plato. where These, then, form the second any is which distinguished by an especial and almost part,

ary,

difficult artificiality, as

particular dialogues

well

as in

in the

their

construction of the

progressive connection,

and which might be named for distinction s sake, the indirect method, since it commences almost universally In these three the juxta-position of antitheses. divisions therefore, the works of Plato are here to be

with

given

to

the

reader;

so

that

while

each

part

is

ar

according to its obvious characteristics, the second rank occupy precisely the dialogues also of the which, after due consideration of every point,

ranged

places

seems to belong to them. Only it must be allowed that with respect to this more nice arrangement, every thing has

not

equal

certainty,

inasmuch as there are

two things necessary to be attended

to

in

making

it,

46 progression of the development of ideas, variety of particular allusions and references.

the natural

and a

With

respect to the works of the

of these two

contravened

Thus,

method

gistic

and

last,

is

partly

begins

partly a

as to

is

the

predominant

as

a

is

philosophize

the

most to

transition

actual things.

first

never kind.

part, the development of the dialo-

first

manifestly, the Phaedrus

the

rank, the

generally perfectly decisive, by a characteristic of the second

the

in

first

is

object,

and hence,

and the Parmenides

perfect

the

upon

first

exposition

the

of

because

second part,

it,

it

of ideas to

relation

In the second part, the explanation of

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;

first,

it

as trans

from the anticipatory

Philosophy, the second, because in discussion of the idea of the Good, it begins to ap

Natural

sketch of its

the

proximate to a totally constructive exposition, and passes The arrangement of the colla into the direct method. teral

works of the second

class,

is

not always quite so

decisive, as several, in the first place, are only enlarge

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

we can only

always very several of

to the Protagoras,

and

in these

follow certain particular, and not

definite, indications; and, in the

them might be

second place,

transitions between

the same

in the second part the Gorgias with larger dialogues, as

the

Menon and Euthydemus

collectively

are

preludes

47 diverging from the Theaetetus, to the Politicus

we must

rest

bilities

collected

source.

The

as

sidered in

so that

accurately

as

may be from

every

third part contains no other subordinate

work except the Laws, to which, reference to

:

with an accumulation of proba

satisfied

certainly, not only with

that important triple work,

but also con

we must give

that name, and say that, with although copiously penetrated philosophical matter, they still form only a collateral piece, although, from itself,

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

in

common

in point of genuineness, will

a third place, although they,

have a very

different value, they

be distributed into appendices under

all

three divi

sions, according as either historical or internal evidence, in so far as they are

place, or according as the critical is

facilitated

that dialogue.

them a probable examination of them

Platonic, assign

particularly

For they

by comparison with also shall

this

or

have the privilege

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

PH^DRUS.

I.

THIS "

"

Or of

dialogue

usually

the Beautiful

Of Love and of

I.

;""

the

bears

a

as

second

title,

and has been sometimes named, Mind."

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 track, favouring views in part far too limited,

vantageous

in

part entirely false,

with regard to the object of the This holds

philosopher and the meaning of the work.

especially of the superadded titles of this dialogue, which have been understood almost universally as indicating

the true subject of

it,

have been translated and used

quotations, though love

and beauty appear only

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

sufficient to replace the reader in that original

state of absence of all prejudice;

therefore,

as

and from

cause,

well as from a desire to lay the Platonic

method

as clearly as possible before the

of the

first

dialogue,

extend to what length.

this

may

this

mind, on occasion

introduction

must claim

to

appear a somewhat disproportionate

49

The whole Dialogue,

exclusive of the richly orna mented Introduction, consists of two parts, much alike in extent, but otherwise, even at

from one another.

For the

first

first

sight, very different of them contains three"

speeches upon love, one of Lysias in favour of the position boy should bestow his favour upon a cold and

that a

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 as

liminarily,

remarks,

indefinite

incidentally

as

possible,

introduced

contains

several

on occasion of

these

upon the then condition of the art of speaking, with notices of its proper And from together principles. speeches,

these

entirely

technical

investigations

again made to the Now, even from speeches. ever

is

subject

no return what treated

of in

the

this

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

main subject-matter, but not even love in general. For in either case this beautiful work, worked up as it evidently is

with the greatest pains, would appear deformed in a

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.

For the whole of the second half would

then be nothing but an appendage strangely tacked on, and not even tolerably well fitted, which, of itself alone,

and more especially from

its

position, could

effect so sure as that of necessarily

drawing

produce no

off the atte.n~

50 tion as far as possible

from the main subject.

Moreover,

supposing the last to be the case, the subject itself

would

be yet but very indifferently completed. For notwith relation standing that in the two first speeches the of the lovers

of

treated

is

of pleasure and profit

in

and mystically might have so easily led ethically

with

and

;

regard

essence

upon the grounds

merely

the last, on the other hand, this

separate

to the true point of dispute,

and

nature of love

to the

treatment

this,

no

notice

to its

higher whatever is

notwithstanding in the succeeding criticism upon the speeches,

taken of

it

and nothing

is

done to reconcile the opposing views.

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

upon the question of love-

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

fused and unmeaningly compiled are

to

start

from the

;

if,

that

subject-matter

of

to say,

is

those

we

three

comprehend the whole. on the contrary, we compare the second part

speeches in order to

Now

if,

instead of troubling ourselves so uselessly about the

the result seems to be that as the Art

second part,

we

is

first,

treated of in the

are to look at the speeches in the

first,

mode of treatment, and

their

more with reference value as works of

to the art,

than to the subject

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

is

favoured by an

half-seriously intended declaration of Socrates, that he brings forward the speeches only as examples, least

and

method employed, be taken every thing only as jest. According to that, then, we should have to pay especial attention, from the beginning throughout, to what is that,

setting

aside

else in

the

them

is

correct to

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

the rules adduced in the second part, and the inventions

of the most celebrated rhetoricians of that most ancient school, this art

was treated by the

and teachers of

artists

To blind that day in an exclusively empirical manner. the understanding of the hearers by sophistical means, and then,

in particular passages,

to excite their

minds

whole object as likewise an emotionally of uniform instruction deficient and method extremely in composition, with uselessly accumulated subdivisions this

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. the art itself, is for 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

who would convince need

the true and right, he shews, that in

order really to produce conviction, that

is,

to

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 be

to the

name of

he shews, I say, that an aptitude at is requisite, an art of logical

art

deceiving and undeceiving semblance, which can itself

rest

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,

must be the true foundation of

and that only what

is

connected with

its

rhetoric,

principles, pro

With this, then, the second perly belongs to the art. in All those technicali stands close connection. position ties,

he says, which were given out for art were borrowed

only from practice in the courts of law and the popular assemblies, and referred to them, so that their trifling value

must

at once appear,

they were only put forward as particular kinds, and no longer considered as the whole Hence, therefore, Plato maintains province of the art.

even

if

that the art of speaking

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

hand

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

reveals himself in the process, while a great archetype, emblematical of the species which he almost created,

53 floats before

him

mind, and he subjects himself to which according to the general view he

in his

strict conditions,

might have avoided. in the

rhetoric,

used,

a manner

in

is

But

as

this

by

sense in which

destroyed,

very extension,

word was

the

Plato

clears

hitherto himself,

prophetically, as it were, of the accusation of diluting it

away and

among

letting

it

vanish into the indefinite, which,

the moderns at least,

might

be charged

easily

upon him by those who bring with them

to this investi

gation the common incorrect conception of Plato to the art in general. And this he does best

hatred

s

that

by

declaration of his views according to which he sets rhetoric, notwithstanding its maintained

and even by virtue of For true art, according

dependency upon

to be art in a higher

dialectics,

it,

sense.

to him,

is

nothing but

that practice of which again a true science, or, as our

countrymen usually

call it,

up

a theory can be

made

:

own

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 is

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

in order thus to define

how every

speech, under given

circumstances, can and must be fashioned according to the rules of art.

From

this point of

view thus taken up,

tained in this

work may be now more

From

of

for

it, first

a living

all,

much

con

correctly understood. the necessity of the examples, at least

composition like that of Plato

s,

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,

and the necessity of a

fiction for the

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 the

tendency of that period upon the whole and at the same time to produce that discussion, logical semblance which leads unobserved from one contradiction peculiar

On

to another. ceive,

no one, we con of the two Socratic

this account, therefore,

would wish

to overlook the first

speeches from a preference for the second, as it is only by the most accurate comparison that both can be understood aright.

Thus

the entirely different tone of each, accord

become

ing to its purpose, will

we have

the

evident.

direction

For

in the

of the speech

one

to the

pervading understanding and to sober worldly-mindedness, the ex

pression moreover, notwithstanding all the rhythmical accumulation of words, preserved transparent and cold thus it indisputably is that a mind must be treated which

intended to lead to a contempt of passion by directing views to a late future ; in the other, on the

it is

its

contrary, the inspired tone, the exaltation of beauty to an equal rank with the highest moral ideas, and its

we have

close

connection with

Eternal

the

and Infinite;

the

manner moreover

in which indulgence is demanded for the sensuous system, without however concealing that it

is

only indulgence

imagination a

upon, which,

;

thus

it is

that with indulgence to the

young and noble mind must be wrought

like that of a

growing Hellenic boy, springs

55 out of the school of the poetic

fresh

could not easily be better proved than collocation,

how

art. is

Truly it done by this

necessary on every occasion

it

is

to

what way a given mind can be influenced a given object. In like manner from this point of

consider in to

view

appear natural that these examples should be taken from a subject appertaining to Philosophy, because in a subject of this description Plato found it

will

own

himself most on his

was

this

to verify, practically,

tension political

of the

and

peculiar ground, and because

same time necessary,

the

at

as

it

in

order as well

were, the theory of the ex

Art of Speaking beyond the affairs, as

civil

to suggest

circle of

a fitting rule

comparison between that more narrow province, and

for

this the

more extended, the sphere of the production of

splendid philosophical works.

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

not be risking too

much

as to

the range of his knowledge and reading at that time, to

say,

that

his

choice

must have been extremely

li

For except the declamations of the Sophist, which were indeed works so unsound that for Plato

mited.

and principles to place himself in comparison with them would have been productive of no honour, and which moreover, as soon as Rhetoric

with

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,

who moreover, from

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

this

is

just the

ency

even of this view

why

should

such

a

to

his

Plato

point

which the

at

insuffici

must

strike every one. For wished to confine himself by

have

and that too quite contrary Or is it not usual with him to

self-imposed law,

own method

put into the

?

mouth of

his Interlocutors

what they have

never said, liable to the sole condition that

it

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 stood precisely in the closest connection with

also

the

immediate object of this dialogue. For that love is in deed a moral object, and that in the method in which it

like

an

here treated

of, there lies at bottom something an apology for Socrates who was accused of it in unworthy sense, this would be perhaps sufficient

is

cause points

for

introducing it as one of those subordinate of the second rank which we meet with not

sparingly transitions

stands in do, then

here

and

in

the

introduction

generally,

in

the

allusions; but when anything such relation to the whole as these speeches in various

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 it

but the correction of the notion of rhetoric, in that and beauty, which form the subject matter of

case love

these speeches, accidental.

would

But

this

be, is

as regards this point, purely

just Plato

s

method, and

it

is

the triumph of his master-mind that in his great and forms is without its rich-wrought use, and that nothing

he leaves nothing for chance or blind caprice to de termine, but with him every thing is proportionate and

57 1

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

Thus, therefore,

it

is

at

manner

?

once evident that this

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

would not allow us

For

could have been a principal ob

is it

likely that

it

ject with Plato to

of rhetoric

compose a and would this

treatise

to stop here.

upon the

technicals

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 ?

would then stand less

isolated

important work,

in

scarcely be allowed to

in a

manner

the case of this

stand

?

Nay

in

which a far

master,

could

more, even in the

second part, though it is from this that the standing point for this view is taken, still much remains inexplicable

and strange on the supposition that

it

is

the right one.

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 to extended suddenly poetry and politics

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

as well, for these too are arts, that,

is

said

of

it

setting aside

almost as of the speeches delivered, that, must be exhibited

the higher laws which

and business is nothing but In such wise, therefore, we are driven from

therein, its whole operation

child s-play.

H

58 an outer to an inner, and as this last does

itself in

turn

onwards even unto

soon become an outer, we push still the innermost soul of the whole work, which

than the inward

spirit

of

is

no other

those higher laws,

the art,

and informing communi namely, of unshackled thought all else in this dialogue which For cation, or, dialectics. is

of

but preparation, in order to bring about the discovery in the Socratic

it

in a well

known

method by the exhibition of

particular,

clusively scientific

and that one

in

its spirit

which an ex

form was in part generally recognized,

Now

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

in part easy

other

all

arts

to exhibit.

we are indeed

to

recognise

it,

it

is

something much higher

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

itself to

tics is

with

Now

the original object of dialecfound in ideas, which he therefore here describes

of a divine existence.

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 estimable beautiful, and for whom he may

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

which raises genuine and divine love other,

originating in and proceeding

of advantage,

as philosophy

does by

itself

above every

upon any notion its

nature excel

59 their subordinate arts which

with pleasure or profit.

ment of the object of

are content to play either

For however much the must be the

that impulse

attain effect

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 of art still

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

approves bringing out

every thing, vivifying and connecting all. This object then, considered in connection with the

manner

in

which

it is

brought forward, irrevocably secures among the works of Plato.

to the Phsedrus the first place

To

we

this conclusion

we observe

that

are

moreover

at once led,

when

of

exposition philosophy the of consciousness the philosophical impulse and method is far more intimate and powerful than that of the in

philosophical

matter,

mythically, as

if,

for

a

logical

this

which

therefore

on the one hand,

exposition, and,

it

appears

only

were

still

unripe on the other, repressed to

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

Now

this

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

manner

fully

which

in

he

here done.

has

the

Moreover,

excessive, and almost boisterous and triumphant exult ation, which at once and of itself points clearly enough

newly gained good, relates only to the discovery of the first principles, and the Phaedrus exhibits, less than any other dialogue, a great and

to the acquisition of a

readiness

acquired

already

Moreover

method.

in

the in

it

application

a variety

of this

of ways to

points the poetic essays of Plato which preceded his philoso For any one who holds Plato in proper esti phising.

mation, will not be willing to believe that he composed poetry only in the thoughtlessness of youth, but rather that he took

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

early times,

with still

the apparent artlessness of his arguments, must have appeared to Plato as a master-art never sur all

passed,

and have

him with admiration and

filled

This then, under such mind,

inclined

unity

of

the

love.

and in such a

circumstances

by nature to favour the notion of the two, naturally exhibited itself in a re

ference of philosophy

to

art,

the process of which at

the same time contained an explanation and defence of his transition

his

own

from the

latter to the former.

immediate choice of rhetoric, which art,

is

than poetry,

conceivable upon it

the

And, was

grounds

next,

not

that,

his

more

aims at conviction, and because he could

not compare what Socrates effected in

it

by the

science

61 with anything nearer than what

of dialectics, phists and

rhetoricians thought to

effect

the so

by mere em

piricism.

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

which the work

at

period

was

written,

let

him

mark

the innumerable proofs of the youthfulNow these are to be found ness of the work generally.

further

It has whole style and colouring. to an ostentation of a great inclination to the epideictic not only, first, for and superiority convincing power

immediately in

its

;

the opponent set

and afterwards,

conquered with little trouble, the every instance in what follows,

up in

is

it preceding position outbidden, but even philosophy our admi self, in order to give it a lustre and excite

ration, is

men most

what

in part

because

praised chiefly,

involved

and

praise in

it

leaves

admire.

the subject-matter;

behind

far

Now but,

this

in

is

Plato

thus necessarily consequent subject and execution are is the and the one upon other, youthful through spirit out in which that general design is applied and con tinually till

it

all,

worked upwards,

but

crushes,

self

the

second

Lysias,

then

at

annihilates

serve

through ascending degrees, Look, first of that speech which

reaches a point of extravagance.

still

how

in

speech the counter-speech

at

which

more powerfully, the two preceding; ob them Plato showily appropriates to him

the great triumph

of the

Sophists,

of

defending

after the other, and, withal, propositions one elaborate display immediately made of abundance

opposite the

of matter

;

in that every contradictory detail is despised

as regards the speech

itself,

and only premised

in

the

dialogues as prefatory to it ; fidence, which does not even

name of Eros

then the apologetic con

attempt to deprecate the or assume a milder

as regards Socrates,

instead, but even in a prayer for health

and happiness, Further, the investigation which de most beautiful in this speech to be

ends with love.

what

clares

is

nothing but child s-play, and rejects it along with the as if it were the bantering to nothing

first

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

thought

scarcely

deserving at a later period,

a

and which does

itself

make

somewhat ostentatious show of extent of reading; as

finally,

exalted

and

all

this

the culminating

contempt, oratorical

youthful

point in this Socratic,

genuinely speaking.

betrays

spirit

Even itself,

epideixis, the

for

in the in

all

writing

outward form

the

constantly

renewed luxuriance of the secondary subjects introduced at every in an animation in the dialogue, resting point which cannot be quite defended of effort ;

and

affectation;

lastly

also,

in

against charges a somewhat immoderate

introduction of the religious, and here and there even in a certain

awkwardness

in the speeches,

With in

the

this

work

in the transitions,

but in the dialogistic

not indeed

half.

view, moreover, the historical indications

itself

accurately coincide, leaving as they to the time in which the

do no doubt remaining as

It would indeed be use draw any proof whatever from these,

dialogue plays, so to speak. less to

attempt to

and

with the exception of a few cases in the impossibility of the composition prior to a

generally,

which

63 certain period is self-evident,

would be

it

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

maintained in Athenreus, that

is

could have been no

For what

writer

contemporary

ever

at

of Socrates.

all

himself

allowed

Phoedrus

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 unless he

and for

torical

of time it

may

accuracy, or as is

if

no offence against the order

be met with in him.

to

be the case

indeed

in

On

the contrary,

dialogues

which were

remote from that of transposed into a period pretty their composition, that he starts away from, and leaves,

whether from error of me hypothetical grounds, mory and negligence, or from his knowingly sacrificing

his

historical truth for is

one thing, and

sake of a it

here be the case, two

certain

effect.

another to introduce,

is

men

But as

this

must

as the only acting personages,

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

?

For one circumstance of the

Phaedrus would be then of no value for the dialogue, as there could

and

be no want of a contemporary confidant

admirer of

and any one

to

Lysias among the young Athenians, he had here transferred the cha

whom

racter of Phsedrus, might have also delivered the speech

Nay, what cause spoken by him in the Symposium. could there have been for making this same impossible interlocutor

come forward

in

the Protagoras, where, as

a mute spectator, he only swells the accumulated crowd ? would not therefore take this even upon the word

We

of Athenseus unless he communicates to us some of his

more accurate sources of information drus, and so unproven an accusation

from

us

say further, as

from

our

treating if

it

dialogue,

as is

to

Phse-

not to prevent

what

in

this

we

have to

were possible to draw conclusions it. This premised,

historical relations contained in

we add

that

mentioned

in

two very well known personages are there a very decisive manner Lysias, namely,

and at

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 year ninety-second Olympiad, from which

as Dionysius tells us, first

his

period

Now

if

fame

great

we allow

still

as

an

orator

some years

to

first

commences.

pass before Phae-

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

And

Olympiad.

could not well be of and

certainly

more than

not

fifty

later,

for

Lysias

years old to write

expound love-matters without shame,

Iso

as

crates, two and twenty years younger, could not have been much above thirty, to be brought forward as a

To

young man.

this

may

be added the mention of

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 :

more accurately, we have from these grounds the further result, that

it

cannot have been written

which case

it

is

at

that time

at

much

once self-evident, that

later;

Plato,

in

who

had not been long a scholar of Socrates,

could not as yet have written anything of this descrip tion, but that the Phaedrus was the first burst of the

b5

inspiration

own

drawn from

feeling

will

tell

Socrates.

him

that

For,

first,

every

manner

the

in

man

s

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

Nay, when we consider further how hardly

it.

he treats Lysias, he would have subjected himself to a of had he at a later period in heavy charge injustice,

upon him taken for the basis of it an old and almost forgotten piece, and one long ago superseded

his criticism

by many

far

more

Moreover

perfect.

to

what end the

mention of Polemarchus transition to Philosophy ? For, he died so soon after it, he could scarcely have

as

supplied an illustrious example for a later period than

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

in

which appears towards the end of the dialogue, and which cannot possibly have been spoken retrospectively, namely that he would far surpass all

respecting Isocrates

rhetoricians hitherto, position.

and

rise

to a higher

For supposing what

this

performed to have answered Plato in that case, to say the least of

s

it,

kind of com

orator

afterwards

expectations,

ridiculous to

it

was

make

be predicted at a far earlier period ; but if Iso crates did not come up to those expectations, Plato this

would told

in that case

knowingly and purposely have either

a false prophecy of Socrates, or falsely attributed

such to him.

But that prophecy seems

to

have reference

to an idea, which in several passages in this dialogue i

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

Hippocrates

Anaxagoras,

may well find support, brought of it at least as con much so and even such an idea, forward, this supposition

cerns the interests of his

tributed to Plato

s

youth

native city,

can only be at

at the time.

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 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

have done

Philosophy involved in

it.

And

as to the second ground,

what namely, the similarity between logue of the

effect

is

said in

this dia

of writing, and what occurs

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

which

is

the basis of the discussions in that

and consequently that he does not maintain that was not written till after Plato s visit to Phaedrus the

letter,

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 to

all

be found

;

and be the case

the

as

it

may

with that

of writing in

depreciation comparison with true and living philosophical communication is itself per

letter,

1

fectly intelligible as a justification of Socrates abstinence

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

do

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

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

Phsedrus so much that

is

Platonic appears, while he

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-

experienced person will certainly allow that true philoso

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 and independent expression of his sentiments. Why, therefore, should not the communication of the Platonic

free

Or if we are to believe that philosophy begin thus ? Plato was not merely for a certain period a simply

passive learner,

but also wrote as such, then

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

For the existence

form.

in the

Phaedrus of the germs

of nearly the whole of his system, is hardly to be denied ; but then their undeveloped state is quite as

and

clear,

so

itself

at

the same time their imperfection betrays

clearly

that

in

direct

method

in

the conduct

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

of the

pected that skilful readers will agree as to the position to

be assigned to this dialogue. Among the grounds here adduced for

this arrange ment, that old tradition which distinguished the Phaedrus as the first of Plato s works, has, not improperly, con

sidering the importance of the subject, found no place.

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

objections

times,

early

made

to

this

in

order

dialogue

instance, the language of

;

to

as

destroy to

several

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

the erotic question

it

what

is

meant by the

but in the

;

first

last,

namely, allegation one of

the most eminent masters of antiquity agrees, and that in

no gentle manner

nature of the case best

appear

from

I

mean Dionysius.

What

the

may be as regards that point, will what still remains for us to do ;

69 to

add

certain

preliminary elucidations the details of the work. cerning particular

namely,

The

Introduction

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

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 speech to others of that writer, as regards the art and This here however is not displayed in it.

character

deserving of in

much

praise in itself;

for the uniformity

the moulding of the particular propositions, as well

as the

mode of connecting them, could hardly be given

in the translation

to

the vicious extent

to

which they

exist, and the indefiniteness of expression which almost always admits of several meanings, is a crux for the

Now

supposing the others to have been like this, the whole was an attempt, not indeed thought unsuccessful, lessly entered upon, but still perfectly

interpreter.

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

And Dionysius adds

that Plato

means soon

to

acknow-

70 ledge himself that this sentences

and

little

a specimen of high sounding and dithyrambs, with great pomp of words when he meaning, says to Phgedrus that he is

should be surprised at nothing in the sequel, for that he is now uttering is not far short of dithy

what

rambs.

Now

as

to

that invocation to

might perhaps allow an rivations

in

affectation

in

Muses, we

the

the

sportive de

looking to the whole structure, one would be disposed to deny its claim scarcely any to the title of on the con prose. By the it

;

but,

surprise,

trary, which Plato expresses at the dithyrambic nature of his sentences, he certainly did not intend to express

any censure upon himself.

For any one who pays

at

tention to

the passage in which this occurs, will easily discover that it does not refer to any kind of Poetic but that Plato inspiration ; only intended, 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

and the whole speech is pervaded by one and the same flat In that of Plato on extremely melody.

theses;

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

hovers around

it,

and as

it

;

until at

culminating point, were poises himself in a

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

far the censure of

can strictly refer only to the feet of the words, is grounded be the privilege of Grecian ears alone, as

in truth, could it

evident that Plato

is

s Theory upon this point, rests To us, from that of Dionysius. grounds

different

upon

who do not

inquire quite so

seems

fulness of expression

much

into this matter, the

reach

to

actually

unfettered

the extremest limits of language

only to

by metre,

himself intended to respect certainly Plato In the second be epideictic. speech of Socrates, that

and

in

this

famous Myth

is,

lastly,

beyond doubt the most impor

tant part, for sake of which all other matter in this dia has been unfairly thrown into the back-ground.

logue

The consequence of this has been, Myth itself has been throughout

the

not even

that

rightly

understood.

most part, been taken in a too abstract and limited sense, and much has been

For the Love far

has, for the

Least of all has overlooked or childishly trifled away. the fundamental is it that the fact been remarked, Myth from which all that succeed and enter into the whole

system of the that

the

Platonic

more the

Philosophy are developed

subject-matter

of

at

it,

;

so

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 here be all this cannot proved, but regularly

Though

must

verify

itself

by

the

sequel.

Now

relates to the particular subject of the

definite can

be adduced in

as

what

to

Myth, but

illustration

of

the

little

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

More accurate between the Natural and Supernatural. it would be more welcome than certainly

solutions of

that discovery which

Heyne some time

cated, that the horses in this

Parmenides, which

communi

since

Myth were borrowed from

hardly be discovered after a per usal of the fragment referred to. For the identity in a rests not so much comparison, upon the image, as upon will

a similar application of

would be implied

to the object.

it

Moreover, more

in that assertion than that learned per

son probably intended, namely, that Plato borrowed his division of the Soul from Parmenides. In our confessed uncertainty as to particulars, that several of the

general,

it

may however be

conceptions in

seem to be worked out from one another several

expressions

are

derived

from

;

the

said in

this

and

Myth

that, as

mysteries,

a

more perfect understanding of them would probably contribute most towards an explanation. On this ac count a

still

thagorean

more accurate acquaintance with the Py

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 the

true

trine of

renewed recollection

is

hardly to be explained

Moreover the bulk of

this

evidently treated as a by-work to add to

the

from Pythagoras.

Myth pomp

is

of

the whole, and to harmonize the strictly allegorical parts of it. Wherefore we must beware of entering too much into

with

details in

the explanation, and rather be satisfied

comprehending aright those philosophical which Plato himself marks as such in the indications, It might be adduced as a consequence, suffi delivery. only

ciently

immediate and but

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.

What Tiedemann however

has discovered in the notion

73 that

but in is

the

existent

essentially

beheld, not

is

in

heaven,

in the region it.

But

it

beyond heaven, can hardly be implied might be most difficult to explain what

said very particularly of the various character of

according as they the Eternal.

have been more or

If therefore

still

less

men

penetrated

by

greater faults do not

lie

concealed under the considerable varieties in the readings, the whole passage might perhaps belong to that class of

we

decorations in which

And, generally,

much

to

the

it

fact,

are not to look for too

much.

draw

attention too

how completely every

thing in this

is

impossible to

meant and applied rhetorically, so that even dialogue here, where untamed imagination has been so often dis is

covered, like the wild horse as

it

were of the Platonic

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,

For

still

the style

is

in the

to sketch an image,

main prosaic

as is here done,

throughout. with a few strokes in the outline, and then to work

first

out further step by step, as regularity required, could not be endured in a poem. With regard to the second part of the dialogue,

it

after all that has already

been said in general, there

is

nothing further to remark, except that, although not

was the origin of that im which dates its commencement from

fully applied to practice,

it

proved rhetoric Aristotle, who owes much to will explain particular

this work.

difficulties,

The remarks

and thus the reader

be detained no longer in the vestibule of did and genial work. will

this splen

II.

A

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

written before the death of Socrates.

A

greater degree

of authority however might fairly attach to it than to the similar one respecting the Phaedrus, as this latter rests only

upon internal evidence, while the former

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

however, scarcely deserving as here the ground upon which this

it

is

its

Such a testimony, of the name, is not

place

is

assigned

to

the connection decides sufficiently in fa

dialogue it, even though ;

Plato.

vour of

it

were not supported by his

For in its subject-matter the Lysis Phaedrus and the Symposium alone the dialogues of Plato, inasmuch as the question

torical references. is

related

of

all

as

to

love,

to

the

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

most extensive and general relations. dialectical touches, like those of which the

considered in

So

that

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

with the rules of art as

had before

destitute of point, because every one already

him

that

in

started in this.

one so

dialogue the solution of every question And a mere dialectical exercise, especially

trifling as this

be attributed

to the

dialogue would then be, can hardly finished master of a later period.

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

upon the principal question, inasmuch as it developes at length one source of love, and goes into an

decisively

explanation of reference to

it

this

the Symposium,

assumed

much

the

sceptically.

evident others

circumstance, it

to

dialogue

only

Lysis

fairly think, in

case

that, as in the

would be contrary

to place that

as

any one might

so that

;

of

to the principles

before the Lysis, inas

treats

of

the

same subject

But the great distinction must of itself be those who know the Symposium, while to

who do

not,

it

may

certainly be

made apparent

without taking an anticipative survey of that later di alogue. is

For the theory respecting the source of love and brought forward in the PhaBdrus mythically

; only think of deciding in this manner a question which had been already at an earlier period taken within the

to

province of logic,

would be not only contrary

most recognized analogy in the

to

the

Platonic writings, and

of their author, but every idea of the philosophy useless even in itself a vicious and undertaking ; because to

the reproduction

elements

among

upon a

dialectic soil of those mythical

which the investigation began,

must render

the subject again complicated and uncertain.

To

this,

be added, one which

moreover, the following argument may with many will probably be more decisive.

In the Phae-

76 drus the matter

is

treated far less generally, inasmuch as

there are yet other kinds of friendship than that exclu sively philosophical, sion,

which

is

there the subject of discus

or than that exclusively sensuous kind from which

occasion

is

taken to start the question

but at what point

;

these others deviate from the former, or

how

tion admits of being applied to them,

no where pointed

is

In the Lysis, on the contrary,

out.

general that

is

it

the subject of discussion

far the solu

friendship in

is ;

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

could only be ascribed to an unthinking and random a description which least of all applies to Plato. ;

writer

The Phaedrus not it

therefore

by no means

is

to be looked

fail to

with

appear ridiculous to any one who would read

a

still

desire to

lingering

doubts contained

in

the

Lysis

;

resolve

the logical

but this latter clearly

stands between the Phaedrus and the Symposium.

upon it

upon

growing out of the Lysis, as the former also could

as

this

it

may be

stands nearest

;

And

farther asked to which of the two

whether

it

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

will not allow of

being fully understood before we come

to consider the

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

be understood from

itself

entirely

and from the Phaedrus, that

77 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

it

For what

subject.

Phsedrus

in the

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,

inasmuch as the notion of relation and in

takes

more than

and indeed

affinity

of the identity of the ideal ; notion is alluded to in the Lysis so

this

that

only by reference to the Phaedrus that it can be easily understood. Indirectly, inasmuch as For all other propositions resolve into contradictions.

indefinitely, that

that this

is

it is

the case with the last proposition likewise,

and the one particularly defended by Plato, is only ap Much rather is the manner in which the doubts parent. the

raised against

earlier

the source of friendship, to be looked

upon

position,

are

that resemblance

applied to this

to the whole,

as the

will certainly

key open up the entire meaning

who

mind the

bears in

likewise,

and one which to every one

Like

hints in the Phsedrus. to

is

is

Like when a man confines

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

the

in

the

at the

consciousness of a spiritual ex

same time among many and

good of many, enlarges the sphere of

his

for

being

course of which, beyond those limits; a process, in the man universally meets with something like first,

every

and related

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

deavours.

good,

78 the bad, but independently and for ever, seems

not to

itself.

Aristotle,

have understood these allusions.

how

And

misunderstanding of the dialectics and polemics oc curring in the writings of Plato, may generally indeed be this

excused in his case, as his synonymous arts are of a coarser But metal, and of a composition admitting of no polish. in

the present instance where the case

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

For

writings.

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 his

ethical works, in in his

mind, and

1

between friendship and

looked the distinction

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

must be

the others what held only of one.

clear to every

Now

it

reader of the Lysis with what

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

part of the dialogue sition of

it,

considered,

with

never and on no

and

the greatest justice,

as this

occasion anything for itself,

this accidentally,

only

in

utility

is

but always,

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 Still

further

particulars

dialogue also harsh transitions, a playful caprice in the connection, and occasionally a carelessness in the choice

70 of examples

a

in

inexperience

of which

all

;

gives us a strong feeling of

composer.

Thus

also

what

respecting the subject of the erotic speeches and

occurs

poems

of Hippothales, seems to be a continued allusion to the erotic speeches of Lysias, very probably produced by unfavourable opinions as to the conduct of Plato to

that celebrated man.

would be superfluous to think of noting in detail the whole course of the dialogue after the general view of It

it

that has been given, inasmuch as every one

be in a condition to judge lines tend, and according to

to

produced

must now

what point the particular what rule they must be

in order to reach the centre-point of the whole.

That many polemical dialogue also,

particulars lie concealed in this will divine and one feels reader every ;

would completely separate the idea of friendship from the of the physical application pretty certain that Plato

ethical,

if

not entirely reject the former.

escape no one how the secondary object

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

through the whole, and very easily

also, with the exception of a few particular harshnesses,

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

from which

manner

it is

in

which

it

suggests the principles

necessary to start in order to understand

and judge of the Platonic writings, partly as a striking example, and the first of such examples, of how little

ground there

is

for the opinion, that Plato did not, gene-

80

mean

decide the questions to the investigation of which he gives a sceptical without colouring, writing down the meaning of the riddle in plain words, as he rally,

to

here observes that method in the case of a subject with to which he decides in two other dialogues, and regard that in

such a manner that the attentive reader

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,

planets, as

it

were, only borrowing

from the greater independent bodies, and moving around them. Also of how the appearances of

their

light

those dialogues cannot be understood unless their relations to the larger are rightly comprehended ; and how neces sary,

therefore,

it

must

be,

we would determine

if

the

subject of such writings, or decide whether they are Platonic or not, that every possible means should be tried to fix their distance

from the principal bodies, and

the path in which they move.

For

as regards the Lysis,

few would now pay much attention to the doubts which a too austere and strict criticism could raise its against nay, it could scarce be found necessary to refer the accuser further to its imitative and dramatic

genuineness

form, which has so beautiful an the Platonic there

is

character.

nothing to

Of

be said

;

effect,

the

and so much of

characters

moreover, there

existing that an actual occurrence

is

the subject or of the dress in which

themselves is

no trace

the basis either of it

is

clothed.

81

PROTAGORAS.

III.

To

men

the most celebrated

that period

come forward

of those

who had

at

as instructors of the Hellenic

youth ; to Protagoras first, who of all masters of dispute and eloquence, by reason of the fundamental principle

on which his

art rested,

most deserved to become the

study of a philosopher, even as he was himself called a philosopher in ancient times and honoured as such; to the learned Hippias,

and antiquity, rich

moreover, the skilled in history

and and memory brought forward by reason of his labours, who, though as a less important philological contributes to the effect of the whole ; and, personage, in

stores of art

;

to Prodicus, chiefly

further, to the friends

the

noblest

through their

and admirers of these wise men,

of the Athenian

their

fathers,

own deeds

as

youth,

partly

in

celebrated

succeeding

and poets;

demagogues,

generals,

partly times by

namely, to his ward Alcibiades,

to the sons of Pericles,

Agathon and others, who, though only pre sent as mute spectators, exalt the pomp and splendour

to Critias, to

of the whole; to these

it is

and a young man whom he

that, is

to

together with Socrates as a pupil

recommend

to Protagoras, this richly ornamented dialogue intro duces us. And, moreover, to the most brilliant and

Athens, the house of Callias,

luxurious house

in

was the richest

citizen,

the

friend

of Pericles,

who

as the

second husband of his mother after her separation from Hipponicus, connected in the relation of brother-in-law to

Alcibiades,

who married

nised and ridiculed

his sister Hipparete, recog

by the comic poets

and munificent patron of the Sophists,

as the

most zealous

until his unlimited

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

latter especially, are reflected so clearly

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

But the question how

may be this

obtained.

company was brought

together cannot be passed over, as even in the old times

was objected to the dialogue, that its author had been enabled to bestow upon it this profusion of important

it

personages only in the most inadmissible way, by means of gross offences against the order and propriety of dates.

For

several points of evidence appear, which seem to argue

that Plato conceived the dialogue to be held not earlier than in the ninetieth olympiad. Thus Hipponicus, the

father of

never

mentioned, but Protagoras with the latter, who appears exclu lodges immediately as lord and and master; sively Hipponicus perished in Callias,

is

the battle of Delos not later than the beginning of the

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.

Athena?us, then, takes this

as his

standing point, and from

faults,

namely, that Hippias the Peloponnesian could not

it

accuses Plato of two

have been staying at Athens at any other time except the truce under in the first Isarchus, during year of the eighty-ninth, against

which Dacier,

in

her introduction

83 to the translation of the Protagoras,

Plato

;

further that Plato, in the

endeavours to justify of the ninetieth,

first

could not have said of Protagoras that he had come first to Athens three days ago, as he is brought forward in the

comedy of Eupolis, the

Flatterers, as already present in

But even

the third of the eighty-ninth.

if

any one should

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

to fixing the date of the dialogue in that year, it

higher up

and

;

mentioned

not

in

it is

that

hostile

of

passage

although he brings them forward elsewhere. Socrates

is

and even

treated

calls

by Protagoras

himself

and forcing

matter of wonder that these are

so,

which

as

it is

still

a

Athenseus,

For

first

young man,

impossible he could

do only twenty years before his death. Moreover, Alcibiades, who only a year after that assumed by Athenasus 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

is

called a general,

spoken of as

still

is

living,

and

his sons

who

died before

whence plague are present in the company, date to a back this dialogue is clearly thrown prior to

him

in the

Now as the third year of the eighty-seventh olympiad. last with this so many minor points coincide epoch, not 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

and which he really intended to adhere tion of the work. it

may

But

to in the execu

as to the evidence for a later date,

be asked whether the comedy of Pherecrates had

84 not been

already produced

mentioned

in Athenseus,

especially as

imperfect form,

Lenoea that

to

previous

the exhibition

whether in the same or it

is

in a

more

an exhibition at the

here spoken of; for it is impossible to entertain the notion of an oversight committed by Plato, is

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,

and whether he may not have been absent abroad,

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

sooner be conceived that

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

also of Pherecrates

in

this

case

"

might be fixed to

The Wild Men

"

this date, in order

not to leave that fabrication perfectly isolated, and to keep the more ambiguous what could not be clearly made out.

For Plato could not have chosen a

for this spectacle than the house of Callias,

The

better place

and probably

"

of Eupolis were the occasion of this idea and the temptation to such a licence. And quite as "

Flatterers

necessary for him was that earlier period in which those wise men were actually in the flower of their fame, and

could thus be collected at Athens

and when, moreover, this generation of knowledge-seeking youths was not yet devoted to the affairs of state and war. Moreover, it might well shock Plato

s

;

feeling of propriety to repre

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.

and the way

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 Athens

at the

beginning of the ninety-second olympiad, during the change of constitution effected by Antiphon the Rhamnusian, and died,

it

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

himself in favour of the

Menon,

plainly declares

five olympiads opinion, could of his old he not boast thus earlier, age to Socrates, then nearly forty years old, without some degree of

exaggeration.

first

Therefore,

still,

I

would continue,

if

it

is

thought not possible to solve the contradictions in the dates, to rest

upon the point that the

earlier

time

that which belongs to the nature of the dialogue,

is

and

would properly wish to transpose the that from the later date only some trifling reader, and

into which Plato

circumstances are intermixed, perhaps unconsciously, in For at any rate it is but a shallow of ornament. the

way

expedient to rest satisfied that different dates are

with the

simple supposition

mixed up with one another, and

that this apparent confusion does not proceed from the method and conscience of an ancient author.

But

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

is

understood dialogue, one perhaps not quite so thoroughly as it is multifariously praised,

It

is

indeed very easy

86 to separate

the different sections and

subject of each particular one in

its

to

draw out the

order; but whoever

thinks that he has therewith discovered the sense of the

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

is

the basis of the whole, but that every thing

out accidentally from

spins

what

idea of the

whole,

in

which much that

On

is

much

as

precedes,

without unity as without art and purpose. trary, whosoever desires not to miss the

the con

object

and

complex

is

interwoven throughout, must trace accurately the con nection of every particular, and into these the reader is

now

to be

preliminarily introduced.

First of all Socrates endeavours,

1.

sceptical investigation into the nature

art of the sophists,

to bring the

by means of a and the peculiar

young man who

desires

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 to

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,

respecting the art extracts

section,

virtue

is

uninvolved until

from

or

Socrates,

definite

comes out

in a short

him thus much,

that

dialogical political

properly that which constitutes the object of

his instruction.

8? 2.

down

Socrates, in a continuous speech, lays

Hereupon the position,

ported by

instances

slightly

sketched indeed,

but

sup

and the expressions of general opinion,

that no instruction can be imparted in this

matter

;

to

which Protagoras offers a counterproof, partly in a myth about the origin of men and of social life, also partly by 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

in a second course the confession that discretion also

identical, and at length is on the same of justice, when Protagoras the of proving point in order to break the thread, brings violently starting off

and wisdom must be

forward a long, but exclusively empirical discussion upon the nature of the Good. arise naturally new explanations as to of the the nature dialogue, and while fresh terms have to 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 own in their way, with opportunity for coming forward short speeches.

And

proposal to choose

Socrates also, with regard to the an umpire, delivers his opinion in a

88 form which, with all

others 5.

all its brevity, is distinguished above the strict dialectic process observed in it.

by

to the conditions

According

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,

as respondent, not only

repels Protagoras, but also carries

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

ians

is

and Cretans introduced, but

at last a serious tone

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,

up, and Socrates

is

lastly,

now

the Dialogue

the questioner in

character continues to shew that virtue

is it,

is

again taken

and

in that

only one

namely which is to be done. of courage, and after removing an

science, of that

knowledge, First he shews this

only apparently sound objection of Protagoras, he makes allow, half voluntarily, that there is no good but

him

pleasure,

and no

evil

but pain, whence

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

his

purpose went

while on

science,

has himself been

at

the

pains

to

the other Socrates

prove

this,

of the possibility of teaching Virtue. From this short summary of the details at once

though

to dispute every supposition in favour

sufficiently

clear,

methods of viewing

the

that

it

must be

common

even here the

dialogue,

inasmuch

as

they could not comprehend the whole, but went to satisfy themselves with a part, have as good as failed alto

Some

gether. rable,

as

they

for instance, will

do even

separating what is insepa in the plastic arts, have

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

take

easily

the

up

treatment, or annihilation as sophists,

to

is

and

the

that

ironical

not indeed the place for deciding acquired perfections, for such at least

same

were valued to the same degree

sense

by Plato himself as they are two things however are certain,

by some of his admirers and sufficient to justify the view taken ;

instance.

this

might be called of the

is

they are represented, in

it

be understood as the chief object of the

This

Protagoras. whether these

notion

in

the present

For, on the one hand, what every eye however

inattentive universally observes

in

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

M

may

be met with

90 not

even

unfrequently

so little

Again

given

the

among

to be remarked, that

it is

otherwise

moderns,

irony, under a more modern

to

name.

every imitation of the

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

to

is

something

be

and what

said,

that consequently this ironical imitation

where

in

and

Plato,

certainly

does

may so

to

is

it

be,

occur any

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

authenticate

unnatural reason

it

it

the truth of the whole palpable, and to by a careful removal of every thing

and

exaggerated should never be

but

;

that

conceived

that

for

as

the

very

first

or

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

which certainly no larger must either have been

ever framed,

subordinate, or have been completely wanting. Others on the contrary, too eager for the treasure,

and

not

even

fortunate

discoverers

real

because

they sought without knowing their ground, have only adhered to one of the questions started, as if that one

were to be here decided, whether of virtue

or

it

were that of the

communicability unity or plurality; for any one who thus takes up only some particular point,

must

necessarily

waver.

its

And how

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,

this

the

is

two sources mentioned of the

the

sophistical

art

and

91 of Philosophy, and the whole discussion respecting the poem of Simonides, moreover that even such matter as is

more

closely connected with

advance but first in

lar

a

is

continually

those questions does not

nay, to express it in a word, point of the whole be involved in :

which

it

is

end of

said at the

from

beginning again

manner almost far-fetched and

it,

the

certainly singu

how could

the main

an investigation, of ironically indeed on

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 change of any 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

method, the main purpose

respecting the form and

of the whole

;

the purpose,

praise and ennoble the dialogistic form of namely, and to proclaim it as the proper form of all Socrates, to

all

sophistical forms,

in opposition to of which therefore make their

communication,

genuine philosophical

all

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

most decided manner, how very closely nects itself

For

as

by

there

process was

this dialogue con

manifold ramifications with the Phsedrus. the

inward

exhibited,

discovered,

and

Further, as

in

what

so

spirit

the

results,

of the

philosophizing is here

outward form as

such,

is

criticised.

that dialogue the investigation respecting

92 method was interwoven

the

the exposition of

also with

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

impulse which

is

empty

form the mind by means of

to

so

that every thing else

as

the base of the

is

grounded upon

Socratic

philosophy

;

so

the

ideas,

ethical

also

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

such a manner that in this dialogue

argument

treats

exclusively

the ethical,

which

the

is

of

communication

the

very

the

also

point

that

of

constitutes

the communicability what concerns the outward

the meaning of the question as to

of virtue.

Nay,

even

in

conformation of the whole, a striking connection between the two manifests also

itself,

inasmuch as

the form of a pitched

the then condition of things

contest ;

arises

still

only

in

this

dialogue agreeably to

more vividly

set

forth, as at that time the sophists were connected with the philosophers more nearly than the orators were, so

that even the polemical turn of the Phaedrus appears to

Moreover from

be here continued and advanced.

this

point the arrangement of the whole and of every particular in its

place intelligibly manifests

itself,

and that move

ment which from almost every other point seems only circular, now assumes, on the contrary, the appearance of a beautiful and regular progression. For while by the comparison of the forms the deficiency of the so

phistical

methods

is

further this dialogue

more

in

examples

;

made

all

the

more evident the

advances, and exposes of

how

easily

epideictic

itself

still

discourse

lends itself to seduce the hearers from the true point in

93 and how much even that

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

pearance several persons together

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

meaning, discovers the original error

;

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

And

worse.

these causes are the absence of the genuine philosophical impulse and the base enterprises and pur

poses for sake of which they chiefly exercised their art.

And that

harmony which must work

this is

beautiful in art, even though

own grounds,

it

its effect, is

like all

not recognised

most part the source of the extreme delight which most readers take in

upon

its

this perfect work.

is

certainly for the

Thus

the

first

at once discovers his self-conceit

speech of Protagoras thus in the

and avarice

very first piece of dialogue, where he is content to oppose the reverse of discretion to knowledge also, it becomes

when virtue

evident,

is

to

be divided, and consequently

the distinction between the theoretical and practical emi

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.

undoubtedly to something which Plato and poraries

had before

relatively

philosopher

their

eyes,

Protagoras or

to is

it

his

matters not

some one

else.

contem whether

For

that

here less himself than the representative

94 In like manner the sequel further discovers

of his sect.

no better with Protagoras in regard of the distinction between the pleasant and the And if, good. that

fares

it

the

at

when Socrates exposes

conclusion,

which he

contradiction in

great

he has not reflected even

that

the

is

to

involved,

him the

we

learn

the slightest degree

in

conditions

necessary for the instruction of others, or upon the notion of virtue in which he would

upon

them

instruct far

;

we have been meanwhile convinced how

removed he must continue from

that method,

the

grand principle of which consists in bringing the nurs ling of philosophy to self-consciousness, and

compelling

him

to

independent

has

the

dialogistic

Such

thought.

proved

itself

a

method, then, meanwhile to be it ;

a method which brings all this to view, and applies those testing points, offering them for recognition or

is

rejection, by overlooking which, Protagoras discovers himself to be a person who has never recognised moral

truth, and consequently has never endeavoured to attain

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

manifold

makes,

way be found which

artificial

and

dialectic

turns

which Socrates

which can

nicalities

and

only be falsely accounted as tech sophisms in him, by one totally unac

quainted with the Platonic method. if

the aim of the

is

On

the contrary,

we compare them with the execution of the Phsedrus,

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,

I

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,

so that the Protagoras is

upon the whole a more

perfect attempt to imitate in writing the living and in

spired language of the wise man.

As

maxims of deception and undeception

delivered in the Phse-

also the dialectic

drus, are put into practice with that laborious industry with which able pupils in an art, who have already made

considerable progress, or rising masters in the same, seek

every tolerable opportunity in their exercises for exhibit ing any of the secrets they have discovered before the

But

eyes of the skilful adept.

it

is

not only the prac

and the commendatory recognition of the

tical dialectics,

genuine form of philosophical art which appears here further advanced than in the Phaedrus, but also the scientific

bearing

that virtue

is

The

improved.

the knowledge of what

is

chosen, and, consequently, that

vice

proposition indeed is is

to

be done or

only error, this

proposition, however serious Plato may have been in making it, is not here put into a definite form and

brought forward directly as his opinion, but, is

indefinite,

it

entangles those

belongs rather to the

who have not

web

in

left

as

it

which he

yet possessed themselves of

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

notices tending towards what certainly must precede the

96 of the question,

decision

more accurate

the

Thus

namely of the idea of knowledge.

definition

the apparent

contradiction which Socrates himself detects, involved in

the fact that he disputes the comnmnicability of virtue,

and yet maintains that it is knowledge, this an enticement held out to reflect upon the

is

evidently of

relation

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

is

investigation into the nature

the

manner

in

of unity or plurality,

or

which the general ideas communicate with

particulars, so that the doctrine of ideas here begins to

pass from the mythical province into the scientific, and

by the very

principles brought forward in

oras contains, over and above

its

it,

the Protag

own immediate

object,

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

of an earlier date than

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

number

it

as

some have done, good-

to an exalted rank,

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 it

evidence to confirm the supposition, yet the manner in which Plato applies it makes it much more probable that

it is

at all events

to cisely as is natural

composed

in his spirit.

