T

f*T

INTRODUCTIONS
TO THE

DIALOGUES OF PLATO.

, Tv

e4-^ Er^T SCHLEIERMACHER

INTRODUCTIONS
TO THK

DIALOGUES OF PLATO,

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN

BY

WILLIAM DOBSON,
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE.

M.A.

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

FOR

J.

&

J.

J.

DEIGHTON, TRINITY STREE

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

&

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE
present

apparently

unfinished state in which the

before

work

comes

the

public
of the

requires

some explanation.

The Author

following

then Introductions died in the year 1834, having the translation, into German, of all

completed

which are here the Dialogues the Introductions to It was his intention to have published given. the whole of the works of Plato upon this plan;

and we have thus

to

regret

the loss
Critias,

of Intro the Laws,

pieces

ductions to the Timaeus, the

and

all

those

smaller

and

spurious

not

and second found in the Appendices to the first di of the three parts into which Schleiermacher
vided the Platonic works.
lation,
critical

The German

trans

moreover,

is

furnished with various notes,

a circumstance

and explanatory;
it

which

consider

necessary

to

mention,
will

as

the

reader
occa

of

these

introductions

find

in

them
as

sional allusions to those notes.

Such
the the

referred

immediately
themselves

to
will

passages

in
at

Introductions

be

found

end

of

the

volume.

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

CRATYLUS
SOPHIST

-.J aiL_ 204

219 228 240 264

277
291

STATESMAN BANQUET
PH^EDON PHILEBUS THEAGES
ERAST.E ALCIBIADES
1

309
321

325

328
337
341

MENEXENUS LARGER HIPPIAS

CLITOPHON REPUBLIC
NOTES
..:

347

JM.
417

ERRATUM.
Page
82, last line, for

her read

hit.

INTRODUCTIONS,

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
THE
prefix
to

Greek Editions of the works of Plato generally them the biography of the Author from the

But only the most well-known collection of Diogenes. old custom could honour to an ^discriminating attachment a compilation, put together as it is without so crude
any judgment,
with
a
translation.

And Tennemann,

of the Pla in the life of Plato prefixed to his system to a sifting pro tonic philosophy, has already subjected
cess
this

pared

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

neither materially As, then, since that time have been published, nor new facts deeper investigations of leaving discovered, affording any well-grounded hope the labour already far behind them, in their application, to refer such it is best bestowed upon this subject, that point, to readers as wish to be instructed upon And there is the less need what they will there find. who would be a worthy for anything further, as no one of wishing to reader of Plato can entertain the notion
sources.
strike out a light

of the philosopher, upon the sentiments

which might illuminate his works, from multifariously

told

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

and deformed

intelligent

takes to learn the sentiments from the works themselves.

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

And

as regards the

his

writings might be developed,

understanding many seem to be

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

relation,
is.

without however being able Nay, even with regard to the

his life, his
is

more well-known circumstances of

travels for instance, so little that

remarkable

definite

can be with

certainty

made
for

of them

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

chronology

writings, and the most we can do

is,

arrangement here and there to

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

conjectures,

therefore,

will

be brought forward

immediately in which they may perhaps spread some light around them. It would certainly be more to the purpose, provided it were to adduce possible within the
prescribed limits,

to

more advantage

in those places

something relative to the

lenes at the time

scientific condition

of the Hel

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

when Plato entered upon

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

done, and some quite

new matter

to investigate,

but there

may perhaps still be questions to throw out, which, though to the professor in these subjects they must be anything
but indifferent, have, however, up to the present time,

But to pursue in been as good as not thought of at all. connexion what is new and ambiguous in such investi
gations,

would not be adapted to

even in this province,

this place;

and some
the

particulars

whether

in

way
what
to

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

to confute
all

means

remain reserved for the particular places

refer.

to

which they
moreover,
writers

And what
set

is

common and
in

well

known

is,

pertinently

forth

the works of German

illustrative of the history of that period

of philosophy,

as far as is

the reading

to prepare the way for absolutely necessary of the Platonic writings, so as not to grope

about in the dark, and thus completely to miss, from the understanding first to last, the right point of view for

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

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

where and how Plato

is

Of

the Philosophy itself

avoid giving any preliminary

so easy to

are here purposely to account, even were it ever

we

do

so,

or possible to dispatch

it

in ever so

of this new small a space, inasmuch as the whole object of his works is to put it within the power exposition

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,

own
quite

new

it

may

be,

or

at

all

events

more

perfect.

