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