For pre

one of a coarsely materialistic mode

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,

and as something not introduced into the minds of men

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

perceptible, since even

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

blance in

manner and

to

Simonides, style

taken, which stands in a

in

which the resem

to this is not

similar polemical

to

be mis

relation to

the epigram of Cleobulus quoted in the Phaedrus, was also himself one of the seven wise men.

IV.

AMONG upon

the

because

it

who

LACHES.

the smaller dialogues immediately dependent will stand the first, Protagoras, the Laches so nearly resembles the former that it can

only be looked upon as an appendix

to,

or enlargement

98 of,

the last part 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

dilemma by dint of several examples, had however brought himself, influenced

by an appearance seemingly favourable

to his views, to upliold courage as an exception to that similarity,

because in

its

nature

it

is

distinct

from

all

be met

; 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

often to

other virtues

hibits itself in its

development as

spirit

and boldness, but

that these qualities only obtain the appellation of that virtue in so far as skill and judgment are connected with

them^we

shall see that these last properly constitute the

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,

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

led

him too

far

position that the pleasant

is

generally the good,

we need

only oppose the unpleasant courageously as a means towards acquiring the pleasant, and that, consequently,

courage can be nothing

else

but a correct comparison of consequently a measur

distant pleasure with near pain

ing

art,

;

consequently intelligence

and ingenuity.

This,

99

when applied

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

;

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

it

For

rest there.

considering the ques

an incomplete form, and the hypothesis in the second was not his own ; in respect of which, moreover, tion in

readers of that day might as easily deceive themselves, as it has happened to those of more modern times to

This therefore

do.

is

the meaning of this

little

illus

which, what is argued respecting connects itself courage immediately with those investi with the intention of pursuing them more accu gations, trative

dialogue, in

and more from Plato

s

own point

of view.

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,

is

it

first,

and resistance

called,

to pleasure, belongs

to every kind of

no

less to

courage

pain, nay, even that therefore

;

perseverance would better express the distinguishing Corrected then in this manner, quality of this virtue. the

first

brought is

all

investigation in the Protagoras to the conclusion, that,

perseverance courage

;

is

repeated and

on the one side neither

nor, on the other, what

is

ingeniously calculated to attain a certain object or re sult inasmuch as the moral judgment that an act is ;

courageous, severance,

is

proportioned neither to the degree of per much of this is censurable, nor

as even too

to the degree of ingenuity displayed in

Hence,

generally,

physical strength,

courage because

is

in

not that

to

the calculation.

be conceived as

case

it

must

be

100 ascribed to brutes as well as men, a supposition which

of indisputably pronounces the opinion The second question from the Prota rejects.

who

Nicias,

Plato,

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,

or

more

Now

between the two.

with a view

no point of comparison better than the Art of Prophecy for,

there could be intelligible

;

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,

virtue

that

firmed, as well as that the same

one must also produce

all

is

indivisible,

is

con

power which produces

the others.

While

the investigation into the idea of courage

is

therefore

continued,

the higher ethical ideas, which were laid down in the Protagoras, are not only confirmed by a clearer refu

what

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

principles of it

were,

may

find

is

only done imperceptibly as unconnected strokes, that he alone

them, this

and with

them

is

who has been

already

put

into

the

101 of discovering them at

way

what Laches

in

moral wisdom,

as

says of the nature of harmony of the mind, and

being

coincidence of knowledge and of

key to the Platonic

meaning of knowing.

his

And

For

events of himself.

all

innocence

his

Theory

opinion

this is

life,

of Virtue,

that

it

is

knowledge,

we may observe

this,

the right

and

the

to or,

a

in passing, is not

tends to limit instance which only Plato that the always an general proposition, greatly nounces his own opinion through Socrates ; or, if not,

remarkable

the

through the person who distinguishes himself as the For neither is wisest, and who conducts the dialogue. all

that this personage says exclusively the opinion

of

who, on the contrary makes even the leading

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,

though not to such a degree that

any one can mistake the references to the Protagoras

Much also here occurs to illustrate here pointed out. and exalt the dialogistic method, and we may remember to

what a degree

this

was a main point

in the Protagoras.

a very clear ex Plato planation, brought forward, probably, to justify and of the Protagoras, Lysis against misconceptions

Among

other matter to that

and tending

to

effect,

is

show that the purpose of such a dia

logue could never be only to expose to another his

own

102

knows nothing himself;

ignorance, while the expositor for this

is unquestionably the meaning of the passage which Nicias censures this very point as something

in

So also the assertion that it contemptible in Laches. must be a matter of indifference whether the teacher

young and unknown

is

or not,

is

defence

a

certainly

of Plato himself in regard of his treatment of Lysias as well as Protagoras ; and the other, in opposition to those

who

are of opinion that age

is of itself to bring has a similar It can understanding, object in view. not be superfluous to draw the attention of the reader

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

of

presence

a purpose

author

the

in

s

mind.

This pervading connection then with the Protagoras indisputably secures to the Laches its place in the series of the dialogues

of Plato,

notwithstanding that Aris

when he speaks of courage in never distinctly mentions it. Nor is totle,

to

be wondered

for

it

and

at,

can

it

his ethical

no suspicion one who dis

excite

would have been

works,

circumstance

this

for

;

superfluous putes the Platonic views of the good in general as well as of virtue, to delay in particular over Plato^s treat

ment of the detailed and popular parts of his is

own

objections to

here so perfectly

it.

Moreover,

Platonic,

that

all

and even

and

virtue, is

external

part to be of the dialogue doubt can remain in

explained likewise from the connection with

the

upon any

Protagoras, side

the by-work,

of

mute

in

not

that

any one

s

a

The

mind.

the change of the speakers,

persons,

are

altogether

as

it

richness

of

the presence

were

a

con-

103 tinuation of the Protagoras.

And

as regards the choice

of

persons, Lysimachus the son of Melesias the son of that Thucydides

Aristeides,

and

who maintained

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

for

statesmen were their

in incapable of instructing others for the here are clearly they

still

Moreover

art.

additional

purpose

defending youth, by an almost but representation of well-meaning of

kept-up incompetent and insipid old age comically

how

and in order

to

show

perfectly worthless objections grounded

extreme

as

are,

else

to

age, most

old

be proud

nothing even men of the ripest as

;

Lysimachus

here

of,

years

is

of

all

upon youth when it has

accustomed to as

depreciatingly In the

Socrates.

treats

treat

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

parade consequentially before Therefore there are indeed boys to

boys and Sophists. here, but mute; and the regular interlocutors are noble their class, with personages from among the first of

whom

Socrates

be

fairly

with

supposed

captains.

above

argues

the

rest

to

And

upon

that

understand;

which

they

of courage,

might that

is,

Laches may have been selected with the intention of enno

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

of the utterly

and

understood,

appropriate

unknown

of the

sickle-spear

Stesilaus, are not quite

might be

it

other information about

tale

to

difficult

come

to at

be

any

it

is

a luxurious

excess of

that pleasantry, of which, as

is

said in

Phaedrus,

there

must

it

than that

the

be an admixture in

necessarily

every piece of writing.

CHARMIDES.

V.

OF as

life,

all

the particular virtues

enumerates them

Socrates

applied in common in the Protagoras,

Discretion was there discussed in the most unsatisfactory

At

was only ironically represented as one and the same with wisdom, and afterwards, when manner.

its

relation

first

it

to justice

was to be discussed, Protagoras,

Hence, fearing the result, shot off in another direction. the Charmides very naturally arises as a second offset from

that,

with the view, as was done in the Laches

in the case of courage, partly of confuting this

of discretion and reinstating in

it

notion

as an independent virtue

ordinary acceptation of the term, partly of establishing it anew in a higher sense.

the

that

behalf of the particular

first

it

is

is

ordinarily

action,

made

in

fore cannot in any

way claim

to

which

to consist,

as easily be an imperfection as a perfection,

ethical notion.

On

here shown at large, that the

exhibition of outward

nature of this virtue

with

the

may

and there

form an unconditional

Neither tardy caution nor bashfulness,

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

that in the

and every one, we come back to the good and exclusive object. Now as regards the

case of each as its sole

mode of

particular

stating

the idea,

it

is

only a de

ceptive appearance, though one which might haunt the

minds of many readers, which, in would lead one

as in the Laches,

this dialogue as well

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

to

of discretion,

shewn, even previously he lays it down where sceptical investigation,

that

is

sufficiently

as the real health of the mind, and, in another passage,

makes even

Whoever

emphasis. general

Critias coincide in this position with

proposition

knowing

great then further connects with this the

:

allows to pass from it

is

Critias

impossible that after

the Protagoras in

man

no

as a consequence of

doubt

to

as

over leave

it

with

this

Plato

s

for

the

can be discreet

it,

without

and also what Socrates

concerning

self-knowledge,

Laches and combining dialogue, he should continue

opinion. decision

the

And we would more of readers who have

thus arrived at a perfect understanding of the subject, whether setting aside the trifling advantages which this

106 ours

of

translation

of

Greek sophrosyne by the have obtained in consequence

the

word besonnenheit, may

of our former application of

in the Protagoras, Plato s

it

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 as

sigung),

Plato,

it

certainly not to be used at

is

Socrates discretion

1

transition

is

all.

from the one explanation,

self-knowledge,

the

to

other

that

that is

it

knowledge of knowledge and ignorance, might perhaps But if first sight appear forced and sophistical.

at

self-knowledge

knowledge of perfection and imperfec its opposite, and if virtue itself is

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,

;

conversant

certainly,

self-knowledge

is

a knowledge

about knowledge or ignorance.

And

it

is

simply by means of this transition, and of the way in

which

this

dialectic

investigation

from the

particular notion

prefaces

ethical,

of

the separation of the

that the investigation of the

discretion

is

connected

with

the

more general one of the nature of morals, which per dialogues, and

progress of which, moreover, is the reason why the Charmides has its place For the difference rightly assigned after the Laches. between the good and pleasure is here at once pre-sup

vades

all

posed

as

these

recognised

of knowledge

virtue

as

above

all

and granted,

and action

brought nearer by

the

the

separate and

in

the

required unity the province of ethics is

inquiry distinct

into the operation

from virtue

itself,

of

and

the distinction between that higher species of

107 knowledge, and that which further carried out.

is

particular and empirical,

is

And

at the conclusion not only

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 is

all who know, so that the distinction between practical and technical knowledge can no one. Moreover escape

the

taken between the knowledge that one the knowledge of what one knows, the

distinction

and

knows,

complete difference of knowledge from perception reference to

power of making

its

itself its

own

with

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

disguised under apparent attempts

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

more than anything

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

sions to the Protagoras, must at vinced by this connection that the

all

the evident allu

events be

con

Laches and Char-

mides do certainly belong to this place. For otherwise would be natural enough, to consider these smaller

it

expositions to

those

Republic.

as

exercises

larger ones

of

and introductions preparatory justice in the Books of the

But even supposing

this to

be the case,

still,

108 in the first place, a

of wisdom corresponding exposition and in the next, we may add, that

would be wanting that larger work evidently stands upon a ;

different basis

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

structed after Plato

forward

in

Some attaching

s

is

brought

the Laches and Charmides.

there certainly is quite peculiar circumstance to that one explanation of discretion here ad

vanced, which makes

own

own mind out of what

And

business.

it

consist in every one

doing his

even supposing that some of the

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

s

this view. object to refute

the contrary, whoever observes the facility with which this explanation is again given up, and to the pecu with which Socrates announces satirical

On

liarly

that lar

able

it

emphasis comes from Critias,

will

see that

some particu

allusion must be here concealed, and will hardly be to

refrain

Critias, whether

from thinking of personal relations of it be that in his challenges to Plato

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

of

the

dialogue,

which

may

be

com

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

strikingly the

same

The

it.

as

character of Charmides

Xenophon

represents

it,

so

is

that

no slight voucher for the imitative comparison truth of our Author. this

is

VI.

EUTHYPHRO.

which investigation into the idea of piety,

As an

likewise brought forward

the parts of virtue, the that

in

the

Protagoras Euthyphro connects

But when compared with

dialogue.

as

itself

the

is

one of with

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,

richness and ornament which characterize these dialogues,

but even

its

internal

substance,

when compared

much

what we

find in them, does not acquit itself

For

the Euthyphro we can neither point

in

with

better.

to a pro

of the most general ethical ideas, nor, gressive connection than the particular notion which con further if we go no stitutes

the immediate

object of the investigation,

those indirect indications attentive

reader

to

sufficiently

are

be found which make the well

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

Now of treating the argument is sceptical. formation in the that so essential an clement

mode

the fact

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, eager to push to extremes the moderate acquisition of a and a somewhat superficial irony. Mean

little dialectics

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

prehensive as that in the Charmides, offset

is

no

less

a natural

from the Protagoras than, in itself, an approxima and preparation for, the Parmenides. This holds

tion to,

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, the Protagoras,

in

manner

it

still

is

associated,

and

that a particular notice on the subject

ther necessary, and,

been supposed

if it

such a

in is

altoge

were not to be found, must have

Later dialogues do indeed contain as to the nature of piety, and

lost.

some positive expressions the in

relation

in

which

our author what

and undisguised

;

diately connected

the Euthyphro.

is

it

stands

to

those virtues

covert always precedes what

but

;

is

open and even these expressions are imme with

the merely negativing result of Lastly, it must be taken into considera

tion that this dialogue

was unquestionably written between

the accusation and condemnation of Socrates, and that,

under

these

circumstances,

Plato

could

hardly

avoid

Ill

combining with the object of dialectically investigating the notion of piety, that of defending his master in his

own

peculiar manner, connected as the charge against

was with

this

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 it

ethico-dialectic

one,

hints

that

into

Plato

neglected

the

introduce

to

discussion

in his explanatory sceptical usual manner, without, however, our being able to say that he is untrue to, or that he has completely renounced

Thus with this undeniable complication of pur the poses, alleged and unquestionable deficiencies of the

himself.

work may be explained from the urgency of the

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

pronounce sentence of condemnation decisively upon If,

therefore,

as Platonic,

it

we continue

may

to regard be added, that while

it.

this it

dialogue has indeed

much

of the character of an occasional piece from the preponderance of the subordinate purpose, it cannot

without unfairness be excluded from the

list

which connect themselves with the Protagoras, is probable, indeed, that it would have filled

it

more worthily without the references

of those

its

to Socrates,

allowed a certain degree of indulgence, certainly maintain it. still,

if

The

introduction

which

in

place

though it

may

of Euthyphro as the interlocutor

is quite in the style of the

Laches, in which dialogue

112 Socrates has to do with

also in

the subject

from some of

as is manifest

persons

under discussion. his

own

eminently skilled

Now

this

man

was,

expressions, a very

a prophet, well-known and somewhat ridiculous personage as it would seem, and one who professed himself espe cially

knowing

matters relating to the gods, and

in

who

boldly defended the orthodox ideas taken from the old theological

same as

One

poets.

Euthyphro,

indisputably

the

The

this, appears also in the Cratylus of Plato.

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 idea,

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,

;

that the suit in the

Euthyphro has a far closer connection

with the subject, and that neither its greater prolixity, nor the frequent recurrence to it, when the unquestion able apologetic reference

be viewed

in

taken into consideration, can

the light of a fault.

VII.

WHO

is

PARMENIDES.

knows not how

in

was by many contemplated

former times the Parmenides at

an awful distance as a

gloomy sanctuary concealing treasures of the most ex But alted wisdom, and those accessible only to a few ?

113 however natural

after this fancy,

thougli not

till

lately,

set

might be, had been

it

that falsely

aside,

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

words which involved him in the contradictions which he has accordingly written out for the world, with so much patience and without tracing their solution, or that

he should have run his jokes with his readers more mischievously than

still

unpractised

the Sophists

all

whom

he so multifariously attacks, and that he should even have pushed the thing so far as to be in danger of the

fatiguing

instructed

with

disgusting them with the liminarily, these objections

the

performance,

To

intention.

and the

or

review,

of

pre

different explanations

of them, and to endeavour to set them aside individu ally or collectively,

to

render

difficult

might contribute more than anything the

introduction

of the reader into

on other accounts sufficiently terrifying to many points of view. Hence it may be more

this dialogue,

many

in

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

longs to the later

that the Parmenides be

writings of Plato

;

but as

this

hy

rests

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

philosophical impulse and

Protagoras,

and admiringly praised the

its

organ

connecting

artfully

dialectics,

while the

and

external

the

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 :

Phsedrus, inasmuch as

completes in another point of view what the Protagoras had begun, as a supplement to

it

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

how, I mean, and rejecting every :

it

looks in

its

purity

collateral point,

and

alarm at any result whatever, starts only upon the

necessary assumption, that scientific knowledge and searches for it in well arranged excursions.

is

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, limits.

is

That Plato did not by

this

censure upon his friend and master,

intend to imply a

we

see, partly

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 and imperfect stage of

earlier

Two this

however,

things,

on

indication

his

philosophical career.

may probably be

the one

side,

I

looked for in a

mean,

censure

who only

upon applied themselves to and who that account considered them ethics, upon very selves more genuine scholars of the philosopher ; on the those Socraticians

other side hints for those who, overlooking, perhaps, in the

Protagoras and the dialogues

confound Plato with the in

opposition, one

this

belonging to

purpose and the speculative

dialectic

it

indications,

As then

class just mentioned.

side is only just

the

would

indicated, so

the other verbally set forth only in some parti shown in the

also is

cular expressions in the Parmenides, but

main by the quiet manner in which the investigation, from which so many terrific results come out, is brought to

and by the

a conclusion,

method

strictness of the

Now

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

in

Protagoras

it.

;

and

it is

there satisfactorily shewn

why

the

philosophy of morals is chosen with that view, and every thing reduced to the question of the communicability of

From

virtue. spirit,

in

this

the same grounds, then, and in the same

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

is

to

knowledge can be

really extended.

And

it

is

perfectly

consistent with this, that in this dialogue the philosophy

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.

Now

it

moves

can hardly escape any oneVv

116*

that

such

points

to

notice

form

coincidence

in

tendency

the same unaltered

to a similar view in the author.

state

And

all

and inward of mind and that I

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

for

that time,

at

now

the youngest writers are often the oldest and most re

We

Parmenides decidedly more historical knowledge of science than in these two, and a more multifarious practice in philosophical art but still flecting.

see also in the

;

there

a youthfulness in the

is

manner

which these are

in

and put into the mouth of the great

into view,

brought Parmenides himself.

Now

the question of the possibility of the knowledge

of things rests on the one side immediately upon that of the tenability and constancy of ideas, and on their relation to is this

the objects themselves, and consequently,

point which

is

it

chiefly discussed in the first part,

indeed something more than an introduction. as we are accustomed to see in the majority of But,

which

is

only treated of the manifold difficulties

these dialogues hitherto translated, indirectly,

by

a

statement

of

it

is

involving the consideration of ideas as something inde pendent of the mutable, and as existing of themselves.

This however

hardly the proper place for deciding strange dispute about Plato s peculiar doctrine of ideas, as this dialogue, accurately taken, can be consi is

the

dered as the seat of that doctrine.

Only thus much we

appears certain in reference to this dialogue, even if only

consider

the

words

with

which

Parmenides con-

117 eludes the statement of the difficulties which

the

beset

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

And what

Socrates to establish.

the purpose of

is

it

said elsewhere

is

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

this

the

sacred that

this,

ascribed

he

writers, it

to

them

resembles

especially

in

necessary, in judging of the doctrines him, whether they are his own or not, to is

consider every expression in

connection

which

in

in

the

is

however much that

and

place,

There

found.

there

is

it

remarkable

is

under which Parmenides

own proper

its

the examples

in

so far as

in

states his doubts,

they involve a division of ideas, which if not systema For is at all events very striking. tically carried out,

he divides them,

most

ideas,

first,

easily

into those which, like the moral

subject

themselves to the faculty of

; secondly, into the physical, the ob ever recurring creations of nature, are the of which jects

original conception

and which therefore appear observation

;

to

be produced only

by

of which thirdly, into those to the objects

no independent and constant existence seems to belong, inasmuch as they signify only parts of universal nature, or transitory operations of natural powers

those

into

at

which,

which

represent

the

last,

relations

idea of

;

only,

and, finally,

and under is

itself

knowledge

again

brought.

And

to the

reader

tinguishing character, itself

that

ticular

Plato

theory

as

who does not overlook the

had

in

to

the

notion

view

to

will

dis

scarcely suggest

contradict

conception

this

of

any par

truth,

or

the

118 of

existence

Socrates object

ideas,

but

;

it

whether peculiar to Parmenides or must be clear to him that Plato s

generally to

is

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

to ideas exclusively of the appearances

But

under our observation.

fall

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

sive dialogues

from the Theaetetus upwards

Even Plato

with the question. ly

in

manner

the

a whole series of succes

that purpose,

for

which he

indicates

generally

is

occupied

them exact

pursues

with

is yet unable to solve by means hitherto has of what he imparted or satisfactorily in

which he

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

conceive

ready at

up

to this point,

it

will not

be

difficult

to

highest philosophical problem which al times was haunting Plato s mind as the only

that

means of escaping from these difficulties we speak of discovering somewhere an original identity of thought and existence,

and

connexion of

man

preliminarily

in

deriving

from

it

that

immediate

with the intelligible world, expressed

the

Phaedrus

by

the

doctrines

there

contemplation and recol mythically lection, connected with which and dependent upon it is set forth of original

knowledge, by means of which an obtained above the subordinate matter of

a higher

state

eminence

is

of

ideas of relation.

119 As, then, this

first

part annexes itself to the assertion

of Socrates, that there

is

no

art involved in predicating

various contradictions of individual real things, but that the only process deserving admiration would be to shew the

same of ideas themselves,

ment

as

of the

so

also

upon

senti

this

upon the hinge of the whole, the second part dialogue

For Parmenides,

turns.

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 to

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

very natural for Parmeni

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

to

besides unity, according as the former exist

or

not

to

exist.

And

is

with

this, supposed notwithstanding that he had not pledged himself that such would be the result, he finds himself in the

strange predicament, as

it

were involuntarily, of enun

ciating manifold contradictions concerning the notion he For the whole investigation separates into four selected. parts,

formed by the supposed existence or non-existence

of unity, and the consequences which follow for unity itself

to

and

all

besides,

two contradictory

and each of these parts attains For while the two in

results.

vestigations, that into the nature of unity all

in

and that into

that remains constituting plurality, are

worked out

a double series of notions related each to the other,

turns out that to each and every one of these notions none of all these predicates can belong, and then again

it

120 that

two opposite predicates may be applied to all many cases the contradictions are accumulated :

and

in

still

more strangely.

And

those results in general,

as

well as the detailed proofs in particular of a similar de

have given rise to the belief with many persons that the whole investigation consists of mere sophisms ; scription,

and with others, who could not believe to the notion,

that he intended only to give a proof of 1

even put into Parmenides and Zeno

false dialectics, or

own mouth sitions

the

survey

of

To

follow

the

view

their

own refutation. But to these suppo who takes a proper comprehensive

the

whole

will

refuse

certainly

his

assent.

up, however, and elucidate this whole, with

of it,

making intelligible every point brought would be an undertaking not at all ap

propriate here, and

do so

s

reader

forward in

to

this of Plato,

after

if

it

should

still

what may here be

appear necessary

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

vestigation into the nature of ideas,

to

institute

fore contemplates, in pursuing that investigation, in general,

an

in

and that he there

and as an abstract notion.

unity

Hence, then,

it

not allowable to quit this point of view, though by so doing we be enabled more conveni might perhaps is

ently to explain this or that particular point. self-evident,

results

arise

that,

It is also

taken in the main, the contradictory

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

by the prevalent purpose,

ceptible,

of drawing

and

existence,

And

in

own

I

mean, observable,

different

significations

their relation to one another

this

process of unity is

the idea

the

to

attention

and

of

to ideas.

cannot indeed be denied, that

it

considered

according to its but this is, first, not an

separate potentialities:

also

educt from the idea of unity; and, secondly, Plato in dicates

so

when

clearly

this

the

is

that

case,

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

idea

is

appear

reader go

attentive

worked

out

applicable at

to

membered, that nothing established

to

such

by all

definite

determine

in

still

do

as

predicates

an idea,

let

not

be re

it

had been previously

what manner an

abstrac

with no objective existence can be classed among ideas, or what abstraction can be so classed, and that tion

every point tic

is

to be essayed,

process, to bring the this

most

intricate developements,

would

by

dialec

this

question nearer to a decision.

And

indeed

in order,

an

explanation as regards the great bulk of the difficulties; the following consideration however may be further added. The

as

intentionally

sophistical,

circumstance, that

from them and

suffice

the

strictly

train

for

and those most considered are

distinguished

of consequences

by the resulting

belonging to the general

might have been discovered by a far that nothing peculiar to unity

is

easier

series

method, als6

discovered by probing

deeper in the investigation; a fact to which Parmenides himself frequently calls attention. The object therefore for

which these particular parts are he*re, is not the result, but the actual mode of ]M by

immediate

6r>f,

122 means of which, as the

Plato

investigation,

manner, ideas

draw

to

That

these

is

all

to

investigate,

reference

his

the

certain

turnings of the dia

refers

as

an

it,

another.

to

subject

mind, and that he held

it

by

of all

a clear point of view, in the Charmides, where

in

important and

difficult

matter

whether any, and what, Ideas exist

themselves

to

peculiar

of

profitable to follow this

always an important

means necessary to put them may be seen from a passage it

own

constituted

ideas

he speaks of

his

nature

how Plato makes way towards

elucidation

consideration in

the

to

very

through

object

how one

and

It

and to see

logue,

intends, in

attention

of relation.

collateral

recurs in the different parts of

it

alone,

or

only

in

relation

in

to

others.

Now

as regards the particular train of consequences

which we have a comprehensive view of the peculiar properties of unity, it must not be forgotten, that unity

in

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

comprised under that term, which would otherwise have no proper keeping, is to be con

unity

to

all

as

not

well

as

the

opposing results in particular. But the different views and hypotheses which co-operate

sidered,

towards establishing this connection, will not be easily by any one to his own satisfaction who

followed out

first compare, with much pains and accuracy, the mutally opposing sections of the investigation with

does not

one another, as well as

geneous

the

modes of treating homo

points in particular in all the several

sections.

And the attentive reader will find something eminently remarkable in the attempt made at the end of the first

123 most ancient in philosophy,

section, certainly the

struct

knowledge

the

by

But few persons have divined method, and

mighty

will

dialectical

so

attempt,

similar

to

much

unity the

the

many

or

gards in his

theories of

this

Still

among

Plato pro

more remarkable are where

attempt just noticed, the other

infinitesimally

spacial

of

in the course of the investigation,

supposed non-existent small in

in

jective existing

antiquity

that has appeared

perly of more importance.

two notions developed is

the

to con

antitheses.

perhaps be disposed to recognize the and speculative mind in this slight

ourselves, sooner than in

the one in

of

reconciliation

it,

time,

speak of the idea of or of someting ob

and of the idea of magnitudes

without

repletion

I

They

unity.

as

are,

this dialogue, the result of that peculiar

re

manner

which, in Plato, from the fundamental character of philosophy,

some have most

which

sidered to be a confusion

of

speculation

more

the

the dialectic process.

of thought

kind

lofty

The manner

unjustly con with knowledge,

is

in

combined with

which

this notion

of magnitude, if we may so call it, is discovered, and the way in which, notwithstanding its obstinate resist

ance to

all

described,

management,

it

is

nevertheless grasped and

appears so deserving

of admiration, that

it

difficult to conceive how a philosophical critic, who deserves in other respects some merit in his exposition is

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,

been glad

to

would work

at

to the

least,

on

notice

given,

end through these

have

difficulties,

124 were

Above only to reach this remarkable discovery. must be on the watch

it

the sincerely earnest reader

all,

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

but the temptation must be withstood ; perhaps reason that many readers, from their own self-

ance

for the

search

and

into

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

by reason of

one,

induced,

the

than

sooner

they

would be by

share the notion,

deficient

in

that formation, strange piece of logical art, as far as a similarity can obtain between to

this

philosophical and poetical creations, corresponds to those

imaginative and pregnant compositions, which, under the

modest name of

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

having fathomed to the bottom

many

readers

;

who

even though perhaps their author in

with

go along thought and composition, may sometimes discover par ticular relations which have lain concealed from the composer himself.

And

further,

the reason why, in

at all events, as well

we

are not

standing

of

ignorance of

in

as

in those poetical compositions,

a condition to

every

work

the present

particular,

many probably

come is

to a perfect

grounded

existing

under

upon

relations.

our

Wha,

125 can

for instance,

tell

whether many of those points

at

which we take most offence, do not refer to passages books of Zeno ? may divine that something-

We

in the

like this is the case to a considerable extent, if

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

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

tician,

;

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

Par independently, but only as connected with menides. How far, then, the notices drawn from the

not

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 Parmenides institutes between the world which 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

For remains of the compositions of the wise Eleatic. listen to testimony, to a fallacious be process might

it

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.

not

Even unite

in

with

Plato himself there

what

is

generally

is

much

that

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. sources

these

;

Plato at that time had so

him

respect for

little

as to

that is, far allow himself such liberty towards him, such a proceed less than for Protagoras or Gorgias

would

ing

most

have

certainly

been

accompanied by the But whatever value

wanton display of irony.

may be which

of

views

them,

put

Plato

at

certain

upon seems

be

to

is

be

can

that

all

Parmenides, the most,

according to with his earlier

expressions

dissatisfied

that he did

intended

not just at

by

first

re

It is more spect him quite so highly as he deserved. over clear enough that Plato makes Parmenides speak

quite in ical

his

strokes

own are

that

spirit,

borrowed

many

at

dialect

particular

from

once

him,

and,

method does indisputably And it would certainly be

consequently, that this whole

owe very much

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 Much rather is the any part object. main point of view on the strength of which Parmeni

upon the Eleatic philosophy,

des

here

conducts to

make

comes the

forward,

dialogue,

and

that

which

for

in

of having been

fact

the

he first

the attempt to start with dialectics, and thus

enter into the province of the higher philosophy.

Plato makes an endeavour, which betrays itself clearly enough, to bring Parmenides historically also into connec tion

with Socrates,

and

to

derive

the

he praises in him from those of the

dialectics

first

which

as well as the

127

Hence

universal founder of the art.

visible

his

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

him

to

be tauntingly asked by an over-curious

whence he could know

critic,

after the lapse of so

many

How

this dialogue, as Socrates,

years, did certainly narrate

was possible for this conversation, or rather for any meeting whatever of Socrates with Parmenides to have taken place upon that

nothing of the kind.

point

we

cannot,

For there

is

in

I

far then

think, decide

point of fact

it

upon external grounds. no impossibility in the at what time Parmeni

time ; but the question only is des was in Athens, and how far reliance

upon the

is to

be placed

assertion that this took place in the eightieth

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

reduce

it

obscure and indefinite, or,

to objective certainty,

if

he wished to

he had greater licences

command than

the considerably advanced age which he ascribes to Parmenides ; and of these he would have

at his

unhesitatingly availed himself. finite description,

stance

had taken

if

To

what purpose

this

de

how the circum nor had calculated how it might

Plato neither knew

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

I

should be

128 sorry to believe

him

guilty.

For who,

I

would

ask, is

Cephalus who repeats the dialogue, who are Glaucon and Adimantus whom he meets, and Antipho of whom he

supposed to In Cephalus,

tell

is

the story

first,

?

every one thinks of the son of

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

as the intermediate person could

bring the dialogue so far in order to repeat presence, and such

is

the supposition,

it

in Plato s

must have reached

an advanced period of old age, and therefore be generally known. And such a man must Cephalus, the father of

Whence therefore ClaLysias, have indisputably been. let every one decide for himself from the

zomenae comes,

two following

cases,

this is a fiction of

not to

make

Sicilian

But

which seem the only possible. Either s but to what purpose ? in order

Plato

men

;

inquire curiously after dialogues

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

of Plato

ease.

think

?

To in

that

men of Clazomenas, and to on the mention of unity, the

introduce, then, so

doing

that

and on that of the remainder

(all besides unity,) the original plurality of Anaxagoras, was to be suggested to the mind? But, in the first place, this would certainly

reason,

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

the

Syracusan has, before travelling to Athens, lived a certain period at Clazomenae, and Plato

129 mentions this with a degree of emphasis as a circumstance not generally known, principal question

The

?

Antipho

But

who

is,

this

The

only in passing.

are Glaucon,

Adimantus and

two, every one answers, are the of Plato, and Antipho is a half

first

well-known brothers

brother of his, not indeed otherwise known, the offspring of a second marriage, mentioned, it must be allowed, no

where

else

except in reference to this dialogue, of his

mother Perictione with one Pyrilampes, who could not therefore have been the well-known person of that name, his

own uncle and

the friend of Pericles.

things come even within the range of it

But do

possibility

these

?

For

cannot, notwithstanding the uncertainty which attaches

to Cephalus, be

meant

to be said, that Plato

s

brothers,

when Cephalus appears as a person of are young men, and here, at the period

in the Republic,

advanced age, of the same Cephalus arrival 1

and ready

to

him

at Athens, already settled

But even sup have been another of that name far

to promise

their interest.

posing Cephalus younger, consider the strange circumstance that Plato, in order to prove the authenticity of the dialogue,

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

much

yet stranger circumstance that a younger brother of Plato should have heard this dialogue immediately,

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

considers these things will allow that

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

Let us therefore

tale.

relieve Plato

from

this half-brother

without more ado

who has been

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

who Glaucon and Adimantus Adimantus from

called

whom

name was transposed

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

to the

itself.

such a strik dialogue, I should say, comes to be doubted ingly abrupt conclusion, that it might easily to conclude For conclusion. the is whether this really

The

such a result of the investigation, and at the same time the whole dialogue, only with a simple expression of assent, such as has occurred a hundred times in the dialogue itself,

we regard

seems, whether

it

as disproportionate or over

simple, entirely unworthy of Plato.

Whoever

recollects

the Protagoras also the investigation concluded with a confession of a contradiction prevailing through

how out in

in

its

whole course,

will,

conclusion at least a

in this dialogue too, expect

similar

indication

of surprise,

still more searching then such a conclusion,

and an express confession that a investigation

supposing it

is

it

difficult

is

to

How

requisite.

have been there, could have been lost, for whoever had worked on

to conceive

;

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

some external circumstances while he was bringing the

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. if

tion,

out,

the supposition

is

be more accurately made flight to Megara, which

to

may have been either the

followed

after

the

death of Socrates, or even

Plato

s

journey, upon which he started from that place. The last, according to my notion, would be the most

first

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 composed Megara, when, during Plato s stay case,

there,

and certainly not without

his

having exercised the school which took its

important influence upon it, name from the place, and devoted dialectics,

was formed.

But

if

itself

especially

to

any one, though with the

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,

and the right conclusion and that otherwise the second part would be

as that, generally, the best part

are lost,

put

in

connection with the

first,

and the doctrine of

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

ideas

to the point at which it ceases, that the Parmenides is a counterpiece to the Protagoras, though not without the

advancement which

is

never wanting in the progress from

132 one work of Plato

we

have

at present

to another, will find in the

s

that dialogue, and

it,

will

work as

a character perfectly agreeing with have no occasion to look for any

But as to the reader who is not convinced thing further. can we of this, only lay before him the following con which to the reader yet unacquainted with The difficul Plato can be verified only by the sequel. to ties which are here adduced in opposition every theory of ideas, are not to be solved in the philosophy of Plato

siderations

otherwise than by an accurate comparison of the purer or higher knowledge with that which is empiric, and further,

by the doctrines of Original Contemplation and

Recollection

;

subjects,

therefore,

which Plato has devoted a

to

the

of

exposition

series 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

which

treats its

subject as

had never been at

if,

from the very bottom, before

all

But

?

if

it

the

explained is to be dated later than of Parmenides the composition that of these dialogues, the Theaetetus, the Meno, and

Tennemann assumes, than

even, as

toil it

unhappy

better, to propose as riddles

and

to repeat

do ;

a later period ["obscurity Even the clearly at an earlier ? at

a proof that the place of the Parmenides only in the transition to the dialogues of that class,

language

is

for, partly of itself, it

to

what had ceased to be such

with useless

what had been said

is

the Sophist, what an

would be for one who knew how

shews

itself

to

and partly as compared with them,

be technical language

of earliest

infancy,

by

manner

which

grasps,

in

it

correct expression, and

its

still

in a state

wavering, bv the not always successfully, at

unsteady

by the

fact

that

it

can scarcely

133 clench the most important distinctions in words.

circumstance lation.

the

occasioned great difficulties in

the

This trans

But

spirit

there was here no other expedient, unless of the whole was to be extinguished, and

under the appearance of

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

of

the difficulty

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

conceived

it,

ambiguities, and himself espe diminished.

all its is

APPENDIX TO PART

I.

APOLOGY OF SOCRATES.

I.

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

once

at

Socrates,

spirit

sents

found

also the

loved and

times

all

deny or

to

Thus

question their Platonic origin.

of

Appendix we are

this

far in

call

Apology

admired for

the

which breathes through it, and the image it pre of calm moral greatness and beauty, is only in

place because

this

contents itself with

it

peculiar object and has no scientific pretensions.

Euthyphro too has reference

the

to

but on the other hand the

started in

be subjoined

an

indeed

accusation its

that

undeniable apologetic

brought against Socrates

:

connection with the notions

Protagoras gave to

its

The

it

a manifest right to

The Apology on

dialogue.

can

the

no purely piece place in the series of the philosophical productions of And there is even one signification in author. its as

contrary,

which

hardly

not

Jet

said that

a

a

it

is

occasional

the

reader

work of

his

it

thoughts,

and composed by him. the intention

start

no work of PlatoV

of defending

For

if

might indeed be I

any

we

Socrates,

find

mean

that

it

is

thing invented

attribute to

we must then

Plato first

135 which

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

the

distinguish

times

at

In the last case then Plato s only have could been a defence of the principles and object sentiments of his friend and master. This however,

his condemnation.

with one

who was

so fond of connecting several objects

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

we

but

writings,

and

shall

one

soon

come

important work, with his scientific labours,

in

an Athenian as well as his

political virtue.

closely

to

enough

know an interwoven

which notwithstanding it is a collateral and one purpose brought out into dis tinct relief to hold up to the light Socrates" conduct as

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

events

this it

speech.

is

clear

what purpose ? At that he could do his master no

But

for

*

worse service than by publishing a defence in Socrates own name before he had defended himself in court.

For the only

effect

of such a defence would be to assist

the accusing parties to discover what they were to be

guard against and what they might neglect, and to put the accused into the dilemma of either being on

their

obliged to repeat ful.

the

Hence better

much

then,

the

or say something else less power

more

adapted to the

excellent

character

the defence and

of

more disadvantageous it would have been no one, I suppose, will give any weight

Socrates, to him.

to this

the

But hypo-

136 thesis.

After the decision which succeeded, finally, Plato

to make might have a twofold purpose, either simply the progress of the matter more generally known, and

memorial of

establish a

to

for

it

future times

;

or to

and the place in the proper light the different parties what if we examine Now method of the proceeding.

would have been the only reasonable means for accom find that a speech plishing the latter object, we shall not

furnish

could alone

adduce

much

omit on

to

of

but

Socrates

to

attributed

what

Socrates

of

account

another

to

For the

them.

his

advocate

could then

latter

would be

compelled

and show

character,

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

it

despise,

Were a

would have taken

there

any

very

improbable has preserved

Plato^s

quite a different course.

whatever

ground one

Diogenes writer,

that

itself

for

an

anecdote,

must be confessed, which us from an insignificant

it

for

more natural

object

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

and he

certainly

with great truth sation

here

for

would have been able and

which related

art

to

to

apply them the accu

to

that

point

in

the

new

gods

and the cor

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

Socrates, and have spoken of his tone.

On

the other

hand, in

a

the

accusers of

a different

merits

in

speech

attributed

to

137 Socrates himself but

than

show

to

or

neglected fence

Plato

delivered,

tually

what

would

must have been conducted

a better

have

Not

effect.

been

to

object

voluntarily

and how

de

his

order to

in

produce mention then that this would without

possible

scarcely

other

have

omitted,

involuntarily

no

have

could

Socrates

he ac

that which

from

different

the

renouncing

method of Socrates, it is moreover manifest that the defence which we possess is not contrived in accord ance with

For

such a purpose.

how should

the

supplement come

after

such a speech

subsequent to the

in

a supplement which sup a result not inore favourable than the real one ? poses

pronunciation of the verdict

It therefore only remains to suppose that the sole

pose at the bottom

of this

was to exhibit

piece

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

Are we then

for posterity.

such a case unable

the

to

perfectly

strange

the

first

principles,

an

exercise

that

believe

to in

a

case

:

like

his

friend,

and

we

this,

would

ascribing

exception

rhetoric

should

we

assume

where nothing of so

short

a

time

of

who has be

indeed at

once

his

own

had entirely devoted himself

especially

to

himself, perhaps

the

in

pupil

This

?

rather

was wanted, and he

after his

a

like

by

with

Socrates,

him

set

of

temptation

Socrates an artificial piece, wrought

loath

that in

and under such circumstances Plato was withstand

to

conceive

to

before

to

or

death as this piece was certainly composed

we would assume, must have been

too

I

say,

that

his

departing

friend

sacred in his eyes to allow of his

disguising him with any ornament however beautiful, and

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

find the case to

who had

art this

Thus

For the

different.

critic in

the same time undertaken to improve

at

speech would have found in it much to change. the accusation relating to the seduction of youth

from being repelled with the solidity with which to do so, and in opposition

is

far

it

would have been possible

towards the ancient gods, the defensive power of the circumstance that Socrates did to the accusation of infidelity

from being and any reader whose eyes

every thing in the service of Apollo,

made

sufficiently

prominent

;

are but half open will discover

far

is

more weaknesses of

this

kind not in any way founded upon the spirit of Socrates such a degree that Plato would have been com

to

pelled to imitate them.

this

Accordingly nothing is more probable than that in speech we have as true a copy from recollection of

the actual defence of Socrates as the practised

memory

of Plato, and the necessary distinction between a written

speech and one negligently delivered, could render pos sible. But perhaps some one might say ; If then Plato,

supposing him to have composed this piece, had never no hand in it but as a scribe, why are we to

theless

upon this, or whence can we know even that it was Plato himself and no other friend of Socrates who

insist

was present quainted

The

?

with

the

questioner, if he

language

of

is

Plato,

otherwise ac

need only be

how decidedly this defence can only have flowed from the pen of For Socrates here speaks exactly as Plato makes

referred to that to perceive

betrays that Plato.

it

him speak, and

as

we, according to

all

that remains to

139 us cannot

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

say

And

him speak.

may

portance certain larly

into

be founded

peculiarities

the

one

fictitious

upon

the

in

Platonic

questions

mean, whether

I

it.

and

dialogue,

answers

particu

introduced

and the accumulation and com

proposition,

under some other of several particular pro

prehension positions in

common,

often

much

too enlarged for this

subordinate

passage, together with the interruptions almost unavoidably ensuing in the construction of the

period as begun so very

prevalent,

Socrates. in

whether these, as we find them here are

not properly

They appear

which he

is

frequent and

in

particularly Socratic least

clear

to

be referred

Plato most in

of their

to

those places

but they are most

;

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

Socrates, and consequently are connected with the arts of Plato,

who endeavoured

to

imitate the language also of those

a

mimic

certain degree to

whom

he introduces,

they had

peculiarities otherwise which justified him And whoever tries this observation by in so doing. the different works of Plato, especially according to the if

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

arrangement

one hand, from the circumstance that no required to

bend to a

little

art

was

certain degree these peculiarities

of a negligent colloquial style to the laws of written language, and to blend them with the regulated beauty

140 of expression

on the

and

;

other,

more courage

was

from small required to meet a certain share of censure to en But critics than Xenophon perhaps possessed. large further

this

upon

belongs not to this place. is yet to be touched upon

One circumstance however

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

would of

the

in

so

easily

the

all

have admitted

works of

Plato

However convincing, preponderance of to be it

all

to allow

we

reply

alone this

then,

embellishment,

dispense

sound,

may

the other arguments

as

excite a

to

sufficient

therefore

of this

follows

to

the

may be that the dialogic dress had not

is

with

it ?

still

the

too great

suspicion

;

objection. at

that

and It

time

much

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

become quite

so

of the Menexenus; or Plato himself separated this de fence too far from his other writings to admit of his

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

the

works where principal

it

does

penetrate very deep only as an embellishment on the contrary it always has

matter,

capriciously appended ; a meaning and contributes effect

of the whole.

not

Now

to

if this

the

conformation

and

would not have been

141

Especially as

to introduce it?

wished

he

that

Plato have wished

why should

case here

the

hasten

to

it

is

much

as

forcibly

extremely probable as

the

possible

it not publication of this speech, and perhaps considered advisable to commit himself at that time to a public opi

nion as to the result of the case, which, the speech in a dialogue

he had involved

if

would not have been easy to empty and

it

avoid, or this form would have been utterly

unmeaning.

As we may from

Athenian judicial process

to the

certainly suppose

various

quarters

piece to be generally self explains

known

most of what

HAVE "

preceding similarly

similar cases,

;

is

understanding of

this

moreover, the speech

it

necessary.

CRITO.

II.

I

the

for

in

that has been contributed

all

the already observed in the introduction to that the Crito appears to be Apology,"

with

circumstanced

that

For

piece.

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,

interlocutor

could give embellish

Plato received

from the

with Socrates as accurately as the former did more than it, while he himself hardly

and

of Socrates,

which

reinstate

it

ornamenting

in

the

well-known language

the beginning

here and there

and the end,

when

and perhaps filling up necessary. This view rests upon exactly similar grounds with those which have been already explained in considering the

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 and com

investigations into the nature of right, law,

which certainly engaged Plato

pact,

times, these

are treated

subjects

s

attention

at

all

of so exclusively and

solely with reference to the existing circumstances, that we easily see that the minds of the interlocutors, if

dialogue was really held, were exclusively filled with these ; and if it is to be considered as a work of

the

Plato

we must

fluence, then

a

occasional

perfectly

had no

of which facts

the composition

in

s,

attribute to It

piece.

it

indeed

is

shewn that philosophizing has no place are

laid

in

the character of

in

down

expressly the

as

it,

as

granted principles only without any investigation, and with reference indeed to old dialogues, but by no means such as could be sought particular

for

other

in

writings

of

Plato,

a

process

which,

those works of Plato which have a philosophical

ing

is

perfectly unheard of.

in

mean

And what may be thought

the occasion of such an accidental piece,

to have been

we regard it as a work exclusively Plato s own ? For in point of meaning, nothing is here given which

if

was not

we

already

contained

are to believe that that the

the fact

in

the

Apology.

Plato intended to

friends of

Socrates

Or,

if

make known

wished to

assist

Socrates to escape, but that he would not allow them to

do

so,

and that

this historical

all

foundation

the rest with the exception is

his

own

invention, in

of

that

on closer consideration, only about the first half of the dialogue would be intelligible, the latter half case,

not.

For, on the one hand, there

able in

tliis

is nothing remark but the in which it manner circumstance,

143 takes place

;

inasmuch as the

foreseen from the defence,

Socrates

were justified

result might be at once and therefore the friends of

even

by

supposing them

that,

not to have undertaken anything of the kind. And on the other hand the dialogue itself is constituted exactly

one that actually took place, subject to a certain degree to chance circumstances as one of that descrip

as

tion always

is,

must be constituted, but not

at all like

one composed with an object, or into which art in any way enters. For dialogues of the former class may

away from a thought

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

while those of the latter can neither return

;

the same point,

nor

excite

Now

expectations Crito

the

without addition and advancement,

is

plan, and although out beautifully and

which

clearly

the

idea

do not

they

framed is

in

satisfy.

former upon the main worked the

clearly, still in the details the con

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,

would be altogether wanting. In this manner, that Plato

may

I

therefore,

have composed

still

hold

this dialogue,

it

possible

and think

that so immediately after the death of Socrates, he

have had the same conscientious purpose cation of

it,

as in that of the

"

Apology".

in

may

the publi

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

exposition.

I

at

all

art,

events,

designed will

still

endeavour, by means of this view, to reserve this dialogue somewhat more able criticism than has

for Plato, until a

hitherto appeared completely disproves its claims to be considered so. Two reasons in particular incline me to this opinion, first, the

language, against which Ast brings

no important objection, and which quite as clearly as that in

the

1

t;

unites all the peculiarities of the first

Apology"

And, secondly, the very period of the Platonic writings. strictness with which the composer confines himself to the particular circumstance which

is

alogue, and here abstains from

gation into the

first

the subject of the di

all

admixture of investi

principles, an act of abstinence

was certainly not possible

which

to small philosophers like the

other Socraticians, but only to so distinguished a man, an act by which he does at the same time expressly

remove

this piece out of the list of the others.