And

effectually towards preventing the accomplishment of this object than an endeavour, just at the outset, to instil into the mind of the reader any preconception whatever. Whoever, therefore, has not yet been hitherto acquainted imme
all that external reports have taught him respecting their contents, and the consequences to be drawn from to rest mean

nothing certainly could

work more

diately with these works, let

him leave

them,

while

upon

its

own

merits,
his

and endeavour
knowledge
classification

to forget

it

but

whoever from

own

of

them

has

already formed

an opinion for himself, will

in

soon feel

how

far,

by means of the

which he

here finds these writings arranged, even his own views experience an alteration, or at least combine themselves

and gain a greater comprehensiveness and unity, from his learning to know Plato more strictly as a
better,

Philosophical Artist, than, certainly, has been hitherto the case. For of all philosophers who have ever lived, none have had so good a right as Plato, in

many

respects,

to

set

up the only too general complaint of

all.

being misunderstood, or even not understood at

the most part

The

grossest indeed of these misunderstandings have been for

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,
general,
will

find

traces

generally

matter in
point to

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

of

the

the insufficient means

we

possess.

And

thus that feeling

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

might

Plato better than

excite

he understood himself; and

it

may

smile to observe

how

unplatonically

one who

of entertains such a feeling comes to the investigation a value upon the consciousness Plato, who puts so high He deceives himself by at least one halfof
ignorance.
all

by

that,

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

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

especially,

not very

an attempt like the present be dispensed with, easily to

is

a supplement, to what others

in proportion as have done in other ways, and must, the right understanding it succeeds, contribute to advance

of Plato.

one

for

it

This must certainly be self-evident to every cannot be denied, that besides the ordinary
province
of Philosophy of thoroughly

difficulties in the

understanding

a 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

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

most choice vehicles of the the name of Phi

compartments of
in

sciences,

and
its

to every

one of the separate

parts of the whole devotes

particular

work or

section,

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

which

it

is

regularly built

to

may
all

point out,

if

not without trouble, at

;

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

error, every particular detail

compartments taken

attractive look of firmness

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

at

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,

fragmentary,
investigations,

which

has

only

to

deal

with

particular

regard to

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

they are real members, or only masses capriciously and unnaturally separated from the whole body, professes,
notwithstanding,
to

make

Philosophy

comprehensible,

Although, then, in this case superficiality and ignorance are perfectly natural, because the authors have not even

come

to

an

understanding

with

themselves

as

to

the

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

cent/e point and does this method

In this sense even the dialogistic treatment has

been often applied; and

a reputation of being a

many
happy

writer has crept into imitator of Plato, per-

haps

still

more Socratic and

of

clear than he,

art

who

yet

could

make nothing
for this loose

Plato

form of

but a loose dress

method of

discussion.

Whoever

then

is

spoiled

which by use of the expedients

either

these methods

seem

Plato to afford, will necessarily find everything in

strange, and

devoid of meaning or
of Philosophy

mysterious.

For although the

division

into different

so far from being unknown / compartments of science was as the to him, that he may be looked upon much rather first originator of it to a certain degree, still hardly any

of his writings are confined to any one of these compart But since he considered their es ments in
particular.
sential

unity and their

common law
it

as

of the
the

importance, and
his

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

made

object

greater of

this account de whoever, on the other hand, would on to the denomination of fragmentary, grade these works find himself constantly embarrassed as to the real will

yet

subject-matter,

which

is

seldom verbally enunciated, and

and he

intention

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

treating

only

particular

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
of thought or doctrine
in

them

vacillates

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

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
;

elsewhere perhaps disputed doctrine, Now according as his object may be on each occasion. such an opinion is nothing else but a disguised confession of a total absence of any understanding of the Platonic
that,

times

from

works, and that especially on account of their form, when is only the ground of the sentiment that is misappre hended, and instead of being looked for in the judge, it is
it

transferred to the thing judged.

to

But

it

is

not necessary

honour

this
it

depreciating view with a lengthened dis

cussion, as
itself.

yields in itself a sufficient testimony against

it

For while
has

adduces accusations about contradic

it

tion

and want of connexion,

it

that

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

inquiries, in

whence those strange

this or that subject

what persons mouths

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

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

thoughts, can only be thrown out by one who does not understand Plato at all. This view, therefore, is founded upon nothing, and
it was and may, without going further, be contradicted before,

common method

of expressing

explains nothing, but leaves the whole problem as

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

view so

much
so

the

more pressing,

as

the majority of those the writings of Plato

who pass
still

mean an opinion upon

resist a certain feeling

cannot

of admiration for the Philosopher.