Hence

the strong emphasis with which the announcement that to those

who do

principles, all

deliberation in

emphasis

to

not

start

from the

common

be ascribed rather to

is

also

is

made, same moral

impossible, an

Plato,

in

explain the style and method of the dialogue,

order

to

than to

Socrates, who would hardly have needed it toward his friend Crito, who could only differ from him in conse

quences, and not in

first

principles.

be put upon the story of Diogenes that JEschines was actually the interlocutor, and that Little value

is

to

Plato from dislike to him intruded Crito in that cha It is, however, very possible, that Plato allows himself in this particular to deviate from fact, and has chosen Crito because he was best secured by his age racter.

and condition against unpleasant consequences, probably,

145 soon after the death of Socrates.

also, died

We

see at

events an endeavour to avoid injuring any Athenian friend of Socrates in the fact, that Plato only mentions name as share in the plot of by foreigners having any all

So that the circumstance

abduction. in fact,

and only the cause of

it,

superadded.

fictitiously

III.

ION.

SOCRATES proves two things sodist

:

criticism

probably founded can tell ?

is

by whom who

First, is

that

if his

Athenian rhapbusiness of interpretation and

a science or an art,

it

to the

must not confine

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 to

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

is

Now

it

it

in

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

rhapsodist to shame in such a manner.

For even they

who can never

discover any purpose in Plato in a far too limited sense, that which except,

towards overlook

common the

life

and the improvement of

circumstance

somewhat subordinate

that

those

class of artists,

s is

writings directed

it,

cannot

rhapsodists,

who were

a

for the

most part concerned only with the lower ranks of the people, enjoyed no such influence upon the morals and

146

should have

made them an

Plato

that

of a higher rank,

cultivation of the youth

object of his notice

and

a

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.

was therefore very

It

natural, certainly, from the precise manner in which they refer continually from the rhapsodist to the poet, and

from many very

definite

the Phaedrus, to

to

allusions

into the supposition that the rhapsodist

fall

be looked upon as the

shell,

and that what

only to here said

is

is

of the art of poetry must be considered to be the real find also here, and that kernel of the dialogue.

We

most distinctly announced, the notion of inspiration opposition

to

brought

scarcely for

But not only

art.

forward that

in

so

direct

is

this

a form,

proposition

that

very reason be considered

in

it

could

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,

an it

neither

nor more definitely enunciated, so that might in any degree be explained why, in that dia artless craft,

logue,

and

art

in this

inspiration,

was cursorily attributed to the tragedians, manner the two ideas, that of art and divine

As then how should a

be combined with one another.

nothing of the kind

is

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

the art of poetry enunciate.

For

it

is

supposed,

first,.

147 that the art is

one and indivisible

then the principle is one up by reason of its object, it is notified that lastly poetry has many objects

and

is

;

that every art

set

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

more accurate advices upon the nature of the art by which alone this contradiction may be

for

of poetry,

solved, as the real object

Now

and purpose of the dialogue. carefully, there do indeed

him who searches

for

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

it

;

end according

to the

rules of art,

but that the

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,

for

there

is

a greater want of any kind of instruction

pursuing these notices further than can be well ex

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,

upon a better and more

already quite

and certainly placed

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.

presents

itself,

which can never be of any but the very

Hence

the question naturally

what the Ion

is

to

upon

this

do placed after the

Fhaedrus, and yet no one who compares the similar pas sages in the two, can conceive a wish to change the order.

148

we

For, compare as

the thing always assumes Ion having had the Phaedrus in Add to this, Phaedrus the Ion. will,

the appearance of the

and

view,

not

the

that what might lead the reader to consider the notices to

which we just now alluded as the main object of

For art placed too much in the shade. alone view of the almost from regarded point entirely that it supposes a knowledge, of its object, whereby it the piece,

is

is

is

distinguished

from

which presents

that

artless

as

it

but not from

handicraft,

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

be neither

this

can

a

attributed

to

the

nature of

which the dialogue is put, as it expressly the same work to the rhapsodist and the

the dress in ascribes

poet

nor does

;

object

and the work wear the

sufficiently to

petent

confusion

this

guide.

make

of

the

unities

of

the

appearance of purpose

going further, a com since the conclusion comes round without

it

And

again, and considers the rhapsodist simply, without con

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

the same difficulties

we consider reference to tion

and language;

the peculiar

present themselves,

when

closely, and compare particular passages in subject and arrangement, as well as execu

spirit

for

of

many

Plato

details

and

in

are his

so

much

in

most genuine

149 method, that we think we certainly recognize him in them alone ; and then again we come sometimes upon weaknesses such as we could scarcely ascribe to him in earliest stages, sometimes upon faulty resemblances

his

other passages

to

ance of

show

which have completely

The

unfortunate imitations.

this

more accurately,

as

the

appear

annotations

will

points of that kind can

be made manifest and judged of only by considering them in the particular place where they occur. While, is

we contemplate

as

then,

this

drawn from one

thus

side

our judgment

dialogue, to

the

and

other,

the

balance wavers unsteadily without giving a decisive kick,

two it

between which

distinct theories spontaneously arise,

may

mined

not be very easy to choice.

For

either

make

or

keep a deter

to

one of Plato

s

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

arrangement of the whole, as well as the various exe cution of the details,

or this is satisfactorily explained does indeed come from but Plato, dialogue only as an imperfectly executed essay, which had scarcely had the

correction

which early

it

as

:

of the finishing hand.

The

only period in

can claim to have been composed must be as possible after the Phsedrus ; and it can be

viewed only as the ing the dialogue

first

mode

essay towards the

commenced subsequently

of treat

to this

work,

in which the development of details resembles the com But whether in this case the Ion position of the whole.

be considered a kind of prelude to some greater work of Plato which remained unexecuted, upon the

is

to

nature of the Art of Poetry, or whether

it

had nothing

150 beyond a playful and polemic extension of cer sentiments expressed in the Phaedrus to attempt

in view tain

to decide this further, in the present uncertainty of the case,

might be hazardous.

maintain

to

Sooner might one be able bringing out and publication

the

that

of the work were,

not

to

such

say unintentional,

as

Zeno complains of in the Parmenides, but hastened by some seductive cause or other from without. This, since in

no trace of external circumstances can be found might

it,

perhaps like

most a

pretty,

though

abused

comparison with

for

naturally

pet,

the

have been

somewhat

that

and

spoiled

from fondness

loadstone,

order to bring it on fresh and shining, on the one hand have at that time finished

which, in

Plato

may

off this

wise

little

have

exercise

been

more

hastily

than

would other

without

done,

expending any par pains upon every particular, and on the other, perhaps, not have been disposed to withhold the pub ticular

lication

ticular

of

it,

if

he did

value upon

the

not otherwise

main

subject.

any par

lay

But even

this

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

be wished Plato

by

that

means perhaps spared us

In any case so

many

had discovered

this

little

suspicious

features,

at

this

that

were to

and

time,

ambiguous

betraying as

it

Ion.

does

and devoid of any par

tendency, could hardly lay other but this which we assign to place any

ticular philosophical

to

dialogue,

it

it

claim it.

151

SUPPLEMENT.

IT

is

originally to

not

without mature

introduction

this

written

extinguish

circumspectly,

have

stand

to

for

;

a

in

it

later

reflection

the

in

main

that as

does not seem to edition

all

traces

I it

leave

was

me good of how

and

turning every thing to the best, I work with those dialogues ascribed to

gone to Plato which appeared

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

I

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

thought

case of a entirely

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

frain

as not genuine.

But Bekker marks

ing dialogues more doing, has

my

decisively as

full assent.

this

and the follow

ungenuine^ and, in so

152

IV.

THE LESSER

THIS dialogue has

HIPPIAS.

a great

considered as well in itself and

to

similarity

its

ence to the

ambiguity of

that

Platonic origin.

its

we not only

find

genuinely Platonic so

is

in

For

much

that

is

the one must draw

For

tence upon the other.

subject-matter and what is

is

also

what

same view which

in that dialogue that the

rejects or adopts

in

suspicious,

of peculiar character each looks so like

we meet with

refer

combined with much

that one side might easily balance the other, but in point

Ion,

whole design, as any

one must see on a comparison of the two, as the Hippias also

the

down

a like sen

as regards, first of all, the essential

the form,

in

each

not only worthy of the remaining works of Plato laid before the reader, but also in accurate

hitherto

The two

agreement with them.

mediately adduced, that,

and the man who

first,

positions

the

which are im

man who

is

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, as

is

Ast does, unsocratic, which maintains that he who

errs intentionally

in

all

things

is

better

than

he

who

these unintentionally and without his knowledge; in such a manner from are adduced the propositions errs

particular

Homeric

case,

and the whole discussion so

manifestly intended to draw attention to the distinction between the theoretical and the practical, consequently to the at

the

same time

to

be called a knowledge, that mistake the whole style of the

virtue can

can

and the moral faculty, and point out in what sense alone

nature of the will

in this

earlier

no one Platonic

153 method of philosophizing.

In like manner, especially development of the second position, the gradual

in the

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

another, if they are both

Now

from Plato?

be established as coming

to

the Hippias was written after the

if

Protagoras, then some point ought to appear further de veloped or more distinctly set forth in the former than in

the latter.

case:

But we cannot discover

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 for

it

the Protagoras could do, to certainty as to what, if Virtue is a knowledge, is to be the object of this know

But in the Hippias this in no means carried forward from the vestigation by but point at which it had stopped in the Protagoras namely, the Good.

ledge,

is

;

it

is

both

introduced

quite

in

conducted negatively it

a

different

For

only.

in

the

in

Prota

the

that

is

manner, and

only cursorily proposition, that the of moral pleasure object knowledge, is reduced to a contradiction ; in the Hippias it is argued against goras

is

it,

that Virtue, in so far

as

it

is

a knowledge,

the knowledge of the object with which from time to time. Now the fact that will find

in

the

it

easier

Hippias,

later composition

to

can

discover

the

it is

not

concerned

many

positive

is

persons

conclusion

prove nothing in favour of the

of that

dialogue.

On

the

contrary,

154 it

is

manifest

that

was very well

Plato

satisfied

with

the

little

as in

the course pursued in the Protagoras, so immediately upon dialogues that follow he advances the conclusions there drawn

;

and the

entire idea of 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

more purely Socratic treatment of it Hence this dialogue, if it is placed

in

the Hippias.

after

the

Prota

always occupies, must ever Moreover we find interrupt the natural progression. goras, a position which

neither in

the

it

to the Hippias any reference whatever

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

that the good man uninten bad the and man errs intentionally only For if the Hippias were a supplement to the tionally. been brought Protagoras this ought manifestly to have

part of

our dialogue, which maintains

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

had been written by Plato

:

in reference to the

Hence we are always far more tempted to Protagoras. notion that the hypothesis in the Prota the entertain goras might be laid

down naked and unsupported

as

it

this position already worked partly in reliance upon out in the Hippias; therefore nothing now remains but

is,

155 to

place the Hippias before the Protagoras, and to re gard it as the first attempt to bring forward those ideas

upon the nature of virtue in the well known and direct method; but an attempt which did not seem have been

successful,

sufficiently

in to

and from that cause

occasioned that larger and more beautiful work. Now true that all the testing of spirit and method inter

it is

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

then this

to

is

the different

modes of treating

the most favourable view which

of the work, and yet supposing appears to a certain degree

it

may

it.

As

be taken

the Hippias by the Prota

true,

supported

goras, in no case could any other place be assigned

it

except in this appendix.

But when vestigated,

details

this

come

favourable

to be

more accurately in again, and a

view wanes

variety of doubts arise as to whether this dialogue can in fact be the work of Plato at all. These doubts

do indeed

arise

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 hardly attribute

it to Plato, and then, in the whole conversation about Hippias olympic exhibition, the irony upon the sophists is severed from the 1

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

them even for the

first

er s attention is taken

be led to view more

time.

by

But when once

it

seems

applied the read

these particulars, he will then

in this dialogue with a suspicious

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,

eye.

blances to

Hippias,

unmeaning ornament. And again, the manner particu interlocutors start with Homer looks larly in which the an expedient of some pupil unacquainted with those as also the com more valued by Plato lyric poets,

like

;

plaint

that

it

is

impossible

he meant by the sentiment,

now is

to ask

the Poet what

an echo of that in the

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

Nay

dialogues.

more,

whoever

once

whole dialogue in this light, the closely at the it

affords of

looks

example

appear to sometimes timid, sometimes

the practice of dialectics, will

him of a remarkable kind; awkward, and almost

only resembling

the

Ion.

So

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

that

led

many

property in the

first

to

consider

invention and arrangement

;

it

and re

the after-work of some pains-taking cognising in the rest and pretty intelligent pupil, destitute of the spirit and

157

Hence Bekker

taste of his master.

done quite right in to an

has, in

my

opinion,

at once ascribing this dialogue also

unknown composer

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

he

will frequently

teacher.

For

quote other decided works of his

to say in general that in investigations as

to the genuineness of Platonic dialogues

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 he ascribed that decide not knew our dialogue, but does it

to Plato.

V.

IT

HIPPARCHUS.

was not until

after

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

tonic enough.

This

discover in the dialogue, is,

is

Pla

to treat the love of the good,

as love of gain, or as self-interest, a notion very closely connected with those well-known propositions that there is

nothing useful but the

good, and

embrace the bad they do so only in it

might be very easy

to

believe

that

that

when men

error. it

Hence

was Plato

s

158 to

purpose to

common

from

also

start life

this

idea

appertaining

he did from that of discretion and

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

This favourable view of the dialogue appears

good. to be

still

more corroborated by a passage almost

the

at

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

dialogue, like the former,

thought

constructed upon a design of Plato; in such a manner however that only a small is

was executed, which might at the most have borne the same relation to the whole as conceived by part of

Plato, to

it

as in

the rest.

present

case,

the

An

Lysis the preliminary dialogue

example the more applicable in the it is just from the kind of dis

because

cussion the idea of transition

parchus that

to

may

what

is

does

the

good there

an extension of

it

receives,

like

the

that

that in the

Hip-

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 For no intelligent reader will by very unskilful hand. 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

as

little

is

it

Plato

s

custom to break

in

with such

a

159 beginning; for even the Menon, notwithstanding that he there begins with the main question, is not without its

introduction.

even

Meanwhile,

though we would

ascribe the beginning and the end of the dialogue to

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,

Platonic

For,

firstly,

which

ideas,

is

that

connection

save

to

with

the piece,

is

other

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 ;

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

piled out of

we have

it,

is

it,

connected with no

Plato whatever, and

is

so far

other

dialogue of

from being unworthy of

insignificant and unplatonic ending, that the unfa vourable prejudice which the two extremities at once excite against it never meets with anything effectually its

calculated

remove

to

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, is

purpose buted even

with

which so much that

is

not to the

mixed up, and which could not have in

the sb ghtest

contri

degree to any conceivable

160 object

whatever of the whole, so that

might rather

it

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

a

test

of

Platonic

individualizing of the persons

For

Socrates.

there

I

dialogues,

who

mean,

the

are interlocutors with

not a single trace to be found here,

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

usual circumstance, while the

title

surprised by this un* of the dialogue seems

only to have come from that digression about the Pi-

Thus much

sistratida?.

that if Plato

at

least

may be

Hipparchus with his consent.

called

easily

composed the dialogue, this

a case would Socrates even

at

shown,

man was

For how

the

first

not

in such

mention

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

would have

been very easy for him to select extremely appropriate characters out of those already used by him on other occasions.

even

a

So

according

to

every thing duly considered, not Plato s can have been in existence

that,

plan of

which

some

other

writer

has

worked

;

161

must have contained the

for the plan

which the

and a very poor one

enough

in

outline,

upon

the

person for the dialogue the other hand, the marks of an imitator,

suitability

On

rested.

of

first

too, will

particular

be pointed out frequently

instances

by the

to confirm the sentence of rejection

notes,

from

order

in

this side also,

although even here only some points are indicated while the rest

is

lological

reader.

starts

could

not

gewmnsucht

the private observation of the phi The notion from which the dialogue

to

left

well

(avarice,)

word does not bear one. to

so

be rendered otherwise than although

bad a

life

signification as the

by this

Greek

For the

essential characteristic of eagerly seeking

in

more strongly implied in that any other, and moreover the opposition

gain

word than

trifles

in

is

to the ethical notion of love for the

the

common

in

ear

dialogue

too is

strongly

concerned.

as

far

as

good cannot

the

purpose

strike

of

the

162

SUPPLEMENT.

SINCE gress

has

I

first

wrote this introduction, further pro in the case of this and of the

been made

That both might

following dialogue.

buted to one and

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 the

;

ascribes both of

them together with two other previously

excommunicated dialogues to Simon, has not yet been met by a contradiction. For what Ast mentions in op position

to

importance.

that hypothesis

Notwithstanding

introduction stand as

the investigation ity s

sake.

it

this I

may remain

let

my

entire, partly for

For the same reason

of BoecklVs

have

cautious

was, partly that the history of

dialogue in its old place, fully

by no means of much

is

and

also

I

in the title,

that

have

uniform left

though

I

the

am

the original one

opinion only mentioned the subject, have nevertheless followed the text of Bekker and this may be said in ;

with regard to the next dialogue

anticipation

also.

163

VI.

A

FEW words

again

the rejection of the First, as

MINOS. will

Minos

suffice

as well

to

as

gain assent to

the Hipparchus.

to the reason for

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.

The beginning

and the end breaks

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. ly,

off just as

sorry

performance some persons have quieted themselves with the supposition, that

all

that

wanting to it is that it should be complete as if such a design could ever be worked out to any good. Like the Hipparchus, again, the Minos is ornamentally disfigured in the middle by a is

;

discussion, not tending at all to advance the

upon a personage of

main sub

And, what

is more, antiquity. discussion has the very equally given dialogue its name, while the interlocutor is not only divested of all

ject,

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,

never an Athenian name.

And

further, whoever looks

tenor and course of the dialogue, will recognize as unplatonic. is ever Nothing gained by all the

to the it

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

thing once said,

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 ;

in-

this

circumstance, however, excites no presumption against the supposition of an identity of composer, but nature of the subject. ciently explained by the

is

suffi

For the

the purpose of the dialogue generally cannot have been is all show and pre investigation of an idea, but this no Socratic dialogue can because 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

the pre-eminent awkwardness Instead of either seriously using the

spuriousness, in

of the language.

words connected with the principal word, by derivation and sound, or playing with them without injury to the investigation,

and without sophistical

trick,

the author,

clumsy workman, miserably entangles himself be tween these two processes. Again, the name of the like a

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 day any one who will see.

165

VII.

ALREADY

ALCIBIADES

in ancient times,

II.

doubts were entertained

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 ;

must have been

But

it

is

at once rejected by every philologist. more probable that there was at least the 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

points of view, but to confess that it

every reader will certainly be obliged is also far less Platonic in the thoughts, in the arrange

ment, and also in the execution.

For,

first,

as regards

the subject-matter, the interpreters have at various times themselves on finding here the true doc

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

back

to the

when we

Euthyphro and

the

Apology

together.

For

talk of finding in Plato a doctrine of Socrates

with the doctrine pure, this can only mean mixed up of other wise men, and not perfectly estranged from the manner in which Plato had once for all conceived So crates.

Now how

the hints in

consider

it

could any one

the Euthyphro and the

who has understood the spirit of

Apology

as a Socratic doctrine that the gods, without

what any fixed principle, and without even considering

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

ant exploits, or live in banishment

a

is a great evil which use great foresight to avoid ? On the con manifestly a doctrine about the gods of the

man must

trary, this is

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

the notions attributed to Socrates himself

Apology, not to mention other Platonic dialogues

which the composer of this clearly had before him. again, whether the notion it is

worked up.

For

Socratic or not,

is

of the gods, of what use can is

and uncertainty in the minds it be to wait to pray for the

best, if they

according as they think proper that Plato

by

how poorly

as long as the supposition remains

in existence, of inconsistency

knowledge of what

And

?

this contradiction

may

But

also refuse this

if it

should be said

wished to negative the

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.

But more accurately considered, the doctrine of

prayer, even according to the intention of the composer, certainly not to be taken for the main subject of the

is

dialogue, but

what we

find

about the reasonable and

unreasonable man, and about the relation of other arts

and sciences

to

that of the

good and the

best.

167

Now

this doctrine is certainly Platonic

enough, and

a

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

or even

Platonic,

Socrates

himself

Socratic

who

said

for

;

it

was,

we know,

as

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

only put upon the ground that otherwise security And in endangered, and the state must prosper ill.

like

manner

moral nor

this

method of drawing conclusions

scientific

neither

is

enough, as has already appeared

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. to

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 setting of the whole.

And

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

remaining an unsocial, uncultivated, aboriginal kind life, such as forced itself upon those who misunder

still

of

stood the cynical principles, of which generally many traces appear here, though not however without contradiction.

The arrangement, in

which

moreover, as exhibited in the manner

this theory

about the knowledge of the best

connected with that of prayer, reader so capricious and so

must appear

to

entirely destitute of

that

And

it

is

not possible to tax

in like

is

every

any art

Plato with such a work.

manner, as regards the execution, the un-

168 Platonic character of the work

upon the whole

is

shown

1

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 all this is so prominent, might brought forward 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

had indeed read

his master industriously

enough, but had

penetrated language, and been incapable of learning from him his peculiar secrets. Plato is also thus acquitted cursorily of one of the less

into

his

spirit than

his

worst anachronisms of which he can be accused.

For

it

have a general knowledge of the only necessary dates, and decide as we may all that is questionable with to

is

reference to certain facts connected with this dialogue,

be found impossible that Socrates should have conversed with Alcibiades about the death of Arit

will

chelaus

still

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.

END OF THE FIRST TART.

PART

GORGIAS.

I.

LIKE

all

Plato

s

11.

greater dialogues

up

to this point

laid before the reader, the following has

been in regard of almost meaning universally misunderstood. must in Plato s case especially regard a mere half

his principal

For we

apprehension of anything as an entire misunderstanding; since where the reciprocal connexion of the parts and their relation to the whole

is

missed,

all

correct insight into

particulars, and

all fundamental comprehension, is ren dered impossible. Now, as in the Phaedrus, most critics overlooked too entirely the subject of rhetoric, and for

that reason could hardly form a conception of the meaning

of the whole

;

so in

the present instance, misled in like

manner by a second and unquestionably dialogue, far too

"Or

much

upon the Art of

later title of the

they have laid weight on the topic of rhetoric, and taken Speaking,"

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

whether in their opinion later or

more

earlier)

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

at all definite as to the peculiar character

170 For what important production of Plato to contain, rightly understood, such said be not

of this

may

outlines

work.

So much, however,

?

is

clear without further

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,

that according

to

;

the inquiry upon

especially

the nature of pleasure,

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

much, that where

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

for that very

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,

that the dialogues which

it

includes, occupying

a middle position between the elementary and constructive ones, treat generally, no longer as the first did, of the

method of philosophy, but of its object^ aiming complete apprehension and right decision of it.

at a

Nor

yet, as the latter, endeavour absolutely to set forth

two

real sciences, Physics

and Ethics, but only by prepa to fix and define them and

ratory and progressive steps that

when considered

the

either singly or in their

;

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,

as introductory to this second class of Plato

works, and before us,

s

collective

be immediately applied to the dialogue and its position justified in accordance with if it

the theory, all will be said that can be adduced before

hand

to facilitate its comprehension.

The

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

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

in actual, tangible,

reality.

be apprehended Therefore the highest and

as they can

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

to

the

full

light

of consciousness the

apparent contradiction between those two intuitions, to reconcile

it

at the

same time.

necessarily resolves itself into different

relation

to

This harmonizing process two factors, upon whose

each other

rests

the difference of

Setting out from the intuition of the perfectly existent, to advance in the exposition up to the semblance, and thus, simultaneously with its solution,

the

methods.

for the first time to

awaken and explain the conscious

ness of this contradiction

; this is, in relation to philosophy, of On the other hand, proceeding. way starting from the consciousness of the contradiction as a

the immediate

thing given, to advance to the primary intuition as the its solution, and to lead up by force of the

means of

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, starting-post, to the constructive exposi

his elementary

tion, the goal of his systematic conclusion.

Now

the relation which, in the sphere of nature,

being and semblance or sensation bear to one another in this antithesis, is the same as that which in ethics exists

between good, and pleasure or

feeling.

Therefore

the principal object for the second part of Plato^s works, their common problem, will be to show, that science

and

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

And advances are appearance, and good with pleasure. made to the solution of this problem naturally in a twofold way

;

yet without holding each course entirely

on the one hand, namely, which hitherto had past for science and art is laid on the other, attempts bare in its utter worthlessness

apart in different writings

:

that

:

are made, from the very position of

knowing and acknow

of ledging that antithesis to develop rightly the essence science

and

art

Gorgias stands

and at

their

the

fundamental outlines.

head of

this

class,

The

because

it

itself, as preparatory, to the former task, ventures than upon the latter ; and starting entirely from the ethical side, attacks at both ends the confusion exist

rather limits

ing

herein,

fixing

on

its

inmost

spirit,

as

the

root,

The openly displayed arrogance as the fruits. this observe general distinction, they remaining dialogues and

its

in the observation of the scientific partly go farther back in mere seeming, partly farther forwards in the idea

and partly contain other later conse quences of what is here first advanced in preparation.

of true

science,

From

we observe a natural connection

this point, then,

between the two main positions demonstrated to the inter

The

locutors with Socrates in this dialogue.

first,

1

that

their pretensions to the possession of an art properly so

called

in

their art of speaking are entirely

and the second, that they are involved

in

unfounded

;

a profound

mistake in their confusion of the good with the pleasant.

from the same point likewise the particular manner which each is proved, and the arrangement of the

And in

whole,

may be

For when

explained.

it is

the good that

under consideration, and the ethical object is predo minant, Truth must be considered more in reference to

is

art than science,

that

if,

is,

And

the work generally.

unity

is

moreover,

to it

be preserved in is art in its most

form that is here discussed, general and comprehensive for the dialogue embraces every thing connected with it, the state, to its least, the em greatest object, bellishment of sensuous existence. Only, as his custom

from

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

greater

;

is

that no one

may

lose himself, contrary to Plato s

of the purpose, in the object anything but a particular.

observed,

is

which can never be

latter,

For

rhetoric,

it

is

to

be

here used to represent the whole would-be

on that

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

art of politics,

but

still

the application of the word, to variation from the earlier usage of

the

more it

in

closely

that

drawn

dialogue

and the Phaedrus, and further, to what

notwithstand

is

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,

the state, while sophistics,

as is further explained elsewhere, contain

the semblance

of communicating with the principles themselves. For though Socrates compares rhetoric only with the admi nistration of justice, legislation, the

and sophistics on the contrary with

proper sense of this indisputably

that

is,

sophistics are to be supposed to imitate the knowledge

of

the

first

composition

from which

principles,

and

certainly

original

and

rhetoric

conformation

proceed, The case of them to a given subject. exactly the same, according to the ancient ideas, with

the application is

gymnastics, in which outward perfection of the body is one and the same with the principles of

human its

pre

and production

; 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

servation

corruption.

Here

then, to discover

and expose the utter

superficiality of the art of speaking, Socrates has to deal

with the artists themselves, Gorgias and Polus. confusion of the pleasant with the good other hand in Callicles,

whom

is

The

shown on the

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.

any

Still,

as

it

is

not natural to Plato to

make

decisive divisions in his general plan, so neither

we here

find

them

do

in particular in the different sections.

175 In the to

whom

we know not with what

Plato,

justice, ascribes

somewhat limited purpose

at the outset a tions,

then, of these, Socrates shows to Gorgias,

first,

representing that

that

proper conduct of political

tends

purpose

and

life,

in his instruc

in

only

to

a

no way to the

Socrates proves to him from his and that of the other rhetoricians, that

cultivation of virtue

own method, and

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

justice

nature and relations of the art of semblance are accurately exposed, and he in

shown

is

still

more

in particular

that

the idea of the beautiful, which he

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 as

ately to a distinction between the

Here again

very near, that we in

his

good and the pleasant.

with the Protagoras comes be enabled to see the use which

the comparison

indirect

of the beautiful

may

investigations I

Plato makes of the idea

mean, that he propounds

it

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

;

are substantially agreed.

In the Protagoras, now,

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

nected with

it.

is

so

multifariously

and the dialogues con In the dialogue with Polus the identity

explained in the Protagoras itself

of the good and

the pleasant

is

left

less

definite,

and

only the difference between the pleasant and useful more strongly laid down, without

its

being decidedly assumed

(what indeed had been already contradicted

in

previous

would depend only upon time. Whence, as soon as the distinction between the and the pleasant is made out, the result comes good dialogues), that this distinction

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

that opposition,

chiefly to

and

that the proposition,

pleasant, has no

to

awaken the consciousness of

force his interlocutor to allow

that

support

exhausted in

the

in internal consciousness,

but

all

good

is

that this hypothesis compels

us to place yet a further of the pleasant. And the

beyond the sphere attempts which in conjunction

good

makes

with

for accomplishing this end,

Callicles

Socrates-

and which, moreover,

are especially remarkable on account of the admixture,

the

as

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

yet,

of

Italian

necessity for this failure, as is

wisdom,

which

is

as nicely calculated 1

from the whole description of Callicles character it beautifully applied, and the way in which Socrates,

without having neglected, as he would have been most glad to have done, the excitement of the feeling, guards against the objection of giving himself pliable opponents ;

and returning to his own peculiar philosophical organ of dialectics, adduces a most important exposition of the true nature of pleasure, that

petual flux,

it is

and can only be conceived

something in per as arising in the

177 transition is

in

fact

from one becoming state to another. far too

ingenious,

All this

worked out

far too fully

and too accurately treated

to allow of our considering matter occasionally touched upon, and the political part alone as the peculiar object of the work. it

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,

with a development resting upon the disposition of the

mind, and expressing it mythically. Now if a comparison is to be instituted also between this myth and that in

and there

the Phaedrus,

is

a

to

extent

certain

much

resemblance between the two, in so far as even this has been celebrated as a fundamental myth, it must be re membered that the future bears exactly the same relation to

the

science

and

will

to

in

art

and knowledge in

Time

this,

as

the

and that

that,

past in

does to

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

to set such a

is

value upon the mythical part as might it historically, that he connects it with

lead us to take

the popular mythology. gias

leave

the

dialogue love

is

subject of love

quite as

the political art, as tion

Nor, moreover, does the Gor-

it

of the individual

much

is in ;

unnoticed,

but

in

this

the guiding principle of

the Phaedrus of the cultiva

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

But we need not pursue particular comparisons of that a kind only we may observe in general

this

;

us to our comparison with what has preceded brings the proof to 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

which the form to it.

may

the dialogue, the rhetoric, that

is,

mode

which the particular instance, as an example of mere semblance in in

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 is

practical

all its Gorgias, notwithstanding the apparent similarity with the Phaedrus, bears entirely that in For character of the second part. dialogue,

mutable, in

this

the

where philosophising was only spoken of as an impulsive the method, feeling, and knowledge as inward intuition, as

a

thing external,

could only serve for illustration.

But now when the Parmenides has that its

so prepared the way,

rather the reality of knowledge together with instead of mere objects, that are to be discussed, it

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

to the

is.

Nay,

if

we look

Euthydemus and

to the

Sophist, in which the form of

utter negation comes out most strongly.

And

in like

throughout by

manner

all

these dialogues are penetrated

a germ, continually growing and treated

only as an indirect object, of the positive, in the indi-

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

first

member

of

series,

it,

is

it

quite

as

manifestly the

partly on account of the similarity

already mentioned to the earlier method of instruction, partly because the last-mentioned combination of the negative object with the positive

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

appear more often in important features, to which

the Lysis and

the

little

connected with the

dialogues

Protagoras afford but slight approximations. Add to this, in order to fix the place of the Gor still

gias

more

which almost

all

decisively,

the

the

ingenious

earlier dialogues are

manner

in

again taken

and sometimes particular points out of them, sometimes their actual results are more or less clearly

up

in

it,

interwoven

with

it,

and, on

the

other hand, the per

fectly unintentional way, though the skilful reader can not overlook it, in which the germs of the following

dialogues

of this

The former

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

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

his

notwithstanding

that

in

intention

apparent

method of that species of dialogue of correcting the rhetoric which tends only to delude, and his depreci ation of

that

he

it,

still

allows

person might look upon

a

And

attainment.

sirable

is

it

such

hold

to

it

place,

an object of de

as

it

a

for

precisely

use, according to

in the

that

this,

moral

Gorgias its only possible between me principles, and of the necessary connection a in so thod and thought, appears form, and emphatic is

so

multifariously

impossible to

it

repeated,

starting from

is,

any view, with regard

that

here

projected.

order

in his

in

to

principles,

to this subject,

And

show how

to

different

the Protagoras

come from

the de

be scription of sophistical self-complacency might easily when the too and the easy, game thought exaggerated, of

writer

such

the

attributes

dialogues

and absurdities.

follies

his

to

Hence

in

opponent

this

dialogue, himself similarly circumstanced with Protagoras, he proves far more pliant and docile with regard to the turnings of the dialogue, and draws less

when Gorgias

ridicule

finds

upon himself.

shews afresh

in

Polus

But, at

all

on

the

contrary, that there

events,

Plato is

no

doubt that rhetorical undialectic sophists are incapable of accomplishing anything in that art of conducting a dialogue upon which his Socrates prides himself; a se the method which, though

rious play with

certainly in

some degree an echo from the first series, manifestly stands here in a far more subordinate relation than the similar one in

Lysis

;

not only

is

Thus

again from the the notion of the neither good nor

the Protagoras.

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

a

confined

181

and limited form, obtains in this, in the Phaedrus upon the nature

like

what was said love generally,

of

an extended application, beyond mere personality, to the more important civil relations as well, inasmuch as

Lysis, love for are laid down as co

with almost verbal reference to the

the people and

And

ordinate.

proved,

clearly

love for the boy

thus

too

the

that in

was justly attributed

it

is

now

the

for

first

time

Phaedrus a peculiar value must be it

the doctrine, not,

to

brought forward with sufficient clearness for one, which inculcates the necessity of a simi

allowed,

every

for

the production of

this,

moreover, we are

or character,

larity in the ideal,

With

love between two minds.

to put in connection that view of Plato which supports itself against all

that those,

unmeaning disputation and persuasion,

who pursue

principles morally opposed, can

entertain no deliberation with one another in

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.

Moreover,

Socrates

in

expressly

forward

brought

in

our present dialogue, Plato makes

acknowledge the

Laches,

the

that that

principle

courage

cannot

be conceived apart from knowledge, is certainly his opi ; and, in like manner, what has been declared in

nion

the introduction

to

the

Charmides

to

be the result of

that dialogue with reference to discretion. Socrates agrees in the explanation, that virtue,

in

the mind

;

so far

as

it

is

to

I

mean

that

discretion

is

be regarded as health of

this principle also here receives corroboration. as it was defined in

So also piety appears here, exactly

182 the Euthyphro, as justice towards the All these gods. are retrospective references, if not quite literal, still

quite certain and decisive; and we are sure that

who

ever considers them comparatively, will never entertain the notion of inverting the arrangement, and take these

dialogues for further enlargements upon points here as

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

Gorgias, might do so by affirming

that the supposition started at the end of the

sec

first

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 necessarily knowing to the nature of justice in par

that

ticular,

the

and that

sceptical

Hippias. far

the

from

the others.

this is exactly the natural result of treatment of the idea of justice in the

But any one must being

either

as

see

that this reference

important

For the principle

itself,

or

as

certain

is

as

that the exercise

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 the majority of the subsequent dialogues, appear quite clearly as the references to earlier works which we

as

have instanced above

;

partly in the design of the whole,

partly in particular passages. in

which,

after

The manner,

the establishment of the

for instance, essential

dis

between the good and pleasant, the notion of a combination of the two is notwithstanding again enter tinction

tained, points to a

problem not yet solved, and which

interwoven with the subject of the Philetus, the

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,

Phasdo.

much

in

upon separating and divesting the mode of exhibiting it my and personality, is,

stress

as

it

were, a prophetic anticipation of the

So that we may even decide from hence, how second period proceeded from the point

this

we have

which

laid

specified

the

as

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 dialogues, prin cipal factors of the dialogues ; for it is precisely in this of the two points of view, the theoretical

reconciliation

and practical, brought about as

it

them

all

so

completely as to cancel

the two, that the

sequent

still

more

is,

without

uniting

opposition between

artificial

form of the sub

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,

exactly as the Gorgias does

that

between

Hence, considering good and perceptive feeling. the total absence of any decisive testimony whatever as

the

to the period

of composition,

and moreover,

that

the

idea of the two works must arise almost simultaneously,

and they are both of considerable extent, the appearance

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

acquainted with

up

those traces and references, and

the

manner

custom to mark such notices,

in

will

which

it

is

Plato^s

undoubtedly discover

of himself more of the same kind copiously interwoven with the details of this dialogue. For other persons we be to draw allowed to attention 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 of opinion against such Platonic writings hitherto appeared. However, what might be

declarations as

had

said limits

must always remain within the of supposition, and the best method therefore

upon

this

point

will be,

only to give slight indications in the particular places and passages where such matter occurs. And, besides this, there

is

much

that stands in such close con

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

And

diate personal relation.

looks almost as

it

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

of that

history

act

of which

For when we

repented.

naturally to the Phsedo,

they had long

since

recollect that this also applies

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,

in the present case,

able object; nor

is

would have no conceiv

there any sign whatever of ridicule

no trace appears anywhere of have driven Plato to such reproaches might

suffered or anger felt, for either, that

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

of his fellow citizens.

how

fearlessly

course

he intended

this is a

to

continue his philosophical

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

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

the other Socraticians, does not appear

what at

travels.

Soon afterwards, however, he might have had

A A

186

For

kind.

of sentiments of this

for expression

abundant occasion

own

Apology Socrates represents his calumnies of having commenced with the

in the

disfavour as

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

is

usually put

the political ninety-seventh Olympiad, views and new doctrines of Plato were exposed, and he as the

as early

have no

will

in

difficulty

may have apprehended in

how

conceiving

Hence, then, and

a similar result.

order at the same time to justify

Plato

easily

to his friends

relations implicated in the concerns of public life that his travels had friends who

those

would

hoped perhaps have recalled him from abstract thought and brought him nearer to the world thoroughly, I say, to justify to

them

his persevering

withdrawal from the government

own

as well as his opinion, corrupt, upon the forms of it,

of a state, in his

own disadvantageous judgment and

to

show the necessity of being allowed

of politics; hence phize freely upon the art

to

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

the living, as in

which

he

expressions,

if

they were less guilty

puts

into

imputation of Laconism

show that what rally

and

is

so

arises

from

;

hence the way

of

himself,

against

called

spontaneously

mouth

the

the

at

Callicles

in

the

order to

once quite natu

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,

and correction,

slight justification

curred to Plato during his elder

Dionysius.

supposition, that

And

first

this

upon what had oc

stay in Sicily with the

again leads almost

to

the example also of Archelaus, if

the

we

are not to imagine that that

monarch had not already at so early a period Socraticians about his person, and proceeded with them in a similar way, was chosen with same

the

referential

how

strongly

purpose,

impossible

it

order

in

that

was,

show most

to

Plato,

had

as

perhaps begun even at that time to be the opinion of some, should have sought the friendship of an unjust

and oppressive despot. traces,

These however are the only ones certainly, of the time at which the

slight

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

decisively fixed.

right

to

Plato

s

consider

it

;

According as

return from his

as his school

to

this

it

would be

second work after

the

first

first

journey, as soon, that

is,

and

so

had become

or

so firmly established,

widely extended as to induce Aristophanes to give a comic representation of it. For unless all accounts of this

Plato can scarcely have formed, a particular school of his own.

journey are

previous to

There

it,

false,

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

We

phical

work of Gorgias, and the question

may

very

188 be started,

fairly

how Plato could have made Gorgias

the principal person in a

about

syllable allusion.

this

without uttering a noticing it by a single

dialogue or

work,

Put the dialogue

into

the

which

period at

the process against Socrates was still going on, and we then have a very easy justification, in the supposition

had not yet become acquainted

that at that time Plato

with

it

;

but

this

supposition

will

not

hold

after

his

return from his travels, as he must unquestionably have

made acquaintance with

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 case, there are

places the dialogue, that he does not mention this

because at that period

and

this it

says,

it

was not yet known at Athens,

may

certainly be conceived,

was

written

in

the

or Plato did not consider this

tendency, style

;

if as

Olympiodorus

Olympiad; work deserving of parti

eighty-fourth

much by reason much more probably, its

cular notice, not so as,

work

and thus he only comprehends

of

its

sophistical

utterly rhetorical

it

generally under

the description of the corrupting art of counterfeit, and

makes Gorgias

probably not without a meaning, that he does not pretend to be anything but an orator. say,

189

THE^TETUS.

II.

IF the reader looks only to the surround this dialogue considered in is

usually understood, and

difficulties

which

and as

itself,

it

the sophistries of which

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

But much becomes

once clear from

at

to

what was said on the Gorgias.

bered what was there

the

place

we

and from immediate reference

assign to the Theaetetus,

For when

stated to be the

of the two dialogues, and

how

the

it is remem common object

Gorgias

is

intended

pursue object more on the practical side, the Theaetetus more on the theoretical, the perplexity must that

to

at once become considerably less intricate, and some notion will be given of the real subject of the dialogue,

in which,

at

otherwise,

to cancel the rest,

first

sight,

every thing

seems

and notwithstanding that knowledge

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 is

;

of that connection, and of the general view taken of the

For according of the Theaatetus must object be to show, that no science can be found unless we com whole,

receive

to that view,

additional

confirmation.

the main

separate Truth and Being from the Perceived and Perceptible or Apparent. Only that in this dia

pletely

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

of their

upon the whole system of

Gorgias on that of the

arts,

the

but treats

common

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 are

their nature

in

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

There namely, which the Gorgias exhibits more at full. fore it is shown betimes, and no one will wonder how this subject

came

be here introduced, what influence

to

the doctrine tried must have

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,

knowledge as he

of

all

who

can only refer to pleasure, and that, seeks only pleasure ends in the annihilation

itself

community of sentiment with

others, contradictory

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

nor of

men

with God, but remains confined and isolated within the narrow limits of his own per another,

sonal consciousness.

These

allusions

however to the connection between

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

sought

in the province of the senses

of pleasure

is

that,

as

the only source

in the transition

other, so also perception

is

from one opposite to the inconstant, and that whoever

thinks to confine knowledge within

its

province, can never

191 forms in its any of the objects of knowledge the framework of the whole. gradual developement, attain

Hence the dialogue begins with showing tagorean

of a general

denial

that the Pro-

standard

of

and the Heracleitic theory of the flux of of

alone

Becoming

to

remaining

the

knowledge,

and

all things,

exclusion of

all

Being, as well as the principle here tried throughout, which sets up Perception, and Perception alone, for

knowledge, do

all

refer

to

one another, and form one

Socrates shows this while he supports the prin

system.

and mutually upholds them by means of each other better than their authors had done, who ciples himself,

in

part, perhaps, less

and

understood

perfectly

the connection of their

themselves,

And

thoughts.

not

is

it

before the Platonic Socrates has thus armed the theory of Protagoras against his own preliminary objections, well as the nature of the

as

exhibited

a

in

it

different

subject admitted

of,

and

and more connected form,

that the dialogue proceeds to grapple seriously with those

and

theories, it

affects

be

to

pieces of

falls to

Thus,

show

to

first

on two

of

that the whole system, in so far as

knowledge and matter of instruction, itself, and can never attain its object.

all,

the theory of Protagoras

which the dialogue

sides,

itself,

in

is

attacked

order to pre

vent any misunderstanding, pronounces victorious. First, upon the side of the contradiction involved in the pro position which

makes opinion the

For, as long as other opinion,

the

now

that

number the

men

proposition

of those to

measure the

of

destroys

whom

itself,

still

above

inasmuch

a thing appears true,

certainty,

by supposition, the value of opinion. Then opinion,

arbiter of knowledge.

place a knowledge

and

the

maintains it

is

as is

predominant itself

against

shown that although

192 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*.

it

may

Now

should any one discover in this conclusion a con

tradiction to the

sidered the future

which Plato has already con elsewhere, when he showed that the in

way

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

of conclusions to which Plato intends, cannot

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

distinct

is

it

press of accumulating investigations and applications, all of which were intended for this dialogue, as indeed he leaves throughout

conclusions in

many

to

it

be drawn

the reader himself.

by

Next, and in a manner resembling this, the theory which had been already contained in

also of Heraclitus

the exposition of that of Protagoras, *

See Thesetet. TOIVOV

E-rt el i

p. 178.

evdevSe


,

&c.

attacked inde-

A. iiv

frepi Travrcx; TIS

ov.

is

fjia\\ov

rov

c

TTUS

T
o/jioXoy^aeie

lSov? epwrwti, eV

Se TTOV KOU irep]

ia

not

TO

TOV /ueAWra xpovov.

TCWTO.

ia(j)\tfjioi/

orav yap

193 and upon such

grounds that

it

is

shown,

according to this theory, strictly taken, a predicate could be found and adapted to a

neither

pendently, that,

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

Hence an immediate though suppressed

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

Theaetetus,

have

is

especially

contradicted,

this,

lastly,

immediately

and now we

notices

wherein

pointing chiefly to that, whereby true knowledge is alone to be discovered

Socrates shows

and ;

for

how

perception itself, properly considered, points to operations in nature and origin entirely sepa

from

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,

can attain

to

being,

and

that

truth

must

therefore

necessarily be sought

beyond and without its range. the Thus, then, dialogue is advanced as far in refer

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.

Euirep de\ Aeyoi/ro? ifare^ef^crai, are el (f)ai>r],

iravTa. KiveiTat,

7ra
ctiroKpicri*;,

vqrat, dpo iias opdtj eivat, OVTCD T I

va

fj.r]

877


pcov.

7rcp\

e-^eiv (pdvai KOI

aJroO?

E B

TU>

To

OTOV av fjitj

3

,

co?

TIS

COIKCV,

diroKpiOU TWS, el Be

194 the discovery that here also

last all

In such a manner, however?

made.

that necessarily

belongs to the indi

from ideas, and even being

rect exposition is abstracted

and the discovery made of the immediate activity of the mind are brought back into the sphere of the senses,

and into that of the individual and particular

;

for

it

is always only in this sense that conception (&>) with reference to the For follows. in what of spoken

is

inquiry into the nature is

set

up affirming

that

new principle conception, and it is

of knowledge, a it

is

right

examined whether knowledge can lie within this more This investigation produces narrowly limited sphere. first

of

all,

a laborious attempt to define the sphere of

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 he concludes whence hensible mistaking of knowledge, Hence that the latter must be found before the former. false conception at last

must

still

rest

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

too, there

as

cated

of the former,

session.

but

only possession

or

After this attempt then, that principle

non-pos is itself

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 distinction between

practical and the true conception to be

the

at mediately attained, and knowledge all things immediate.

all

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

reasonable

it is

explanation.

right* conception combined with And here again by far the

occupied by an accurately considered, though only incidental, investigation as to an assumed opposition, not however tenable throughout, in the largest

space

is

relations of the simple

and compound to knowledge in and then again the principle itself very soon dispatched according to the two significations

the is

sense assumed

;

given of reasonable explanation, which Plato especially distinguishes, inasmuch as the refutation of the last is also

at the

good

same time for the

Wonderfully ingenious,

first.

when we consider

these par

ticular

grand divisions one with another, is the uniformity of execution in the structure of the whole and of the

To

particular parts.

begin with what comes last:

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, ;

to a deceptive similarity with knowledge, though can never exalt itself to a level with it. It may be

brought it

said as

that these three transitions from

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

a

reasonable explanation, give us a

scale for the

simplest,

and

rudest up to the most refined view of ness, so

that

it

rejected with

is

knowledge, and a question

is

all

so to

speak, the

common

conscious

its

pretensions to

at last started

which mani

festly points to the necessity of an opposite principle, *

P. 201

.

D.

Tffv /xeV (t-era \ojov

6KT09 eTTurrrjw; avftoff} xa\

but

KO\

ovo/ndv,

(i\r]6rj

tav

3

/jiev

t ve

co^av ^tj

Ttjv 3e a\o^nv Ao yoc, OVK eTTKrTrjra en/at,

7ri
e
e?i/a<,

196 at

the same

consciousness

time the sphere within which is

true

is

assigned to

that lower

throughout, and the

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.

no means

to believe that

what

For we

are

by

gained in the several

is

by the production of objections which Socrates afterwards either allows to drop or to be

parts of the dialogue

refuted

by Thecetetus, or by

reference to the

only incidental, we are not to believe

ground and come

intended to fall to the

from

far

served this in

it,

that all this matter

and used

which with

investigations

immediate subject of the dialogue are

:

detail will

that all this to nothing.

is

So

assuredly to be pre

is

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. is more for ciple, example, finely worked out at every passages.

fresh addition to the dialogue, and

is at last

confronted

the question as to opinions about time future held in

by

In like manner conception

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

that the rank of the highest science does not belong to

In like manner the idea of

it.

false conception is

rid

the interposition of that of exchanged conception* ,

by

of the rude form under which * T/? TI

A\\o%oiav TWV OVTWV

eu/cu.

Tiva

ovaav

\]/ev%fj

a/\Ao av TCOV OI/TWI/,

ov

ovrto
/xei/

aet

it

was commonly and (fia/jLev

elvai

a i/Ta\Aaa /jiei/cK

Soaei, erepov

ov ea-Konet BJKCU W? av KCI\OITO \/ev%r

2>e

8oai/, orav TV]

a i/0 eVe

oa

197

At

discussed.

sophistically

the

however,

last,

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

various gradations, but

nevertheless as regards the proper object of the dia

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

whole dialogue, as

question was directed to

although o as

is

far,

to

say that the ridicule

that

is,

the

as the

the explanation of knowledge,

natural from the difference in the time and

the age of the author, this ridicule proclaimed as in the Prothagoras

must

may

not so triumphantly

is ;

a comparison which

strike every one, as in fact the question as to

explicability of

knowledge

is

the

the

same theoretically as

that of the communicability of virtue

is

practically.