Now

as

we have no

other tangible proof of his greatness and preeminence will not agree together, except these writings, the two
that opinion, I mean, and this admiration, and the latter will scarcely have any other object except those beauties

of language and composition lavished on matter of no fine passages as they are called, importance, or particular or moral sentiments and principles,
all

pointing to very

subordinate

men

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

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

good

will,

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,

have adopted the opinion that

is

in the

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

very

difficult to discover.

This notion,

in itself utterly

into the most multifarious forms, vague, has shaped itself and the writings of Plato have been robbed of sometimes

more and sometimes

less of their subject-matter,

and

his

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

for

in

secret

entered

upon

in

nay, order to

determine what
esoteric,

writings of
so to
dis

Plato were exoteric and what

and

cover where most a trace might be sought out of his the Setting aside therefore genuine and secret widom.

10
truth contained in this proposition, in so far as what
secret
is

and

difficult to

find out is

so only in a relative

point of view, and there

scure

may always be something ob

for

some person or other; the whole is only a tissue of mis-apprehensions and confused conceptions which must first of all be unravelled and
to find

and hard

exposed.

conceptions of an exoteric and esoteric philosophy demand a critical sifting, inasmuch as they appear at different times with quite different meanings. For among the earliest Pythagoreans this distinction re
ferred so immediately to the matter, that subjects were

For

these

denoted

as

esoteric

concerning

commit themselves without the

timate circle of connections;

limits of their
it

which they would not most in

is

and

to

be supposed

that their political system occupied the place of the eso teric far more than their metaphysical speculations, which were as imperfect as unsuspicious. But at that time even

Philosophy was bound up with political views, and the schools were connected by a practical fraternization which
did not afterwards exist
times, on

among

the Hellenes.

In later

the contrary,

that was

chiefly called esoteric

in the

which could not be communicated

of instruction,
to

popular method
the

which,

after

the admixture of

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

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

stands in

the

be attempted to apply these notions to the Platonic writings and Philosophy, in order thereby to divide the two into two parts, hesitation and doubt generally must

11
ensue.

For the

last

signification

could

braced by those,
of
it,

who would make

hardly be em such an application

as

that the works col they start with asserting

lectively

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

what was otherwise.

And

as regards the first signi

fication, of doctrines of his

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

must be

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

historical traces.

Therefore, of

modern all the advocates of this opinion, the so-called Platonists are deserving of most praise, inasmuch as to accomplish the first. they have actually attempted would not have anything to showBut the other
parties
in

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

would at writings moreover once disavow, they would be at a loss to discover anyof philosophy upon which thing in the whole region
which possess, and

own

some opinion,

either directly

and

distinctly,
is

or at least

as far as a notice of the principles goes,

not to be met

with in these writings.

the
distinction of

And
is

those indeed

who reduce

what

esoteric,

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

writings, so that one can

believe

that

his

scholars

needed

still

further

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

in

delivering in

what might indeed

ones in
a

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

lower.

And

would

really

genuine historical traces be discoverable, supporting the opinion of a distinction between the esoteric and the
exoteric in Plato.

For

if

it

refers

merely to the sub

doctrines

ject-matter, and we are to have been contained

to suppose the secret

in the

esoteric

writings in

the
;

same manner
the
first

in

which the commoner are

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
;

whole endeavour doing this

would have been

one

use
to

but of

no

seems

seriously

have thought.
that
Aristotle,

And, further, it happen who indisputably was concerned with

as

how should

a true understanding of the true Philosophy of Plato,

and from whom,

many

years an intimate scholar of

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

or

secret understanding of these.

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

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

in

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

the true doctrines of

13
or

Plato,

only conformably to
Aristotle,

secret

interpretation,

how could
in

especially considering the

manner

which he attacks

his master,

have been able to escape

the most severe censures from the genuine followers of

that

Philosopher, if, contrary to his better knowledge, he had then fought only against a shadow ? Now in order to make these misapprehensions and their causes perfectly manifest, and to bring even those

who

are involved in
it

them
is

to a confession

and conscious

ness of the same,

certainly a praiseworthy under taking to work out analytically the philosophical subjectmatter from the Platonic works, and thus to expose the

Philosopher to

view,

dissected

and

in

detail,

divested
little

of his superfluities and combinations, and with as

as

they could may be of his own peculiar form. thus survey the pure treasure, and convince themselves on authentic grounds that it is actually taken from
if

For

those writings, they must be fain to confess that it was the fault of themselves alone not to discern it, and that
it

is

useless to

lament over, or to dream

of,

other lost

riches of Platonic wisdom.

Thus much

therefore

may

be attained by this method, that the ungrounded sus picion against the works of Plato vanishes, and the
fact
light.

of his not

And

it

is

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

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

stick

by

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

kind

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

to

an

14 from the
true.