The same

uniformity is discoverable in yet another For almost in every discussion of any point of view. occurs question in this dialogue a digression

particular in

the

which immediate and distinct reference true

come out

and

right,

though

these

is

made

to

subjects

nowhere

And

thus also

in the discussions themselves.

198 an

extensive

digression

itself,

dialogue

introduced

is

containing

main

the

into

share of these allusions

its

;

but which, as regards the immediate progress of the inter dialogue, seems to be an extremely capricious no and better 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

and those in rhetoric and similar

arts is

and the divine, the true and the good,

pointed out, in the

come out

nature as perfectly opposed And indeed this narrow sphere of the personal. soon after the be digression seems purposely placed full relief of their peculiar

to the

ginning, that at all events the attentive have a clear point by means of which he the complicated

way among

may

find his

may

mazes of the dialogue. the Thesetetus connects

these digressions then,

By

reader

immediately and, among the earlier dialogues is almost solitary in so doing, with the Parmenides as

itself

of

a continuation

And

of view.

works occur

able

;

Eleatic

for

although from an opposite point

any other allusions to earlier what belongs to the essential matter of scarcely

in

the dialogue.

it,

These

instance,

doctrine

digressions,

the

way

which not

in

to

is

however, are remark only

the

but

also

the

Ionian, opposed Parmenides to the other Eleatics, can scarcely be other

wise understood except as intending to imply that the others,

especially

appeared

to Plato

the lonians, to

Melissus to

whom however

who would grasp every cribes

a truly

who

is

particularly

named,

deviate as far from the truth in

as

comparison with those their hands, he as

thing with

philosophical

tendency.

For

if,

as

he

199 expresses himself, the lonians able, so,

the

moved even

the immove-

probably, the Eleatics were for reducing even

untenable to

rest,

and

Parmenides alone

his

by

hypothesis of an opposition between the intelligible and apparent, of which we may regret that only rough

and particular traces have come down to us, appeared to have found, or at least to have divined

outlines

the right road, although even to his doctrine Plato has objections to

make

in

Even

a subsequent dialogue.

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.

At the same time however

who

contains an almost tacit exposure of Zeno,

no means excepted from

those

whom

is

by

Socrates

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

Both

to

penetrate to the

refer

real

enough

manifestly

meaning of to

his

the dialogue

doctrine.

of that

name, and to a variety of misapprehensions in the un derstanding of it which from these allusions may be

So again, without any particular men

easily surmised.

of the philosopher, several of the antitheses cussed in the Parmenides reappear elsewhere in tion

dialogue, in part accompanied by

dis this

elucidations of what

there barely stated as briefly as possible, so that the position of the Theaetetus between the Parmenides and

is

And moreover, Sophist is thus in every way justified. besides these that are contained in the general plan, there

occur in

and among

detail

these

several allusions

too,

individually

to

the Gorgias,

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

fence of Socrates are brought up, and as

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

that apology, or to passages

this is to refer to

some other writings of his, or to some fact of which still survived. Moreover we find in several pas

traces

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,

and likewise censure of the form and method

many him. well

in

which

of his opponents probably endeavoured to confute

Thus as in

he constantly repeats here as

for example,

the

Gorgias,

that

in

philosophical matters

made the grounds and particularly lays down the condi

apparent consequences are not to be of confutation, tions

under which,

in

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 with another, quite of a different kind from what we meet with at an earlier period against the Sophists. For, as in the Gorgias, the philosopher especially con their

futed under the person of Callicles

manifestly Aris-

is

whose system the principle that nothing is tippus, naturally just, but only becomes so by capricious esta in

blishment, occupied an important place, so also the first half generally of this dialogue Aristippus is the person

That Aristippus took the impres

especially in view.

sions of the senses to be certain knowledge, that he did

not notwithstanding deny the possibility of a

progress

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 how why it happens that Plato represented this ;

doctrine as Protagorean though supported

and we

who

Aristippus especially did not indeed follow the doctrine

exclusively, but is

by

denoted

find

still

Socrates,

by those

of Protagoras

ended with the principle that there

nothing just by nature

;

we

find

him with in

his pro

that

long di represented themselves do not occupy gression as one of those who with philosophy in the proper way, and some perhaps pensity

may

for

good

even think

living

fit

to view

that exposition of the

So-

that midwifery as at the same time a protestation Socrates. from learnt in no that philosophy was way cratic

In short, a multitude of allusions discover themselves as soon as ever we take these polemics into consideration.

Every one however must

also c c

art certainly admire the

202 which

they are interwoven witli the whole, so completely without detracting from the universality of with

bearing, so that the reader, with of the exception very particular allusions which do not interfere with the progress of the whole, and which its

scientific

purely

one

every

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

to

against I

the

presence in it of similar po Antisthenes of whom we know, though

suspect

the most general way, that he maintained the principle of the impossibility of con only,

to

regret

tradicting

say,

successfully

in

any position

These

whatever.

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.

we know that

The

of his

much

character of this opponent and what

relations

to

Plato

make

it

probable

him which appears to be and rude attack. There may

has reference to

defence against unscientific

yet be much besides of a polemical character which it is now almost impossible to decypher, with the exception

perhaps of a few scattered followers of Heraclitus

may

be

meant

doubtful

under

which case

it

their is

is

whether

traces.

What

particularly

others

name, or

than

actually

scarcely possible

to

is

said of the

strange,

and

it

themselves are themselves;

in

avoid thinking of

Plato having sojourned in Ionia, probably on that great to some when, journey, accounts, he wished according 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 of Plato as well as of most of the other So-

schools

cratic philosophers had been already formed. Not much can be built upon the mention of the battle at Corinth

which Theaetetus had been wounded

in

be inferred from

would be only what

it

the most to

;

is

also

certain

upon other grounds, that the dialogue cannot have been written before the middle of the ninety-sixth olympiad.

We

should however by no means be warranted in con cluding that the fight thus mentioned is the same which

Xenophon on

the

notices in the fourth

we might

contrary

book of find

easily

his Hellenics

just

as

;

much

reason for thinking of less important events which may have taken place subsequently, when Iphicrates had the

command

in

that

We

quarter.

have

however every

reason for considering as historical, both the character of Theaetetus and what is said of him, though not the literal

him

words of the conversation held.

in

two characters,

hearer of Plato

;

we

as

a

Suidas mentions

scholar of Socrates and a

see clearly that both notices refer

same person he also mentions him as a phi and mathematician, and knows that he taught losopher

to

the

:

at a later period in

So

Proclus

mathematicians.

also

Heracleia.

mentions

Hence

it

may

him

among

easily

from the school of Socrates, as far as

may be

allowed, he passed

celebrated

be inferred that this

expression

into that of Plato,

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 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

befrn this.

that time something new, but whether

it was a discovery of Theaetetus himself, or one of Plato^s with which he

ornaments his

cannot

I

pupil,

With

take

Theodorus

upon

myself to

not necessary decide. to say anything, as he is sufficiently known, and the only question which could be a subject of curiosity,

namely,

why

regard to

he

is

found

it

is

in this place particularly,

and

urgent with him to unite in con why ducting the dialogue, cannot be satisfactorily answered Socrates

is

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

from him

and compares

it

manifestly the

in

to

Cyrene

there.

MENO.

III.

IF the reader bears

expressly

mind the end of the Theaetetus,

with the beginning of the Sophist, where

same persons again meet together with

decided reference to the plan we find there concerted, may fairly be matter of surprise to him that the

it

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

suppose that Plato

indeed have intended

may

Thesetetus, what

to produce, immediately after the

now

either called

upon by particular occasions or have

certain points,

we

and yet have been afterwards

find in the Sophist,

even

seen

that

first to

explain

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

Or

might even have been his original intention, when he ended the Theaetetus, to continue the same persons in the Menon, making after

having once indicated

them say what we now he

may

have been

it.

find in

it

this dialogue,

and then

influenced

by some

subsequently

motive or other to prefer the choice of others for this purpose, and to apply the intimation formerly thrown In short,

out to a later work. stance, explicable as

it

is

in a

that external circum

variety of ways, should

not stand in opposition to an internal necessity or even probability, as

soon,

that

is,

as

it

can be shown that

Menon

does really connect itself immediately with the Thesetetus, and must at all events be placed between

the

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

ing comparison. find the

We

part

of

the

first

indication in the fact that in that

Theaetetus

where the opposition between

206 knowledge and ignorance he prefers setting aside

up, Socrates says that for the present the states of set

is

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

the

precisely

Now

this

Menon,

and

of his principal subject.

sight

stated

problem

in

whoever compares attentively must

the

at once,

and on

this

account, give up all idea of placing the Menon before the Theaetetus. Neither is it solved otherwise than

Plato usually solves his problems when he does so pre liminarily,

we here

mean by

I

a mythical

that

so

hypothesis,

precisely what according to his own method, question had been once started, was necessary

find

after this

to be done. As then in the Sophist, as well as in other dialogues manifestly belonging to this series, the

same question cally

the

:

treated

is

Menon

more

dialectically

naturally comes

Menon, had

as

we

question,

as

mythical

treatment

shall find in

of

in

it

to

For when Plato

much been

public expositions towards the

scientifi

stand nearer

to

the Thesetetus and before the others.

wrote the

and

scientific

already done in solution of this

subsequent dialogues, the this dialogue would no

longer have had any meaning, but Plato would have referred the reader by a different method, with which

we have already been made acquainted works

to the

in

which

same conclusion another

will

question

mean

When

Theaetetus

it

this

hypothetically

is

likewise

idea

is

his

the

writings,

And

first

and

how

of

several

of

pervades

of

in all

of the

Gorgias and

the

more

than

sketched

out.

little

mythically

the

consideration

that of the immortality

considered

assumed

in

was better done.

ensue from

which

these dialogues, I soul.

this

207 and then

this dialogue set

in

nation of a fact, and as

it

up

as a

ground of expla

were postulated, how

it

is

elsewhere, and in the Phaedon particularly, demonstrated and expounded with a higher degree of scientific clearness,

any one having already any however slight acquaintance

method of proceeding must allow that it is only by assigning this position to the Menon, that this continuously increasing distinctness which gradually Plato

with

s

penetrates to the culiar to

very centre-point of the subject, pe can enter into the discussion of this, Plato,

and that the

first

thing which

that general projection,

was justified in

so

in thus

far, that

is,

Plato had

to

do

after

was precisely to show that he

assuming the doctrine of immortality, and

as the possibility of all science

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

Gorgias.

until

But we

cannot

notice

these

opinions

we compare those two dialogues with one another

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 immortality, are brought into connection with one another ; and on the other, how the question of the

of

of attaining

possibility

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

Menon

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

that

is

the

still

the

more confirmed by means of it, inasmuch as is intended to draw the two still more close

Menon

together, and to interweave

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

those

for

readers

each of the two what is is

brought forward as digression

is

And this view connected with the principal subject. the Menon, of confirmed by all closer consideration we take

the more nearly

which,

in

it

connection

with

those two dialogues does the more closely and sponta neously connect itself with them, and this so immedi ately that

it

is

impossible to conceive the intervention of

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

must present

it

and pure knowledge properly so called, every one as the last result of the

itself to

Theaetetus, though not in that place regularly and fully And this in the Menon is not only as

enunciated.

sumed

proved and expressly put among the little of which Socrates can maintain that he knows it, but it is

as

respecting

the

treatment of the question

the decisive

evident that

of teaching

possibility

(7ToXiTt/e; aperrj)

a corollary from

is

political

virtue,

nothing but an immediate deduction,

the

Theaetetus intended to apply

to

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,

that the ideas of the good

quite as

little

demonstrated

and of virtue can be

determined by any more accurately defined

method of attaining

to the pleasant

general, and that it connected ideas purely in

and original

it is

principles,

is

as

by the pleasant

necessary to discuss

for

themselves

And

that

the two

upon exclusive

the connection

may

209 not be overlooked, the interlocutor

introduced as a dis

is

and expressly referred

ciple of Gorgias,

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

the

last

with

so

enunciated,

and

of

result

also

shown

Theastetus

the

that

is

of

the

still

not the

carries the investigation

still

higher.

is

The same is,

result also appears

throughout so identical with

dialogues, that

existence of

we

still

circumstances.

amples as

are compelled

in the Theaetetus, nay,

is

;

for in the

what we

to infer

to

it

what

Menon

find in those

from them the

further similar relations and connecting The same use of mathematics for ex

visible connection with

blem which

repeated,

and that

last,

when we look

or seems to be, accidental matter

this is

in

to

confirmatively

Gorgias

be

it

is

that

even the object selected

For the pro

dialogue.

the foundation of the Pythagorean theo

rem, to find the side of the double square,

is

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

from which the examples are taken can be so result of accident, it

to

attribute

to

symbolical value; is

in

the

that

matter

little

the

we might rather be tempted by

the

example

especially if

habit of introducing

works for the hearers of

his

itself

a

we remember

still

higher

that Plato

remembrances into

his

immediate oral instructions.

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

appears so prominently, points to

during the composition of the two diaD D

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.

Menon

the

was

Plato

logues

from natural

taken

are

philosophy

what

adduced

most

the manifestly Theastetus in illustration of the doctrine of Protagoras, and is intended defensively to show that Socrates did

connected

with

which the master of

as a disciple

Gorgias

in

the doctrines of that school

really there bring forward in the sense in

is

it

And

meant them.

of Empedocles

here expressly

is

the Pythagoreans, and moreover, atten thus drawn to the inward connection between the

associated with tion

is

dialogue which bears his name and the Theaetetus. manner the Menon connects itself with both

like

In dia

logues by the similarity of its polemics. For the allusion to Aristippus, the bosom friend of rich tyrants cannot

Menon

be mistaken, when

the friend of the great king

declares that virtue consists in the compilation of wealth,

when he makes

even

Xenophon

s

the limitation,

not,

description, consistent with his

according to

own

opinions,

should only be done by legitimate methods. In like manner every reader will think of Antisthenes

that

this

conceded somewhat contemptuously by all and repeatedly asseverated, that a sophist cannot teach

where

it

virtue,

is

for

Antisthenes maintained

a sense which did not meet Plato first

has

in

common

similar allusion in

the

mention

made

is

with to

Thesetetus is

the positive side in views, and where his

held up to him as a pattern of no claims to this. Moreover the Menon

master Gorgias

one who made

s

of

prophesied, and in

the

Theaetetus

and Gorgias

a

For

as

the accusation of Socrates.

express

and

and in the

somewhat

gratuitous

Gorgias it is almost both dialogues much from the Apoit,

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 ;

and these allusions are found

in so similar a dress that

manifestly a similar occasion lies at the bottom of in

falls

the two others, and the

dialogue as in

this

And

dialogues.

this

same

period with those connects itself with the dialogue

into

coincidently

them

Menon

the

and more particularly by what by questions from Anytus, and says himself about the Athenian statesmen. For Plato assumes still

Gorgias

further,

Socrates extracts

appearance of changing into a more favourable opinion what he had maintained in the Gorgias; but the

he

does

quantity

this

apparently

only,

of irony which at

the

and with

a

sufficient

end rings out clearly

be a regular apologetic enough. recantation with which Socrates presents them, intended It

seems,

to

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

the

all

now comprehends under

more powerful

as Socrates

the sentence, in this

its

milder

application, even Aristides himself, whom he had before exalted so far above the rest. But this man, whom as

far

as

compelled the

communication

is

concerned he was certainly

give up, remains nevertheless free from objections of which no further mention is

to

other

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

down

laid is

of

value

true

the

as

not accompanied by a perfectly

does

consequently

The

so called.

not

rest

finished reason,

and

upon knowledge properly

on the other hand, of

rest,

which

virtue

that

whom

has

it

they cannot keep possession of the useful, are, with their true conception, which will not remain without knowledge, most gently

shown elsewhere

been already

same

into the

merged and it

at

is

last

this elsewhere,

as

shadows

to

class with

soothsayers and poets,

declared

distinctly

by

that

namely, that

all

what was meant

men are but who knows and

these

such there be,

one, if

can teach.

This leads of between latter

the

touches

their

as

may

it

upon almost and seals in

still

the

we found explanatory

dialogues; and

cludes

a

to

itself

Menon and

further resemblance the

in

references to several earlier

be said of the

all

For

Gorgias.

the

in

first

Menon

series,

that

it

and con

many words a large share of common subject-matter of which the decision was

it

were

still

left

so

This holds especially of

open.

the Protagoras and the dialogues immediately connected account of this relation much matter it, and on

with

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

how much

slight

It

allusions.

is

now shown

here

of the virtues remains, as they are ordinarily

enumerated, and are no longer allowed to be compre of virtue, if we separate them from hended in a unity

knowledge; and in

which,

in

at

the

the

same time the whole dispute,

Protagoras,

gaged with Protagoras, but himself as

to

the

Socrates

also

identification

is

not only en

each of the two with of

virtue

with

know-

213 and the

ledge,

possibility of

communicating

established

the

it,,

is

solved

between

distinction

preliminarily by And in doing this it knowledge and true conception. that the more exalted species of virtue rests is said

upon knowledge, though upon a higher mode than that calculation of the pleasant, and is more

certainly

of

it

over

communicable

thus

the

in

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

us as

a

also

remarked, the

Menon

is

of

key-stone the beginning of the second

strengthening

form

which is

first

indispensable the

dialogues

series,

so

it

from those references indispensable as a key to

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

is

mentioned,

particularly

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 also,

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

preliminarily said.

which dialogue by a resemblance to

anything

like

the

relation

The same

is

true of the Phsedrus,

reference is made sufficiently decided in the diction, which, though without,

verbal

coincidence,

strikes

us almost as

214 an enlargement upon that dialogue, though without any deviation admitted from the very diffe abrupt being Here too, no one on rently pitched tone of this. comparison of two passages will find it to possible

entertain

any view except that the Menon the

to

spectively

Phfjedrus.

refers retro

we

Otherwise

shall

be

obliged to conclude that he

is resolved to recognise no whatever between the mythical and philosophical method of exposition, and intentionally to overlook what

relation

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

may this.

Of

been

even

by

no

it

stand

matter to judge how the case two other views very different from

difficult

with

these views one

but

published,

learned

attention.

men It

in

some

might

bility,

my

opinion,

only

to a certain time

circulated

respects

however be

form which should give in

had not up

in

entitled

private

to

produced

much

under a

a certain degree of proba that is a far better one than it

under which Ast lately produced it. This view undertakes to deny our dialogue to Plato,

that

conceiving

that

it

contains

but

little

philosophical

matter,

not

more

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 respect arrangement and treatment of the

subject

particularly

worthy of Plato.

And

certainly

from not having considered the dialogue connection, has convinced himself of the easily

find

many

in first

whoever,

the proper

point

may

particulars to corroborate the second,

215 which

will necessarily

strike

him the more

in proportion

For

as he has less understanding of the whole.

instance,

the abrupt commencement without any introduction is not very Platonic, and an introduction seemed here the

more necessary

as

we

the

for

learn

first

and

time,

of the dialogue, that quite unexpectedly in the middle a thing Anytus has been present from the beginning

which occurs no where

else

Plato.

in

Moreover,

it

is

the turn could be justified only by an introduction that the dialogue rests, that of upon which the last part

Menon

is

want of a teacher in

in

civil

are not prepared for this by anything several harsh transitions and

virtue in

;

for

we

the dialogue.

disproportionate the of strides in the progress dialogue seem only ca 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

Again,

representation

of

them

;

and

the

resemblance

to

the

Phsedrus and Protagoras might seem nothing but me can scarcely be conceived could have found himself

diocre imitation, the rather as

upon what compelled

principle to

it

Plato

do a second

time

what he had already

before discovered the fruitlessness of, I mean, enquiring after a quality of virtue, whether, that

nicable or not, before investigating all

these

estimation

objections no

of

one

part

who

has

will

its

is,

it

is

nature.

But of in

the

apprehended

the

remain good

rightly

commu

of the dialogue, except that, with philosophical bearing Menon as one of the more us, he will consider the

and not perfectly finished expositions of Plato. shrink and all this objections

careless

For,

granted,

particular

with agree almost universally subordinate views of the dialogue which

as they partially vanish,

the manifold

216

we have pointed

out, and

cution of details

is

the rather as

is

it

follow in connection with

before

floating

him

close

with them.

than

to

desire

some negligence

the exe

in

be looked upon with indulgence, probable that the larger works which to

in

And that

the

nothing

truly

works

the

all

Thesetetus were already

mind and he hastened

his

to

more strange

is

even

of

a great

master should be possessed of similar perfection, or to that he cannot have suppose produced those that are not

On

so.

the

other hand,

as to the objection that a kind of investigation which we vain elsewhere, this is not after all

this dialogue contains

look

shall

for in

For by the assumption that virtue can only be communicable when and in so far so

as

fatal

identical

is

it

the

to

cause.

with knowledge, the question becomes

of the original

part

And

itself.

as

to

what virtue

one,

or

is

what Ast otherwise

not in

is

calls

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

matter, and

words

to use

limited,

then that he will not allow Plato

in different dialogues

sometimes

some of them more

manner of common

in

a

scientifically, life.

Had

it

he could not have indulged

this,

sometimes

more extended in

him

from

that

it

virtue and started.

(ppovrjffis, is

and

it

more

others

in

in the

pleased him to allow in

such severe censures is

sepa

would not have escaped

precisely the distinction between political

virtue in a higher sense that

All

and

sense,

upon the point that the virtue here spoken of rated

a more

in

other

give

objections

what has been adduced, and

in

way

is

here to be

partly

part appear to

from

me

to

217

much

deserve no particular notice; where so

is

undeniably

and Platonic, and we may confidently affirm would be impossible ever to discover any other

excellent that

it

probable composer of

The to

a

in

it

which

it.

own and opposed well known one

other view different from our different

attributes

manner,

tinguished value, because exercise in

moreover

is

it

that

is

Menon

the

to

an important and dis supposed to be a noble

the doctrine of reason

the

as

Socratic

it

is

in

practised midwifery with particular adroitness, and supposing it to be

much

intelligently prepared,

demonstrated out of

it

that

to little

is

and

called,

is

it

first

beautiful might be school.

in

boys

Only

a pity that Plato was not in the habit of produc in logic at al! 5 such things being rather exercises ing it

to

is

be found in the later compilation of little dialogues were foisted upon him, and that if he does here

that

seem

to

done

himself

anything

represent

this is only

under

this

form,

in order to disguise to a certain degree

the introduction, subservient to quite different purposes,

Pity also that we find in the

of a foreign ingredient.

more

more

artificial dialogues far

artificial

and

fruitful

examples of his midwifery according to the ideas which he himself lays down in the Theaetetus and he declares ;

this

to

be

the

first

commencement of bringing

only moreover treat conceptions to consciousness, and does somewhat lightly the merits of mathematical elements

comparison with philosophical, upon generally accustomed to exercise this art. in

that

it

is

not

quite

demonstrate this tially

and

so easy

very

entirely,

fragments detached

as

of

it,

E K

he

the

but

which

is

Pity, lastly,

a matter to prepare

dialogue has been done

from

which

Menon with

and

essen

particular

then

are

not

understood

themselves

Hence in

again,

a learned

in

their

relation

to

the whole.

these panegyrists are themselves involved

dispute

as

what

to

may

really

be the

opinion of Plato upon the communicability of virtue, whether he is indeed in earnest with the whole question,

and whether

the decision come to, that it is only divine by inspiration, coincides with other ex

attainable

And among the pressed sentiments of the philosopher. are so that whatever they disputants many truly divine, are to understand

must come from divine

that because they have

inspiration,

and

taken upon themselves to con

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

three

to first

passages, question as to

whether virtue is knowledge or something quite distinct and separate from it, and then to the limitation that apGTrj^ right conception may supply the of place knowledge, and finally to the last sentiments about the true statesman.

in

political

As is

to

the persons,

not, as far as I

Xenophon with

Anytus the accuser of Socrates know, mentioned either by Plato or

his father s

name.

Diogenes and Athe-

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 consider

the

too clearly in favour of the supposition that Plato had

him

in

his

mind

other vouchers. to inquire

who

to

render

Hence, the

it

necessary

therefore,

it

is

to

look

for

not necessary

numerous authors can be

in

whose

219 was found stated

it

writings

that the accuser

Menon

was a son of Anthemion.

crates

ably the same with the campaign

him

scribe

as

is

So

of

unquestion

him whom Xenophon mentions

in

of Cyrus,

does not de

so

His country^

although Plato abandoned a profligate.

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 purpose to establish

the fact.

EUTHYDEMUS.

IV.

IN the Euthydemus, which

at

is

once the

conversation, that the same

is,

whom we

the reader regards the part

if

most striking and amusing, the in which Socrates and Ctesippus,

already

know from

the

Lysis, are

engaged with the two sophists, Dionysodorus and thydemus, and how far it is from being conducted lectically

their

but

in

Plato^s

with

sense,

mutual sentiments and is

most perfectly

view

a

to

Eu dia-

rectifying

to the extrication of truth,

worked up

in

the

style

of

a

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

attempt, in exhibiting the

but his

way

in

first

and

solitary

which the matter of

questions that may be started continu dwindles ally away, while at the same time the plea sure and the pride of the actors increase, until at last

the sophistical

the former merges into mere nonsense, and the two latter

pass into the most extravagantly vain self-conceit, which

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

and dramatic power of the whole, but

will

however

afterwards discover in the

one

garded

not

quite

subject thus exclusively re And worthy of the author.

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

occasional,

piece

and

which can only be conceived to be

will

be surprised to find

series of scientific productions.

But

it

given in the

it is

strange enough that attention has always been exclusively given to this sophistical

dramatizing when to every reader the dia

logue presents more important matter, a genuine phi losophical bearing and a visible reference to other Pla tonic writings, in that other conversation

but

;

which, though

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

former dialogues as their proper result, without finding verbally enunciated, is so verbally enunciated in this,

it

were already evident, assumed and the with which the problems subsequent dialogues are en gaged arc here discovered and pointed out. By and, as

if it

;

then, if

it is

we have

actually the ease, the place which

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

In

words.

as

beginning, is

pleasure

this

it

is

not identical

that happiness which

is

assumed almost

once

at

had been

proved with

in

the

at

the that

the

Gorgias, good, and therefore

sought as a

common

object,

is

for the

defined, only purpose of keeping to the ordi nary translation of the word eudaimonia, to be "right (or,

doing"

"well

doing").

At

the same time the con

versation connects itself with the

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

governed and managed by

it.

Ac

cordingly the proper object of desire is defined to be knowledge, to which Plato here deliberately gives the

more exalted name of wisdom, and without even men tioning that lower grade which

But

conception.

imply or

that

that

this

this is

is

there called

correct

by no means a sign which can had not yet been made,

distinction

Plato contradicts himself in

any way

consci

but the ground of it is as fol ously or unconsciously at the lows just beginning, where Socrates states the :

:

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.

He

intends therefore by

the most intimate this,

expressly to

man show

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

must be an

it

art

which

is

capable at

the same time both of producing and using its object, and thus several particular arts have been brought for

ward by way of example which

satisfy these conditions,

the conversation comes at last, less by the strictly scien tific method of and analysis investigation, than by the

unmethodical process of promiscuous adaptation, to the political or kingly art to which all others surren

real

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

a few

their

solution.

hints

duct of that art

is

able except that

quire after circle

;

started

create is

it

in

the

the this

in

is

reflection this

of

the

in

hearer

the good

we

is

discover

are always

to

end we must always come round sense

a passion for in

for

sense then that the pro

investigated, and nothing

if

question

precisely

the

to

It

Socrates quite

at

in

in a

the beginning

whether to teach wisdom and to it

this

belongs to the same art sense

that the

relation

;

and

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

not

to

content with the assumptions there made, as that virtue and wisdom are the useful, and rest

thus this conversation becomes a preparatory indication pointing to the subsequent dialogues, in particular the Statesman and Philebus and hence on their account, the Euthydemus appears to be a transitional member ;

by no means superfluous, and here its

certainly, quite in

proper place. After we have thus properly estimated the essential

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

mediately preceding the

found

Euthydemus we have in

engaged

occasionally

controversy

founders of contemporary Socratic schools say, likely

now

again

to

commence a

already with the

was he,

;

I

battle, for which

had quite gone by, against earlier sophists whose influence and exertions were suppressed without

the

it,

time

as

soon

ever

as

regularly formed

the

and

?

Socratic

schools

was he

had become

to

likely support this such an of demonstrative by expence and to be so well pleased with himself in the ex

superfluous contest art,

ecution

of

task

his

as

is

here

manifestly

the

case?

Who

then were these men, Dionysodorus and Euthy demus, to deserve such notice and meet with such treat

ment

them more than any mentioned sophists by Plato, so that we maintain that may certainly they never formed anywhere kind of it would even seem that they school, any nay, were not generally men in very great repute. Xeno?

History

is

silent respecting

other of the

phon mentions Dionysodorus and speaks of the time when he taught the art of war, whence we must con clude

that

it

is

a

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 Ionic philosophy, and from

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

mentions him, and that

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

Aristotle brings forward

formulae which

almost

here occur, several of them or

bally, without

all

the ver

even

his brother,

mentioning Euthydemus but ascribing them entirely to the Eristic philosophers. Moreover, there is an important passage in our dia

forward are logue in which the catch-questions brought referred

mostly

to

the

principle

of

that

Antisthenes,

Now no such thing as contradiction. this several particular allusions in the dia with compare of Aristotle, where he says logue, and another passage there

if

is

that Gorgias, the

how

first

instructor of Antisthenes, taught

to practise these matters,

ciples,

ticular

more

we

but not upon

first

prin

and consequently only communicated a few par maxims and not the whole art itself, more and falls upon the whole, and it becomes very

light

the name of those two sophists probable that under Plato intended rather to assail the Megarian schools and

for

He

might be inclined to spare the former old friendship s sake, which connected him with the

Antisthenes.

225 founder of them

much

as

;

and he might prefer not mentioning

by name in order to avoid personality as and to expose himself less to his

Antisthenes

possible

rough treatment And in considering we must remember, in order to come

raries,

indeed

much

was very intelligible to contempo and would spontaneously obtrude itself upon their which we can only discover by laborious means,

clusion,

notice,

this point

to the right con

that

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

upon the then prevailing degeneracy among those

who

even

Still

trate it

professed themselves disciples of Socrates. however there remains yet to illus

something

and explain.

For

if

we consider accurately what

in reality is that is here criticised,

only in a spirit of ridicule,

it

and controverted

must indeed be generally

allowed that the particular examples as they here occur deserve nothing else it is however not to be overlooked, ;

that the

whole tissue of these

lies

and cheats was in

nature nothing but that scepticism, which always ac the doctrine of flux and companies progressive incom plete existence, generally or partially taken up, in its its

particular application to

wished to treat this

language.

sophistical

art

If Plato therefore

independently and

was necessary for him either to show short how ly closely it was connected with the principles already refuted by him, or he was obliged to penetrate for itself,

it

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 appears rather

lie

work

to

to set

in

to point

earnest

preliminarily

than actually

the subject, which was

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 inference manifestly is, that examples there found referable to the treatment of the sub are not

merely

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

ject,

We

are at least not compelled to he applied to them ? hold to this, and to ascribe to Plato in this dialogue

a

of proceeding which is not generally peculiar to For if we consider the particular examples ac

mode

him.

them meaning, we shall find among allud of the much several which have very appearance to

cording

ing

their

attacks

to

directed

against

partly

the

thoughts,

in Plato s language and expression partly against earlier writings; inasmuch as his opponents might have

the

nonsense by just such

twisted this point or that into tricks.

sophistical

without

tainly

And

feeling

thus we again

much

surprise

and

find,

thereat,

in

cer this

of polemics and extorted dialogue also the same kind self-defence which we had already found, almost gradu the immediately preceding dialogues; moreover the character in which, in the in

in ally increasing

which

is

troduction to the Theaetetus, attention has been already

drawn

to the

And that

the

it

is

Euthydemus. only by

all

management of

this

the

collectively

considered

whole can justify

itself

before the judgment-seat of a higher criticism, or phi-

227

For otherwise it might seem a vicious and a proceeding, disproportion destructive of all more 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

only the disguise of polemics which

have relation

to science itself, and in which, by the method is and on very pursued personality avoided,

the other

than

moreover the

scientific

and only affords delivers any thing of its own. usual,

is

bearing

illustrations

itself less

rather

than

moreover perfectly dialogue upon which we come after the Theaetetus, repeated only as it is and not

clear

in

this

the

It

is

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.

Again, the construction

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

polemics of

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

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

immediately concerned.

it

here in

Hence the

practice

more thoroughly attacked, and

part

and the person more distinctly indicated of Isocrates was the most important of ;

in

is

part

as the school this

kind at

Athens, we can scarcely suppose otherwise than that the objections of this school were particularly meant.

CRATYLUS.

V.

THE to

the

seemed he

Cratylus has at

good

and

difficult

does in

times given much trouble For it friends of Plato.

all

sturdy

what opinion about language of profess; whether he is indeed

to decide

reality

that which places the origin of language in convention and consequently looks upon all the and

compact,

details

in

it

as

indifferent

and accidental

;

or of that

in the light of a natural

which considering production it inward truth and necessary correctnessj or whether he may not perhaps have secretly in reserve it

ascribes to

that other opinion concerning language which it

to

agency. tell

have

been

introduced

Just as in

whether

it

is

suspects

among men by

divine

the Menofl we can never quite

intended

to

be implied that

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

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. in man the to defend it was task more difficult great

to

229 the matter of the utterly false derivation

when

tion of the words,

alas

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 there

!

is

regret

philosopher,

from

producing so

was capable of instructive or sound upon so im

fault

little

of

the

times,

portant a subject, still this resource can never suffice, because in fact the ignorance is too great, and even

our

against

inclination

will

contempt that one who

always so

laid

like

something

enter into the

much

a

feeling

surprise

we

of

feel,

upon the obligation we are under to know the variety and extent of our ignorance, should have plunged into such trifling and stress

unmeaning play, upon a subject about which he mani

knew

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

look for no exalted wisdom. it

is

Only even upon

this

view

again difficult to justify the profound philosopher mass of ponderous and pointless jesting, and

for such a

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

this

cult investigation,

the

jest

from

discovery imposes upon

serious

air

in

a

diffi

with a view, I mean, to separating earnest unless Plato is to be

the

;

accused of the worst joke of a

us

all,

serious matters,

namely, of affecting

and

this

too only for

230

Whoever then has embraced

a joke.

a random

the

the

among

old

work

traces

for

taste

fruits

and

;

if

in

to

view in content

method

a

to

judging of or separating about with a new palate

we commend him

to

how we

to

necessary to out the

is

it

and rather

to follow

nothing had been said about

as also to ascertain ticular

by

cates,

will not betray

try if it

such

however

us

for

into another road, itself as

or

general,

so

employment

strike

to

and

details,

his

in

it

up further

open

and thinks either

kind of way,

himself with

this latter

us what

it,

and

really means,

it

are to estimate every par

it.

That we may then be able to consider more at our the more important matter, it may be advisable

ease

first to

look at

And

jest.

intended seriously,

is

the principle which

first

draw attention

the details, in order to

what

to

separately

all

and what

appears

to

is

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

too

bears

great

which

with

other

to

a

we

resemblance are

already investigations acquainted, and follows too closely the fundamental laws of all Platonic speculation, to allow of our rejecting lit

as

not

seriously

which follows

upon

laid

down.

this,

by

known proper names, which tion

and

this is

inasmuch

as

by

the

illustration

means of more or

are

less

referred to the condi

peculiarities of persons or to circumstances in

their life,

the

But

Socrates

remark,

individuals

are

not serious in a similar sense,

clearly

that

named

himself subsequently destroys the is

manner not

it

which particular the same with that in in

231 which material things acquired their appellations, but

we must look

that

of

the

Now

various

this is

as these

in the latter case to the appellations

of

species

the

again manifestly

names do

and

general

said in

eternal.

earnest, inasmuch

certainly form a moiety of the core

of language, as this core also, like the Greek, divided into nouns and verbs. But when again the dialogue this

pursues

further,

rectness of nouns,

first

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

are so treated that

and then

section,

their

of

the

relations,

other all

in

those of the heavenly bodies and elements, the virtues, the various

of the mind,

phenomena

and

thought

knowledge

thus taken in the gross,

is

and

the

finally all

itself,

manifestly

poles

when

this,

We

jest.

infer

from the violent method of dealing with the words, from the total neglect of the distinction between fundamental and inflected syllables, and the this not only

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

then

the

that, as Socrates allows,

the

very

first

order

in in

entire

consequently nature of language

;

construction

of words,

so

something was introduced from to

conceal

contradiction

the to

meaning, and the

supposed but we recognize the jesting spirit

even far more in

the expressions of Socrates himself,

when he

this

ration

ridicules

quite

foreign

to

species of

him,

wisdom

which

as

an inspi

he would

follow

to-day, but to-morrow would purify himself of; when by the same process he educes a similar sense out of

opposite words, and shows consequently that

it

destroys

232

when

itself;

or

origin

he

the

appeals

one

in

destructive

effects

place to barbarian of time, and subse

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

and derivative words,

to

mean, between fundamental

the

of what

investigation

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

with in

the

it

the letters.

makes

Plato

significancy

original

And

this

Socrates

is

how

certainly

sketch

a

in

conformity

must be looked serious,

theory

on

for

because purpose,

those dialectic ground-forms which he has already brought forward in the Phsedrus.

perfectly corresponding to

But

manner again

the

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 as

another,

passages

;

our annotations

will

do

in

the particular

nay, even to Socrates himself, as he assures

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 his

it

is

intended

of Heraclitus

language,

let

to lies

prove by violence that the doctrine at the bottom of the formation of

him not

disguise from himself the

that in the few examples in which an

fact,

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

any one

is

whom

to

the grounds

suggested for

forming a judgment do not otherwise appear

we would recommend him,

sufficient,

in order to decide accurately

between jest and earnest, simply and exclusively to

low Euthyphro, and when he the wisdom

is

sider that he is certainly in the province of jest.

over, from

this the serious parts also will

recognized, and

how

And

fol

a party to the sport, and referred to him, then let the reader con is

we

shall discover

More

admit of being

where they begin and

far, inaccessible to that pleasant spirit, they reach.

in

whatever light we regard the dialogue we must

inevitably

arrive

upon language comedy,

same conclusion,

the

at

only marked out the

that

Plato

particular details of that discussion

with

a

view

of

bringing

forward

a

whatever

or

that all that

is

may be the meaning of it, but general is to be taken quite as seriously

as the core of every Platonic dialogue.

And

this con

sideration must at once make every not unintelligent reader of Plato inclined to leave those details to rest at

present upon their

own

merits as collateral matter,

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

Cratylus a similar arrangement to the Euthydemus, where likewise an ironical

suspect

that

in

in

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

clearer light,

are

taken

the

into

up we

great

work.

But

thread,

of which certainly

here spun

had

fate

logue,

no

have

trace it

perfectly clear, they

and

all-comprehending whatever that this

cannot be said that

the end, was ever again continued

to

grudged

the

made

as being

until,

otherwise put into a

or

points,

us

subject

the

is

and

;

one dia

possession of this

would have been

it

omitted,

totally

and we should be obliged to say that Plato s position for relatively to language was that of a genuine artist ;

how

that he understood excellently well to construct

for himself after a

it

to use

method of

it,

his

and own,

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

of

is

far

the

manner

language as a thing which followed in its as and origin process of formation an inward necessity an instrument of art to be of an and as a type idea, considers

criticized

and improved by the

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

language, not so

ground of

much

all

that

is

significant

as imitation of the audible

235 but as expression of the nature of all this things; considered, we shall be obliged to confess that this is

some of the most profound and most important matter that has ever been delivered

upon the

subject

of lan

guage. It is indeed true that

what Socrates adduces

in

op

Cratylus, when he speaks of

to

position

of assuming the

in

presence

the necessity language of a capricious

the supposition of some

element, intelligible only upon kind of convention,

of a weaker character,

may appear

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

stand, and required continuation

ing

of

exists

and

appellatives, in

asmuch elements

but that

upon die prin

worse* enters this

not

under

complete what is when it is con

to

For only delivered in imperfect hints. sidered that this whole_proof proceeds ciple that a-better -and a

to

difficult

so

into the

that

the

affix-,

better

one and the worse in another language, in as every language, beginning with the first of

is

speech,

something essentially peculiar, the same from a comparison

-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.

TO

OuBe

de u^eivov

KP.

Ov

%rj

ovo/ia,

ore

fame, BoKe?

croi

xeicrQai

TO

/txeV

^e ipov,

;

SfJTa.

K.

T.

A.

Where

Socrates

prove the affirmative. P. 432. D. he says, ea KO.\ ovo/jia TO /mev ev KfTaOai, TO 8e /Jirj .

argument goes

Qappwv TO IVOV, J .

.

to

236 principles as to imperfect existence,

must vanish

as ex

appearance, provided only we proceed

isting merely in

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

says preliminarily only, with a view to leaving the reader to find out the further consequences himself, or

whether

he did in fact only see thus far and no farther upon these principles; as it must indeed be confessed that the origin of the positive element in that which

is

naturally in not the case of less so seen necessary quite easily known objects. And this may be the part in which, 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

him, thus

much

must

that

is

clear, as

in

any way unworthy

may be

the case

with

every unprejudiced person

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,

it

is

.

though- -the. manner and means of effecting that removal are only just pointed put; and Plato himself

out,

seems to have

considered

subject, according to

further

enlargement of the on the

these views, as something

one side as no longer possible, and on the other as not yet

so.

The more however

this subject appears

sketched, and the discussion of plete, the less claim

it

it

left

to be only

altogether incom

has, according to Plato

method, be considered the subject of an exclusive work. We should rather be led to believe that it is started only to

s

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

come out that may

And

the

seeks.

afford instruction

attentive reader

will

upon

this point.

soon discover

what he

.For although tJ^_specjixUtioji_-iiito_--the theory is not brought to a successful termination, ^

of language

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 ;

we

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

order

the Heraclitic doctrine,

Now

if

is

made

to

justify

we consider

at

-

of etymology in

from

so that Socrates even

language seriously

in lan tendency may be pointed out is whole and again the manner in which the

allows that this

guage,

pervaded throughout by a continuous polemical spirit in opposition to

that

doctrine,

which the dialogue concludes as

with the it

begun,

expression of. assuming the

existence of something constant and self-independent, discovered a point capable of we have

unquestionably

spreading

a

sufficient light

as ifr-4ays-- before

us such

over

the

whole, inasmuch

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

that

dialogues,

of 4he productions of Plato. -

.

For the caution which

is

intended to warn us, that

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,

process had been

a

these

polemics

efforts

eternity

to

be a very

this

disciples

philosophy,

mere

in

For

that

to

belong

series

of

and

its

of knowledge,

which we

second period.

see

Plato en it

seem

are to

look

Neither does

question where

difficult

of

and supposes that such occasions applied ; and

the reality

and impersonality,

for this process.

the

some

essentially

establish

gaged during to

on

we

as on the one hand, even

Socrates,

collaterally

empiricism,

the

with

offspring

among

the

of

true

lower

modes of thought, soon got the upper hand again, and in the Gorgias and Theaetetus Plato especially wages war against

this,

when he shows that the idea of the

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 side a system of

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

can attach

itself

This abuse can be imputed to one except language. of the two only opposite extremes which Plato always has in view, that, I mean, involved in the doctrines of it the Ionic Philosophy must however, when taken ;

in

connection with

this,

present

a

twofold appearance.

239 One, when viewed with the apprehension of the scepticism of these doctrines as to the essentiality of knowledge,

and that

it

abused the forms of language

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

be dogmatic, and hence ing

Another, when

remembered that these doctrines themselves could

is

when they

to prove, it

though objects,

may appear

does

felt

to

nevertheless,

no compunction in attempt could, that even language,

grasp and keep hold of in

this

process

method pursued, at this point we

the

itself

recognise, by the ceaseless flux of all things. appellations,

its

of affixing

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

with such an application in the exaggerated tical

tendency of the Stoic school

be thought necessary to pursue

;

and

it

will

we meet

gramma scarcely

this solitary trace.

But,

we may not lose ourselves deeper in details and obscure hints, when it is once remembered how largely

that in

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

natural

only

whom

that

these

latter

reverted

the former, seduced

by

more

to

Plato,

personal differences,

from

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

of

subject,

their subject

it

the

particular work

other

hand,

the

upon

works of

several

occur which

Heraclitus

is

on

while,

however

without

Heraclitus,

mentioning by name any

manifestly have language for we can scarcely feel a doubt as to who

;

the real object of these polemics. And hence also is very soon explained, why, notwithstanding that

the immediate object of the dialogue could only be so

imperfectly discussed, the Cratylus nevertheless became an exclusive whole, and took the precise form in

which we now to

find

For the

it.

knowledge, which constitutes rests

manifestly in the

entirely

upon

relation its

of language

principal

the

doctrine

subject,

adduced

Thesetetus, about the distinction between

ledge and right

for language,

conception.

as

know it

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

thus in both error has

possible

out by confusion even coincide in

drawn tion.

numbers

or this

exchange respect,

of

its

province traced

relation,

that

the

and

both

attention

is

a particular object of considera one however who remembers the position Every to

as

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.

order

And

so

much

the less because Plato, in

say what was of most importance, required the result of the Menon, which we find therefore here to

knowledge does not, properly speaking, transference from one to another, but that

supposed, that pass

by

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 ;

polemics

which we find begun in the Theaetetus, and continued in the

Euthydemus.

If,

then,

we remember moreover

the

temptation which presented itself to overwhelm the hostile Antisthenes with a whole bodv of ridicule, we see the Cratylus

form

itself as it

were into an exclusive

whole, out of the Theaetetus and Euthydemus, and by means of its character, as well as what is connected

with

immediate

the

series of the

subject,

secure

Platonic works; for

to personal polemics as the

it

its is

place

in

this

as little devoted

Euthydemus.

Moreover

it

contains not only supplementary matter and illustrations

of this dialogue and the Theaetetus as, for example, the at the just beginning decisively repeated declaration in opposition to Protagoras, from a point at which, in order to continue the dialogue, Plato had himself opened

the philosopher to escape through ; and thereupon the manner in which he de

a loophole for

immediately

scribes the peculiar nature of the sophistical philosophy

the

and further on the

exposed

in

tinction,

which also in the Theaetetus

between

a

Euthydemus

whole

and a

;

collective

is

dis

allowed to drop,

mass,

is

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

already found

Gorgias,

and

it

stated in the Theaetetus and

their relation to one another it

H

although this too

is

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

But

of knowledge.

advances the

here also at last connected with that besides

all

scientific object of

as the character

Plato in the same

series carries

of this

Cratylus also

this, the

way

along with

it

it.

are here to be taken into account, things especially of Types to First of all, the doctrine of the relation

Two

the Archetypes;

where

fact

in

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 is

tion to things

to the material world, which is immediately preparatory

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

to

good,

all other arts, the identity of use and production, while or using, the object of which, whether as producing

are merely its instruments and subor only partial, dialectics are here dinate agents so, on the other hand,

is

;

represented true in the

as

the

art

identity

whose object

of

is

absolutely

the

ex knowledge and external else connected with it, and

while every thing pression,

is

conception and language especially,

ment.

Now

this parallel

step higher

its

instru

draws the connection closer together; and

visibly

between those apparent opposites a by being placed

only

we

at

once more clearly

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 of the strange means in connection with the Gorgias by

and obscure analogy, and which

is

certain only

intelli-

243 upon the view we have taken of the whole analogy which is here set up between law and

that

gible

guage, inasmuch as exists

in

virtue

is

it

repeatedly said that

of a law,

so

word-maker are viewed almost

language

the law-giver and

that as

lan

This

identical.

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,

into

merged

Hellenes than

one

another

though more among the

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

Plato, on

itself.

discovers in the moral

judgment the

the contrary,

same inward ne

that he does in language, though this necessity cannot be outwardly expressed in either, purely and one perfectly, except by profoundly acquainted with cessity

And

the nature of each.

if

we pursue

this indication,

a further application will reveal itself for what is said upon the subject of the capricious element which enters

works of the

into the

Now

as to

most part is

the

meant may be found dispersed,

etymologies,

them, ful

and

satirical

although in this likewise

ironical,

seriously

legislator.

the etymological part, which

at

we should just,

or

imitation

still

how is,

events

all

in

the

for

the

much

that

is

if

not in

explanations

of

be best able to judge how merci unmerciful and exaggerated, the

if

the

works of Antisthenes that

are mentioned, especially those about the use of words,

had been preserved

to us,

where we should also pro-

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

we should then be

And, what

here.

is

better able to see

For

be here further concealed.

sions

may

that

what we

find in

one person who

the dialogue

most important, what other allu

not

is

it

is

certain

directed

all

the object of the satire, but, at the as we have seen also in the Euthydemus, a large share is

is

This

intended to be devoted to self-defence.

the more evident, as the playful manner

in

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. used

sometimes

language

those

of view too

we should naturally expect

here pushed

to

extremities,

the

in

indulging were in this kind;

from its

and

very as

to

degree of

last

to see this play

find our

dialogue

epideixis

as

it

in strange explanations brought in it by still stranger of

elsewhere are outdone

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

German from German.

was not possible to

do

this

On

the other

with the

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

hand,

names

it

in these

it

245 have occasion to congratulate himself that no one ex But as that which else clusively pervades the whole.

where occurs only in detached particulars comes out a mass, so on the other hand it cannot be

here in

denied that the art of dialogic composition goes some

what back

;

and when we compare the Cratylus with it stands most nearly con

the Euthydemus, with which nected in so many respects, latter

we

shall

find

that

in

the

the ironical and the serious parts are interwoven

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

far

the transitions in the latter part of the dialogue

;

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 after

forward matter actually new, but for which no preparation whatever has been made and which is harshly subjoined to what immediately precedes, in a

bring

manner to it

that

point from plained.

of

might almost lead us

to doubt, if

we were

consider such passages as these exclusively, whether is Platonic. This is particularly noticeable at the

its

which the

But

signification of the letters

the whole will admit no

is

ex

manner of doubt

genuineness, and the most that can be said

is,

that Plato after that point returned to his subject with

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

known from Xenophon

rich brother of the rich Callias

;

Cratylus

is

as

a not

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

our dialogue to render

it

more accurately

place.

in

VI.

this

THE

necessary

for

us

to

test

it

SOPHIST.

IN the Sophist we distinguish

at once and at the two glance perfectly separate masses, one of which, distributed into the two extremities, starts with the idea

first

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

this,

after the introduction of the

problem of

the

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

a

well-chosen or indispensable

For

that object.

it

is

mean

for

attaining

entirely in the natural course of

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

comes

in,

can

and

be so

continued,

this

fills

investigation

again the dialogue that

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

247 ground

as

something in comparison with

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

Sophist, the novelty consisting solely

method and combination.

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 is

far

less

to

entitled

this part not only is the nature of the -which was at that time the subject of such non-existent,

For

cal.

in

various dispute, discussed

where, and, as we

may

more thoroughly than

else

the question solved

clearly see,

that of positive perfect satisfaction, but also existence itself profoundly entered into, and the methods

to

Plato

s

hitherto pursued in the philosophical consideration of criticised in

some important

to this circumstance,

So

features.

it,

that, looking

we might be disposed

to look for

the real subject-matter of the dialogue solely and im in the middle part of it, and to believe that

mediately the nearer the extremities any thing

such this

matter

may be

passes

added,

into

that

mere in

shell

the

is

found the more

and

method

setting.

pursued

To in

the enquiry after the nature of the Sophist, it is impos sible to overlook the spirit of ridicule which indulges

out the close connection be partly in pointing tween the business of the Sophist and all manner of

itself

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

mean

And even the method applied very difficult to catch. of finding the object sought, merely by continuous sub division, is here

almost spoken of with contempt.

For

248 it

although lectic

constitutes

and

art,

recommended by the subject as

led,

for

appears

when

here,

first

example,

of

all,

hand

exchange

is

of fighting, and then again fight and these two were originally placed

subdivision

ing of exchange; as

still

it

Plato,

jocular, to be not only negligently

is

when,

made a

an important part of the dia very seriously pursued and

elsewhere

is

and similar

parallel

one another, and generally but this process

to

a sort of caprice pervades the whole; is

actually ridiculed

shows, from

by Plato

himself, inasmuch as he

the very multitude of the

the nature of the subject

is

attempts, that

never discovered by these

means, but only particular marks collected by which it may be known, as indeed at last, when the subject is

and exhaustively exhibited, he no longer thus from a general position, but from a deter

correctly

starts

minate notion.

But on the other hand,

this external

part

is

most closely connected with the internal, and the

would not appear

itself

in

its

,

full

light

still

latter

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 former.

statesman

manner of

and

philosopher

are

required

in

the

same

Sophist, and thus the foundation is laid This trilogy, indeed, it would trilogy.

as the

a great seem, Plato did not perfectly execute, but the purpose of it must clearly have been to complete the expo sition

of the nature of these arts, and

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

even in our present dialogue,

the circumstance cannot escape the attentive reader, that

249 together with tion for

it

the possibility of falsehood,

and the

in

life

it

the

inclina

are to be represented as

removed from true knowledge and real Nay, as the Sophist only appears fully by being definitely discovered, and not before it far

existence. his

place

so dis

is

on the other hand, the discovery of his and the dimness and facilitated, obscurity of

covered, so, is

place

mere semblance and

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

at

the beginning of that part

of the works belonging to it. we consider this circumstance,

aware that there

of the

we

said

upon the peculiar form

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

outward peel

is

the

at

same time with the

fruit

itself,

because grown as the former is into the whole, it could not be separated without hurting the pure and proper of the latter.

relish

This being supposed, we cannot now overlook the remaining characteristics in which this external part of the dialogue from whom too

For the reader, pre-eminently rich. much does not lie concealed under the

is

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

smallest thing

may be

almost

related to the largest in a

and then again constructing extravagantly, in order to show how

particular point of view

words,

and showing how nearly

assailed,

;

i

i

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

brought the true philosopher Which the same appellation. Plato introduces of the sophist

sophist

under

reason why just the characteristic

is

the explanations

among

that

and the

most distinct one which

describes

which the stranger the process of the philosopher, left in doubt, whether he is to allow is in

continually

it

to

obtain

an

as

explanation

of what

and on the other hand repeatedly

sets

a sophist

up

the

is,

close

connection of the sophist with the demagogue. more If we look only to the inward, and in itself philosophical, part will

appear

dialogue, its characteristics similar to those of the whole.

of the

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

it

possibility

or whether non-existence possessing any attributes, The arguments cannot be predicated of anything. on the positive forward time brought usually at that and with which we are already side of the

its

acquainted

question, notices

from

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

seem

with

that

Sophist.

reference

also

this

would

it

Accordingly to

what

part,

it

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 in

let

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 to

compelled

apprehend

in

it

the

immediately

most

valuable and precious core of the dialogue, and that the more as here for the first time almost certainly, the writings of Plato, the most inward sanctuary of philosophy is opened in a purely philosophical man

in

and

ner,

noble

as,

than

generally,

existence

non-existence.

For

in

is

better

the

and more

course

of the

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

And

not anything within the sphere of philosophy

P. 251. B. Crj

a\\a TO Koi

exist

TTOV

-^aipova-iv OVK ewi/re*? ciyaOov Xeyeiv

ayadov dyadov, TOV Se avdpunrov avdptoirov Ti6ia^ev je avTovs Xeyeiv, el fiouXet, Trpwrov p.ev

iav Bu i/rt/xji/ e l^eti/

Kotvtovia<;

els

-

E.

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

the

this

most

first

how

extent,

far

Let the reader but notice

here pursued.

inward,

in

and,

point

of

from important kernel of the whole, exactly according to nature s method, forms itself into two halves exter nally, quite separate

from one another, but quite grown

together, and organically connected in the closest

For

ner.

first,

starting

with

these

persons

that

impossibility,

the

the sphere of abstract existence unity, or they

who continue

of opposites

the

all

;

subsist

neither

neither without

the

should have reached

remain within the sphere of the existent, in which

it

without

station

man

to

life

same time

of

who begin with mere

opposites reciprocally penetrate and unite,

out, and at the

can

real

statement

is

rest

is

pointed

shown that knowledge nor without motion,

nor without flux, neither with

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 amalgamation opposites, inasmuch as this is the last point at which the indirect method of demonstration, at the highest

summit of which we here

must terminate. matter

And

find ourselves,

thus again, as if some quite new without even the connection

was arising, 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 so that there can never be any opposite of that highest existence itself considered as respect

non-existent, in

such,

but he who has not penetrated to the light of in general, advance further than

true existence cannot, to

this non-existence of true

knowledge, and the igno That, therefore, the nature of

rance of true existence. all

true

philosophy

in

is

fact

here

enunciated

position requiring no further elucidation

for

a

is

him who

generally capable of apprehending it. Only let every reader notice the manner in which these conclusions

is

are

drawn,

I

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

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

defence

that all

higher

who can

against

the

sphere penetrate

pretensions,

of speculation into

not

it,

to

as

is

dis

the

only be otherwise

of sophistical contentiousness. And because our present the advance commences dialogue from this point, and presses forward up to that, the

repulsed, in

highest,

immediately and

without

calling

in

the

assistance

of

any

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-

254 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

tions of Plato, in its

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 as

himself grew

ing of the

it

principles

which we would here reader as possible:

much

of

earlier

all

recall

as is necessary,

I regret that as

for

philosophizing, of

the recollection of the

to

and

at the

same time

to every point

which

it

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

the

is

it

utter

especially an object to refute,

impossibility

of

the

which

non-existent,

is

its most especial and preg and source, supported out of his own peculiar works, and it is accordingly demonstrated to him, with reference to existence, that it is not attainable under

referred to

Parmenides as

nant

that higher potentiality of the unity of being

ledge,

by him who

starts

from

simple

and know

unity without

existent multiplicity, under the conditions of which the could not be under every form, not, consequently, both as a whole,

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,

in

Plato only had in view a more correct explanation of the much misunderstood Parmenides ; did not the ex pressions of the

Stranger himself seem to oppose this is not set up as a strict disci

view, and moreover he

as a dialogic personage, ple of the Eleatic wisdom, but, in an extremely remarkable manner the trans-

he forms

255 as

ition

were, from Parmenides himself to

it

thagorean

We

Timaeus.

have,

therefore,

the

Py in

certainly

dialogue the chief locus of the difference between

this

we could

the Platonic and Eleatic philosophers, though

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

adopted the the

in

Sophist,

from

the philosopher

him throughout.

contradicted

we have

a pity that

is

unit

existent

I

not,

of Parmenides to enable us to

Plato

and

;

Only

it

enough remaining

fear,

conceive Plato

1

s

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

though we might really

much upon

fer

this

feel ourselves

authorized to re

subject to the Eleatic philosopher, is not named as the author of

notwithstanding that he

for instance, are

What,

it.

who

of the ideal

we

to

say of those friends

are mentioned at the last,

ceive the possibility of an imperfect

existence

that perfect

man

sider

as

who con

existence

without

and separate from it, and con in both * ? It would not

participating

be surprising if many readers were to hit upon the idea that Plato here meant himself and his own doc trine

;

and when again, he involves

this

doctrine also

which the existent

in the perplexing contradiction cannot be discovered, that this, on the other hand,

in

only pushing *

his

indirect

method

is

But

extremity.

P. 248. B.

Tevecriv, Ttjv Be ovtriav y^wpis TTOV

Kcu ce

to

^v^rj

0are,

(rta/jLCiTi

7T|Oo
rtjv OI/TCO? ovtriav,

yevetrtv Be

6ie\o/Jii>ot

\ejTe, rjyap

/jLv tj/j.as yevetrfi Bt ctlaBija-ews KottxaveTv, Bict

a\\ore a

f}v

de\

Kara

;

\o
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

have started from a manifestly

own

And

doctrine.

statement of his

false

moreover, that

meant which he actually intends

here

is

something to

refute,

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

moreover

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

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

Parmenidean enough. If then we are to risk a guess to why Parmenides is nevertheless not mentioned

as at

all

ticism

here,

and

upon

his

it

is

separated from the cri

entirely

doctrines,

we might say

that in

this

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

first

Megarians.

For these men

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

lars,

liberty to critical combination as in this province

is

it

* P. 246.

KctJ

O! K.T.A.

p.r]i>

pel*

eo/Kg

i

v



e

ev ai/ro?? olov

ovpavov

KO.\

yavTO/jia via Tt? elvai

r
TOV

ddpaTov

-KO.VTO.

Bice

\KOV
Ttjv

.

.

.

257 certainly necessary to

even

without

do,

traces are not wanting,

that

province of regular dialectics, they out of the Eleatic system, and of this

the

adopted much I should be inclined

to account this passage also as an instance, unless some one can give a better founded

As opponents of the

explanation.

of Democritus and in his

mind the

Aristippus, also of

latter

materialistic empirics,

for

Plato has certainly

the two,

phers might be most especially noticed. difficulty

may seem

precedes,

who

look upon

to

for

whom,

the

these philoso

Again, no less

attend the explanation of what Plato means by those

instance,

existent

as involving

multiplicity,

and in particular as double or triple, since so many have equal pretensions to be considered, and then again

when we come fectly

to

satisfactory.

be quite at a to be referred

loss ;

examine accurately, nothing

At

first

know

to

the reader to

what the argument

the

is

but as soon as he remembers that in

language of our dialogue Plato could wise denote what Aristotle calls the setting Least of

per

may probably

the

references

principles,

is

and allusions pour

not other

in

up of in

these

clouds.

however, will the appearance and tone of passage allow us to surmise the existence

all,

whole

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

not probable that

it

was intended to be alluded to

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 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.

functions,

circumstance of his

the a

from

threefold

For

superficially.

is

it

who assume

who assume only

those

this

may be supposed

that so vague a description

have

and independent of the functions, or conceived

simple

to

to

was given,

existed, according as the fundamental matter

to

twofold

a

but very slightly and precisely among the lonians

though he does

existence,

those

separating

comprehended under the functions, as seems It is only have been the notion of Anaximander.

be

itself

the idea of the combat of the

one

with

existence

another

however, this view appear as

suspicion,

may

far as

we know

parts of the

threefold

named, that as

to the philosopher just

would

still

to

perhaps be the

apply.

Should,

be liable to case,

we

much

are on the

other hand the more certain as to the later Ionic and Sicilian

docles

Muses*,

that

intended.

are

by them, Heraclitus and EmpeUpon this point we have not

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

which Plato expresses himself about them

in

elsewhere

is

undeniable,

sufficient

as

to

establish

Tennemann

also

the fact.

has already

Quite

as-

observed,

are the allusions to Antisthenes, where those philosophers are spoken of

community

who do

not admit the possibility of any would take

or connexion between ideas, but

every thing independently and for itself, or tain the proposition that a false assertion *

P. 242. C.

who main enunciates

259 These polemics cannot

nothing. the

upon

us

accompanied several

of

notice

in

those the

fail to

force themselves

who have already

readers

prosecution

of them

through

dialogues.

A more

intimate relation between the

the Parmenides on the the other,

one side,

Sophist and

and the Timseus on

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 is

every even though it should be considered in a preliminarily, negative point of view alone. Hence it is natural to start the ques close

connection in

the

subject-matter,

whether by a comparison of the three it may not be discovered from the dialogues themselves which tion,

of them was the latest and which

With

the earliest.

respect then to the Timaeus no doubt

can arise as to

being the latest of these three works; but between

its

the

and

Sophist

hesitated,

as

and,

Parmenides

critics

have

certainly

we have already remarked

in

the

Introduction to that dialogue, have considered the last named as the later of the two. Now, disinclined as I

am

to

refer

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

by the way

the existent

is

posites,

as

in

which here,

brought down

well

as

by

the

in the Sophist,

within the sphere of opdiscussion which occurs

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,

preliminarily only, in order

to

from which the question

to

is

is

intended

to

be

said

show generally the point be viewed. But let the

260 compare the Sophist and Parmenides with another, and observe whether anything whatever

reader only

one

resembling an announcement of the dialogue named after the latter philosopher is to be found in the manner the former Socrates appeals to his conver sation with him; or whether, on the contrary, it is not

in

which

in

manifest that the notice marking the age of the inter locutors* is there introduced with reference to and in so that the whole passage

justification of this dialogue,

being intended to bring the appearance Parmenides to the recollection of the reader. If we

has

of

the

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

have

that

in

double sense,

in

to

key a

existence,

all

and existence

and

the

Parmenides

the

way

another

in

appears

to

which essential

in

sense,

by

partici

the originally existent and existence in the sphere of contradictions are here kept

pation that

separate

:

so

is,

that

it

so also

would be strange

have already

to

given the solution here, and then to have set the riddle afterwards in the Parmenides. the reader but look to the

first

Above

all,

however,

let

part of the Parmenides,

and the problematical character of the expressions there as to the existence of ideas, and then consider whether this

character

tinction

could have

had been

found place,

after

the

dis

so clearly referred to in the Theaetetus,

between knowledge and conception, and that between mere conception and appearance had been further subjoined here in the Sophist. *

P. 237.

nT(i/

tjiT

But

may be

useful

throw a glance of comparison, not upon the Parmenides alone, but upon the

it

remaining

ourselves

dialogues,

here to

with

the

view

of

availing

of the

opportunity of testing from this im portant point the arrangement we have hitherto pursued.

First, then, the Sophist

that

is

antisophistic

in

manifestly the crown of all the Platonic dialogues, and no is

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

nature be the last

and conclude the whole. dramatic

character

is

so

member

in the investigation,

For

work

a

predominant

Protagoras, must precede a dialogue as

far

as

as

in it

which

the

in

the

is

like the present,

mythical expositions elsewhere productions of purely dialectic

precede

the

speculation. Moreover, the Protagoras supplies us with yet another, although subordinate point, of comparison. For what was said

in

that dialogue about baseness

and

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

the

to

be illustrated,

one hand, the

Sophist brings the Protagoras into agreement with the Gorgias, and on the other, that it forms the transition to that ethical character which

predominates in the books upon the Republic. In the which is indeed more anti-rhetorical than antiGorgias, sophistical,

we

find

the application

of the terms idea,

and imitation, in order to explain from them the nature of what is false and bad, manifestl with thr

type,

262 appearance of being earlier than

is

it

because

here,

there put only hypothetically, while here it Moreover, the larly deduced and established.

is

is

it

regu

Sophist

appeals to the notion of the semblance of the just as

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

a

thing

rhetoric

is presupposed in the Sophist, and every thing which Plato could appeal to that dialogue is briefly

generally in

non-existence cannot

that

dispatched, as, for example,

be ever made the predicate of a proposition, and that it

is

when

that

self-evident,

man

a

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 If we compare further at length. what the Cratylus and Sophist have in common, we can scarcely doubt that the illustrations about types

demonstrated more

and imitations preceded the application here made of the same thought especially if we notice the easy ;

way

in

nation,

which the stranger that

semble a

a

type

is

a

is

satisfied

with the expla

second reality made

to

re

while in the Cratylus we find extensive how the type can only be externally the same with the archetype ; and even

first,

explanations as to

and in

in

the

type

part

manner

is

first

in

which

introduced,

reference to the Cratylus. scarcely

have

expressed

the

in

we may himself so

certainly,

every

From

actions.

appearance

of

an

as

briefly

between thought and language, himself already represented words to of things and

observe

easily

the

In like manner, Plato could

relation

imitations

the idea of a

Sophist

if

to

the

he had not

be

immediate

these

inverted

points,

order

in

263 admit of

the arrangement of the dialogues will easily

And how

being destroyed.

should Plato, just at the have come to consider all

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

he could not reckon

upon what the Menon was supposed to his

readers

This short analysis to

much

occasions,

fully

reference

former

now

to

have made clear

?

hoped, suffice with that has been already said on will,

it

also

to

is

the

separation of the Sophist from the Theaetetus, notwithstanding the two are placed so closely in connection with one another.

For

while,

introduced

connexion clear,

with

regard

between with

the

to

justify

some

two,

the

Theaetetus

has

these

of

the

dialogues

manner of been

their

made more

and how they develope themselves from

it,

and

again with regard to others, how they are presupposed by the Sophist ; these two circumstances taken in con junction, become

too

evident in the case of every one

of these dialogues to allow a doubt to arise as to their But it is also imme place with reference to these.

upon the Theae be would and tetus, perfectly unintelligible without the distinction previously established between knowledge and

rests diately certain, that the Sophist

conception, and the suggestions in the Theaetetus respect ing the first, which constitute in fact a sufficient foun

dation for what

is

here said, and no other

is

essentially

Let any one, however, conceive the Sophist to have followed immediately upon the Thesetetus, and necessary.

consequently to have contained in can now take for granted out of

itself

the

all

that

Menon,

he

and

264

Euthydemus

especially,

to

and then say whether

and

have composed,

to

if

its

been

further added,

would

difficulties

present

superabundance and

such

it

been a shapeless work for Plato

not necessarily have

of

complexity whether it would not

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

only to be

understood

the

in

sense

but this

which one

in

may reasonably speak of the natural course of the de velopment of inward conceptions from one another. Hence,

as

TheaBtetus

to

made

the assignation

the

at

and the continuous connection

ginning of the Sophist, it ing into a more accurate

is

end of the at

the

be

scarcely worth while enter

explanation,

as

any reader,

not satisfied with that given in the Introduction to the Meno, can do this for himself.

VII.

IT

must be

THE STATESMAN. at

once self-evident to

every reader Statesman, as the second part of the trilogy announced in the Sophist, is connected with that dia

how

the

logue.

But although

persons, and as it

in

annexes

it

takes

itself in

place

among

the

same

a continued conversation

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. it

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

with the greater con

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

counterparts, than to admit of our conjoining them

For they do

as parts of a whole. to

one another in their whole

in fact,

construction

correspond

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 than

rately

Sophist the immediate object of aversion

;

object of the speculation is an the Statesman, on the contrary,

in

something genuine and excellent. Although even in this our respect dialogue approximates again to the it

is

Sophist, for at

the

with the meritorious object, it time, and with great pains, deduces and

collaterally

same

describes the reverse;

meritorious

just

as in

the Sophist also

the

the

at

all philosopher, sketched out collaterally with the elaborate de Thus then our dialogue justly scription of its opposite. the middle occupies place in the designed trilogy, as

object,

namely,

is

events

does in fact form a middle term between the Sophist and the promised description of the Philosopher, as

it

near latter

as is

we can conceive what to be. I,

L

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

problem

in the

is

very

outlines

first

and

a delineation,

it

it

is

is

be discovered

to

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

the merely serving arts. Again, at the end of the whole subdividing process, swine are made to stand

among in

closer

and

more

to

relation

direct

man

than

to

horned cattle, whereupon Plato himself exhibits a little that pleasantry, and afterwards tells us more seriously

man to

is

related to other beasts as the nature of daemons

that of man.

Similarly

the panegyric upon is

said

that

this

the

also

the

in

subdividing method, where

method does not concern

great and small, there

of

repetition

is

in

what

is

said

it

with

itself

seriously

a

Plato

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.

And

after the

delineation

has

267 been discovered,

more adapted in

turns

it

to

out

not

to

be suitable, but

the

daemonic protectors of mankind an earlier period, than to the real statesman of an

For as regards the latter, much that the belongs province of other arts must be sepa rated from the character under that ex historical

time.

to

comprehended

in

planation,

order thus

to

obtain that of the art of

the statesman

properly so called.

because, as

clear

This separation now, from a enough digression upon the nature and the use of examples, and which can only be introduced in this place to defend the method em is

ployed in the Statesman and Sophist, because, it

in

is

a

the

new

as

process,

that

tried,

as

preceding dialogue; first, namely, that of the art

in

Sophist,

is

last the

statesman

relation

as

that

method was

in

the

an insignificant instance, of weaving, with which at

art turns out to

s

I say,

of subdivision itself was

the practice of the

of the angler and several others.

stand in the same

does

sophist

The

with that

art of

weaving, explained by the former method of subdivision, and as the explanation discovers itself to be one that might have been far more found

however,

itself

is

by

easily

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

operating this, the

point, true,

is

connected with

to

the

its

province, as remotely co

end and object of the

argument

is

art.

to the separation of the false statesman

though there

And

in

visibly progressing as to its proper

is

from the

nothing analogous to the former

268 in

the

of weaving, and he

art

standing

notwith

therefore,

is,

preparation, by means of a

artificial

all

dis

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. cussion

the connection, which does not appear very clearly, this

of

that

such

as

states

is

are

governors governed according to existing laws, if they remain true to the supposition, that such laws are the work of

properly

;

a really skilful statesman, are only servants and in struments of such a master but, as soon as they ;

throw

to

presume

off

character

this

become

imitate the freedom of the legislator, they then that great

and

of servants,

and fundamentally corrupting

evil, the false

and counterfeit statesman, who again, as an imitator, and a bad imitator, corresponds accurately to the sophist, and

is,

described also as the greatest sophist how the whole of that

therefore,

and quack.

We

description

of the

see manifestly,

different

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

soon as that character has

exhibited himself with sufficient clearness, the work of

continued, in order to separate from the

separation

is

statesman

those

according to the exer cise of their respective duties come next in the general description, so that at last, the statesman s art remains as that

to

men

which all

transition,

is

their

officers

who,

supreme over all others, and assigns duties, and then again by a harsh

and without any

apparent, returning to the as

in

the

Sophist,

the

natural

connection

being

example of the weaving art, philosopher

was

described as a separating and analysing

incidentally

artist,

so

here

269 described as a combining one, upon incumbent as his chiefest and almost only

statesman

the

whom

it

is

connect

to

duty

is

and therefore

together different,

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 how

for

;

at once be clear

ning of that

little

reference

treated

is

the

they

moral

exalted

might look upon

men from when

must

this,

the begin agriculture,

very contemptuously with

But

state.

them more

with

to these

of separation,

process

to

increase the public

Plato has to do with

enough

well as trade,

as

how they may

ever only

is

problem wealth

and

the result arrived at

also

who bring

scientific

as

views

barren,

and

last, and only object of the statesman, although to a certain degree an important one, might still not their and the less, as it does not satisfy expectations,

this

appear

what

even

once

particular

to

end

be this

immediately mentioned to combination of nature and

that dominion over the business and affairs of the state is

or under what form, whether always

to refer;

same, or

varying according to circumstances, the two

And

are to be exercised.

next

the

suspect,

that

as

in

the persons in question might the former dialogue the de

scription of the sophist is manifestly drawn up with an eye to the then state of science, so also here, that of

statesman

the

nes as

;

be given with reference to the po among the Helle

may

relations at that time existing

litical

inasmuch

the

noblest

madness of

as

in

views

parties,

this,

are

the

taken

most profound as well of the confusion and

and certainly

to

relieve

the

state

270 from

these,

represented art.

or

preserve the

as

from them, must be

free

it

of

highest exercise

statesman

the

s

might observe that in the same complication and

Chiefly however, they

the

present dialogue, exactly composition obtain as in the one preceding, and that therefore it may not be in vain to look for the most

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,

Plato

all,

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,

obtain

of

as

Plato then allows

such

;

but

named

three forms

all

from

the

statesman

to

business

s

natures

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

combining

would prefer the

to

charge one individual, or the few, or

many, with the imitation of

fore

that

that in

bined trated

upon

digression

which clearly enough

forms,

in

proportion one, or in

in

And we have

it.

the

merits of the gives

us

to

there

different

understand

courage and discretion are com a few, power also must be concen

as

him or them

;

in

while,

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

Again, the whole view

greatly

illustrated

by

that

271 other

introduced not to

defend

the

out reference

of

idea

reference

in

his

to

though but only

subject,

For

statesman

Plato

that

s

art,

with

not

is

it

subject

principal

that the

measure,

the

to

method pursued.

explains

definitely

the

upon

digression

like

so

every

other, aims in its operations at this natural proportion,

founded upon, and contained

in

its

nature, and which

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

and

this,

in

common

with them, to mark

outward and limiting circumference of the

and also to assign regard,

lastly,

that great

myth

its

the

to

own

to every part of

highest

object

of

With

it.

the

state,

state

in

already mentioned, the character of the

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 ;

either in themselves or in nature can

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

correspond to those exertions of

the gods, and of the daemonic protector.

Meanwhile,

part

of

present dialogue and the that

the

the

similarity

Sophist

consists in

the

the fact,

bearing upon the im of the dialogue, do yet not exhaust

references

mediate

adduced

as

subject the purport of these interwoven therefore,

between

follow

up

that

purport

pieces, still

and we must, further, as

well

272 the traces admit of being indicated in

as

a few steps.

For instance the myth,

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 this

tor,

myth has manifestly a

To

far

more comprehensive

explain the description there given of the

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,

would not be appropriate

to

this

without the limits place, because the subject lies quite of the present

It

dialogue.

may, however, be indeed

remarked, that Plato here intended to lay

down

a

com

prehensive view of the historical periods of the world,

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

harmony of the whole,

that

this degeneracy also explained from the absence of from the presence in the state living knowledge, and is

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

a

in

out more according to our method, would not erroneously, the first finished ex it,

it

of these

much

earlier

which have already appeared period, and which contemplate the

views,

of the world as alternating in opposite motions, and

again

reproducing

itself.

It

is

moreover remarkable,

273 and a task very much this

with

myth

that

to the

purpose here, to compare

the

in

For

Protagoras.

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

latter to receive additional corroboration.

In like manner the idea of measure here, has a par ticular, though but slightly indicated reference to the

two parts or forms of virtue as they are

called, in order

to prevent every possible misunderstanding,

by which it might be conceived that they are only great or small in comparison with one another, so that the same action

when considered with be

considered

reference to one of two others

courageous,

and

with

reference

would to

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

be established that they they have

are only virtuous, for the very reason that their

measure

in

And

themselves.

hence the view of

virtue here started connects itself immediately with that

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,

because the statesman

now becomes

for the disease of the soul in general,

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

view returns all

in

objections,

knowledge, and

a

must

still

always proceed, that

first

more exalted

which all

sense, and raised above maintained that all virtue was

vice ignorance.

Finally, that last

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

elucidation

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

of his native town

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

department of Platonic pole

mics,

that, namely, against demagogues, rhetoricians, and state-quacks, and that after the thorough handling which they here receive, nothing more was to be brought

up

against them, but the battle was to be looked

now

an end.

upon

When

once a species of perversity has been so fully exposed, particular and incidental ex pressions may indeed be continually called forth as

at

upon

275 same

the

by

subject

author thinks he

when

occasions,

particular

never be taxed for

may

an

an answer,

but such

expressions, however pointed they may be, always say less than what has been said before,

will

and hence, cious

after

writer

such an exposure as

like

Plato,

will

they

this,

by a judi

not

readily

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

enter into particulars

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

now

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

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

minent, and continually keeps

its

to

be so pro

pretensions more in

the back-ground in proportion as preparations are for scientific

servation

speculation.

will infallibly

And suffice

made

the results of this ob at

the same

time as

a

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

the

it

also

first,

and

second side of the Euthydemus, and sticks to quite as decisively as

the Sophist did to

the

276

we are only reminded

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,

Socrates

because

dialogue,

discover

the

observe,

that

is

Nay,

condition

less

they

and Clinias separated were

not

in

a

that

in

to

condition

same kingly art, we must at the the Statesman presumes what the reader time

In

supposed to have learnt from that helplessness.

manner

like

is

it

clear

that the present dialogue rests

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 Theaeonwards

tetus

the

perverse

;

as

what was said

tendencies

in the

common

of

and containing

Gorgias upon

state-quackery, its

own

being

less

itself,

must necessarily have preceded what

positive,

as

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

Charmides of courage and forward

discretion,

which

are

here

must

as

apparent opposites, have preceded what we find in the quite of the same on nay, that all matter subject Gorgias

again

brought

as certainly

;

an ethical character in the strictest sense,

med up

in a

is

here

sum

the highest peculiar manner, and under

a political possible for Greeks, namely, discussions. future for entire and thus one, preserved Hence, then, the Statesman together with the Sophist

point of view

constitute

the

middle point

the Platonic system.

on the one hand,

the

For

of the

second

period

in them, as regards the

combination of every thing

of

form ele-

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

the subject-matter, while in point of again, as to

outward form physics and

ethics

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

world it

is

law of nature and conformity of the and in this point of view, our myth, a*

the

to

subject

itself,

generally regarded,

and, as

is

corresponds

such,

the Timaeus, anticipatory of to the to the

approximation

Platonic Republic.

VIII.

THE BANQUET.

having read the two preceding dialogues look and now seeing the Symposium follow, might ask,

A PERSON

ing

to

the beginning of the

why

Sophist,

the Eleatic

Socrates enquired what place the Sophist, Stranger, when all these occupy both in Statesman, and Philosopher their

to

and according

dependently

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 Stranger, to describe

act

up with

his

attempt

sophist to

first,

discover

has that

already

mixed

character,

the

though without naming has already been remarked in the Introduction

description

him, as

the

of the philosopher,

278 to

that dialogue;

dependent of this

on the other hand, that Plato, anticipation,

with

tired

in

the already

twice repeated and strict form, which could only be al leviated in,

and enlivened by the touches of humour thrown

did not

wish to

describe the

Whence

the same method.

regarded in this point imperfect, but to those

it

arises, that the

of view, does

who

also

philosopher

consider

it

trilogy,

indeed

on

by

less

continue

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

principles,

two dialogues taken together, Plato exhibits before us an image of a philosopher in the person of Socrates. In the Phaedon, of which we cannot here speak more closely, he displays him as he appears in death, while our Symposium the same philosopher is ennobled as he lived, by that panegyric of Alcibiades, which is mani festly the crest and crown of the whole dialogue, and exhibits Socrates to us in the unwearied enthusiasm of in

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

is

to be

attributed to

usually done,

still

the description

the remaining and

279 .1

part cannot be

larger

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 Alas

cibiades,

with these speeches,

that panegyric

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

is

whole.

On

as

the

the contrary, the connection of the

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

only goes to uphold that, from the point of view here established, the whole may sooner appear as

opinion

one united whole, than from any other so that might maintain that whoever considers the Sym

really

we

;

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

were the external

composition, only

Silenus-form,

elegantly worked, but

still

and not the

more

infinitely

as

beautiful indeed,

it

and

extravagant and eccentric, costly

image of the god

enclosed within.

In order, then, to open the former and bring the latter

with

to

the

light,

we must connect

problem

started

in

the

the

Symposium

Sophist,

which

also

an

nounces a complete trilogy. Now, in addition to the and the the third object of Socrates Statesman, Sophist *

enquiry is not merely the idea of knowledge and wis dom, but a philosopher, a man also like them, who,

although god-like when compared with the inferior

life

of the majority of men, moves notwithstanding a man among men. Consequently, it is not the abstract essence

280

and nature of wisdom that

is

to

be described, but

and appearance in the mortal man, in which wisdom herself, for life

Plato

s

all

has put

on

principal point

ing philosophy, herself

in

subject

the

to

his

its

of the visible

life

this

is

manifestly

explanations respect

mortality,

and

of time,

conditions

displays

as

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

may is

it,

And when

arise in the mortal.

given

living

to

this

endeavour,

formation, not

only

the

name of

love

and the excitement and

of true conceptions

of the

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,

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

this is far

;

it

larly

and simi

as a higher order of the similar

procreation

named energy,

since, according to his theory, even

was nothing but a reproduction of form and idea, and, consequently, the the same eternal

the

natural

birth

Now that the immortality of the same in the mortal. of of means production generally is the recipient every beautiful,

the

same,

that

is,

in

whose particular

and existence the harmony of the universe recognised

as

peculiarly

life

visibly

a point not a perfect stranger to the

innate

which, to any one who is Hellenic nature, can require therefore,

is

in

it,

this

is

no elucidation.

the love that creates in

the beautiful

When, is

de-

281 the

scribed,

business

of the

philosopher in general is and in order to designate

described at the same time, his place in

it

particular,

is

the relation of his love and

and object

species

easily appears to

only necessary to define its

object,

every other

to

same passion. Now, this every reader to be the main subject of of the

what Socrates here again repeats, as matter of former dis cussion between himself and Diotima. For it is scarcely

any one should be misled by the single when out of the more general

possible that

fact, that this wise lady,

idea of desire, in

more

the

she

seeks for

contracted

wisdom, with others like

the proper idea

sense,

from

it,

excludes this

the

of love love

of

narrowed sphere.

any one should take occasion from this circum stance to object to our explanation, let him only try Or,

if

whether

would have been possible to place the sub which the purport of Diotima s speech

it

1

ject in that light

without

setting aside, by way of beginning, the endeavour after wisdom also, as coming under the idea of in order to obtain for love as its desire, general

required,

the desire to create. But starting the whole discussion this, manifestly displays the uninterrupted gradation, not only from the pleasure arischaracter,

peculiar

from

f

ing from the contemplation of personal beauty, through I that which every larger object, whether single or mani- L_ fold,

may

source

is

immediate pleasure whose the eternal beauty, which, without further

occasion, in

to

that

contemplation of that which displays

itself

to

the

mind

is

particular and individual,

s

eye when practised and

this order of training,

quickened by dation from the that

of

correct

procreation

conception

which ranges far beyond

all

NN

of

up

but

natural to

that

master-skill

also, life

the gra- A

through

participation, in

detail,

in

I

-

282 immediate

that

knowledge

which

alone

and

beatifies

so that

is comprehends within itself all other good ; to be shown how it is in philosophy only, that the is

good

greatest

the object

it

for general desire

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.

We

thus appear, accordingly, to have discovered the essential part of our whole work of art, in what So

about Socrates. says about love, and Alcibiades the former exhibits to us the proper nature of the

crates

For

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

it

philosopher,

of a general idea, and by the separation of the other and Statesman, the nature of species, as in the Sophist

two characters

these real

is

described,

while

the

actions of the philosopher, with respect

and

life

to

which,

a few Sophist and the Statesman, only

as regards the

scattered traces appear in these dialogues, are exhibited

before

us in

that

which

picture,

last

panegyric half

though only

of

Alcibiades,

worked

out,

in is

least finished as far as the outlines are concerned.

may we not pretend this

last

half,

so

far

to discover

that the earlier

the

a at

Yet

whole in

love-speeches are to be

looked upon only as embellishment, or as devoted en it tirely to other subordinate points; but, although of these one love an unsound Eros be to any might speeches, self,

as

sion

as

or

regard

it,

as

of

any importance in

it

Eryximachus the physician describes that pas his own, yet must they have been necessary

when taken

in connection with the rest,

each in

place and

its

its

kind, beautiful

and consequently and, certainly,

283

we may

at all events assume,

understood

in

its

that the whole cannot be

immediate connection with the

rest

of the works of Plato without them. to continue, these speeches serve in a of to denote the variety ways sphere of love throughout its whole range, and to show further, how mor First, then,

begets upon mortality only what transitory ; and the desire to do this, tality

passion,

and

the

left-hand

love,

with

already acquainted from other dialogues. for

instance,

who

the

is

mortal and

is

a morbid

which we

are

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

even that which ference to

its

enlarges

description

most opposed to philosophy in re object, may still be united with it under is

the idea of love, as co-operative with

it,

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

from the obscure

feeling, collect

and explain the particular phcenomena, these pheno mena all present a partial and one-sided appearance ; and the particular

details in

in the speech

of Socrates,

conditionally

and

them are again taken up represents them as only

who

true,

partially

correcting

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,

and to separate that which,

coming under the more modern notion, does not belong to

it

in

this place.

And

in

this

respect, particularly the speech of Eryximachus is remarkable, whose phy siological and medicinal notion of love is ludicrously

,/

284 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

introduced by means of the

little

philosopher subject-matter and ideas,

do they also, in enunciation and expression, partly by means of a loose, unconnected extravagance, partly by a corrupt musical

in

their

rhetoric,

and the application of

so

sophistical expedients

both of which, in the speech of Agathon immediately are pushed to the utmost. preceding that of Socrates, And here also we see a new trace of connection between

our dialogue and the two preceding, in which likewise, as we have endeavoured to show, the polemics against the

sophists as pretended dialecticians,

and the rhetori

and demagogues as pretended politicians, constitute no small part. In like manner these speeches, of which cians

each

is

from

distinguished

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.

that

For

it

is

indeed hardly to be believed,

were merely dramatic, and in the manner in which the characters

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,

supposing them

to

Pausanias,

have been

Eryximachus,

alive at

and,

the time of the

were far from being generally appearance of the Banquet, known, it would have been lost labour to imitate them,

and not worth the composition. Gorgias does of the matter.

itself

lead us to quite different notions on

For hardly can

deed as they plainly

Also, the mention of

are,

these polemics, dramatic in

have been directed against other

285 than well-known orators and authors, and indeed such as laboured after a which was the creation not theory of philosophy, but the instrument of a false Eros, only where one cannot avoid of the thinking particularly

later

schools of Gorgias though the myth of

and on those of Socrates in

Aristophanes

whole

its

;

al

style,

the comic

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

by So

tagoras in the dialogue that bears his name. upon the whole,

Sydenham may

right

when he conceived,

persons

imitated

may

that

in

be not so

this

much

in

we

not

will

in

imitate

other learned men,

so

his

him, but leave

of

the

Plato, namely the to to

earliest,

recognition, and there

these

Every

dialogues

reader, for

to

as

it

other

is

clearly

will

much

belongs

speeches,

so

that

introduced

naturally

to

dialogues of

would not be near

intentionally

instance,

where

the matter

the rather,

Symposium

hints,

slight

not to our object to follow out such points. But, on the other hand, without these the relation

actually

under their

particular decision;

much

the

dialogue those

introduced to speak, as others represented name, only that he himself followed too

and was over hasty

that,

have been

certainly

open refers

into

it.

be reminded

work of the Phsedrus and Lysis, as when we were engaged with that we were compelled dialogue

by

this

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 to refer in

have, more especially, a peculiar reference to the Lysis,

286 they respectively take up respective points of what was there laid down as the ground of friendship and

as

love,

and always found inadmissible

their panegyrics of love accordingly

and they pursue

;

so that that dia

:

logue, of the over-sceptical tenor of which complaints might with justice be made, finds here its appropriate solution. ral

way

Thus Phasdrus

lays down in the most gene endeavour after the good as the ground,

the

and the secure attainment of

it

as

the effect, of love.

Pausanias, though he does not expressly say it, speaks more of resemblance whence he gets a twofold love, :

the one superior, the other inferior.

Eryximachus fur

ther assumes that

there is a sympathy between oppo and principles, Aristophanes lastly gives a comic dress to the theory which maintains that love tends to site

a .union

His view

of counterparts.

is,

that

not all

good, appropriating and informing, is the counter part of being, but that the notion to be entertained, as

speaking of the good as the object of love, is a supplementary completion of the sensuous unity of ex

in

istence.

And

nearly the whole of this

is

criticized

Socrates, from. the notion of love which he himself

up;

whence

sense, he

is

it

is

easy

compelled

to to

see reject

how

far,

the

tends to the good, and to the union

and

in

by sets

what

theory that love of counterparts,

and how he would certainly have adopted that theory if it had only been a little more accurately defined.

And

here

we can

illustrate,

from a particular

side,

and

with

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

must do

And

so.

this

is

as

seen,

me, evidently enough from the different appears form under which the notion common to the two dia to

it

logues, of the neither

good nor bad,

stated in both;

is

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 in

ence to the higher department of the investigation

cessary

mation then

it

is

the

at

surprise

Diotima

as

;

were, which might be true, if the ne confirmation were added. And what confir

something, as

there here,

forward by

brought

theory

The analogy

?

when Socrates expresses of

mean

a

the

precisely

his

wise

similar

another

in

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 :

expressly here mentioned, of what

said in the Sophist

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

is

it

firmations had been already given in the works of Plato

when

the Lysis was written,

ciated the ly

We

?

that

in

theory have the

Lysis therefore manifestly rejected

becomes easy,

once

there,

it

place

to

to

time,

and remain in

force

the

Thesetetus, and

if

we would

to retrograde a

it

its

next after the Phsedrus

mind the remarks

so precarious

dialogue only

to a place the other side of

it,

should he have enun

why

;

there

natural

made upon

if

the

the Lysis in point of dialectic composition. as

we

have

become

fully aware

that

assign

dialogue at

position

and the more,

when its

a

immediately we bear in

weakness of

For Plato

as soon s

whole

theory of love rested upon the Hellenic character, and

v

288 every thing even of higher purport

that in

would contemplate under to proceed

which he

idea, he was compelled

this

upon the condition given

in that

character

of the sexual passion and the sexes; and, consequently, if we are not to be surprised to find here precisely the

anti-modern and anti-christian pole of his style of

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

sense,

a representation

as

of the philo

impulse, declaring it only proportioned and appropriate to the notions of a beginner; and because sophical

the desire to

him the highest

now no

is

generate object,

and in

longer

itself

according to

immediately divine,

but as the child, indeed, of that immortal and eternally supplying Poros, though, at the same time, of the needy Penia as well, it has its origin indeed in the immor tal

principle,

exists

in

though only

the mortal

being,

the immortal in this last especial pains to

in

;

show that

so far in

as

that

principle

order also to produce

and therefore Diotima takes man, even know not as that which

in mortal

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

state of mortal appearance,

and not only

vivifies

289 it

in the individual,

to

makes

another,

but by this transference from one it immortal in the mortal. But

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

eternal essence, as contained in the

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

And what

additional

acquires

more, our general arrange ment receives remarkable confirmation from what Dio-

justification.

is

tima says of the gradual advances in the mysteries of For this gradation harmonises most accurately

love.

with tion

the in

sciously

continually developing philosophical specula the works of Plato, so that he here, uncon

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

beautiful, in practical exertions to investigations into

find

in

with

it,

the

political

Protagoras, and and in the Gorgias.

the

contemplation of the

and laws; consequently, the

virtues,

such as

dialogues

Then come

we

connected the modifi

cations of knowledge, in their plurality indeed, but as modifications of knowledge, consequently, with

still

the

consciousness of the peculiar character of knowledge as exhibited from the Theaetetus onwards; and thus the

mind

rises at

absolutely

last to the conscious

beautiful,

as

it

is

with any individual beauty; o o

contemplation of the beheld in disconnection

and, as producing

all

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

ana

the

the chronism already censured elsewhere, by which, of Aristophanes, mention is made of the destruc in

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

s

have wrote, the circumstance must to not But are we recollection,

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

continue in doubt between the ninety-eighth olym

and second? piad and the hundred The characters, with the exception of the otherwise well-known poets, have been already intro duced in other dialogues of Plato, and in Wolf s In

sufficiently

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.

have these speeches put into

not others, should

mouths by Plato,

is

a question which, as regards difficult one to answer.

their

many

of them, might be a

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

cause of many, partly to remind us of this dialogue.

As

to

his

clined

regard

still

more

decisively

in Aristophanes, I should be introduction here in the most

to

291 friendly relation to Socrates, sation

for

what

when we take clouds

;

as an honourable

was said in the

Apology

into consideration the quotation

perhaps also to

show how

compen

especially

;

entirely all

from the

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.

PELEDON.

IX.

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.

Now,

the reader

if

of experiment,

would assume with

that the

Symposium and

us,

by way

the

Phaedon constitute the third description,

the

as

Philosopher, given of the

connected

with

the

of

that

two

other

Sophist and the Statesman, we would then, in order that a more accurate view of the

already

subject fact,

that in

wisdom in

not escape him, draw his attention to the

may

the

speech

of

Diotima

the

passion

for

expressly excluded out of the idea of love, order that this province may be assigned solely to is

parturition in the beautiful*,

and that reference

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 it

denied, that

;

if

the good

is

ev

the object of love in general, a\ta.

Symp.

292 then wisdom for

own

its

sake

be the

to

is

predomi

nant object of the love of wisdom, so that this feeling as essentially belongs to a man s life and conduct, as

wisdom

the communication and engrafting of

And the

by the mention of these two

is

it

statesman

the

man

first

is

such

as

his relation

that

philosopher,

also

of

and

sophist

For the

defined.

fully

creates,

peculiarities

the

to

in others.

states

preparing in that vibrate interme

but only

as

kind the superior natures which are thus diately between the furthest extremes, their

made

most

of

susceptible

knowledge

the

that

so

;

of his love out of philosopher best receives the object the hands of the true statesman, in order then to

and perfect

create

And

knowledge. dialectic

separation

as

he

the

sure

to

and

copies,

he

to

of

engaged confined

is

and involved to

only

the

in

plea

terrestrial

and possess for itself philosopher on the contrary

obtain

thence

will

life

higher

and combination, but,

adheres

The

only the non-existent. struggles

the

also

world of sense,

vanity,

and

object

the sophist likewise

in

is

that

in

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

it

how he may make

found, he seeks

work

they dwell, the influence of this

that

is

that

out

here,

at

of which

this

the

wish

all

But, for

it

death

philosopher

in

the

the

in

alone,

and matter

passionate

death

themselves.

itself

sense

for

wish

described

for

is

which

free

from

collectively.

And

become pure spirit, the wise man which we find

desire

to

beginning of

following

will

his soul, in

and go

this

work,

investigations

and

develope

be said by many, even though the other essential inpulsc of

Plato

s

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 immortality, which upon that to which the chief importance that

all

the discussions constitute

clearly is

Now,

attached.

the

subject of immortality, at least, goes equal shares with that of the wish for death, I am not going to

deny, only

possibility

let

it

not either be overlooked,

that the

and truth of knowledge are continually, and

repeatedly interwoven

with the allegations of proof re

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 for annihilation.

And

if the soul is to apprehend the L which is not to essentially existent, subjected origination and destruction, and to all the conditions of imperfect __

^

it

existence,

can

do

only

_

so,

|

---*--..

M -i

(according to

.-

-I,

T

the

--.

n^-

old

principle, and one, which in this argument must be always born in mind, that like is only apprehended like,) as

by

with

existing similarly, and in the same

manner

Thus, then, the immor

that essential existence.

tality of_the soul is the condition of all true

knowledge men, and conversely, the reality of knowledge the ground upon which the immortality of the soul

as regards is is

the

most

certainly

former

investigated,

investigated

and

dialogues

easily also,

in

understood.

which

Hence,

in

was

knowledge was always presupposed and and one may say, that, simultaneously immortality

;

from the Gorgias and Theastetus downwards, the two subjects are continually approximating in their progress, until they are at last in this most

dialogue

closely

294

Whoever then comprehends

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

exhibits

described

endeavour

the

pure contemplation here the endeavour to withdraw the immortal, that

mortal with the mortal, is

represented as

away

such,

im

the

connect

to

from

mortal

the

;

and

the

two

with

one

another.

connection manifestly in necessary advances towards its in soul the if For,

are

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 wishes

to

be continually

due from a soul

fairly

in this

withstanding, incumbent upon

is,

not

to interest itself

con

condition, it

as

it

not endowed with soul, first, to tinually in every thing move longer knowledge in other souls destined to engraft in

this

exerts

only

And

sphere. itself

to

of

proof

on the other hand,

introduce its

love

the

for

truth

them

into

that

soul

the

if

others,

can

be

the

given

truth alone, and fly as far is, of it. semblance Now, of these as possible from the two essential characteristics in the conduct of a philo that

it

adhere

itself to

in each of our two dialogues sopher, one predominates did although their necessary connection respectively that in not admit of a complete separation, respect ;

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 to pure contem made reference without all at exist plation,

so also in this dialogue, where, properly speak

ing, that contemplation

is

represented,

wo

find

manifold

295 allusions throughout live

the passionate desire always to minds, and to co-operate in cre

to

with sympathetic

ating truth within them, as a that

only,

common

as regards Socrates,

task and profit

in order as

secure him a tranquil departure, this

is

it

;

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,

Socrates

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

the contrary, what appears most prominent is the tran and cheerfulness with which he quillity expects death, as the liberator from that con every thirjgf IrUeTrupts""

templation theless

;

and on the other hand, he does not never his

interrupt

accustomed

social

but

practice,

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

more beautiful but

in

its

the

in

the

kind than

mind

way of de this

of

the

not completely dying filled with the greatness of the subject before the two of the same man, that given here and in the images Socrates;

still

Symposium, are combined If then

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 it

losopher in his two-fold character, since

we may

we can no longer enquire of Plato

question on

reply,

that

himself, this

the one hand goes too far, and it cannot be incumbent upon us to give an explanation of the

296 and, on the other,

tact;

to the progress itself

phy

the influence

so

that

all

which even

it

had

at

easy to point generally this period

made towards

of Plato had

to

is

it

the philoso

and

perfection,

of his works

upon the form

;

without total separation, there yet prevails in of them a preponderating antithetical character, and

Symposium and Phaedon

the

nected

together,

exactly

Gorgias and Theaetetus influence

is

particularly

most naturally con

same manner as the

One may even venture to now considering, this

are.

the dialogue

say, that in

are

the

in

we

are

reflected in

the description of

the opposition between soul and body, two things which, but regarded from without, are quite distinct enough ; still,

when the

fact itself speaks, can never

disconnected from one another. it

For the

be completely rest,

however,

would be a strange misunderstanding of what has

been

if

said,

strictly

and

any reader were to understand

literally,

as to

this

so

suppose that the two dia

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 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

tic

form,

he

to think of maintaining

But Plato may

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

a

philosopher

second part of the trilogy,

after

the

manner

combining much both

of

the

earlier

297 and

later in

point of composition,

mentally refer them.