For though he must be accurately ac

quainted with the whole nature of a body who is to the particular vessels or bones in it for the purpose of comparison with corresponding parts of an other similarly dissected, which would be the fullest use to which that philosophical process could be put ; still the mere passive spectator of the exhibition and
separate

comparison

of

these

parts

will

not

attain,

by those

means

alone,

the whole.
fail

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

analysis

to a

altogether to attain to a
that,

sophy of Plato, for in

knowledge of the Philo if in any thing, form and

is

subject are inseparable, and no proposition

to be

rightly

understood, except
binations
it.

in

its

own

place,

and with the com

to

and limitations which Plato has asssigned

still less

And

will they
all, will

comprehend the Philosopher

his

himself; and least of

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

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

to excite

and awaken

theirs.

former attempts,

it is

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

is

any
ever

such

connection,

and
the

such an undertaking
subject and
far

not, perhaps, to

unsuitable to
succeed,

too

great

will best

which Plato himself appear from the first conception to his writings and their suggests to us with regard
objects,
in the
trifling

and which we
Phgedrus.

hear him propound a somewhat Treating the subject in

shall shortly

always
as to

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
to

taneously
reality

itself, appropriated it mere ocular apprehension of the

or

whether,

with

the a

words and
it

letters

vain conceit

is

excited in the

mind that
and
that

understands
it

what
to

it

does not understand.

Hence, that

is

folly

build too

much upon

this,

true

reliance

can

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

at a venture,

and more for what

it

is

as regards

the

writer

and those who already share in his knowledge, know than for what it can do for those who as yet Whoever then will consider what that so ex
nothing.
alted

preference
it

for

oral

instruction

means and upon

what
in

this

presence with him, can

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

find

tell

every

moment what he understands

under
but the actual attainment of

and what
standing
this

not,

and thus
it

assist the activity of his

when

fails;

advantage

rests,

as

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

who

its

Father and re

jections of one

and that not only against the ob thinks otherwise, but also against the intellectual stubbornness of one as yet ignorant, while the
ceive his protection,

written sentence has no answer to

inquiries.

make

to

any further
to

Whence

it

is

at

once clear, in passing,

what a degree that man has forfeited all right to utter even a single word about Plato who could take up with a notion that that Philosopher, in his esoteric and oral
instruction could have availed himself of the Sophistical

method of long and continuous discourses, when, even by his own declaration, such a method appears to Plato
farthest
to its opposite.

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

or from practice and tradition, but necessarily and na turally Plato s was a Socratic method, and indeed, as

regards the uninterrupted and progressive reciprocation, and the deeper impression made upon the mind of the
hearer,
to

be certainly as much preferred to that of his

master, as the scholar excelled

tive Dialectics, as in richness
intuition.

him

as well in construc

and compass of subjective

As

then, notwithstanding this complaint, Plato

wrote so

much from

the period of his early

manhood

to that of his

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

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
all
;

Plato considers

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

ready acquired, must necessarily be so of the

and

17
original

mode of

acquisition.

Hence on

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

in his oral instruction,

it,

and

still

more

in

the written imitation of

that Plato
s

when we consider
still

further,

object was

to bring the

ignorant reader

nearer to a state of knowledge, or that he at least felt the necessity of being cautious with regard to him not to give rise to an empty and conceited notion of his own in his mind, on both accounts it must have

knowledge
been
the

Philosopher s chief object to conduct every manner from the beginning on investigation in such a wards, as that he might reckon upon the reader s either
creation of being driven to an inward and self-originated to surrender himself the thought in view, or submitting to the feeling of not having discovered most
decisively

or

understood anything.

To

this

end, then,

it

is

re

that the final object of the investigation be not and laid down in words, a process directly enunciated which very easily serve to entangle many persons
quisite

might

are glad to rest content, provided only they are in final result, but that the mind be re possession of the duced to the necessity of seeking, and put into the way

who

by which

it

may

find

it.

The

first is

done by the mind

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
it

is

to be properly

only sharpens and clears the mind of an attentive one to perceive the inward con nection. Or when the exposition of a whole is the ob
ject in view, this is only sketched

strokes, which, however, he

before
bine.

him

in his

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

These are something

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
it

spirit

or if

it is still

to

be referred

to Plato himself,

can only be said that immediate in

struction was his only esoteric process, while writing was

first

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

as he desired, he could express his thoughts purely

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

common

with them, the particular philosophical sciences,

first

after

having

and connection.