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

form

the

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

upon method, and wished yet connect together what he had surveyed

the point of adopting another

once for

all

to

the one

already used, and what, although without where every enunciating the results with equal precision, he had also in reality taught and established, when he

by

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

process philosopher as a purely mental process, as he had prac tised

according to his

it

own inclination and judgment; own mode of operation would

for the description of his

now

for the first time

deed,

always remain

come a

in

his

remarkable

way?

It must, in

circumstance,

and

one that might point to an earlier period for the com position of this dialogue, that that dramatic character,

which

in

much

suppressed,

the dialogues immediately preceding had al most vanished, and in the Philebus again is likewise these

two,

But, in

as

the

it

first

comes out were in place,

its

in

such strong relief in

last

every

and highest glory. must see that

reader

no other dialogue, and least of all is it the case with the earliest, as the Phsedrus and Protagoras, there

is

p P

in

which the dramatic character

and parcel

of

as

in

with

it

never

display

the

subject,

this

completely part

intimately identified

and

it

therefore

could

with more splendour of other circum again, a variety in

itself

And

perfect right.

so

or

dialogue,

so

is

its

full

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 ;

stances

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

Symposium

by no means the

determines

alone

that

close connection with the this

as

the proper

Phiedon in the works of Plato. place for the that it is that combination of should we say,

refer

all

all

that

manifest, and to which we who would be convinced upon this

has preceded, which especially

Rather

is

so

that particular relation pre point; and then, whether sents itself in a light more or less clear, can make

but

difference as regards

little

And that

it

first is

works to

would be

of

all,

only on those

that

it

the principal question.

must be evident to every one,

the are

transition to

in its proper place,

from that

the

come, which Plato

the

previous account

in

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

begun with Anaxagoras; how, from

the study of that philosopher, the idea of the good, and the supremacy of reason as the highest norma of

299

I

all

cosmical

by

the dialectic

contemplation,

shot

first

upon him;

method he convinced

how

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

consistently principles, he could not proceed otherwise

than critically and hypothetically

;

ticularly

to

Heraclitic

philosophy, and to the which taught him that

culations,

alone

is

his

found

the

and

upon

speculations

constant

as

this applies

the

result in

par

and

Eleatic

of those

spe the eternal forms

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

is

here for the

restraint,

and

first

with

science of

And

thing whatever can be constructed.

this

any

principle

time established so totally without

much

so

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

when Plato wrote

this, the idea of the good had ceased to be too strange to him, or too obscure to him prevent any longer from

constructing in connection with sciences which

here alluded

are

reader must feel in

attentive

that to.

this

principle the

But every

two

really

place the most

de

cided inclination to pass at once from the Phsedon to the Timaeus, until he reflects that in Plato s specula tions

the

ethical

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,

more

at that

we have,

on account of disputed ques

especially

time

still

therefore,

unsettled, even required

yet

to

pass through

the

it

;

and

Philebus

300 and the Republic, of both of which the germs mani

And again, appear in this place in the Phaedon. can hardly escape any one of sound and unpreju

festly it

the

mind, that

diced

dialogue

still

doctrine

developement,

in

soul

the in

though

imperfect,

no

of

is

last

its

our

in

stage

of 1

a

mythological chrysalis sheath, as in the Phsedrus, but like the just emergent longer

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

butterfly,

For the manner in which very nearly to the Timaeus. the soul is here described as producing life generally, and as related

immutable essence, does indeed ap strict definition, but still is not definition to

proximate to and we observe here exactly the appearance of an authors only producing so much of one subject,

itself;

to

which a particular investigation

to

bear

upon without more

As then

as

another,

every

to

be devoted,

reader

must grant

is

ado.

these allusions to

all

what

is

still

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

given determine

its

to the dialogues

which

in

its

they

place after them.

For,

forming the second part, are

here

published,

we

if

already

we look

in the order

find

that

in

that arrangement the connection which obtains between the Platonic doctrine of knowledge and that of im

mortality

has

not

as

yet been indicated by decisive a vague and sketchy manner,

but only in as, wherever perfect and immutable existence spoken of, in opposition to that which is imperfect

strokes,

inasmuch is

and

mutable,

mention

is

also

made

in

some

way or

301 other the

of immortality.

way

which

in is

knowledge

It

is

is

recollection,

first

Menon

the

in

brought nearer, by doctrine,

that

expounded and put

into

the

and to this Plato himself appeals here the Phaedon, perhaps more definitely and expressly

tangible form, in

than he anywhere else alludes to an earlier work. of this appeal would scarcely leave us

a denial

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

was composed

had been

said by Cebes, though but by some one else, a Plato, supposition, however, which it would be difficult to make appear probable to any one who understood the

not indeed

after this

then by

But the connection of which

practice of sound criticism.

we speak could not be

well

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 until

the

investigations

as long since dispatched,

ference, inexplicable.

would be, without such a

The

re

exposition, therefore, of this

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

And

agreeably with this sup position, the Platonic Socrates himself clearly lays most

the kernel of the whole.

weight upon the theory, exist

by

the ideas and

that

a similar necessity

the soul

even before we are born;

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

Socrates and his tain

principle

to

disciples this

which

they

it

is

appears in

life.

To

the immediately cer

firmly

adhere,

simply.

302 because

is

it

immediately one and the same with that

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

might learn to be cautious from

stration,

not

to

those

associate

themselves

who dream, erroneously enough,

to Plato, the ideas

this passage,

without intending

had a kind of

that,

it

with

according

sensible existence, or,

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

and

here also followed out as a regular theory, that, namely, the repeated appearances of the soul in soul,

is

body always proceed out of the abundance of that immortality, and are real repetitions, and not new crea

the

with

tions;

the

of this,

exception

Plato

arranges

all

other conceptions and minor points subordinate to that doctrine, as something not homogeneous with it, nor of

an equal degree of certainty, in the light of

considering them

amusing conversation,

partly

and exorcisement

of the baby within us which foolishly fears death, while Thus, they have in part quite a different bearing. the repeated and always perfected appear of the soul in the life of the body are quite

for instance,

ances

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

with,

another;

but what

material things, and

it

is

it

sees

must

still

be only con

not in a more distinct

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

real life, than

knowledge

itself.

to exhibit or define

more

immor

closely

1

Nay, who can say that the whole of Cebes

tality itself.

objection,

bodies

that the fact of souls lingering

does

nevertheless

not

prove

among many

their

immortality,

somewhat harshly and unexpect edly directed against Simmias the disciple of Philolaus, is not covertly meant against the Pythagoreans, who

an objection which

is

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

suppose

argument,

this,

that

and by the mention of the harmony, Simmias probably brings forward his the

that

position of what

is

soul

after

all

but a dis

given in the body, in the name of

On

the Pythagoreans.

may be

the contrary, these philosophers

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

atomical system,

to

in

the

spirit

of the

strictly

which indeed Empedocles, in

point of view, in no small degree approximates

;

this

so that

might scarcely be possible to decide, from whom in is put is particular the dress into which the thought are And if there either borrowed or adapted. any to

it

whom

the answer

and unsatisfactory,

appears, let

partially

at

least,

them not overlook that

obscure it

refers

to the distinction already started in several places between

the ideas subjected to the conditions of

more and

less.

304 and those which,

as

existence,

expressing independent

have also their own measure

themselves

in

from

for

;

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

the previous

dialogues

up

to

this

general

this

point,

by means of the connection between the doctrine of knowledge and that of immortality, further allusions to other earlier matter

more or

less

connected with that

pervading and principal point, are not wanting. for

example,

we

are

also

further put in

Menon, by what and

it

Thus,

besides the quotation already alluded to,

would

is

seem

mind of

a passage

in

the

here said of public and civil virtue; as if Plato here wished to show

that this inferior kind of virtue, properly speaking only

a shadow of the true,

may even

exist

without being

based upon any independent or true principle ; and that view in the Statesman, of the natural qualifications

which lead some to virtue,

forms

So

two.

also,

as

it

and others to that species of were, the transition between the

this

when the true

virtue

is

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

it

is

now removed,

supposes the existence of all the intervening dialogues between that and the Pha?For we are now first enabled to learn, what don. all

necessarily

nevertheless necessarily belongs that

the

to

the

subject

estimation

of

that

of different

dialogue, comparative degrees of pleasure against one another, cannot consti tute any kind of knowledge. Moreover, the derivation

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

will easily recognize as the

also,

very same place, the of the most sublime expansion

laid

ral speculation

first

of,

foundation

ture of the body,

is

and most gene

upon, the idea of the soul, as

that even heaven

So

earlier of the two.

the

in

it

is

said

and earth are participative of the na which must thus necessarily possess

a soul, so that, viewed on this side also, the Phaedon

comes between that work and the Timseus, as prepar ing the way for the latter by more minute explana tions

and accurate

we consider

closely

what

is

here

it

is

can scarcely suppose that the

discussion is

sionately

the

in

it

tains

it

as

Gorgias,

introduced,

much more profound nize

earlier

In like manner, when

definitions.

than

so

to prepare

it

the

we must

the Philebus,

for

a

still

dispas so

once recog which first con at

pleasant in this point

seems almost as

way

much more

drawn from views

the full discussion of the

of view, nay,

we

of an earlier date than

and

while

:

said of pleasure,

if

Plato here wished

necessary discussion of

subject, which was to be more mature, more tran But for all quil, and with more regard for nature.

this

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

Phasdrus will have

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

drus, they will find in

it

particular points which appear Q,

Q

306 to

them too

similar to allow of a great interval between

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 ;

two

the

whence

I

myself the

to

explain

ion also has not been without

tance from the Timaeus, and

two,

can hardly, I

and

wiser,

consequently in a con

is

of

worthy

to

fail

think,

how much more

he sees

opin

Whoever,

whole system uniformly from the

the

to survey

that this

followers.

places both works at an equal dis

on the other hand,

dition

fact,

its

feel

surprise

when

the Phaedon appears

perfect

more mature age

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

mythical

part,

the

in

people to

go

For even the

market-place.

no

further,

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,

a presentiment of science. ing is not to be looked

Nay, though a for

in

every

special

mean

particular,

we

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

should,

*

cation tonic

of the fact,

myths

so

that

little

in

the

original

majority

invention

of the is

Pla

contained.

And how much more finished is the philosophic talent in the Phaedon, how much more definite the connection

307 of the author

with

that

own

s

youthful

views,

how

joy in

the

philosophical method spoken

complex knowledge

;

differently,

compared is

the

of, after long practice

and

first

elements,

so that certainly in the Phaedrus,

young Plato might more easily make Socrates speak so like a youth, than in the Phaedon so like a sage. the

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

mythical wisdom, and here, where Plato sets to work to

complete then,

as

what to

immortality

insufficient

in

their

proof given

in

the

is

the

of

the

to believe that this

And

doctrines.

Phaedrus, of the

any one bring himself would be an acceptable supplement, soul

will

;

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

after all the discussion in

cause he does,

now shrank from

calling the soul, as he there

the original principle

original principle,

;

or

God, who

is

the

real

soul?

Those, therefore, who believe the Phaedon to have been written immediately after the death of Socrates, and the Phaedrus not before his Egyptian travels, what proof can they bring forward but that already an ticipated in

perhaps,

are not the in the

the Introduction

on the one first

to

to

the

Phaedrus,

except

side, the grand discovery, if we make them a present of it, that

Phaedrus Simmias

is

ranked

above Phaedrus as

an occasion of arguments, because he occasioned those in the Phaedon and on the other side, those particular ;

passages in

the Phaedrus in which doctrinal points are

308 enunciated with greater precision than appears suitable to a

first

pose

the

which words occur, which sup existence of investigations not to be found

and

piece,

in

But any one must see except in subsequent dialogues ? at once how little that circumstance will avail against all

we have

that

established; and thus,

for every reader to explain for himself,

may be left how these few it

passages in the Phaedrus arose from the dialectic ten dency of the dialogue, even when the Platonic philo

sophy

was yet

that there

may

an

in

entirely

state,

undeveloped

so

be no occasion for the subterfuge, that

introduced on a subsequent elaboration of the work, although they look sufficiently as if they

they were

had been to

the

first

Finally, without any reference

so introduced.

Phaedrus,

there

would be nothing

to

say

in

favour of so early a position of the Phaedon, except so elaborate a description of Socrates would have

that

and

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

been in

for death in the

and the allegation of such tantamount to bringing to light

Phaedon

;

arguments is sufficiently the weakness of the cause.

This

analysis, into

which

all

by way of preface upon the

that there was to say

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

draw attention

will

way

scribes

in

to

two only.

which Socrates not only

the locality of the

Hellenic

In the in

the

first

place,

myth de

education

as

the

309 worst district his disciples

dress

to

of a

earth,

but also

of barbarians,

late

expressly

advises

wisdom even without Hellas,

seek for

races

the

among

upon

bears

where from

period,

throughout the an acquaintance

probably with the Pythagoreans in particular, the pas sion for the wisdom of the East was excited, and has

an entirely different bearing from particular commen elsewhere bestowed upon the Egyptians, or

dations

And

or Geta?.

Locrians,

in

next place,

the

an

ac

quaintance with the writings of Philolaus is manifestly here supposed, and the dialogue itself sufficiently teaches

had not yet

that these in

Athens

friends that

losopher,

at

because

itself,

that time it

is

become naturalized

only

to

his

Theban

a knowledge of the doctrines of the phi lived there, is attributed ; and a dif

who had

ferent style

is

usually observable in enquiries

writings already

known

at

Athens

;

made

after

so that the legend

a degree of probability, that Plato certainly acquires home with him from his travels books these brought as

a present from his friend.

X.

PHILEBUS.

FROM

the earliest times to the present, the Philebus has been regarded as one of the most important of the

works of Plato, and

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

at last in this dialogue serious for

once, and intends to say something that has a mean ing.

Pity only that this correct sentiment has never

310 into a clearer insight

grown

who have

on the one hand,

view of

general taken a right

in

most universal bearing, have not been so their endeavours to penetrate into the de

its

fortunate in

and superadd, therefore,

tails,

the work, for those

into

the difficulty of the

to

perplexed style of expression, and confusion of language upon these points; while they who speak subject a

easily

and

of the

intelligibly

same,

else

little

display

than the narrowness of their own capacity to see the meaning of such works, and consequently a very defi cient criticism.

Now

in

of the pains we have bestowed

this result

upon the dialogue, the place which connection

its

to

with

the

facilitate

the

will

earlier,

understanding of

it,

it

and

occupies,

much with those who

contribute

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

is

and

interrupted

again

taken

up,

may

get

meant beyond what is conception said actually following exactly the recommendations we a

of what

clear

is

;

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

question, and that not an unimportant one,

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

as if in this

it

had

answered

the

dialogue

entirely exhausted

on closer consideration, weight and importance

we

see

that

its

concludes,

subject.

much

that

But is

of

intermediately introduced, not essentially connected with the solution of that problem, is

311

much

or of which, at least, as

as

have been incidentally brought

much

with the

besides.

And

commencement

as

is

here the case

circumstance excites at

this

same time a suspicion,

just at the

in,

was necessary might

the question

that

started

by no means the only one, not perhaps contain even the main purport

nay, may of the dialogue.

For,

is

the

after

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

them

proof, that neither pleasure nor knowledge are in selves sufficient,

nay more, that accurately speaking, for

this is certainly

implied in what

is

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

between pleasure and pain, and might have shown how which several kinds spontaneously pre

false pleasure, of

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

tions,

further shown in conclusion, how, on the other hand, the

latter

is

harmless in

all

its

degrees

even

to

the

and how every species of it is capable of being combined, and is already naturally combined with pure

lowest,

pleasure,

the

satisfactorily

entirely

gress to

question started would have been answered. Such matter as would

thus

have

dropped out, supposing this uninterrupted pro have been adopted, consists chiefly of the second

dialectic piece, in

the indefinite,

pounding

which those two pairs of ideas, that of

the defining,

the

cause, are established.

compounded arid com These ideas do indeed

312 come

into application, in so far as

pleasure that

the

to

it

shown of impure indefinite, but no one it

is

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

which in a similar manner there forms the kernel of

For

Sophist also, he begins with speculations upon the nature of our notions of things and thus shows the necessary union, in know ($o whole.

the

the

in

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

like

in

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

connected

thing

it.

in

under which we must reckon

we take away every our notions of things,

if

For,

form

with

all

that can in any

way

be called measure or definite magnitude, there remains nothing to constitute the abstract essence of matter but the

indefinite,

entirely

dependent upon conditions in fallible perception

as

of

and

apprehended comparison which is precisely the same with the absolutely mani fold, tially

never self-identical, existent.

Now

;

and consequently, not essen

the fact

that

Plato here avoids

this definition of the non-existent, current in the Sophist

and elsewhere, and

thereby,

although

unin

certainly

tentionally, increases the difficulty of connecting the

two

is in part the result of the same subject being here viewed from a different side, and conse

passages, in

fact

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

the Timaeus, in order to

show, by so doing, the coincidence between his of thinking and theirs. This indefinite,

own mode

therefore,

and

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

of

that which connects

and compounds these two, the eternal nature of Zeus, expressed also under the name of Reason, in which the Sophist had already pointed it

is

out the necessary union of existence and knowledge as

This doctrine is certainly expounded very and briefly imperfectly, both as regards the necessities of the reader, and also as compared with that to which

taking place.

it

is

to

serve

as

a

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

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

the power of his disciples,

them, could

call to

mind

who, on the perusal of

his other

instructions,

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

must ever be matter of

when he denotes

the universal

surprise,

that

Plato,

causative as reason

or

mind, appeals only to the general feeling of mankind, and when he establishes that principle of indefiniteness as

an original principle, not produced from the eternal n R

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

properly

subject

lies

philosophic

close

upon the border

speculation

of Plato, and

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

than we ourselves are from the Phaedon, where Socrates equally contents himself with the arranging mind, and where the method of discussing the opposition between

body and

soul favours the view of the originality of the

indefinite.

Again, what

here said incidentally only of the soul of the universe, intimating rather than explaining the

mode of

is

connection between created being and ori the closest

ginal existence, stands in

speculation little

upon

or nothing to do with

dence of pleasure or of

its

the question of the prece

This

also

depends only be understood to the meaning by those who bear in

upon the Phsedon, and whole extent

reference to this

the former, and has, on the contrary,

knowledge. will

mind how, soul

is

in that dialogue, the immortality of the demonstrated from the nature of consciousness,

and the law

to

which

all

opposites

are

subjected

in

the sphere of apparent existence, and an alternation, as were, established between a personal existence of the

it

soul,

and one not personal.

With

these hints also

is

connected the extremely remarkable enlargement which is here given to the doctrine of recollection ; for every, even

bestial,

same way is

desire

as, in the

is

in

this place

considered in

Menon and Phsedon,

demonstrated with regard to ideas, as

sires also,

when they appear

for

the

first

the

this doctrine if

those de

time,

must

315 be based

now

upon a

the

clearly

object

of

recollection

of

And

them.

to intimate that brute

is

that

the

which

state

purport

instinct

also

is

of this is

to

be

taken into the nature of the universal soul.

Now

if

we

im

collect together all that concerns the

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

none whatever

good

mind, and that

the

in

He

things.

confining the

and

bodies,

then

all

therefore cherished

good

to

the

life

there

would be

other beautiful

man

of

and

the idea of not alone,

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 at the

it

of the good the principle of the knowledge, not only of man himself, but also of that of all other things.

And

he

common

wished

same

the

at

time

to

establish

this

basis for the books of the Republic, as

well

as for the Timaeus, and this

is

the

object of

the

in

vestigations here given of created existence as a mixed

compound, these investigations being only intended to show the relation in which the good stands to it. For after

and done,

having thus discovered the nature of the good, satisfied

that

himself,

material

first

of as

things

experience cannot form

the

all,

as

they

object

is

likewise

here

actually occur to of knowledge, but

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

upon man

speculation

Philebus

eminently, in

is

well

as this

nature, and

as

respect,

the

immediate

the

introduction to those two great works.

From

be

to

ficult

much that was dif point of view then, understood or overlooked by the majority

this

How, for be pretty easily explained. fourth the to descend instance, knowledge and pleasure instead of taking the second and third. and fifth

of persons

For and

may

places the end the two opposite theories therefore the formal elements of the at

which the perfection of the

compound

are

united,

good, upon mixture, as such,

to material things, depends, and which are also common in men in par exists which that and ranked are first, ticular,

Again, why the mind, source of universal order,

forms the conclusion.

which as the cause, as the

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 but of that

sense,

scurity

not

itself

entered

into

the

Although here, a degree of ob For be disguised, must ever remain.

such.

as

compound

which has

to

truth, which

Socrates

first

condition recognises as the

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

first

also,

tween the

as

We

must, therefore, say

in

ex

as the sole locus of truth, does

and there give reality to material things, be stands the mediating power, rightly

general

elements

of

the

created

good and

317 those which are peculiar to man. Another point too, be understood appearance not less obscure, can

in

only

upon a

view of

similar

It

it.

is,

why

Socrates

first

explains proportion and beauty as to a certain degree and then again separates the two in the most

identical,

decided manner.

And

the explanation

is,

that

is

it

by

the presence of definite measure generally that a thing first attains and becomes a thing; while individuality

although limited

beauty,

to

definite

by

measure,

is

the

that essential condition.

superadded perfection From what has been hitherto

said, it

must now be

what sense our dialogue intervenes immediately and next between the Phgedon as its immediate ante clear in

cedent, and

the two

constructive

and Timasus; and that last, it

works,

the Republic

in its particular relation to the

we would go back to the farthest possible point, grounded upon the Parmenides, but next and im

if

is

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,

the

like

predominant in it, this dialogue Sophist and Timasus, any other is

leader than Socrates himself. ciated,

though

For the expressly enun

less general subject, the

in the definition of the

for

good

claims of pleasure is the especial

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

antagonist claims of self-interest.

books upon the Republic with

this

point.

to

mediate

the

Hence, therefore, the

very naturally

recommence

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

Gorgias together, so that we have at time in the Philebus a justification of the

Theaetetus and the same

which juxta-position in For what is here said

we place of false

these

conception

the same with what has been already

Thesetetus, though the

to

lost

that

in

many

dialogue

under

its

two dialogues. set

is

exactly

the

in

up

may have been

it

sceptical

disguise

;

and

relation of perception to that con generally, the whole at once the assertion and the contains which ception in

judgment

itself,

supplementary to

it.

And

Theaetetus

the

supposes

the disquisition

and

is

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 sure,

certainly

And

the subject. as

it

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

is

charitable.

to be exhibited in

its

true

he touches upon the subject. to

the

art

of speaking,

how

light

yet

Nay,

even with regard

there

slightly

degraded so low,

we

here find an extenuating sentiment. Even tragedy and comedy are spoken of in a different feeling, although the ingenious find

upon

nance, at this

class

manner

that that

of

point,

in

which he explains what we

certainly

time certainly composition.

of

Not

refers

to

his

repug

general notoriety, to that it is the case,

however, as has lately been maintained, that the books

319 Republic had at that time been actually and the sentiments we meet with in them are written, the

upon

here to be defended.

Thus much may be

said

by way of preface

gards the subject-matter.

As

to the form,

true

in

its

that

the

Philebus,

enough resembles

nearly indirect

But

series.

in

the

inward

main

re

indeed

construction,

of

dialogues

outward

its

as

is

it

it

dress,

this

may

with justice be accused of a degree of negligence, and it will be an universal probably opinion, that in this does

it

respect

not

furnish

any such pure enjoyment

as the

majority of the Platonic works up to this point. That peculiar dialogic character which we are accus

tomed

to find in Plato, does not

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

the

transitions

are

incidental occasions of the

the

result

neither

of

the

dialogue, nor of the opin

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 ions

person

ality

short

and arbitrary character of a connected speech.

we may

see, that

In

here in the

transition clearly to the properly constructive works, the dialogic charac ter begins to be only an external form, from which

Plato cannot escape, partly from habit, partly he will not dispense with Socrates. Perhaps cause

he

feels

the

because it

is

be

inconvenience of this position that

320 lie

artificial applies various

means of animating the dia

do not indeed produce any very particu logue, which lar effect: the conversation sometimes becomes meaning

and somewhat pedantically twisted in order to in troduce something more than the ordinary formulae of

less,

answers.

is a certain say, that there

So that one might

unpleasant

character

spread

over

these

conversations

is sur upon pleasure, that we observe that the author hitherto feited with the indirect method of proceeding

is kept up more dramatically which we may perceive, especially

used, and that nothing

than the manner in

towards the end of

all

his

with speeches, not perhaps

out disadvantage to the subject, that Socrates is hasten

be rid of the young men. ing and ardently wishing to

APPENDIX. THEAGES.

I.

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

in their eyes only verified

frequent repetition of

it,

present instance, they

The of this

a

little

pupil,

are

fable,

in

before the

known

himself,

As

the

find.

the

Apology

final

sentence

is

expression,

1

adoption of one of those who

of Socrates as already was passed upon that

we know, Theages is not other than from two notices of him in Plato far as

and has no opportunity

he received

sufficient

repetition, in

we may be allowed the

and the person chosen

philosopher. wise

may

by a

dialogue, consists in Socrates

mentioned

dead

if

and such a

much

or

little

benefit

of showing

whether

from having made

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 ;

upon, a passage in a parenthetic digression of Socrates s s

322

how though without understanding into it of to interweave the more profound meaning

in

his

the

Thesetetus,

For Plato

composition.

passage, influence

which

is

upon

his

s

to

disciples,

that object in Socrates exercised an

principal

show how not

so

as by developing truth out of their untouched by our composer,

entirely

to

the consequence

much by teaching own minds, is left who adheres only

which follows from this;

method of proceeding, exactly Socrates succeeds with some pupils and not with to

cording

ac

that

a

similar,

others,

or predetermination; by virtue of a divine ordinance has fallen into a he this and in illustrating point distorted

confusion and most perversely

strange

amal-

o-amation of this divine ordinance, and that personal preO sentiment which, with Socrates, becomes a heavenly in the Apology, where So whence the

voice; crates

passage mentions this voice,

which the whole of the very remarkable Plato does not

is

little

the

second hinge upon

dialogue

that in that passage

make

in

Socrates say that

turns.

It

is

the Theaetetus that

daemonic

him admitting any one whom sign has ever prevented soever that he

to his

owed

society

;

intimating as

this privilege to all,

it

were by

this,

and could not allow

himself to feel a decided presentiment ; hence there might be for a time among his hearers those who were easily

advantage from his philosophy. But he makes the voice come in then, and not before,

incapable

of drawing

would attach himself, bemust have a cause, then certainly the inward feeling is to be re worthiness 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,

arises from the victory conversely, the unworthiness

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 but even this one, every particular allusion does not seduce him into going beyond the character which in the Socrates attributes to that dae Apology

monic

mean, that it was merely a warning Our author on the contrary, while he enunciates

sign.

this

the

I

sign,

in almost

literal

Apology, does,

exceed

this

conformity with what we find in

in

principle,

the description itself, carelessly with him this sign appears

for

a

as

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,

I

doubt not, to the

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 unsupportable, from the manner especially in which So Apology contradicts the accusation brought

crates in the

him of

against

infidelity,

as

was

there,

we hope,

satis

factorily shown.

And

as in

other dialogues foisted upon Plato, for the most to resort to necessary part

found

it

is

little

taken from antiquity or foreign parts, in order disguise the poverty of the subject-matter, so in

stories

to

this,

two

this

little

stories

daemon

are to

introduced about foretell

such

the

results

power of as must

have depended entirely upon accidental circumstances; power of which Plato never knew any tiling, and

a

324 which

not even justified by the expressions of Xenosuffered himself to be Probably, the composer

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, two The the Ecclesia, some accidental event or other.

moreover present,

stories

in

a sufficiently

themselves,

For one of them, which concerns strange appearance. is not brought to an a well-known Platonic personage,

we

end, and is

are left uncertain as to \vhether the author

or whether he found generally known, whether he did not or elsewhere in the same form,

to suppose

it

it

when he

to extricate himself out of his talk

know how had begun

In the other, the voice cautions against

it.

an undertaking, the nature of which is utterly unknown would it to Socrates; not to mention that we have, with into company very seem, the wise man brought inferior in

people,

and of a

which we do not find

class

Plato.

bad imitator appears from under the mask he has put only too manifestly In

on.

be

other

respects

the

also,

How

or fails

to

art

of

stated, badly the proposition that the stated, out of the Euthydemus, arts other all of works the rules over is

!

How

politics

this

Socrates accumulates in the most tedious manner,

clumsily

and

at

random

aping

Socratic

the

induc

as they illustrate

examples which are no examples never satisfied, but begins yet once nothing, and is still tion,

again

in

just

as

common knowledge only

that

an

tedious

of

a

form,

common

opportunity

may

to

only

things

!

display

How

be given

for

a

Theages,

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

Alcibiades or

whom, however, he bears otherwise no resemblance at all. And how Socrates twists the proposition for him under his own hands, a Callicles, to

had now ceased to wish to be

as if he

and only desired

him

instructed

to

be a good

in the

two characters are identical or

the

enumerate

all

that

ill

for

in

statesman,

to

distinct

done, would be,

concerned

is

subject-matter

is

as

degree

slightest

a

without having

citizen,

how But

!

far to

as far as the

much

of the lan

Platonic colouring enough to copy off the whole dialogue, and we would rather conclude with

guage there

is

character

its

for

brevity,

and imitate

it

this

in

re

spect.

II.

THE

spuriousness of this

with equal

force

from beginning well

as

its

by

contains enough further, sons,

it

the

questions, narrator,

ERAST.E. little

is

dialogue

proved

by every thing we meet with

to end.

by

its

most inward of the latter

most outward matter,

in

description.

so

in

it

dress, as far

as

To go

it

no

evinced by the namelessness of the per abrupt manner of Socrates in his openingis

and the way

which, being himself the he concludes with the announcement of the in

Still more, general assent which was awarded to him. undoubtedly, every reader will discover upon a nearer

view a general and utter absence of Platonic urbanity

326 and

irony,

to

which, however, the dialogue in

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

distinction, is here represented to the life in the

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,

who

when he has

to deal with sophists

boast of their multiscience, but which Plato, after

having written a single work, could hardly make the subject of a regular dialogue, unless he wished to work out cate

some other matter under

this

disguise,

some further doctrine, and we look of

this

anything even for Plato

s

kind first

in

the present this

exercise,

in

or incul

vain for

instance.

dialogue,

so

But

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

and which

to

bad thing when a question which

it

is

multiscience, but

here perfectly idle, at once in a manner is

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,

amounting

less

it

than he had already ob

only to the proposition, that the phi

a useless and superfluous character as long as there are masters in the several arts; just as if he is

losopher

had before gone too far without intending discussion

is

object

is

to

which

it

is

pher must

This

it.

followed lastly, by yet a third, whose show that there are kinds of knowledge in disgraceful for a man, such as a philoso

be,

to hold only

which multiscience cannot

that second

rank beyond

But how much

rise.

that

no way connected with the subject, and which is serviceable to no end whatever, is mixed up with this

is

in

last part

!

That about the

identity of justice with the

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

of

it,

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

moreover from the most

superficial

recollection,

On

thing upon this subject might be patched up. other hand,

sought

for,

several

present

necessarily

themselves for

affirmative

beyond hinting something explanation, or at least for pointing out

method where such an explanation without any

the

opportunities, which however un

or

left

some

use

is

saying

that negative

by a

different

to be found,

whatever being made

are

of them.

For one who had understood even art

of Plato,

it

in any degree this in fact a not un been would have

worthy problem, taking

this

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,

and even now an adroit imitator who should adjust the it,

and

members of

finish

it

make an attempt

the

further in

dialogue this

to

as

skilfully

we now have of view,

point this.

Hence,

might

it

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

of

it.

But

to imagine the

may

performance

here before us to be Platonic, or as

the third part of the

be at the bottom

trilogy

still

itself as

more

still

it

lies

decisively

owing, and con

sequently as the representation of the Philosopher in addition to that of the Statesman and Sophist this is the strangest notion

III.

IT

is

well

known

that can possibly be entertained.

ALCIBIADES

I.

that old commentators

celebrate this dialogue as the

upon Plato

best introduction

to the

wisdom of the philosopher, and recommend beginners to give the preference to it in commencing the study of Plato^s writings. And it is certainly undeniable that in the first Alcibiades, a variety of matter is touched upon, and a number of questions started, upon which

other

writings

of Plato

afford

more accurate conclu-

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

that both in ancient

and modern times many authors, themselves unable

to

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

of

possession

ference

to

all

honour and dignity, with

its

the

re

even

present dialogue, though before the judgment-seat of a quick-sighted and accurate cri ticism the work should be discovered not be one of

Plato first

It

s.

to

but

indeed,

is,

little

communicate doubts of

plain the grounds of

them

;

profitable to be

kind, and

this

for the

to

the

ex

faculty of critical

but

is

sparingly distributed, and among those, perhaps, who are not deficient in this respect, an accurate knowledge of the author, without which,

perception

however, a judgment cannot be formed, is still more And then come at once the great multitude of

rare.

those who, incapable of investigations of this kind, pro ceed in defence of what is traditional in such a manner as

And yet these those afore-mentioned, he suggests such doubts as those of which we speak

neither

are the

who

to

men

instruct

to

whom,

or

satisfy

us.

after

has to look.

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

say,

And that

therefore, this

little

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

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 to

gain

main generally the and in the annotations, points upon which it depends, instances tending the to particular occasionally to point reader may then take it as he to confirm it.

we intend now, only

to

establish

Every

and others

will,

to

whom

it

may seem worth

the trouble,

can turn the subject over and over, and bring the con clusion

more home

to the

apprehension and judgment

of readers in general.

thing in particular, in

any respect,

if

must

to prophesy that one to our own feelings trust can we

we venture

First of all then,

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

Of nothing, partly of long speeches. as it these, the first is so tedious that the god, when, the to defer colloquial seems, he resolved

busied

about

especially

until an opportunity meeting of Socrates and Alcibiades did neither these had arrived for delivering speeches,

of them any very great service.

The

second,

with a

celebrates Persian display of strange statistical notices, and Lacedaemonian virtues and riches; the virtues more in the

manner of Xenophon than Plato; the

riches

and

luxurious pomp, for the reason that no irony can be discovered

in

these

laudatory

descriptions,

in

a style

331 Accordingly, the reader will also himself utterly unsatisfied, and regret that he has

throughout unsocratic. feel

been compelled to wade through useless digressions raised upon the most trifling subjects, and that on the con trary, or,

most important matter

so to speak, the

cup

is

superficially passed over,

broken before

is

it

tasted.

is

If then, after this

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

a loss where to turn, and all,

that

which the second

subject that

it

is

certainly

title

of

it

whole

bears in

of false resemblance to certain

its

allow

first

of the

little

upon I mean

professes,

man.

to treat of the nature of

the

without,

will

work contains extremely

the

Viewed from a

construction

dialogues

kind

contained

in

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

thus, in the present case,

And profound results. might be considered as the

more it

is to prove to Alcibiades kinds of know he must from him other that acquire ledge previously to devoting himself to the conduct

external thema, that Socrates

of public

affairs,

and, on the other hand,

crates brings into

lishing

this

proof,

all

that So

the argument with a view to estab

be the proper But even the first point is not

might be taken

core of the dialogue.

to

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

of,

and in

the next, again, he goes beyond thema, and by way of conclusion, is induced to make some remarks this

332 upon education

in

And

general.

does the

less

still

constitute of itself a

matter intermediately introduced

For that Alcibiades has complete and regular core. neither discovered nor learnt what is just, that what is 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

just

is

a trace of irony, has, notwithstanding, imparted his sa have no connection gacity to no one, all these points stands where it each and whatever with one another, is,

only in

perfect for a

its

loose external relation to Alcibiades

state of

mind.

moment, that

Finally,

in these speeches

secrets or other are intended

to

some philosophical

the

though many genuine Platonic with what is here closely connected

slightest

them

trace of

is

On

be contained.

said, not

be met with.

to

the

doctrines are

contrary,

very

im

we must not imagine

even

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

with the distinction between knowledge and conception;

but in both instances these references untouched, and we are only reminded

are

left

totally

most ex

in the

manner by one passage of the Laches, of the of the Protagoras again by a Gorgias by another, and

ternal

third.

It

of must, however, be allowed that the majority

have not looked for the

readers

proper end of the dialogue in

the

that

little

necessity

of

fundity,

here

said

at

Now,

with

many

at

first

presently

treasure

in these speeches,

self-knowledge.

come forward but

is

secret

turns

to

the this

end,

but rather

upon

does

most

the

certainly

pretensions the

and

to

pro

superficial

333 matter, and

we

are obliged to put

up with a few per

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

fectly

the

dialogue,

insight

commended

as a

our

anything else remains but the nature of the god-head, which is re

scarcely

into the

means

knowledge of man, but

for the

of

dialogue incapable discussing this subject in the most meager style so that the morsel except seems in fact not worth the whole apparatus, indepen is

;

dent of the fact, that the particular members of this Neither apparatus are not in any way connected with it. in the composition, generally,

does any trace appear of

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

apparent

Sophist and Philebus, or even for passiveness of Socrates in the conduct

in the

of the dialogue, under which every thing seems so the more to grow purely out of the subject itself.

the

contrary,

Socrates

intrudes

in

much On

mere caprice, and

drags out one thing after another, generally, though he makes many words, breaking off the subject shorter than

is

his custom,

and only applying,

in

fact,

every

point to shame his interlocutor, so that the whole ac quires

an

eristic

character,

dialogue bears with

we

reflect that

it

which

in a similar

no other manner.

Platonic

And when

the interlocutor so rudely treated

is

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

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

little

334 endowed minion of to maintain that

his instructor,

we might be

the treatment of the relation

inclined

between

these two, and the keeping, or rather the want of keep ing, in their characters

is

still

more unplatonic than any

the present dialogue. For instance, this thing with the mute character which he boasts of Socrates, else in

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,

and with an arrogance which he hates

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

all

direct

appearance of the love of the boy

pedantically as possible, fact,

avoided

is

and due merit assigned

as

to the

that Socrates has not even once addressed Alcibi

ades until the time of his youthful bloom was as good as entirely

But how are we

passed.

to

reconcile this

with the manner in which the same relation

is

treated

of in the Protagoras and Symposium ? In the Prota Pericles is still and Socrates and Alci alive, goras yet 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

his

And

then

how completely

bloom was passed. Alcibiades

pears without any resemblance to him

elsewhere represented

!

At

first,

himself

whom we

ap find

one might suppose him

here cut out after the pattern of Callicles or Ctesippus,

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 In

answers.

his

short,

our present dialogue

is

we may consider

however

it,

this respect either a contra

in

diction of all

own

other Platonic dialogues, or else Plato s And dialogues are so with reference to the rest.

whoever does not

we cannot indeed

feel this,

him

afford

any advice, but only congratulate him that his notions of Plato can be so cheaply satisfied. We would, how

draw the

further

ever, yet

or

two points from which

we are not

of

attention

perhaps

in

others to one

the

for

sequel

any way inclined ourselves even to start more accurate conclusions might re

in

the subject here, sult

as

the

to

particular

mode

in

which the present

dialogue originated, and has come down to us. what is most Platonic in it may be indeed in imitation,

more

sometimes

close

and

may

in fact, it is of

;

have

literally

based upon

as for

of justice

written

it

thus,

hints taken from his

are in

it

own

example, the discussion upon the a very avail profit, which was

to

com

able example in illustration of his doctrine of the

munity

;

such a description, that though we can

may be perhaps relation

the subject-

be drawn from reminiscences of other works

not believe Plato to

instructions

part

more

sometimes

remote, of other passages, and as regards

matter

For

Moreover, some particular passages of such a nature, that we might not be

of ideas. fact

very loath to suppose that they exactly as they stand here. ther the way in which the

came from Plato

And

if

greatest

s

pen

we consider fur part

is

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,

and empty

how

the

when

especially

dialectics

superior

ends or

a

new one

a

which

matter

of worthless

piece

torn

is

begins, and

asunder and

deformed by these foreign additions might stand in far more accurate connection, we might almost be tempted immediate disciple of Plato somehow

that an

to think

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,

or other

and

distributed

and Meno, and teach in

it.

into

other

some

But

really

finished

called

Alcibiades.

it

this

still

Gorgias what he intended to

later,

dialogue,

least

at

would

himself,

the

as

dialogues,

if

scarcely

Plato had

have

been

This appellation was certainly but

colloquy with Socrates. For his boiling vivacity would not have borne to have attributed to it the character of a passive interlocutor, little

appropriate

to

such

a

though of the best kind, like Theaetetus for instance, and Plato could scarcely have thought of engaging him violent

in

cles

;

polemics against Socrates, as he does Calliit may certainly be fairly maintained that

so that

instead

of two

Alcibiades

1 ,

day have been attributed to write

one.

which up Plato,

to

the

present

he did not

even

337

MENEXENUS.

IV.

No

reader of Plato,

surprise at finding this in the series of his

it

is

little

presumed, will feel any work not brought forward

properly philosophical writings, to which, inasmuch as no philosophical subject is treated of in of the Menexenus has as little claim any part it, 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

may

speeches,

reasonably be expected to be not

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.

very possible

the

speech

is

for

some

in

placed

relation

to

the

funeral

oration of Pericles, which us,

to

a

Thucydides has preserved to is certainly manifest, but when Socrates refers both one authoress, and that authoress this is

jest,

to

out of which

extract

it

will

Aspasia, not be easy for any one

any serious meaning;

that the later oration contains in

the

tion,

earlier, is this a much more available indica inasmuch as the aim of the two speeches is so

completely different in each, the second should have in find in the first, this

when he says that was omitted

nor,

much

opinion,

who had

laid

if it

that

we do not

see

why

any way contained what we and we might feel more satisfied with it was a later author pronounced

by

down

as a law at

starting, that such a speech must from the begin beginning with a pane gyric upon all the exploits of the Athenian people.

u u

338 Another thing which may

easily

strike

any one

is,

intended in this speech to set up

that Plato probably

a counterpart to one of Lysias, and in fact, when we compare the funeral oration of this rhetorician on the

same occasion with that which we are considering,

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.

here combined into a whole, by

together

in

means of

the connection of distinctly enunciated ideas, impressed upon the hearer by means of words,

which

is

whose sound

Lysias

is

is

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

means of intimating the same comprehends the speech

the

in

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 If then this

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

friends

partiality

the

to

severely

had met this

his

death

exhibition,

censured

the corrupting art,

?

Nay, that from

his

he has himself practised

and hypocritical department of

inasmuch

as

in

the

historical nar-

339 rative here given, none but the fair side

and

all faults

in the state are

mest obscurity, while with

the national are

king,

in

withdrawn into the dim

particular,

enemy of

embellished

the

and

ever presented,

is

the later relations

Hellenes, the Persian

represented

manner

a

in

which may scarcely be

And

therefore

it

justified upon historical grounds. we might suppose, that Socrates

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

manner another person might

like

say, that as Plato Philebus relaxes his overstrained polemics against the art of so likewise he did the same at an speaking,

in the

earlier period

For

that

the present dialogue in act and deed.

in

Menexenus

the

attempt to improve, only flattered is

that

all

there into

is

is

;

preserved in

vivid

give a

direction,

an

consciousness state,

more exalted turn

this flattery

the present case, and that

throughout,

Athenian people and

endeavour

the

true

in order

to

idea this

by

to

bring of the

means

make an attempt to connect with the Symposium, in a sense present dialogue ferent from that in which the former connected

Philebus.

For appealing

to

the

great

to

And

the national mind.

a third, again, might

the

an

which the people were ordinarily

and that the appearance of

manifest

right

nothing but

fact

by giving them a better

these speeches in

all

in

is

it

the dif

with

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

beyond the

recommendations

to

virtue,

line of all that is serious,

is

by

itself

pushed and

repetition

340 bantering,

he might attempt to represent

main a playful imitation of the rhetorical

who

can

tell

how much

a skilful

in

as

it

styles.

critic,

the

And

having once

given a hint of this view, furnished with great reading

and the commentaries upon them, might not bring forward in support of the same something what than various and more Dionyprofound certainly in the orators,

;

who only reminds us

of Gorgias, Licymnus, and Polus, and once^ in passing, of Agathon. sius says,

But find

in

as far

as

we

are concerned every reader

may

earnest as he

will,

the speech as must jest or

and conjecture according to his own notions what Plato meant by it much, however, will be gained at once, if ;

we could but persuade our readers not

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,

from the circumstance that none of the

which arises

different views

We meet with any confirmation in the dialogue. are indeed fully aware that by many persons even the will

introduction has

has been

been discovered to be beautiful,

much admired by

them.

But with

and

how much

when it has unplatonic has this been the case Plato. of name once come forward under the Certainly, that

is

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

does not assist us

with

omission already censured, that

in the slightest degree to a trace

meaning of the whole, some blame, and moreover

regard to the particular

this dialogic setting deserves

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

permits

it,

the coarse jest, that he nearly got a beating on account of his slowness at learning, and that he would even

dance naked for love of Menexenus.

It

the

work of another author, who gladly

certainly a

is

very pardonable suspicion, that this setting

is

set

probably

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.

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

easily

mean, that Socrates delivers a to something speech referring completely and entirely his after that did not ensue until long death, and that

at

all

comparable

:

I

he professes to have this speech from Aspasia, must have been already dead long before him. thus

ing

it

in

would be the

more such

in vain

to look for

who

And

any serious mean

promise given by Socrates to produce yet state speeches from the mouth of his mis

tress.

V.

THE

object of this dialogue

losophical.

beautiful in as

well

trouble,

THE LARGER

as

HIPPIAS. is

certainly purely phi

For the explanation of the idea of the its full

extent, as

immaterial,

and quite

as

it

embraces material things worth the

would certainly be

important as regards the philo

sophy of Plato, as the object of many of the smaller

342 which we

have assigned a place in the But the reader, if he looks to the mode

to

dialogues

larger series. in

which

this

is

subject

treated,

surprised to find the Hippias

certainly not be

will

Major only

in this place

For it is throughout sceptical to a Appendix. a mul none of the others which characterises degree in the

;

titude

of

taken

up and

different all

explanations of them

taken of

the upshot

is

ducted

or

referred

find

to

it

in

refuted. to

all

this

only in

consist

of

a

the

beautiful

And

which the reader

process

of

are

even, when is

refutation,

con

we

couple of perfectly fami

of the bad positions, which teach that the origin and that the beau not in power but in impotence

liar is

!

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

;

absence of scientific

this

the dialogue

Thus,

it

among

tone,

we cannot number

those properly called philosophical. in any visible connection of

stand

does not

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

there find

even

in

material

the

things.

most distant

But no one reference

to

the

will in-

343 vestigations here pursued, nor the Hippias is any proximate

what

to

is

again

in

any

part

of

preparation discoverable

discussed in the Philebus.

In short,

it

must be

at once manifest to every one,

that a scientific treatment of the subject, the beautiful that is, in speaking of the present is almost

dialogue

entirely out of the question,

kept out of sight

;

and quite

so

is

completely

as certain

is

it,

such

all

that

the

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

recognise the spirit of the Hedonic schools, in so far, that

thing

and

as

is,

according to them the good

capriciously

fitting.

Only

discussing this point

established, it

may

is

only

consequently

some

agreeable

excite our surprise, that

in

Socrates adheres so exclusively to a

kind of almost verbal

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

order to indicate that property of the beautiful which

he in

mentions in the Philebus as the essential element it.

But, though this explanation

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

close at

344 Plato puts into the mouth of Hippias about gold, and the pretty girl, was derived from any other authors.

And

thus

impossible for any one to avoid asking it happens that Plato exhibits the not

is

it

how

himself,

undistinguished sophist as guilty of such an unheard degree of stupidity, as not to be even in a condition

understand a question as to how a word

to

The

?

to be

is

personal ridicule indisputably appears

explained here under a far coarser form than anywhere else, not excepting even the Euthydemus, where the persons are in

probably

no instance as

exaggerated

it

is,

strictly historical,

and

have certainly destroyed

it

would, its

own

effect.

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

dialectics of his prototype.

excited,

firming

much it.

certainly

Thus,

at

will

the

And

the suspicion once

be found apparently con

very beginning Socrates

in

a piece of sophistical dialectics, which might us to believe, that not anything, being what

dulges in

induce

can be useless, a piece of art which would not be unworthy of any of the persons in the Euthydemus.

it

is,

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

Hippias meantime exhibits in his beha viour a plain common sense which he is not quite able

the contrary,

345 subsequently to keep up, and with a moderation which is not very carefully returned on the side of Socrates. the

arrangement of the whole,

Then,

in

strikes

us as something

of the dialogue

all

it

that in the

strange,

certainly first

half

explanations of the beautiful come

from Socrates, who there contradicts himself, and that for the most part in an unnatural and precipitate manner, without being

from Hippias, and

in

in

the latter

any way compelled as

it

all

were to do so by the course

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

man

have come from the hand of Plato

enus, and Socrates afterwards puts himself

the

for

Menex-

threatens to beat him, like Aspasia in the

by name

in

the place of the man, without, however, its being made clear that he meant only himself from the first, and in

such a manner that no particular

duced by his doing

so,

effect

and the resort

whatever

is

pro

to this expedient

But it might, entertain the to be rather precipitate notwithstanding, again

is

altogether contrary to good taste.

notion of making these grounds very importantly valid, and we could not justify the placing of this dialogue in the

same

class with those

which we have

There

unconditionally rejected. santry dispersed over the

is

strictly

and

an abundance of plea

and when

we have

made due allowances and considered further

that this

was the principal object

whole,

in view,

and that

in the second

a variety of contemporaneous matter is criticised under the name of Hippias as well as of Socrates, we part

shall

as

be readily disposed to pardon the exaggerations as the extravagancies of the humour which

well

xx

346 prevails in the dialogue.

how much

We

r

ma}

,

moreover, easily see

of the polemics generally

The

self-defence.

earthenware,

is

grounded upon and

kitchen-furniture,

the golden mill,

are purposely introduced in defiance of

who were

pleased to ridicule examples taken from

those

things

trifling

and that superintending

;

listener

is

to

be regarded as exemplifying in the highest degree the practice which sometimes occurs when Socrates asks his interlocutor

how he must answer a third person making And who then can say how many

this or that objection.

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

may be

Hippias

them, or of the

superficial

of

parodies

manner

others

like

which the good

in

and the beautiful were by many made

to

consist

in

thing without penetrating into But why Hippias in parti the real essence of them. this

or

cular

that particular

the person to give his which no one will look

is

upon

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

it

is

a private colloquy with Socrates, especially as the two dialogues

have no

another.

If then one of them

internal

relation is

to

whatever

to

one

be considered Pla

tonic, and the other not, the victory will be with the

larger

of the

author

in

two.

For many

traces

exist

that

the

of the smaller dialogue had Particular expressions of ridicule

the composition

the larger before him.

which the larger dispatches in a few words, are spun out in the former with dis and the banquet of speeches to proportionate prolixity, directed against

which

in

crates,

is

the man,

the larger dialogue the Sophist invites exactly concluded in the smaller.

So

347

CLITOPHON.

VI.

IN the old catalogues of

the

of

writings

Plato,

the

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

only person present, his

depreciation

him

to

say

in

that

moreover represented as the the third person, and laments

is

in

such a manner that Clitophon can he is manifestly sensitive this, to

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,

fully repelled, both immediately

is

and by the

ironical matter contained in them.

If then is

not

we are once agreed

great variety of opinion as to

There

that

from the hand of Plato, there

is,

indeed,

no

question

this is

little

yet

piece

room

for

tendency and object. that in the works of

its

348 several of the lesser Socraticians the

wisdom of Socrates

itself in its negative character only, especially presented and exposure of the in

as a confutation of the errors

of other methods.

sufficiencies itself

Now,

if

this

method

is

intended to be here censured as insufficient, the

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

piece

the objection made against Plato of far exceeding the real Socrates. from various sides, And perhaps it was under this supposition that the

against

justification

ancients

assigned

the

its

Clitophon

Republic, to stand, as

it

before

place

the

were, in the place of an ex

culpatory introduction, because this dialogue appeared to them to be the first place in which much that

extended

beyond Socrates But then, manifestly taught. far

was in

the

and

particularly first

the

place,

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

insufficiency

wisdom can only furnish a mean. And then again, it would be strange that the dissatisfied person applies directly

to

a sophist

tainly, therefore,

like

It

Thrasymachus.

is

cer

more probable that the dialogue comes the best oratorical schools, and is

down from one of

directed against Socrates and the Socraticians in general,

Plato not excepted. in

this

And we must

be much confirmed

view when we see how the whole

is

actually a

running parody and caricature of the Platonic mariner, especially

teachers

of

all

of the

that art

appears

of politics,

against

the

sophists

as

and which must have

so naturally found an application to the teachers of the We art of speaking, who were Plato s contemporaries.

349 are most vividly

pose in

reminded of what occurs

the Protagoras,

and even the

the Gorgias,

Alcibiades

first

;

the

to this

pur

Euthydemus,

and the elegant negli

gence of certain Platonic periods is here imitated with a richness which cannot well fail to make a lively im If,

pression.

be ascribed

upon

on

the

the

to

as conceived

tainly consider

duction,

and

in Plato s

spirit,

then

we need

suppose

conclusion

to

in the second,

to

brilliant

original design, as,

the

is

to

what we have here

But

dialogue

and

must

and

yet to follow.

this

hand,

school,

was to be converted satisfactory

other

Platonic

that

to

of

s

triumph and that a

defeat,

justification

cer

be only an intro

Clitophon

a serious

to

be looked

Socrates

was

can hardly have been the in the first place, the return of the still

this

commencement

is

too

decided,

and,

Socrates would certainly have begun his

attack at an earlier period in the dialogue.

350

PART

III.

REPUBLIC.

WHEN

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,

we must have been already very what

is

said in the

vividly convinced

that he

Symposium,

whom

by

Socrates

once gets into conversation must hold out the whole others night, and even to the morning dawn, though

may have sleep,

all

made

and that he

off

is

surrendered

or

as little wearied

themselves to

by repeating

his

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

large

this,

succeeding

mediately the day

the whole dialogue on

when

before,

party,

the

it

and such was

individuals

first

also held.

composing

the day im was the case

For of the which

are

at

partly as accompanying So and Polemarchus, partly as already present the dwelling of the latter, the majority disperses one

first

mentioned by name,

crates and in

knows not how prefer the

;

at

least,

spectacle which

they do is

in

not

say that they reserve, of the newly

introduced holiday torch-dance, to the continuous and self-evolving argument of Socrates concerning justice and the republic.

Only the two sons of Ariston, who,

after

351

Polemarchus and Thrasymachus had Socrates about the idea of justice, objections an especial to stand

without

to

first

disputed with

testified

by stout

to the task,

stoutly continue the argument in alternation with Socrates, call

appearing however to be of any particular whether Glaucon or Adimantus sustain the importance its

conversation.

Now

the author appears by this dress to convey a wish that his readers should in like manner conceive if

and enjoy the work as one undivided whole as

in

itself,

the

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

an obstacle to the accomplishment of that wish.

division,

Aristotle does not

although

tainly of great, antiquity,

notice

it,

This is

cer

and since from the time of the

commentators upon the Stagyrite until now

the

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

is

suppose that if Plato had found it necessary to divide his work, he would have been likely vail

upon myself

to project a

to

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

he

would avoid

whole must entirely

falling

into

confusion.

set

For

aside, it

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

them

in

the middle of a dis

in

oft

such a manner that not

cussion in

could

turned

be

commencement.

Since

then,

to

the

resemble one another in extent, case, that the

first

books

it

much

pretty

may

be

easily

the

important break was adopted as the

many compartments formed

standard, and as

come out

even any phrases denote conclusion or

sufficiently

similar

in

would

as

length to this, a pro

libra ceeding in which, clearly, the transcribers and the ries must have been all that was had in view.

is

this Accordingly, if we totally reject the notion that an original subdivision, or one connected with the

internal arrangement of the whole, and

go

find

work

according to the indications in the

latter

to

the

itself,

we must give the composer credit for having attempted by every method to recompense the reader for the want of regular external

much

as

possible

the

divisions,

and to

facilitate as

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

which the thread must be taken up anew.

In like manner,

it

is

where a new section maries of

all

generally

made very observable

begins, and comprehensive sum

that has gone before are so

must be extremely easy

little

spared,

every reader with nay, that any degree of attention to keep the thread it seems almost impossible to fall into any uncertainty that

as

to

it

for

the real object of the work,

and the relation of

unity of the whole. the course of the entire work is as follows:

particular parts to the

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

present themselves to the mind,

and extols

it

the

as

most important advantage of wealth, that the rich man can meet what awaits him with a more confident spirit, as

he has been

commit

tempted than the needy one

less

To

injustice.

this

to

Socrates tacks the question

as to the nature of justice, while he immediately rejects

current

a very

application of familiar instances, explanation of it, that it is truth in

by the

as insufficient,

speaking and honesty in restoring.

And

lus, who, independently of any thing else,

here is

Cepha-

already too

advanced in years for such dialogues, resigns his place to his son Polemarchus in order to attend to the

far

out

sacrifice

of

doors.

And

Polemarchus

then

en

trenches himself behind an explanation of justice given

by Simonides, which Socrates, however, destroys in like manner by the application of his frequently tried method. this

Upon

Thrasymachus comes

the Chalcedonian

ward with the big swagger of a

sophist, here

for

and there

reminding us of the rough jests in the Euthydemus, and occupies the place of Callicles in the Gorgias of

up the ordinance made by

Plato,

the

tage

;

setting

and hence that

it

proposition that justice

is

only

the stronger for his own advan tends to the hurt of the weaker

be just, while injustice is wisdom, and the Socrates defends unjust life the only one desirable.

party

to

of governing powers, which universally provide for what is best for others, and indeed for the weakest, and by no means himself

by the analogy of

for themselves.

cherish

observed

And

exorbitant

among

all

arts

because the wise do in no case

beyond the due proportion fellows, and inherent in the thing

notions

their

the

YY

354 while the unjust, recognising no proportion what

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

excites

naturally

of

discord,

consequently, that a just life

a is

weakening

tendency

;

alone a happy one, be

cause, moreover, the soul can perfectly execute its office,

comprising the duties of deliberation*, governing, and superintendance, only by means of

and that

tion,

Thus

the

victory

of

is

its

own proper and not

by justice, book does indeed conclude

confessedly

first

over

Socrates

the

but

sophists,

perfec

injustice.

with also

the

with

the lamentation of the conquerer himself, that the nature

of justice has

still

not been yet discovered, consequently,

that the question started remains where

untouched.

And by

this conclusion

was, perfectly

it

the book

is

clearly

enough marked ments up to this point can only have any value as preparatory to what is to follow. as

And by

this

maintained of

all

an introduction,

conclusion the same also

any

is

virtually

the Socratic dialogues previously given

in this translation, as

virtue

that the argu

so

many

of them at least as discussed

whatever, inasmuch

as

Thus

discover the correct explanation.

all

they

failed

to

the Protagoras

treated the question of the unity and communicability of virtue, but without defining the idea of virtue it self;

thus in the Laches courage

the Charmides, discretion.

And

is

discussed,

since,

in

and in

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

mind on the present

the

Hence

occasion.

it

is

cer

tainly not without definitely this first

any object, but rather with one very and very judiciously attained, that book of the work before us recalls those earlier in

view

ethical pieces

to the

look

method of the

the

to

we

of the reader, whether

memory

investigation,

or

to

the

general outline of the composition, or to the language

and the

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 is

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

tion

reminded of

some

by the preference of the sophist long speeches furnishing no proof, by the appeal to celebrity,

lyric poet in ethical matters, in a word,

And

thing.

if,

as

is

;

for

the

by almost every

certainly the case, the

Thema

of

definitely of the Gorgias,

Thrasymachus reminds us very

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 this

does not agree

ill

This method of

second.

resemblance what

gone before

is

to

recalling is

recollection

by

indeed most emi

nently suitable to a writer not permitted by the form of his works to appeal in the later immediately to the earlier

but

;

still

explained from

have

the entire

is

circumstance alone, as

this

been

phenomenon

more

not

to

be

this object

reached

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.

On

the

easily

contrary,

if

us and the other ethical dialogues completely vanishes as the work advances-

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

are once

all

and summoned

more represented

the scene of action,

to

as present

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. stirs

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 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

found

the

what he

acquired.

Nay, even

immediately

in

succeeding

point of style, of the

speeches

as constituting the transition, that bear to

is

only the

two brothers,

any resemblance

what has gone before, no dialogic embellishment or

attractive irony strictness of

is

troduction, and

make

it

hereafter to gain the prize, but solid

argument

youthful virtuoso

to

it

is

as

alone.

The whole

store of the

glitters here once for all in the in then extinguished for ever, in order

well

as

understood,

possible

that

all

beautiful and pleasing of this kind occupies a place in the province of philosophy only in preparatory that

is

investigations, the object of

and excite than conclusions;

which

advance

to

is

more

to stimulate

and come to satisfactory

and that when a connected exposition of

the results of philosophical investigations is to be given, such embellishment would contribute more to distract the

mind than

subject.

And

assist

in

the perfect comprehension of the

these

preparatory

points are established to which to

call

attention,

as

it

they prove

may

arguments

some

be useful shortly

of importance in

the

357

made

sequel, without being here

The

first is

particularly prominent.

that in the comparison of the different arts

any authority, the profit thence arising is entirely separated from the proper object of the exercise of the art, and aptitude in the acquisition that

exercise

of profit

rather

is

one and the same

set

as

up

man

a

possesses

in

This yields a conclusion,

others.

upon what was

conjunction

the

first

said in the earlier dialogues,

with

we have, and espe

the Gorgias and the Sophist, of the art of coun

cially

in all its

terfeit

may become

a

For every

manifold ramifications. counterfeit

when

art

way and a means calculated And we have also from of acquisition gain. further result, which

is

made

subsequent propositions,

the basis of

that every art,

exercise authority, the higher it

purely

from

all

point

is

practised must be

is

admixture of desire for

many

for the this

a

of the

especially such

rises

it

so

art

comes to be

it

treated only as a

as

which

art

particular

much profit.

that position, so very easily, and

and the more the

more

The

free

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,

locutors, that those

that instead of governing themselves they are governed Meanwhile we should not consider as others worse.

by

a fault in Plato the facility so

important

true

in

its

as

regards

general form,

his

with which this position, Republic, here passes for

since

the

particular

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

it

is

358 with

discussion

last

Thrasymachus begins

take

to

a

turn, representing justice not only as something existing

between two persons

from one another, but

separate

something internal, and so likewise injustice as something causing discord and distraction when it in also as

And

habits different parts of one and the same whole. it

is

this consideration that the

by

the form is

and method

treated of in

The

what

in

way is prepared for which the question of justice

follows.

description of this form and method, and the

preparations for the line of proceeding resolved upon, occupy the second part of the work, comprising the

second

and

third,

book.

And

the

and

the

continuation

beginning of the fourth thus proceeds.

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, him

to have given up his cause too soon, has by no means been yet proved that more advantageous than injustice. For, that

as conceiving

inasmuch as justice

only

is

the appearance of justice has been shown

But

useful. test,

it

is

it

to

be

that in order to put justice to the proper

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 all

bearing

And

of justice. this

after

Glaucon has estimated

injustice in

manner, Adimantus also comes forward and further

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,

that

it

is

come under consideration, but, is,

what

effect

they

each

have

that the only question

on

man

in

and

for

359 If then,

themselves.

Plato does as

this postulate,

by

it

were supersede himself, and declare the demonstrations Gorgias and Phaedon insufficient in what relates

in the

purely ethical ground is now for the time gained thereby, and the same Socrates un dertakes the more subtle and laborious problem, and

to this point, a first

down his plan of proceeding, which search for justice in the state, where

lays

is

to be,

to

it

must be

eye, and then

the in

order

to

to

return

whether and how far

see

And

in the one as in the other.

as

the

in

exactly

this

same manner and

here

is

in

the next

is

it

plan the

in

the same

is

executed

same order

main division

third

projected of the work, while this second part describes the itself

public in

way

with a view

which men

And

here

makes the of

which

are

not

it is

state

the

is

in

consequently, more visible to to the individual mind,

and,

characters,

larger

first

to

its

that,

are educated in

remarkable,

original

of

origin

and

for

all,

how

the necessities,

in

originate

first

it

difference

of men,

nature

Re

and the it.

Socrates the

basis

since

all

for

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

which

equally adapted

life

are thus to

be

as

the

requires,

to

compensate

found.

work of

But,

mutual

their

though

necessity,

he

his

deficiencies,

looks

opinion

upon

a

certainly

are state

was

must originate from a random search or not that accidental meeting of individuals, but the general Hel it

lenic

hypothesis

is

the basis of his theory, that every

united body, however small

the city

compass*, produces such

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.

* Schleiermacher adds ficiently

its

360 a perfective compensation of natures, and that necessity is only set up as representing the social nature of man,

and the

business

of

the

state

consists

in

converting proximity among men into a regular condition of mutal aid and support, in order thus to keep men

local

in a peculiar

manner united

even this on the other

side,

it

is

is

represented as a compound,

and that of such a nature that life

should exist

We

wanting.

if

feel

to that hypothesis

without a definite

not

so far as not only here but

reference to the mind, in

elsewhere also in Plato

And

in a fixed proportion.

it

is

impossible

human

any one of the component parts be at once that more doubt attaches

which supposes that attention

to

war

and defence, with which the whole organisation of the Platonic state is most closely connected, arises only

from an endeavour

after

an endeavour, of

prosperity

which Socrates himself particularly disapproves, declar ing the only properly healthy society to be that most simply constituted

union

which confines

production of the most

itself

necessaries.

to

the

But

indispensable according to this, so long as the state is in the enjoy ment of that health, no other species of legislation

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

Now,

contract.

organisation itself,

all

then,

of a

if

we apply

well-ordered

this

condition

the virtues would thus rest

theory to the in the mind

upon a morbid

Perhaps, however, the praise bestowed upon an entirely undeveloped social state as being the only

state.

one consistent with real health, seriously times.

others

as

For,

it

has been

although

Socrates

is

not to be taken so

many in modern urgent demand of the

echoed by

at

particularly

the

names sensual enjoyments,

361 luxuries and arts, which are in the sequel for the most

part rejected, as what

admitted, tion

yet of the original

proper bearing of the reference to

tions,

it

is

is

without

impossible to

full

The

live.

therefore, probably,

in

mind,

great

and manifold

not

society,

to suspect, all the spiritual

this too

the

a

wanting in that descrip

simple

elements without which

of

are

am tempted

consideration, I

susceptible

be according to his theory

may

there

still

which not before of sensual

multiplicity

upon it

is

attrac

activity in itself, can virtue appear

a definite form, or the opposition between good and evil itself. the theoretical develope Only representation in

of the state sacrificed

does

itself

that

to

indeed seem

relation,

when

be too much

to

intimated

is

it

that,

because in the mind the separation of the functions is the ground upon which the whole doctrine of virtue that follows

rests,

that,

also

therefore,

the operations

of war and defence, because they correspond to a pecu function in the mind, do, notwithstanding the fact that war occurs in the state only at intervals, form a liar

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

their

work

be said is

an

of the leaders

of the

army

art, the performances of the

that

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 Platonic

the

that

may

be,

men

the

sufficient

must ever continue a disproportionate burden

with

But, notwithstanding the

classes.

upon the productive ease

however

army,

vicious might have avoided this he had taken the common soldiers

which he

state of things,

if

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

and perfect representation see

how

And

the state.

thus

we

subordinate an object the representation of the

state is in

and

for itself,

and how every thing

calculated for and regulated

the idea, that

is

only

it is

only to thus order to be a magnified form of the mind, in

by

more easily in it. recognise justice This subordination is still more confirmed by what

For after immediately follows. what kind of disposition they

it

has been determined

what

must have, and

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

here

set

up

as the

is

And

discussed.

thus,

what

standard according to which

all

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

bilitated

for the indivU manifestly of great importance

For the against

by the

spirited principle,

destructive inclinations,

belief, that the

same

is

to fight

will

be de

if it

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 and constitution the But upon indulge their passions. as little will

it

363 arrangement of the commonwealth such a fancy has no immediate influence, but only in so far as it corrupts

The

individual minds.

same may be argued of every thing in this part of the work connected with educa tion,

that

most

refers

it

the

to

and that

individual,

a purely ethical relation, in order to effect in the mind a harmony of government and obedience, and that

in

every essential part in it and not encroach beyond

gard state

paid from the cannot be better

is

composing

it,

whence

may perform

than

its

the principle,

to

first

own

its

the

its

the

that

bulk of individuals

upon

tranquillity depends

constancy of character, and

office,

Only, that generally re

it.

excellence

upon the

their

com

petency of each individual for his own business. also

in

the

that

maxim,

those

of the

As

defenders

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

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

the other parts

of the mind, and that the reasonable

man

estimate the

life

alone can besides

To

own.

his

value of other modes

this

purely

ethical

bearing

upon the individual, we have indeed an exception the discipline appointed for the champions,

of

in

which be

longs exclusively to the peculiar character of the Platonic

But

Republic. superficially this

subject

this

what

sometime

law, which

this

described,

and

place derstood from ;

for

at

the

as

very reason it is here only not properly belonging to

description is

said

at

afterwards.

end of

this

is

full

On part

only length the is

to

be

un

upon the

contrary,

made good

the in

364 to

opposition

of

the

;

division

of

as

well

poverty

must

the

it,

an

in

commonwealth, place, and are

this

vidual mind than the to

state

equal

be made

a

in

maxim

degree

are

must

happiness

and not

the

as

these

the

that

Adimantus,

whole

in

particular

that

be

exist

and

riches

withheld

from

appropriate to less for the indi

perfectly

intended

not

But what answer

Republic.

when a well-meaning

though

is

somewhat

austere friend of truth asks, what, in a work constructed

upon a

purely ethical, is to be made of the Plato thinks to bring about that wholesome

basis so

that

fact,

stability

by

say,

truth

of character by

a false pretence, or,

a pious fraud, falsifying as far as

of childish recollection,

commands and prophetic

as they

may be

the

and jesting with divine

sentences, so that even Socrates

with this part of his This timidity, however, is to be taken more argument. in jest as if Socrates was apprehensive that persons

himself appears timorous enough

;

might be inclined to reject with a strong hand, totally

and

entirely, every

For when Socrates

thing mythical.

previously explained mythical tradition generally upon the principle, that most that

in

is

some part truth, he means now that the this

good

is

is

falsehood, but

convey the notion from the bad in chiefly distinguished

kind of tradition according as

or fiction.

it

Now,

in

representation only

is

to

it

is

the seat of truth

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 is

the

fundamental

views.

does indeed result,

For

the

variety

of

natures

under divine Providence, from the

most secret operations of planetary life, and an educa tion which is to do nothing else, so long as the pupils

365 are

unable to guide themselves, beyond developing what has thus come into existence, is fairly

still

further

referred in the end to the

same

And

principle.

it

results

accordingly on all sides as matter of divine ordinance, that a commonwealth must go to ruin in which un

men, and with no inward

suitable

government

so that

;

on

this

not indeed be without his justification.

can

it

be

cautious

fairly

fear

in

attain

call,

to

account our author

the

may

Neither, again,

explained as simply the result of a Plato of the fate which befel his

master and others, that he refuses himself to legislate

upon the worship of the gods, and consigns that task to the native We at least, knowing as we do, Apollo.

how done,

any time modern philosophers have ever who thought to found a new worship of the

little

at

Supreme God capriciously and extemporaneously, with out historical foundation,

should the less expect any of the kind from as he belongs to a period Plato, thing at which no one could have any conception of a god-

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

known, does

proceed in a spirit entirely Hellenic. Plato in the books up to this And, although point, declares with sufficient spirit against all fabling, that has a tendency to degrade the idea of the Supreme still

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

not interpreted amiss in him that he most

it

prefers committing

the ordination of sacred matters to

the native god, whose sentences rise

up from the most

mysterious depths of the central point of the earth. And here, when the fundamental outlines of the

Republic have been sketched thus of the work begins.

marked

distinctly

Adimantus

And

the

enough

by

summon now

to

Polemarchus and

also

the

far,

the third part

commencement of Socrates

it

is

upon

calling

not only his brother, but rest

together.

This

part,

though comprehended within the remainder of the fourth book, not only projects the idea of justice, but gives explanations as the

manner

And

state.

process

is

how

is

it

of

well

which

in

then,

other virtues, and

all

exhibit

they

after

it

has

first

themselves

been

of

in

the

shewn that

this

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 having any other piece. And 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

can be said that when three of these constituent

parts have been demonstrated, the

must

necessarily be justice.

even

suppose

that

oral discussions, lost

work.

For

proof to

still

remaining part cannot

And moreover we have

been

known

from

or to have been communicated in any such a proof could not have been

given without at the same time the four virtues being

367 thoroughly explained, and accordingly the whole of the in the last case be superfluous,

work before us would and

the

in

there would

first,

proof as well

be no reason

as the explanations should not

why

the

have been

repeated in writing. tified

upon

contains itself in

erected,

which

by

Plato, therefore, can only be jus point, if the structure, as it is here

this

the

and the whole process

itself,

explanations

of

all

these

virtues

are

obtained does

by immediate palpability claim the con viction of the reader in such a manner that he de siderates

further

nothing

then the virtues are

first

for

his

satisfaction.

Since

the Republic,

investigated in

the completeness of this investigation rests entirely upon the proper relation of the three classes into which Socrates divided the inhabitants

and

;

if

the ^four virtues

cause by their means each one of these classes to relation to the rest

into proper

and

fall

to the whole, then

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

as

itself

well

the

in

earlier

However

preceding dialogues. section still

also

books of

every thing

the individual

mind

is is

this

work

as

in

the

accurately then in this to the Republic,

referred

constantly and prospectively

Thus, kept in view in a manner not to be mistaken. the case of wisdom, the general law that it is not

in

by any particular knowledge of anything in the state, but by that of the state itself, and its manner of ex istence,

that

account of

its

the

state

is

wise,

is

set

application to the mind.

up

especially on

In like manner

368 the

somewhat

observation, if

which,

truth

its

too

were disputed,

found untenable as regards the can

ledge

ference

the

to

mind, of

principle

manifold

For however

mind.

it

is,

desire,

is

principle,

and

the

this

strange

smallest

know

spreading is

the

which

as

does

it

may

that into

and

largest,

ever

it

component part certain

notwithstanding,

ramifications,

simple

with

that

state,

exist

sound that the reason

the

would perhaps be

in a only very small number of the seems to have been produced more with re

citizens,

of the

and

conceded,

easily

continues

the

such

therefore consistent

never other than the most internal, to be the smallest, Also in the case naturally appears j itself,

of courage,

is

the remark,

that the explanation given is of civil courage, is to be referred to that the courage of individual minds not only

immediately that the fact

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 it

again, cipitate

that

all

the

to

virtues

abridged.

of

Next,

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

after

then,

indirectly,

as

that of the four

the discovery of the other three, that

this

virtue

is

left

which remains

The

untouched

to

first

the

point last,

369 indeed be explained upon

may

would otherwise have been others

not

also

the

a

to

the ground

occasion

less

but

explanation;

satisfactory

that

there

to reduce

the

this

is

on the contrary, the discovery of

only one;

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

justice last,

are closely

cursorily

more extended

means of which

own proper

be that quality of a thing by

to

sense, it

a

in

is

Now

function.

condition

state

perform

the four virtues are

posed to have been discovered

same

to

in this state,

we have had shewn

to us

and

its

sup

in the

the three classes

or orders of citizens, of which two do indeed

respect

perform their own

appropriate functions in the state, while the third, that of those who work for hire, comprises a multiplicity of functions, which are not ively

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

for

classes,

by reason of peculiar so

to

these

own

its

wisdom of

the it

the youth of that to the

still

class,

the

wise,

when

ever

virtue wise,

only by its

also it

and be

guardians,

namely,

the

it

of

courage champions, while

Now

it

is

indeed true,

only wise by virtue of the wisdom of this

wisdom can operate

in

legislation

and guidance, that is, when obedience is rendered to and in like manner only brave by the courage of champions, when

is

wisdom nor courage are ever

even in any degree attributed. is

state its

so

is

third class neither

that the state

a

so

peculiar function,

For be a

itself.

only by ever so brave,

two orders have each of them,

these, like

3

it; its

the governing parties, have

A

370 the

necessary

done for them

services

state,

small

who

love

with

thus

division in the

more honourable

these two virtues of the since those

and

;

wisdom must ever be but a

from the courageous, two other virtues

selection

of the inferior order seem to be

connected, obedience,

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

be

thus not

by

which

virtue to

ticular

this

found

at

all all,

that

is

neither

said

in

refers,

the

would

state,

nor,

method, in the mind, the application to which,

however, manifests

itself

as

here as elsewhere to

well

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

to

extending

they

exist

in

the

But even

all.

more honourable

thus,

inasmuch

as

division, they can

operation to the particular incapacity and as they deficiency of the less honourable, exist in the latter, only to the appropriate virtues

only

refer

in

and

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

and that not only hibited

in

the

weakest part of the exposition, far as these virtues are ex

in

so

but also

state,

For the

the mind.

in

agreement of all divisions as to which and the conformable of each activity

is

to

command,

reference

in

government and obedience, each of these positions far more difficult to explain than it is to

to is

distinguish

two

these

discretion

virtues,

other two,

or

even

and

from

justice,

from one another,

these

the

and

it

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

may

justice

justice

as

one separate from the others.

be said on the one hand, first

gives

much a compound alone this

;

its

of

that

power,

appropriate three

all

that

virtues,

which

to is

as

For

not

so

discretion

inasmuch as the agreement assumed to exist

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

only

of the

that

part

action

state

is

exhausted, for that

of justice

wisdom

which belongs to the

is

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

laws, and if the courageous

ideas

and

would not stimulate

appoint others,

and repulse dangers themselves. And further on, in like manner, where the explanations given are to

the individual mind,

justice,

the

familiar

applied and, in order to test that of

common

topics

are

brought

for-

372 ward*,

even

might be said that

it

the

man

discreet

merely by a freedom from ex Meanwhile, let no travagant and unnatural passions. one take this to be a critical censure upon the matter

would avoid

itself,

which

all

these

lies

so near the centre point of the whole

most upon the de which Plato, scription of these four connected virtues,

This censure

work.

falls

the

at

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

manifestly

into the philosophy

four

one hand, to

saw

only

in

perfectly

up wisdom

set

as

a

in

state

at

instead of these

on

liberty,

the only

virtue,

the

if

he

the power of putting by means of

the reasoning part

whole mind

the

was

Plato

virtues

But

of Socrates.

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

proper state of activity as

is

signs

with

sufficiently

clear

to

in

justice

reference

to

this

the

work,

state,

That

the parts.

in all

from the position preferred

an

agreeable

the

is

last,

is,

extenuation

of an otherwise almost intolerable aristocratism.

wisdom

Plato,

which he as

For,

if

regarded as the only virtue, then the par

who

supply their vacancies from the collective mass of the people, have alone a takers in the government,

also

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

they can display no activity otherwise than the govern*

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

the

only

weakness

the

of

But since Plato defines justice as that vir governors. tue which does in fact include all others within itself, the

all

essential

tionate

in

elements of the

state

of

the

it.

bear a propor In this point of

morality part view, therefore, the choice made must appear meritori ous.

But with

reference

should, according to our

to

the

mode of

individual

we

mind,

thinking, unhesitatingly

wisdom to be prefer the opposite course, and, defining a the only virtue, however immoderate height the sen suous desires reach, we should rather look for might

cause of guilt in the weakness of the reasoningto that subordinate faculty any principle, than attribute

the

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

scientific

in

accordance with an aesthetic than a strictly

treatment of the moral element.

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

ground than temperance, which

manding

position

being

consists only in a

usurped by

reason

com

above

all

this view, presumptive claims of the inferior powers, in an heathenish as avoid which we cannot designating

especial

but too much the key of the most closely connected with every which most shocks us, nay, which appears

sense,

is

whole work, and thing in

it

yet

is

374 to us utterly

objectionable and vicious.

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

morality

of

the

members of

individual

it

chiefly

;

as also, that the

depends upon his

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

be a mixture of two perfectly heterogeneous masses, 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 equalization cannot theory totally

to

fail

tions

;

arise

we

destructive of the

then

how

see

as the larger body,

state,

most essential distinc

the

process of making the the basis in the consideration

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.

may not But now

with impunity violate the law of if so

much

is

conceded to the

in

ferior

powers of the mind, as that they have of themselves a share in virtue, still, when these three

subdivisions,

the governing, the defending, to

be

and the preserving, are as existing in the mind, and as

out

pointed

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

corruption

with is

the

well as that of shame,

which

praises

passions.

found to exist

the

in

On

the

contrary, this the sense of honour as

when they follow a

excited

and

false

opinion

the rules of reason to the denomination of and prejudices;

passions

degrades

375 even the very principle which Plato attacks with such in the introduction righteous zeal in the Gorgias, and

Thrasymachus, could not, without such a league, have spread so far and gained But criticism upon these subjects is such ground.

to this work, in opposition to

disarmed by the very important declaration, we must not overlook, that a really accurate

almost

which

and

knowledge of the mind

thorough

gained by this process. of these

cation

three

is

Otherwise, however, functions existing

in

not

be

to

the indi the mind,

by the application of the method of ex in the gross in the prominent and cha them hibiting racteristic traits of different nations, is very fine, and

particularly

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

the Thracian or the Scythian in his mind, and generally

indeed

it

is

only by an over partiality

that the often

destructive barbarism of these nations can be preferred to a cultivation, narrow-minded indeed, and mechanical only, as

but

still

of the

that

whole of mankind, such

of use to the

Phoenicians

and

Egyptians was.

But

speaking, was, not only to rather to decide between of but idea define the justice, the just and the unjust mode of life, which of the since the problem, properly

two

the

is

justice,

more

desirable,

after

the

investigation

injustice also is described as pragmaticism,

rebellion

of one part against

the

rest

;

of

and

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

in the gross the various vicious

sake, likewise trace

modes of

life

throughout

376 their

ment.

whole career, under the corrupt forms of govern As then he announces this at the end of our

and

fourth

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

But

books.

drawn away into other investigations by Polemarchus and Adimantus, backed also by Thrasymachus, and these, occupying the fifth, at

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

almost extorted episode. The whole of this, the fourth in

grand

division, stands

immediate connection with the request of Adimantus,

that Socrates, before proceeding further

prescribed, will

first

upon the course

describe, with a view

to the

com

pletion of the model state, the particular education of those in it who are destined for its government and o

defence, and at the same time explain himself

than

curately

has

the connection of the sexes this

;

more ac

regard

to

and he does indeed request

a

thing of very great importance, not at all reference to the question of justice, but to the

as

with

been done with

hitherto

right constitution of the state

;

so that every fine-drawn

of the matter discussed in these

application in

any way main question respecting justice in the individual mind, and the relation between a just life books

to

that

and happiness, against.

Now,

is

at

the

once by first

this

expressly protested investigation with regard to

the state, refers almost exclusively to that original state

377 peculiar to Plato, while the second, which treats of the cultivation of these

men and women

to that which they has themselves, naturally a far more general tendency, and is, considered as a continuation of what was said in the first book respecting the general

are

unite

to

in

means of education

for early youth, as

were a universal

it

Platonic encyclopaedia and methodical

synopsis for

all

knowledge, drawn up indeed from a paedagogic point of view, but

still in

tematic regulation of

the most extended sense, as a sys life was generally, in the Hellenic

mind, the highest problem of philosophy.

Now which

as regards the first division of this part, that

treats

of

the

connection

of

the

sexes,

not appear to me that the way in which duced, Socrates reluctance to enter upon

it

*

it,

does

it

is

intro

and

his

wish to avoid the subject, refers to the circumstance that he was here about to introduce into the language of the people a thing contrary to all current opinion, as yet unheard-of. I rather discover in this the

and

clearest traces of the fact that this doctrine

known, and the

was already be from oral the lectures naturally might communications of his pupils, and had ex

as

it

perienced some satirical treatment consequently, if we suppose this to be the case, the allusions of the comic :

poets to the Platonic

community of women could prove

nothing for

the period of the composition of the work

before us.

But

is so completely a matter of cri without the limits of argument, that feeling lying can do nothing but invite those readers who are

this

tical

I

interested in such questions of historical criticism to an

The regulations with reference to the

attentive consideration of the passage.

then here made for Plato

s

state

connection of the sexes, are founded upon the doctrine

378 of the

allowed

certainly

both

of

similarity

sexes

where,

;

female

the

that

sex

done with the reservation

it

though the

is

is

weaker,

no powers are to that sex to for every kind women wanting qualify

this

of

is

human

activity

in

;

doctrine stands in

this

that

respect,

decisive opposition

consequently, this to the predomi

nant views and practice of Plato^s time. Now though has the whole struck into the same Christianity upon in

road,

so far

as

it

has,

generally, brought

the con

dition of the female sex nearer to a similarity with the

can by no means be said that this doctrine

still it

male,

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

well as

as

starts,

such

are

developes,

enter the most lively protestations

For instead of going back

against them.

of reason in the two in

sexes,

main developed

the

and thus brought

to

supremacy, from which indeed no

would be deducible, he ever

to brutes,

refers,

without

he

profoundly

its

in

gymnastic exercises

in

order

the

to

prove his

how

occurring to him,

endeavours to

of nature, that

depths

by

to the identity

which must, therefore, be the same means in both,

of a correspondence

possibility

position,

from the standing point of

that,

we must

Christianity,

the contrary, the grounds upon the consequences which he

penetrate

into

the

organic opposition between

the two sexes becomes more widely strained correspond

ingly

with

the

gradations

sequently, in the

And he

seems

distinction,

from

the

periodical

quite

as

reference

in

race, little

to

organic

must be to

life,

at its

reflect

common

and,

con

maximum.

what a wide

occupations,

arises

recipiency and pregnancy is not man, but free from all influence of the

fact in

human

in

that

379 /f)

Meanwhile

seasons.

treatment of the subject,

this

so

manifestly and pre-eminently physical, sufficiently shews that Plato took it not in a Socratic but a Pythagorean

And

point of view.

as,

again, Christian morality, pro

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

we have a to

development of the Hellenic mind

clear proof of the incapacity of that

form a satisfactory system of ethical

Plato, to

whom

in

this

and

Even

relations.

respect utterly false

;

nature

honour has

been ignorantly awarded, is so confined within the merely sensuous view of the sexual relation, that he

recognises

no motive for the determination of the sexual passion a particular personal inclination other than the feel ing of beauty, which the contemplation of beautiful forms in manifold and animated attitudes so to

produces;

that a spiritual element in sexual love remained utterly unknown to him. Now in the Platonic state a

pas

sionate

inclination of this

object,

but

it

is

kind cannot

persons

they,

in

attain its

only a motive co-operating to assist

who bring the couples order to make it yield the

those

itself

together.

greatest

And

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 the public good the most

to

sacrifice

of

personal

But

morality.

from

essential element

same

the

of

sense

beauty inclinations also in men towards youths might and Plato by no means regarded even be developed of the the right plastic power of nature sufficiently ;

high to wish to overcome such a direction of passion by shame, but these inclinations were to be favoured as

the reward of courage, so that the ambition in the

citizens to distinguish themselves in that character

might

prospect of obtaining the most by beautiful out of the two sexes as a reward ; and the

be

nourished

the

of being thus stimulated to forward the

susceptibility

common weal and

the

common good

numbered among

is

the characteristic traits of more noble natures

which our more moral austerity and dismayed. at

Nay, we but

motive, of

the

order

On

to

cluded from

creation

the

is

all

self-interest

private property,

and then a

state

extolled

result.

as

of

their

in

them

in

in

are it

be ex

to

follows only

no home and no

community

in

the pro

offspring appears

When

an

extended

to

be

frater

prevent all discord, we extend further than the limits

regulation,

calculated

reply, that

this

cannot

common

that

guards,

the most splendid fruit of this

best

of that

arising

that they can have

and education of

is

granted

a system

certainly allow,

the

that

sanc

inclination

personal

we must

is

important

in such

how,

free

an

as

spirit of community,

most natural

nization

once

any

the

too easily

marriage,

of

source

the other hand

prevent to

natures

difficult to see

other

principle

opposition

much

is

it

a thing

;

with justice shocked

that sensual passion

noblest

the

in

any

life,

remains. if

see not only

even

tioned

is

to

school-house, resembling in

its

dimness

381 the place of the subterraneous pre-education of the earth-

born inhabitants of the

state

;

and therefore under

this

law none but a very small community could exist and continue, such as the Platonic one is to be, and as

America

also in

of

common

upon the very

lately,

profits,

and a common education from the has only been the establishment of a

tenderest period of childhood upwards,

found possible to bring about of the

civil unions,

by great

based throughout upon the system as organic unity

of united families in separate homes, in its

are

it

And in such subordinate forms the de human race cannot be fulfilled, but only

small society. stinies

similar principle

most finished form.

made upon

The

sacrifices, therefore, that

the principles of falsehood and passion

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

maxims of

with regard to relation of war, containing strong censure of Hel lenic immorality, although in this also Plato is not

theory

free tion

national law,

especially

from the contracted views arising from the opposi between Hellenes and barbarians. This

section

first

of our fourth main division con

cludes with the concession, that the state as described

only designed as a model, with a view to defining under what conditions perfect justice, and an indivi

is

dual of such a character, in reality

greatest this

be

possible,

but that we must

with what can be attained by the And approximation to that model.

satisfied

possible

approximation

of those

is

who,

is

projected by a strict separation of subordinate natures, are

as possessed

only appointed to be conversant with as

well

in

their

industry

and

material things,

employment

as

their

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

who

ble,

are partly

duct of public

who

are

also to

to

affairs,

themselves engaged with the con partly with the education of those

But

govern.

have the

effect

that

monwealth,

this

class

those

men

who

alone

elucidation of what

from

entirely

that the power of the state

of

intended

is

requisition

com

of excluding, in the actual

may also

the

be always

government, hands

in the

Here an

philosophise.

be understood by philosophis ing, naturally comes under consideration, and this is given by Plato in a somewhat forced discussion, in which,

is

to

referring back

to

his

as

principles

far

as

he

could without directly quoting himself, he palpably pre sumes all that we know from those dialogues of which the Sophist

while

he

to

is

explains,

a nature which

must

be regarded as the germ.

also

is

possess

close

to

And now,

his

keeping subject, that in a condition to follow this object, all

the qualities appropriate for go

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

tion of the interests of his native

endeavouring

to

make

the

city,

youths

with

deser

and even with

distinguished

natural qualifications disinclined for public

life.

for

When

383 Socrates has enunciated that principle, the

of the

side

Adimantus takes

who appeal to experience who employ them

opponents,

in confirmation of the fact, that they

upon philosophy have ever been

selves seriously to

the

state

while

;

Socrates,

order

in

entrenches himself behind

position,

to

the

useless

defend his

assertion,

that

the subject cannot be judged of upon the utterly cor rupted state of things of that period, and expounds

how

such universal confusion the true philosophical and then base indi

in

natures sink from foul treatment,

of

viduals

the

hireling

class

possess

plausible manner of philosophy.

one of which those

it

is

resembling

themselves in

These

a

descriptions, in

impossible to mistake Alcibiades and

him,

while

other

the

is

especially

pointed at the rhetorizing sophists, continually suggest to the mind the subjects of the earlier Platonic polemics, in

order

time,

justify

at

the

same

by a tacit decla made current

that until other principles can be

the

and a more correct condition of morals

state,

and modes of living come

men

And

conduct.

his

conclude the subject

to

also,

ration, in

to

of this

forward.

description

And

thus,

to the

assistance of theory,

always continue to come forms the transition to the

will

this

second section of this part, in which the education of those who are destined for the government is to be

more accurately described.

Here then the idea of the

be the highest object to which good of the faculty knowledge in man can apply itself. But it is to be regretted that not even that master-genius, is

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

more grand than

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 the

here

while

ference

is

made

what

to

of execution

style

in the

worked up

and partly there

is

good

Philebus this

upon more

far

is

is

partly sketched

And

subject.

gratifying

the

than

here

nay, even the image that the idea of the good

;

stands in the same relation to the region of the intel the sun created

as

ligible,

emblem does an

excellent

by the good

as

the region of the visible,

to

application

of

the

all

its

typical

affords,

resulting

by

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

and that

visible,

and here we may

the eye

as light

and

what spontaneous

recollect

activity in reference to light has been already attributed

are eye in the exposition of earlier theories not themselves indeed the sun, but more connected with the

to

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,

but that which

most of

is

all

not

is

the

good

connected with

itself,

And

it.

im glance subject, properly treated of in our author with much mystery, in what manner Plato conceived the identity of objec it

affords

tive being

us

a

which imparts terial

deep

and consciousness; that

effluence of the

things

a

into

it

not

is

namely the same

the spiritual light so to speak good truth to the intelligible essence of ma

and

to

ideas,,

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 range of the

we might indeed say, the per no ceptible generally, being whatever corresponds, and that there would indeed be nothing but the eternally inconstant flux of the non-existent, if flux were not visible, or

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

be referred to real existence.

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

philosophy, back to the earlier dialectic dialogues,

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 The sun, it is said, is only acquainted, wanting. a type of the essential absolute good the corporeal light bears a precisely similar relation to the spiritual, and to

the other, with

when contemplated from but darkness,

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

is

material things illuminated by it. And as the whole range of the visible world stands in the relation of a

type to the intelligible, so again a similar distinction

and the typical form of

is ;

it.

there in each of the two

one thing real

Now

here

it

in

may

its

kind

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

branch of intellectual activity here attains a fixed posi-

3c

386 tion,

and we possess use

Platonic

of

at

the

same time a key to the

number and

figure

in

region of Plato stood

the

in which philosophy, and to the relation in this to the Pythagorean school Very remark respect.

able also are the elucidations given with regard to the between the mathematical method and the dia

relation

connection whatever although they stand in no with the former theory, unless by the introduction of

lectic,

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

upon these arguments

at least,

it

Thus,

principles.

would be quite con

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

by means of number and know,

in

figure,

But if connections. they are only forming mathematical been have 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

thus the four gradations that follow obtain

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

these investigations into that cave, in

of

life

midst of

which the tenor

and condition of those who, because

it

is

im-

387 for

possible to the

to

turn

spiritual sun, take

that

types,

them

is,

themselves

with

their

eyes

external appearance, and the

visible objects,

and being,

for reality

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

and nothing

life,

to

patriot who, as

which there

in

lose;

so that

is

he

is

nothing to improve indeed no common

here demanded, applies to this point magnanimous sentiment, that it is not an object

also that

is

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

of

and Plato does not appear society

upon any other

to conceive the

principle,

or

to

have an idea of a progressive improvement comprehend then even the most magnanimous selfing the people devotion can only as

it

is

by

this

receive any

means alone

compensation in so far possible,

in

the case of

every rising generation, to discover the more honourable natures,

we add

and bring them the further

in

Plato

is

not even

s

to a better lot.

consideration

that

And the

if to this

population

which we are now again introduced, to multiply itself, and that the relation

state, to

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,

of collective

human

and consequently

activity considered in the gross, is

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

most consistent champion of

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

evident that the capability of gazing at the

sun

itself

can only be acquired by manifold preparatory exercises. As then the common corporeal and mental exercises of the

were

children

much

unavoidably

conversant

with

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

typical

development of infantine exercises of the

are conversant

so

life,

also

the

preparatory

grown-up boys of distinguished powers the world of intuition,

exclusively with

subjective thought,

which

is

constituted

matical sciences in their natural order.

by the mathe Yet even here

Plato draws a distinction between two different processes, of strictly gymnastic years. The separated by a couple those sciences, according to his of first is the delivery notions

improperly

always ing,

so

called,

setting aside

and

all

all

practical

each

for

though

itself,

merely experimental proceed

reference

to

material

things

number in the abstract, figure exclusively bearing upon in the abstract, and in like manner motions and rela tions in

the

The

abstract.

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

contemplation

follow

of

and join in the are recognised as dialectic and

up

this,

to this point,

natures. consequently regal

and

after

they

But

it

is

not until a late

have been compelled to divide

389 time very unequally between that enviable scien even tific life and the joyless service in the cave, that idea of the to the pure contemplation 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

which

whole task

himself of the

acquitted

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

set

take our

of

may I

leave

this

Republic.

singular

be allowed to say a few words upon

would

first

call

the

to

attention

point,

And the

if

I

same,

how

little

Plato deserves the accusation not unfrequently brought against him, of contempt for his

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, contracted a population as we have to conceive his Republic capable of containing, he calcu

but even

lates

these all

in

so

upon finding that in

sufficient

these exercises

strength,

and

union

rare

to

trials,

of

and

qualities,

engage successfully in

so

many

in

individuals,

he will never want including even the female sex, that rulers, although no one attains to the highest power before

his

fiftieth

lieve one another

year,

by

and

turns.

then

several

are

to

Perhaps even in our

re

own

390 states

populous

we would not undertake

though with the cation

be

difference in our

total

to effect

this,

method of edu

can never be possible that the attempt should

it

made.

Meanwhile, however, we have gone so far from all those who would exercise great

as to require

influence

upon

society, a combination of scientific

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;

and we count moreover much

upon the fact that they who live most in the kingdom of ideas, by exercising a manifold influence upon education, will also

have a predominant influence

in the formation

of public opinion, which always, though unconsciously, the exercise of the regulates supreme power. 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

endeavouring to play the part of the philo

sopher, and

Now

this

falsify

the description of the good.

perfect

Republic being only constructed

for the particular

purpose of exhibiting justice in the gross, after those general outlines also have been sketched which do not stand in immediate connection with this

approximation is now made to what was to have been done at the end of the fourth book, a nearer

object,

we mean, of of

life is

to

answering the question as to what mode And here the same method

the most desirable.

proceeding is adopted as that by which we conducted to a definition of the idea of justice.

were

For

391 imperfect characters also must exhibit themselves under

more express and better developed forms perfect constitutions,

and

model, these,

desirable

is

it

the

in

im

that deviate from that archetypal

with

and to consider them

view to describe

this

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

process, until at last the to light in the

ginal question

comprises the eighth and process appears to stand in a

a decision,

to

The whole

ninth books.

what Plato frequently and us to understand, I mean, that distinctly enough gives his Republic never has in reality existed, and that sort

of contradiction

there

is

not

For

exist.

even

if this

with

any necessity that the

is

case,

ever

it

how can

should

he, notwith

standing, represent the forms of government which have actually

and

historically

existed

the

among

Hellenes,

any mention of others is made, as a gra duated series of revolutions, which he developes, his What, therefore, torically, from that ideal conception ?

for scarcely

is

here historical

is,

undoubtedly, mere form, but which

lay very ready at hand, because, in fact, the different constitutions

same

have,

not

succeeded

rarely,

one

another

and by this method only the various from perfection are to be made degrees and that manifest, only with a view to a better under

in the

series,

of distance

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

in

public, which exhibits the

union of

gross, Plato

is

arises

s

next problem

from perfection

;

for

it

to

all

virtues

in the

show how imperfection

appears

less

difficult

to

392

how what

see

the initial his

imperfect continually deteriorates after change has once taken place. Now, since is

can

state

only exist for any length of time by means of the intermixture of the sexes being conducted by the philosophers upon correct principles,

it

perfect

is

tion

commencement of the deteriora must be grounded upon a flaw in this process; evident that the

and Plato, therefore, has recourse to an unavoidable fatality by means of which, at some time or other, the same wisdom

in

an important

deviation

this

department is

ever

is

not

If

observed.

made from

there

this

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

the

for

kept by the

government,

to the people,

and

as

men and youths of their

also

in this is at

destined relation

general

once contained the germ

of the utter ruin of the constitution, and consequently of all in which virtue can be seen in its enlarged and general form. that

ple

In the same manner,

the constitution of a state

accordance

with

further below,

carry

within

is

at

all

times in

shown prevalent morality, individual minds, under certain con

the

how

ditions of descent

upon the princi it

from one

themselves

the

state,

is

become such

type of the next

as

to

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,

also

tonic

it

with reference to the main principles of the

philosophy,

constitute

definite

gradations.

Pla

The

393 first

point

been

once

which after the small part has suppressed by virtue of which the mind

is

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 is

of money or love of Or, secondly, if the enjoyment. former principle sinks to the bottom, then the various passions exist the mind, chy.

But,

upon friendly terms with one another in or some single one usurps universal monar on the other hand,

the

manner

which

in

one of these characters arises out of the other, quite intelligible effected

tutions;

by and for

itself,

by the presence of those

but only as

different

not

is it

is

consti

civil

and the transitions of those into one another

are indeed described with great truth, and in a

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

looks as

the great if

majority of individuals.

the political representation,

So that

which,

if

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

shown

in

the instance of the tyrannical

of mind,

in

which Eros indeed and Dio

particularly

constitution

nysus are intelligible as sole monarchs in the

mind and

without

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, 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

is left

way

same degree with the Erotic and Bacchic excess; only 3

D

394 tyrants, properly so called, especially such as Plato

himself become this

form

ever,

in

very

had

acquainted with, not rarely exhibiting

all

its

passes

easily

The

extravagance.

onward over

how

reader,

these

all

little

obstacles, since the striking description of the principal

features

carries

him away with

Among them

it.

a

mysterious psychological factor is especially prominent, at the opening of the ninth book, an idea which is

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

in

It

feeling.

perverted

is,

the

that

extravagances

germs

lie

even

concealed

and purest minds, but only

stir

in

of in

most

the

noblest

the

them during the

suspension of the will in dreams, as they on the con horrible actions trary, may break out into the most

when reason no longer maintains

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

mind.

It

is

of the tyrannical

tion,

inasmuch as

it

is

that

perfection, but also in all most successful, and gives us

in

which its

at

exhibits

injustice

features in detail the

the same time a deci

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.

there

Upon now

this

description

follows quite close,

of the

tyrannical

and without any

mind inter

properly completing the whole work, of the proposition that the just life alone is the truly desirable, and the unjust the contrary. mission,

that

threefold proof,

A

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 ther proof must certainly be

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

because

they cannot all be satisfied alike, it cannot then indeed be said that what the whole mind

ment,

wills it

takes place,

does

and

is

further

not in

will,

nor

yet

but

unity with

this

what the greatest part of part

largest

Hence

itself.

remains

free

then, there follow

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

this

ticular pleasure, rise to

and that the supremacy of each gives mode of life. Now if these modes

a particular

are to be compared together,

more subjective method,

if,

this

may

says Plato,

be done by a since

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

may be

it

sought, more objectively,

whether the solid content of pleasure which they afford cannot, purely as pleasure, be measured and estimated.

And

in

said

upon the

this

but above

last

much

proof

distinctions

is

presumed which was

of pleasure

the

in

Phsedo,

the Philebus, which, viewed from this

all in

appears as the true and immediate introduction

point,

And

to our work.

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

Now

driver.

if

that that would

of the present image, recurring the Phaedrus of the chariot and

in

we compare

yield

the two,

we

an excellent work of

shall find

even

words

in

it

developes

a

if

art,

sculptor or painter executed as Plato designed

it

;

a

and

much-admired, and we

admirable brilliancy of description That at present under and elegance of application. on the seems consideration, contrary, coarsely and almost

may

add,

a

truly

negligently treated in the execution, and the application,

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

which the

evil principle dwells,

human

and from which

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

and

in

detail

is

the

perhaps only not bear the pencil or

in

words.

But

if

different all

the

chisel,

relations

more

among them,

effective

as

it

will

but can only be expressed if otherwise our

we consider how,

397 1

be of any value, Plato s entire doc trine of the mind, in so far as he treats of it in a

arrangement

is

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

human mind

sents the

may be discovered common centre-point; but

which

elements

distinct

from a

telligible

strangely-compounded monster living unity than that chariot. the main the same,

now speaking

are as

complexity expressed, which in thus

The

in

it

the

still

more a

must ever be

subdivision

comes out

of

the

in

principle

the other case

much

is

is

abundance

in

utterly

the earlier

in

we

better relief,

of desire

we come by degrees indulgently

the luxurious

in

but in the instance of which

it

the

And

makes the

as a perfect unity, or

here

is

wanting.

to attribute

which

picture,

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

strong

praise as meritorious the absence of all pretence

standing as it does in former, is at the same time

which,

virtuosity,

with the

contrast

perfectly in character with the philosophy of the

And

itself.

as

this

all

that

work

is

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

the books

the problem the moral

is

themselves.

solved,

life is

proved

For such

inasmuch ;

as

the

it

really

superiority

is;

of

nay, even the conditions under

And if possible are laid down. of within the limits the questions, not falling problem,

which such a

life

and referring only

is

to

the great

image of the perfect

Republic, interwoven with the whole work, are digrcs-

398 answered, this noble image itself has as it were the spunge passed over it; for as when, after the com sively

pletion of the structure, the scaffolding

Socrates

away, exists

only

expressly

declares

again broken

is

that

this

imagination, and nowhere

in

and he leaves

it

standing only

as

republic

upon

earth,

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.

At the end, then, of the ninth book every reader satisfied, and miss nothing connected

would go away

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

On

the contrary,

to the task.

we must be the more curious with

respect to the subject-matter of this sixth sion,

grand

divi

which occupies the tenth book, forming the only

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 real

not have done

The

follows.

so. first

The

composition of this part is as section recurs once more to the sub

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

education

book,

this

to

of youth.

And,

as

was said also

in

that

matter cannot be dispatched until the grand

399 which

decided

is

question

involve in

their

ultimate

these

always

descriptions

whether

result,

unjust

men

can be happy or just men miserable. This subject accordingly could not have been taken

up

than in this place, though it must be allowed would have felt the want of it, if it had

earlier

that no one

remained where that

Plato,

had

strict

it

according poetical

arts

the

rules

that

to

at once

clear

appearance,

in

justice

now

is

it

all

would have

department of the

this

manner completely contrary to have become valid among us. Mean

treated

fine

For

was.

a

in

while he does indeed profess himself satisfied provided one amid only the just man proves himself a happy

and

tortures

insults,

to

would have no objection

which to

our

even

make.

own

critics

But instead of here

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

rally,

third

book

the guards

;

only as he had themselves should

shown more that

there

not practise the

mimic

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,

effeminate

at

least,

in

solitude

indulge those he attempts to

to

emotions which in company when he wagers his head with even

restrain, as well as

400 the best of men,

they would always relax some thing of their strictness towards themselves in relation that

to what, if publicly exhibited,

not only overlooked but So that the censure cannot pro

praised and admired.

and

poetry in

the

of

art

for itself, but only relatively to a certain

order of moral cultivation,

inferior

to

and dramatising

dramatic

the

apply to

perly

is

art

in

and moreover, not general, but only to the Hellenic form

and method of

in

it,

And

historical value.

Plato

which, however,

seem to have regarded even it

does not

the slightest degree

in

must surprise us

its

the more,

all

that Socrates maintains with perfect confidence that this art

never

will

be able

to

defend

feud between philosophy and very earliest times,

is

it,

likewise

to

and that the

itself,

as

it

existed from the

endure for ever for

and death.

There does not however appear, utterly unworthy indeed as such an ingredient would have been

life

of such

a

this in a

the

work,

humour

trace

slightest

excited

that

by the comic

Plato

poets,

wrote

notwith

standing the very great probability there exists of their

having already before

this

because

mind

satirized

the dramatic

art is

from truth, true,

thing

state of in the

affects

this

put

from

forth.

hearsay,

But

is

it

conversant with

the

understood, though multi

and although so far removed nevertheless to be considered as some

it

state,

is

which,

antagonism with

it

to

Plato,

the

represents

And

as

if unintermitting. of the third book he seeks corresponding passage to expose himself to the censure than in

any

degree to excuse himself from the perfect writer case

Republic

only

in its present scarcely

fariously deformed

more

his

work was publicly

of

the

is

it,

because, as he says,

as little as possible,

most extreme necessity, to

and only

in

a

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,

racters

though he may indeed have introduced and statesmen speaking in cha

rhetoricians,

reverse of praiseworthy,

the

so

still,

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

be entirely banished, yet their if

its

guard against they heard them

still

men must be always on and hear them as

seductions,

As then

not.

art is not to

if this

for

Virtue

interest in her this matter

and from

wise ordered, the second section

is

s

sake,

not be other

may now subjoined

to this,

embracing a subject which must indeed form a match less conclusion, as it returns to the rewards of Virtue,

and thus it

is

refers

us

rather

second

the

to

book.

For,

argued, the desire there expressed, that the whole

without introducing anything question should be decided relating

to

rewards,

is

now

satisfied,

and now perfect Since then at this

truth requires a return to that point. been hinted at the point, as has already

of the work, the discussion

is

to

commencement

be about rewards

in

the present and future life, the immortality of the soul is first of all treated of, a doctrine which, independently of

all

with

other

Plato

pained

to

s

considerations,

method and

miss

out

of

art this

3

E

every

reader

acquainted

would have been almost work,

And

nearly

as

402 surprising does

it

appear that this important subject in

a

is

not

occupying space So that one might almost think that Socrates would rather have referred to it quite

cursorily

dispatched

above a couple of pages. as

made out

already

friends

concede

elsewhere,

and

have made

his

And he has in thing known. with the subsequent description of

as a

it

deed more to do

the condition in the other world, than with the proof

such a condition, and we should only regard this as a supplement as it were to the more copious that there

is

discussions

Now

proof which is an hypothesis granted

Phaedo.

the

in

the

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

by the refutation of the but organic disposition as

a

self-existent

that the soul

being, only

from

quite distinct

position that the soul

it,

it

is

in

to

is

united to the body but fact perfectly

and therefore we are not here referred earlier

proofs.

Moreover,

is nothing be conceived

at

sufficient, all

to

since in the description

the that

the immortality is to appear most strictly in the form of the transmigration of souls ; after the proof

follows,

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

down, as a circular career is so placed intervening life and death, that no other way remains in

between

which animation by the introduction of souls can arise ; is not brought forward

a point which in the Phaedrus at all in the

relatively

to

same way, and consequently that dialogue, more remote from the this subject, is

work before us than the Phaedo. argument from

which

that

In this

last

too the

in

the

number

constancy

403 of souls in

the

upon

proved, was already

is

Phaedo

the

and that the soul

demonstrated

also

is

immortality

the assumption that only what

be dissolved,

But when

sketched.

compound can

is

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,

immortal cannot easily have dissimilar and different, and lets it

and proves that what in it

much

that

is

is

is

is far from appearing here comes but partly encumbered with originally is, was foreign additions, partly also deprived of much that

be understood that the soul as

it

originally in

that that

it.

What

else

then can be here meant, but

sea-weed and shell-work with which Glaucus

overgrown by his long sojourn in the depths of the sea, in the same way as the soul, as we already know

is

is here immersed in a dim abyss, forms under which the prin various are to represent the of desire appears, so that only the reason, either

from other sources,

ciple

alone or in connection with the spirited principle, consti tutes the original essence of the soul, as moreover, that

unwieldly encumbrance grination

is

but

little

suited for the pere

Only

through heavenly spaces.

for us, according to our

mode of

it

is

difficult

thinking, to unite with

this the hypothesis that the souls of brutes are in

kind

same with those of men, that the latter become brutes, and the former men; and it

so perfectly the

can also is

moreover, hard to conceive

adopted

this

only

in

must

as

it

to his

own

theory.

The

therefore, according to him, have

originally contemplated the that,

Plato should have

compliance with the Pythagorean

tradition without assimilating

souls of brutes

how

we are taught

in

ideas,

only that they, and

the Timaeus,

in

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

again objected, that as every species of brutes de-

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 for ing ground placing the two in comparison with one another. This theory also agrees, therefore, with

which

that,

the

in

powers of nature contained the

only true principle

mankind

And

manner

in like

of the

regulations

from what sent

life

in the

is

justice

may be

it

human

upon which

wisdom and

to

conduct of the plastic

right

Platonic

are

race, discovers

to

be

said that the

state

form

efforts to

all

receive

a

founded. psedagogic

new

light

here said about the influence of the pre

upon the

future.

For

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

by

of

what

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

to as

promote if

sexes

its

improvement.

that art of

might

it

Only

it

does indeed seem

superintending the connection of the

come

into

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, this

;

under what particular divine protection this circumstance must be placed, that such a misfortune may not occur

405 before

it

itself;

unless

is

significantly is

it

to

be said that

worthy and important object, than cerns of an individual

exercise of the art

the

in

felt

life,

this

all

this

Godhead every thing must work description,

finally,

a far more

for that beautiful feeling of

who

confidence which suggests that for him

the

is

those trifling con

that

the

the

to

similarity

the

of imperfect

region

In the

existence

interchange

dear to

interchange between

happy wandering through heavenly space and to

is

for the best.

which

to

the return

bears a the

manifest lives

of

guardians of the state are to be subject, between period which they are to devote to philo

the longer

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

merit of having regarded the eternal arrangement

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

and stimulate the mind of the hearer bestow

the most

diligent

pains

upon

in every

the

way

subject

to

of

justice, and never to consider anything as more profit Such is the tenor of its commencement, such of able. its

conclusion

;

hence what does not contribute to that

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

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

tive poetry,

406 a bad choice

Odysseus only, the passionless, was made

;

the experiences of his travel, and Plato honours

wise

by him by setting him up as a model a life withdrawn from public affairs.

And now if

arises,

us

to

the

while

accurate

we have arrived with our

that

end of

the

at

the

case

we

the choice of

for

work, is

that

question

our

as

pursued

manner,

a

the

the

results

very

analysis

naturally

have represented in the most

dissection

question

regarding the advantage of a just

raised

originally

and moral

life

does

in

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

which the other, of the Just, has

make good its claim work, we may indeed say to

?

How

since

it

in

no way been able

happens

that

it

the

has been in existence,

always been quoted under this name, and under no other, so that it at least goes back to the imme

has

diate

disciples

it,

of Plato

?

Nay, can we not say that

mediately at least, the author of since in the opening of the Timaeus Socrates him

Plato

himself

was,

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 in this Platonic Socrates fore, placed 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

by no means here con

of the supposition that he did struct

the

his

Republic

elaborate

execution

which

discussed,

And

if

mere

as a

with

afforded

scaffolding,

which matters

in

by are

it

bear no immediate application to

will

there

some ground for the suppo

justice

?

sition

that this ideal state, even before Plato described

it

in the

books we have, had been a subject of as sketched

allusion

is

similar

to

the written

we

to

in all respects

so

his oral instruction,

in

believe that those oral sketches

were

satirical

are

works, that Plato in them

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

work

he has only played with proper subject, and that he begins all at once in

believe that in the its

the

Timasus,

and not

of the question

But

?

exclusively would be to

pay any regard

start

upon

the

to

itself

before,

take

to

a

serious

view

to attend to this latter dialogue at

least

quite

whatever.

it

supposition

that

as partial as

But

if

we are

not to

the representation of

the proper grand object, it would be hardly possible to conceive why the appearance of the contrary

the state

is

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

unmeaning and absurd.

done would then be perfectly would have been much more

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

what the justice and discretion of

408 such a whole consist; individual resolved

and the

mind,

in

and then the application

this

of

point

ethical

problems, have

un

still

would

view,

to the

resulted

most naturally consequently, a perfectly converse rela tion between these two grand objects and the essential ;

parts

work referring

of the

And

obtained.

if,

indeed,

to

them must then have

this supposition

upon

would

it

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

of virtue would have to

fall

subordinate matter; and

it

much is

ject could be so prominent as

by the the

mere

impossible that this sub it is here made, partly

and method of the execution, partly by

style

fact

farther back as

that

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

activity

and

its

relation to the others,

manner those upon the

and

in

art of imitative poetry bear,

indeed, a similar relation to both suppositions, and the question how they are necessarily connected with the

Thema

both cases equally difficult to an Accordingly it does not appear that by the method actually pursued even the slightest step is gained

grand

is

in

swer.

for affording a

whole work

clear insight into the connection, if the

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 disproportionality

is

and

remains,

subordinate

matter,

an excess

which

explain the connection

the

has in

of

unnecessary

and

preceding attempt to no way endeavoured to

409

What

conceal.

Platonic

remains then but to confess that the

Socrates

is

here

a

Janus?

double-faced

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. the

position

fact

that

agrees,

many problems previously set so many previously isolated and that

affords extreme

satisfaction;

Timaeus,

new

that

all

series of theoretical

Critias,

and

crates;

this

may

mem

expositions, in which

and Hermocrates are

to

follow

So

two-fold relation seems to be the key yet have continued obscure in the

connection of the work.

The

and of the four virtues

in

idea of virtue in general, is

particular,

we have the key-stone

this

so

and

while in

Timaeus the same work appears as a new

ber of a

in

itself

are again taken up,

investigations combined, whole tissue into which are worked many which are as keys and talismans to what

particulars

to

with the sup

work

the

this

has gone before, the

And

in

to

all

defined,

and

earlier

and

the

preparatory labours upon ethical points, and the doc trine of the Republic has no other concern with this task,

but that which

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 which

good,

dialectic

science,

come under in

the

first,

getic

in

Plato

s

and,

view on

is

the

the

other

grand object of side, would not

discussion at all unless there was an interest

right

regulation

of

that this interest, as

ground

of

it

morality,

life,

it

is

equally natural, here appears as an apolo should also conduct and

predominate through the whole

work,

the elements of dialectics in

as

it,

and then that

well

as

of ethics,

should be again taken up, combined with one another,

410 and

as

Now, we observe

were fixed by a key-stone.

it

that Plato discovers the idea of virtue without having

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

so connected

is

which man

with that state of conditional

here plunged, that a com bination of the elements of the soul may arise in which existence

in

weak principle of virtue

the existence of a is

is

and that there

possible,

is

is

all

that

but one style and mode

of education which can enable virtue to develope itself And thus the constitution of the to its full extent. state

a

attains

natural

that

pounded

at

degree of importance, and it is theory in particular should be ex

high

this

the

same time,

in it of the continuation

as well as that the process of the species from which, it

argued, the various tempers in different minds arise, should be placed under the dominion of common reason,

is

and quite as natural that the theory of dialectics, and with it at the same time, the polemics against that imi tative

most

poetry

which,

effectively

according

crushes

the

to

Plato^s

endeavour

conviction,

after

truth

should be interwoven with the theory of political edu only laid down as it is necessarily evolved from the idea of human nature, without any historical conditions, which is tantamount cation.

to a

Every

declaration

step

that

is

professedly

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

it.

And

thus,

the

Republic in

more important prominency than at our work first appears, but yet never such as to become the proper attains a

411 and main subject.

The

relation,

however, of the work

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

a more advanced stage

arrived at

the

development of the philosophy of this series. In the dialogues that succeed, no one but Socrates of

the whole

company

bears any part

appropriated those Socratic arguments,

all go away perfectly work according to its

stone

to

all

here introduced

are

Glaucon and Adimantus, and whoever

;

may have

else

whom we

to

that

has

a sure

satisfied,

original

hitherto

plan

is

sign

that

only

the

It

appeared.

the

key

does not

become the commencement of a new series until its re This is indeed a repetition which we now petition. possess,

but as a clear confirmation * of what has been

just said,

we do not here but we see

learn to

from

whom

Socrates again

the

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 repeats

it,

first

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

them the main stance that the Aristotle

It is therefore to this

subject. title,

and

all

who quote

downwards, particularly refer; the more necessary to establish

ever

all

first

and original

relation

circum

the work from it

seemed how

first

of

all

the

of the work.

Now, when

Socrates on the following day requests as a repayment from those who desire him to repeat his arguments, that as masters in the they, province

of practical self,

his

life,

will

show him, better than he can him

own Republic

in

living motion

with reference

412 to internal as

does

no

in

well as external circumstances, this

contradict

way

made, that

the

confession

wish

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 still

aim,

the

in

this

a standard for every thing that can take place

of a

life

be given by such a and this must be the best means can

state

living representation

;

only

of exposing in their nakedness all immoral, and there fore corrupt, politics. Socrates had already this return

mind when he repeated the work, and had

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

be framed, provided only genuine

But philosophers had once the power in their hands. on this second meeting every thing does not come off he had anticipated

as

mitted

the

subject

but having once for all com hands of others, he must

;

to

the

be content with what they resolved. Now, they to the he must have to listen resolve that patience also

romantic history of his that the subject is

first

all

of

state.

For Timaeus,

may commence with the

all to

treat in a historical form,

more ancient

order

which nearly

have

physiologists of the world, formation and origin

nings of the

in

true beginning,

human

race

;

adopted, of the down to the begin

and then Critias

is

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

own

his

had

in

view.

But,

although annexation of that philosophy which concerns the his theory of Nature to this work appears to overreach expressions,

the

original

plans,

declared in his

still

not

only

is

the

own words, but even

necessity

the

drawn according to which they are to set this subject. For the principle already the

Phasdo,

that

idea of the good,

nature must be is

it

outlines

laid

down

conceived from

where that idea

it

work upon

in the virtually repeated

as well as in these books, to

first

to

for

in

the

Philebus

is

pronounced be absolutely the highest: and further, we here find stated pretty early as a principle to be generally

established,

that the Deity

is

not the efficient cause of

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 be nothing can wanted is 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

thus the manner in which the

Timaeus connects

with the books of the Republic is a declaration of the essential identity of ethics and natural philo itself

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

appearance on earth

is happy in the contemplation espe of these mundine relations, and strengthens general cially recruits itself anew and whence it follows that during ;

life

also that

renewed

leading principle,

employed fully

in speculations

is

likewise his is

upon nature, and most power

by them, and on that account adepts

enlivened

in this

which

recollection,

most awakened when the mind

is

science are best qualified

vading idea of the good to

all

from the way

clear, accordingly,

apply the all-per

to

human

shewn, the subject-matter of the

in

It is

relations.

which, as we have

former

woven with that of the new, that

in

series is

the

inter

latter

also

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 the ethical

formation of the world,

mode

of

standing

acting,

that

as

furnishes

creation,

an expression of the divine the model which, notwith

deliberation,

and

constitute the proper business of every

government mind, can yet

be followed but indistinctly in so contracted a sphere.

The

establishment, however, and conservation of general

prescriptive regulations, such as the constitution of every state

must include,

distinct

dertook

imitation to

say,

is

in the first degree a plenary

of the Deity. well

as

as

But what

what

Critias

and un

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

out

them centre

in

Plato

designed

the

in

it.

plan

But

at

of this

all

the threads laid

how great

early

a period

and

splendid

and whether or not out of many, especially juvenile works, several points were at a later

structure,

of his

period taken up, and a determinate reference given to

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.

Several of the conceptions in this Myth.

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.

We

P. 73.

are not

look

to

too

for

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

to the yewpytKos. this philosophy.

And

thus

I

beautiful,

life,

leave

it

others to

to

enjoy

LYSIS. P. 78-

Whoever

To have had

reads,

the Lysis in

his mind.

with a view to comparing the passages

with this dialogue, Eth. Nicom. vin.

c.

A.D. p. 63. B.) Magn. Mor. n. c. 11. (p. and Eudem. vn. 2. 5. (p. 162. B. C. p.

111. E.

* But see the extract from Boeckh

volume.

s

(Tr.)

3d

1.

2.

10.

(p.

59.

and 112. C.)

165. B. Ed. Casaub.

Philolaus, p. 104. at the end of this

NOTES.

418

1590.) will scarcely continue to doubt of this, although Aris neither names Plato nor the dialogue, and one might

totle

feel some suprise, if he really had it in view, that this not done more frequently and thoroughly.

is

PROTAGORAS. P. 82.

Perished.

learnt this

from an investigation regularly instituted

into this family

by Heindorf out of the fourth speech of

I

Andocides.

Deipnosophist. v. p.

Athenoeus,

218,

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,

died not very long before this time. P. 83.

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.

When does not

it is

Absent abroad.

said that Protagoras lodges with Callias, this against the supposition, as Callias was

make much

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

at

more

Callias

had introduced more

But, perhaps

this

liberal

too might be

somewhat long absence, which, always Athenian armies in the P. 85.

This

is

Pythodorus

clear is

at

his father,

explained by supposing a a time when there were

field, is

not inconceivable.

Banished from Athens.

from Diog. Laert.

called

manners than

ix. 54.

where

his accuser

one of the four hundred, with

whom

NOTES.

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

Menagius over-hastily while there

sibility

is

however which can scarcely be supported by any

probable

fact.

P. 97-

Imitated after Protagoras.

This has been already remarked,, intelligently enough, or copied,

by

who

Philostratus,

Soph. 494, says

:

71/01)9

in the life of Protagoras, Vit. TOV YlpwTayopav 6 Il/\ceTO)/ cre/ji/eo?

3e

/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

the

to

myth

in

our

present dialogue.

Another poem.

See Brunckii Anal.

I.

122. X.

CHARMIDES. In

P. 108.

See Plato

s

Letters,

his

challenges.

Ep. vu.

p.

324. D.

Notorious attempt.

Xenophon P. 109.

tells

this

Mem.

As Xenophon

Soc.

i.

represents

2,

33.

it.

A

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,

NOTES.

420

PARMENIDES. P. 122.

See Charmid.

p. 169-

P. 129.

The

From

a passage in the Charmides.

McyoAow S/ TWOS,

ia

(pi\, dvcpos

c.

3e?,

Another of that name far younger.

greatest difficulty in understanding the be the person here meant would be

to

Lysias the two accounts,

of

father

found in

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

was born

at

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

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

represents Cephalus as a person

and even

his

Athens before Ol. LXXX. Meanwhile it is difficult to decide

lus did really settle altogether at

2,

becomes

in

still

greater.

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

few words now

remain to be

said, only for the reason that F. C. Wolf, in his translation of the Republic, has taken the opposite course.

Both agree at the

in the date of Lysias

time of the

first

Dionysius adds, that Lysias was old,

return to Athens, fixing

it

Ol. xcn.

1.

archonship of

Callias,

at that

according to which his birth

falls

i.

e.

time forty-seven years in Ol,

LXXX.

2.

On

NOTES. the contrary, the

"Lives"

place

it

421 in Ol. LXXXII. 2.

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

being founded; according to the other with Ol. LXXXVI.

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.

Plutarch and Proclus.

am. n. 484. E.

"As

Plato has given

his brothers a celebrity by introducing them into the most beautiful of his writings; Glaucon, namely, and Adimantus

into the Republic,

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

and Antiphon cannot have been held

Socrates, without, however, expressly declaring that he con siders this Cephalus to be a different person from the father

of Lvsias.

NOTES.

422

P. 131.

If any

As Ast has notwithstanding on Plato

s

and

life

writings,,

one.

lately

p.

250.

done I

:

see his

may

add,

Essay that

I

should not envy those readers their opinion to whom Ast has satisfactorily proved that the Parmenides was written at the

earliest

after the

Theaetetus,

since in

the latter the

once so decidedly commenced of those problems which in the Parmenides are but slightly indicated. For, solution

at

is

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

upon

this,

as well as

upon

dialogue the representation the principal point, and it is the circumstance that it contains this is

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.

Let not the reader

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

will allow themselves to

tricate criticism,

be persuaded by Ast

that the Socrates here

upon

the stage

s

in is

a

NOTES.

423

conceited sophist, and that the whole of this defence belongs common and counterfeit art of rhetoric.

to the

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.

probable in

word the judges put him down by a But this tale is too little accredited and

sally

too

of

im

itself for

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^
dvafltlvat eVl vaToi, TMI;

TOVTfO-Tl,

KaT(t/3r)6t.)

Much

P. 138.

These

imperfections are,

in

to

change.

Ast

s

opinion,

among

the

sufficient

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

-

might present,

for following his calling.

Of

the actual defence.

For Socrates must have defended himself, and I should have wished Ast to have hint as to given us some slight his opinion, Socrates dispensed with this task.

how, in

HIPPARCHUS. P. 157.

Valckenaer on Herod,

Two

great Masters.

p. 398.

and Wolf.

Prol. p. 154.

Striking out.

Even chus

is

but of

jElian mentions his

really a little

work of Plato

importance.

;

doubts whether the Hipparbut this, in itself, would be

NOTES.

424

For even

P. 159.

the

the

Menon.

Other points of resemblance between our dialogue and Menon are mentioned by Boeckh. (in Minoem, p. 40.)

MINOS. Minos was

P. 163.

For an account

in

never.

Diodorus that an Athenian conqueror

Olympic games was called so has been already cor rected by Boeckh. (See Pref. in Minoem.) at the

GORGIAS. In

P. 175.

the Protagoras.

Compare the conversation p.

in

the

beginning

Protagoras

358.

From

P. 180.

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 It

must be

left for

composer of the Lysis. Only, in that case, the com entitled to be considered a more still remain poser will allow him to have been. Ast than ingenious person to the

will

No

P. 185.

None, otherwise,

trace appears.

my notions. Ast indeed thinks and would conclude hence that Plato composed

at least, according to

the Gorgias during the

Socratic process,

must be allowed he could for a work so extremely allow upon the whole,

so

when

think

I

scarcely have been in the artificial,

and, as

extremely deep.

even Ast will

But

I

refrain

from saying more upon this point, and leave the case the hands of every skilful reader. In

it

humour

in

the Ecclesiazusce of Aristophanes.

See the commentators upon comedy, and more at length as

passages of this the whole of it, Mor-

different to

NOTES.

425

Commentat. de Platonis.Republ. p. 7678. Should be objected that this comedy did not perhaps contain so

genslern, it

many

allusions to Plato as

clear

is

generally believed,

is

it

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-

The example of Archelaus.

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.

The passage runs

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 Speusippus says, by means of his close friendship with 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

God knows how

what Speusippus inferred.

Plato,

Archelaus,

who

says,

it

could be the case not, that is, in Athenaeus, is thence

but what,

by means of a died in

the

confidential relation

with

same year with Socrates,

is

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 to

When

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."

bilia.

he wrote

Now

is

in

a letter as follows:

there here a single

relation with him.

of accusing

him

Unless

word about Archelaus,

we do

or

any

the sophist the injustice of a monstrous falsification, he has confused,

NOT ES.

426

and most ignorant manner, the Alcetas whom Archelaus slew, and the Perdiccas whom he succeeded, and

in the strangest

the far later Perdiccas

who

reigned before Philip,

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

not to confound names and times.

wise says must be true,

if

Perdiccas.

THEJETETUS. P. 192.

A

contradiction.

See the Preface to the Laches 108), and the what is there said. (p.

in

P. 203.

So Proclus.

In the second book of book of Euclid.

his

and Charmides

(p. 100)

each

passages

dialogue

referring

commentary upon the

to

first

MENON. A

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

it

for

tells

a

little

might not be well to build too much upon this story; it seems to be almost at variance with what is said in

the defence of Socrates

by Xenophon, that the son of Anytus was still a growing boy, and

at the time of that accusation

with the conclusion which this passage

of Anytus

first

hence

we

help drawing from Menon, that the father

cannot

in connection with the

attained to riches gradually

by an extensive younger

-could hardly occur to his son in his fall in love with Alcibiades. to years

trade ;

it

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 to

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.

EUTHYDEMUS. P.

Even Ast

s

220.

Though no

one.

since published, does not take up because Plato so often exposes the

rejection,

ground, but only sophists occasionally, he does not think that he could have this

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

And

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

merely.

to look for

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.

In the Cratylus.

i.

Just at the beginning.

Aristotle also.

De

Ed. Bip. in. p. 599, with which com Soph. pare Rhet. ii. cap. xxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. iv. p. 292. El. cap. xx.

Another passage.

De

Soph.

Tennemann,

cap. xxxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. in. I mistake not, has already

El. if

p.

expressed

639.

the

NOTES.

428 supposition that tisthenes

when

Plato mentions these

We

meant.

is

see

how

this

refer

indeed,

but there are

immediately to his Euthydemus;

An-

o\^
does,

some

still

other grounds for the supposition.

PH^EDON. In

P. 291.

To

P. 294.

Here

P. 301.

Phsedr. p.

interest itself.

in the

See

Phcedon.

The Protagoras.

P. 304.

As

P. 305.

See Symp.

of Diotima.

the speech

it

is said.

206.

p. 205, 24-6.

p. 72, e. 73, a.

P. 68, 69.

Politic, p. 269.

THEAGES. In the Apology.

P. 321.

Two The

other

is

withholding him from

A

.

notices.

in the Republic,

said that his health compelled

P. 33, e.

him

B. vi. p. 496, to

keep

P. 324.

it

is

by

politics.

P. 150, 151.

parenthetic digression. .

where

to philosophy

In

the Apology.

P. 31, d.

The expressions of Xenophon.

Particularly in the Memorabilia,

In the Euthyphron.

i.

1,

24.

P. 3, b.

19*

c.

ERAST^E. P. 326.

There

is

Laert. ix. 37,

The

other professedly.

passage quoted from Thrasyllus which most persons have understood

a

in to

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

on record of the genuineness of our dialogue, in the words, EtVc^o

01

Avrpa(na\ HXartovds

el&iv.

MENEXENUS. Which Thucydides.

P. 337.

But how does

it

happen that Plutarch,

in

his

life

of

thus tacitly giving us to understand that Thucydides only ascribed it supposititiously to Pericles, while on the other hand he celebrates Pericles, does not

mention

this oration?

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,

much

when he makes that

Socrates

say that Aspasia supplied

in the speech she made for Pericles, that earlier and more genuine one?

was omitted

have had in his mind

P. 340.

If Menexenus, as

When

we must

Socrates.

conclude from the beginning

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
the passage, that

before Athenians.

it is

easy to praise Athenians

430

NOTES.

EXTRACT from BOECKH Schleiermacher

s

S PHILOLAUS, referring to note on the PH.EDRUS, p. 72.

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

arrangement or views of the

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

Thebes, might be early known in that mart of arts and But even supposing that he wrote nothing during

sciences.

his residence in Thebes,

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

the lively

trated to

zeal

still it

is

for

Athens from Bceotia

;

that

the mental feast and

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

suppose Simmias and Cebes to have retained nothing what ever of the doctrine of Philolaus, or to have mentioned nothing of it in Athens ? The only question, therefore, is, whether in the Phaedrus Philolaic echoes can actually be

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,

the ideas here mythically

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

Pythagorean Hestia, the house of Zeus, clearly enough indi

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

of that Zeus, I say,

cession of the gods?

Is

not,

dwelling of the gods as

we

in the Phsedrus the earth

is

the earth of the world he

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

something different from the dwelling of the gods ; and that may be explained without obscurity, and

this conception also

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 r

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,

little

not even the ideas, which are not indeed in space at all ; some foreign matter, therefore, predominates in the Phaedrus, of

which Plato availed himself

for the purposes of a mythical

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, composition

;

pure essence of things which, according

to the Phsedrus, the

NOTES.

4*32

But enough of this. Moreover, it what from 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/)

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,

the

moon

;

according to some physical conceptions, the brain, according to others, the heart, has to the human soul."

,

Works

Select List No.

I.

published by John

W.

Parker,

West Strand, London.

HE

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 Commen-

,,

Evangelists,

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.

[tators.

By

The Psalms fcical |

Commentary.

Cambridge.

in Hebrew; with a Critical, Exegetical, and PhiloloBy GEORGE PHILLIPS, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Queens College,

Two Volumes,

Octavo, 32s.

Religio Quotidiana: Daily Prayer, the Law of God s Church, and Churchmen. By the Rt. Rev. RICHARD MANX, D.D., Lord

heretofore the Practice of Hop o Down and

I

Connor, and Droinore.

m i

fidited

gilt edges, 4s. 6d.

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

Twysden s of Schism, as

Joint new

Foolscap Octavo, cloth,

it

Nornsian Professor of Divinity.

Octavo, 7s. Qd.

History of the Christian Church, from the Ascension of Jesus By the late EDWARD BURTON, D D. Reg-

Christ to the Conversion of Constantino. Prof. Oxon. Small Octavo, Qs, Qd.

A i

History of Christianity; from

(Establishment in the Roman Empire. Dublin. Foolscap Octavo, Qs. Gd.

By W.

Promulgation to its Legal C. TAYLOR, LL.D., Trinity College,

its

i

i

Primitive Christianity; Exemplified and Illustrated by the Acts Christians. By the Rt. Rev. R. MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and

w Primitive

Connor, and Dromore.

jB.D.,

Octavo, 125.

On the Early Fathers ; an Introductory Lecture, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. 2s.

by

J. J.

BLUNT,

2

Select List,

Christians; their W. PRIDDEN, M.A.

The Early By

Sufferings.

By

the Rev.

Works Customs,

History, Revenues,

and General

Third Edition, with Additions,

105. 6d.

The Book of the Fathers of the Christian Church, and the Manual of Christian Antiquities

an Account of the Consti By thi

;

Worship, Discipline, and Customs of the Early Church. E. RIDDLE, M.A. Second Edition, 185.

tution, Ministers,

Rev. J.

Spiril

9s. Qd.

of their Writings.

A

andi

Trials,

4s.

its

H. SOAMES, M.A.

of

I.,

Manners,

the Rev.

The Anglo-Saxon Church; Character.

No.

College Lectures on Christian Antiquities,

and the Ritual of

th(,

English Church.

Ecclesiastical History. College Lectures on

By

the Rev.

W.

BATES, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer of Christ

Each with complete tion Papers.

Sets of Cambridge, Dublin,

Post Octavo,

s

College, Cambridge.

and Durham, University Examina

9s.

Historic! History of the Church of England; embracing Copious Commoi

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.,

From

History of the Church of Ireland.

165.

the Reformation

t(

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

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

A New Edition,

Elizabethan Religious History. Chancellor of St. Paul

A

By F. 0. MASSINGBERD Revised and Enlarged. In the Press.

History of the English Reformation.

M.A., Rector of South Ormsby.

s.

By

the Rev. H. SOAMES, M.A.

Octavo, 165.

History of Popery, and of

its

Influence on Society.

Witl

Accounts of the Inquisition, and State of Popery in Ireland, and Specimens of Romisl Legends.

Octavo,

9s.

6<7.

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

Maps a

Bible

;

femoirs, and a copious

\R.G.S.

W.

3

Parker;

Series of new and accurate Maps, with Explanatory Index of Scriptural and Modern Names. By W. HUGHES,

75. Gd.

An

Method

Illustration of the

of Explaining the

New

Testament

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.

y

A

Rituale Anglo-Catholicmn Book of Common Prayer,

Jhurch to the

Councils, Liturgies,

olm

s

and Rituals.

College, Cambridge.

By

;

or,

The Testimony

of the Catholic

from Ancient Fathers, the Rev. HENRY BAILEY, M.A., Fellow of St. as exhibited in Quotations

Octavo, 155.

Archbishop Usher s Answer to a

Jesuit, with other Tracts

on

135. Gd.

*opery.

Scripture, Councils, and Church of Rome, for the Maintenance E. Cox, M.A. Octavo, 125.

James s Treatise on the Corruptions of Bathers, f

by the Prelates,

Popery.

Pastors, and Pillars of the

Revised and Corrected by the Rev. J.

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

Treatise

on the Chronology of the Holy

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.

icriptures,

)ctavo, 205.

Lectures in Divinity, delivered in the University of Cambridge,

y

Dr. HEY, as Norrisian Professor.

A New

Edition,

Two

Volumes, Octavo.

80s.

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.

Notes on the 3H,

St.

Notes on the Miracles.

By the

What

By

Asaph.

is

Christianity

\

Rev. R. 0. TJBENCH.

T. V. SHOKT, D.D.,

Octavo, 12s.

Lord Bishop of

25. Gd.

Exposition

of

the

Sermon on the Mount, drawn from the

Writings of St. Augustine, with Observations

by Rev.

R

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

Select List, No.

I.,

of

Works

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.

of

The Religions of the World, and The Boyle Lectures for 1846. By the Rev. Divinity in King s College, London and Chaplain ianity.

;

their

Relations to

Christ

F. D. MAURICE, M.A., Professor of of Lincoln s Inn. Octavo, 85. Gd.

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.

ianity.

in

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

Octavo, 7s. Gd.

Series of Discourses. I. On Christian Humiliation. By C. H. TERROT, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh ; late Fellow

the City of God.

College, Cambridge.

Octavo,

The Liturgy By H. HOWARTH, B.D.,

II.

1

7s. Gd.

it is, illustrated in a Series of Practical Sermons Rector of St. George s, Hanover Square. Second Edition. 45. 6d.

as

Practical Sermons,

by Dignitaries and other Clergymen of

United Church of England and Ireland printed verbatim from the Authors Complete in Three Volumes, Octavo, 7s., or Eighteen Parts, Is. each. :

The

On

of Trinity

the

MSS

Scriptural Character of the English Church considered, in a

Series of Sermons, with copious Notes M.A., Principal of St. Mark s College,

Parish Sermons.

and Illustrations. and Prebendary of

By St.

By Archdeacon HARE.

Christmas Day, and other Sermons.

Rev. DERWENT COLERIDGE. Paul s. Octavo, 125. 6d.

Octavo, 125.

By Rev.

F. D.

MAURICE,

M.A

Octavo, 105. Gd.

The Churchman s Guide

;

an Index of Sermons, and othei to their subjects. By Rev. J. FORSTEB,

Works, by Eminent Divines, arranged according

M.A., Her Majesty

s

Chaplain of the Savoy.

Octavo, 7s.

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.

W.

published by John

Parker.

5

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.

The Ritual of the United Church of England and Ireland with

ted

occasional Reference to the Objections of Dissenters.

;

ENSLEY IYRRELL, A.M., Secretary of the

mv

]2mo.-

Down

the Rev.

By

Illus-

GERALD

and Connor Church Education Society J

"

fi.
I

s Mode A New Edition,

Garrick

jjj

Jhgland. D "llr

RICHARD CULL, Tutor

of Reading

the

Liturgy

of

the

Church of

with Notes, MU.VI Cb a J. CXI 111 111 a Discourse on Public Reading J.IVL\^OJ and Preliminary JL

in Elocution.

Octavo. 5s. KB. 6d. fi/7 Octavo,

Choral Service of the United Church of England and Ireland

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.

The Book of Common Prayer

to show its and the Authority on which they rest of Jesus College, Cambridge, and Minor Canon of B.D.,

lUustrated, so as

-ious Modifications, the date of its several parts,

WILLIAM KEATING CLAY,

Demy 12mo.,

fy.

7*. 6d.

Explanatory Notes on the Prayer Book Version of the Psalms, By the same Author. 7s. 6d.

copious Marginal References.

Comments, Explanatory and

Parochialia; George aph.

s,

consisting

By the

Bloomsbury.

upon the Epistles, for the By the Rev. J. F. HONE M A

Practical,

hndays, Fasts, and Holydays throughout the Year. fear of Tiiiey. Demy 12mo., 6s.

of Papers printed for the use of Rev T. V. SHORT, D.D., Lord Bishop of St

Rt.

45.

The Ministration of Public Baptism of siving Children vice. Is. 6d.

who have been privately

Infants,

baptized into Christ

Office for the Visitation of the Sick; late Archdeacon COXE. Is. 6d.

by the

s

and the Form of Flock, arranged as one

with Notes and Explana-

Horse Ecclesiasticse ; the Position of the Church with regard to lish Error.

Horse Liturgicse fcrmony.

Tom ore. I

;

I.

Liturgical Discrepancy.

the Rt. Rev. R. MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Printed uniformly, Foolscap Octavo, 85. 6d. each.

By

Down

II.

Liturgical and Connor, and

:

Modern Hagiology I

;

an Examination of the Nature and Ten-

some recent Legendary and Devotional Works. By Rev. J. C. CROSTHWAITE Two Volumes, Foolscap Octavo, 95. LA., Rector of St. Mary-at-Hill, London. of

^,j3ncy

Select List, No. L, of

6

Works

The Churchman s Theological Dictionary.

the Rev.

By

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

the Ecclesiastical and Eleemosynar

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

Volumes, Royal Octavo, with copious Indices,

Specimens

of

Ecclesiastical

31. 3s.

Architecture

Great

in

Britain

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.

Sacra Domestica; large type,

with provision

a Course of Family Prayers. MS. Octavo, 3s.

Printed

ii

for additions in

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.

The Book of Private Prayer. Prebendary of Cork, and Chaplain

A

to the

By

the Rev. J. A. BOLSTER,

Lord Bishop.

Fifth Edition,

M.A

2s., gilt.

Manual of Family Prayer; comprising Three Weekly Course By th

of Morning and Evening Devotion. With Collects for the Feasts and Fasts. Rev. A. HORSFALL. Second Edition, 2s.

A

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.

CONGREGATIONAL PSALMODY AND CHANTING. Edited by JOHN HULLAH, Professor of Vocal Music in King

The

Psalter, or Psalms

of David in Metre,

s

College, London.

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.

Voices.

Psalm Tune-Books, without Words, containing Eighty-two Tune from the PSALTER. The Tunes Harmonized for THREE EQUAL VOICES, 25. Gd. The Tunes Harmonized for FOUR VOICES (Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Bass,)

The Whole Book of Psalms, with the

Canticles

3*.

and Hymns

the Church, for Morning and Evening Service, set to appropriate Chants, every Syllafo being placed under its proper Note. Octavo, 15$.

W.

published by John Sacred Minstrelsy

;

Parker.

7

a Collection of Sacred Music from the Finest

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 Small Quarto,

companiments.

4s.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor; his Predecessors, Contemporaries, and A Biography. By the Rev. R. A. WILLMOTT, M.A., Incumbent of St.

wessors.

atherme

s,

Bear Wood.

5s.

Bishop Heber and Indian Missions.

By

f.A., 25. Qd.

Lives of English Sacred Poets. 1.

Two Volumes,

A.

with Portraits,

By

the Rev. J. CHAMBEES,

the Rev. R. A. WILLMOTT,

45. Qd. each.

Lives of Eminent Christians. By the Rev. R. B. HONE, M.A., Owen, and Honorary Canon of Worcester. Four Volumes, with Portraits

of Hales

fear Qd. each. 1

The

First

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 and Robert Hall, .shop Boyle; the Fourth, John Bradford, Archbishop Grindal,and Judge Hale.

Life of Archbishop Sancroft.

.Memoirs of the

By the

Life, Character,

late Dr.

D OYLY.

and Writings of

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.

Luther and

Butler,

his Times, or, History of the Rise and Progress of By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A. Foolscap Octavo, 5*.

German Reformation.

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/

^

Agency of God; being a Refutation of the Work f Creation B y THOMAS MONCK MASON,

NatUral Hlst ry

Cudworth on Freewill; now

first Edited from the Original MS J H * A LE N M A Examinin to the Lord Chaplain ^ n ^tl T One of Her Majesty s Inspectors of Schools; 3s.

y he

dioD rf Lichfield, rhfi n hop of

-

Examination Questions and Answers upon Burnet on the ThirtvJ New Edition, Is. Qd.

fne Articles.

8

Works

Select

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

s

Analogy, prepared by Dr. Bentham, and now adapted to the

Prof, of Divinity at Oxford, corrected by Bishop Butler, and the Oxford Editions. By the Rev. T. BARTLETT, Bishop Butler. 2s. Qd.

The Cambridge Greek and New Edition,

Columns on the same Page.

English

M.A., Author of the Life

Testament,

with marginal References.

in

Parallel

85. Qd.

The Greek Text of the Acts of the Apostles, with Notes, and

Selected.

By H.

ROBINSON, D.D.

oj

Original

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.

for the In a Second Volume.

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 ;

THE MORNING AND EVENING SERVICES. COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES.

may be

had, bound, or in boards,

at tht

JAN 11

PLEASE

CARDS OR

395

DO NOT REMOVE

SLIPS

UNIVERSITY

1974

FROM

THIS

OF TORONTO

POCKET

LIBRARY

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher s Introductions to the Dialogues of Plato