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

19
the exposition of Philosophy
is

in

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

follows, follows,

what has been above

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

if

Plato ended with separate

it

expositions of the several philosophical sciences,

might
for

then be supposed that he had also advanced each

itself in

to look for

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

and a physical

But
it

as he represents

them as a
to

connected whole, and

is

ever

his peculiar theory

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

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

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

every thing in

The
every one

restoration
sees,

then

of

this

natural order

is,

as

an object very far distinct from

all at

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

made

and extravagant trifling, and in a systematic separation and combi part proceed upon nation according to the established divisions of Phi
nothing but
vain
losophy,
in

part also,

only

take particular points into

20
consideration
like

here and
in

there,

without having any thingclassification

a whole

view.

The

into
after

tetra

logies,

which Diogenes has preserved for us

Thra-

syllus, manifestly rests

form of these

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

range them in the same manner as the works of the Tragic Poets spontaneously arranged themselves accord
ing to the regulations of the Athenian festival, and even on this poor chance-work the classification was ill

kept and so ignorantly executed, that for the most part, no reason whatever can be discovered why, in particular
instances, the results of
it

are

at

all

as

we

find

them.

Not even

is

the resemblance carried on so far as that,

as every dramatic tetralogy so also in this case

ended with a
in

satirical piece,

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

they are all heaped together in

as little regard
in
itself,

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

sight extremely probable,

two

at first

that Plato,

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

when

refer to the
first,

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 ?
notion might perhaps be found in the fact that the Clitophon is placed before the Republic, as a justifying transition from the so-called investigative dialogues,

and

in appearance

sceptical, to

those that are

immedi
is

ately instructive

and exponential, and

this

in this case it

almost ridiculous that so suspicious a dialogue can boast

of having suggested
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

;

sufficient clear
is

ness, projected a combination

or

when such

implied

by some external circumstance, leaving all the rest sub Meanwhile both attempts ordinate to that arrangement. serve to show how soon the true arrangement may only
of the Platonic works was of
it,

and how

ill

excepting very few traces suited that kind of criticism which the
lost,

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
relates to

is

more

to separate than connect,

and

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

division

into

certainly, if

instructive might be a guide for mark properly understood,

the

investigative

and

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

the latter as explanatory of positive theories. were not only that the further subdivision

Provided

made

in

the most utterly illogical manner, in the one according to the form alone of the investigation, in the other ac

cording

to

the

subject,

while

the

latter

of

the

two

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 unplaSyzygies of Serthe

ar

followed also in the

ranus, which are therefore perfectly useless for

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

of Jacob Geddes the Scotchman, and our

man Eberhard,

in his treatise

upon the

own country Myths of Plato

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
this principle

this,

that certain dia

upon

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

very meagre lines about each of them, shew ing nothing so clearly as that there is scarce a single instance in which he has traced out Plato s object with
the most

But even sup any thing like ordinary understanding. posing all this to be better than it is, and that the
greatest proofs of ignorance, as well as misapprehension

23
of particular passages were not to be

found,

how can

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

to be

the

first,

and according to what law

s

And
prove

as regards

Eberhard
in
all

reference

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

sition is enunciated, it
is

citizens.

Now

in

this,

in which the po notwithstanding the very clear manner

difficult

to determine

whether

this

object

was to have been

at

the

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

circle

which

it

is

involved,
is

as

Philosophy must
it

certainly
far

determine what

the virtue of a citizen,

is

too

subordinate a ground

to rest the Philosophy itself upon.

to

But

if

the opinion

is

Philosophy independent
are
to

of that

mean, that Plato invented his and particular object,

that this, the Philosophy,

writings

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

in which,

were worked out in the manner

under the

cir

cumstances of that time, such an object might demand, this would be the strongest position ever taken up in
favour of their exoteric character.

Meanwhile, accord

of Plato ing to that view, the philosophical writings could only constitute a paedagogic, or rather a polemic to external circum series, in which, from its reference
stances

and events,
like

all

must be

accidental,

and thus

it

would be
cious

enough

to a string of pearls, only a capri

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

total

failure

in

the object

in

view,

a useless piece of

ornamental finery.
tained

by

others,

Equally worthless is the view main that Plato published sometimes one

part of his knowledge, sometimes another, either from mere vanity, or in opposition to that of other Philoso
phers.
tion

In

all

these endeavours,

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,

of the natural

from

all

that has hitherto been done

is

the character of

the attempt

made

in

Tennemann
at all

Philosophy; the
to completeness,

first,

system of the Platonic events, with any pretensions

s

to discover the chronological order of

the

Platonic

dialogues
;

from various

historical

traces

for this is certainly critical in impressed upon them its principle, and a work worthy in every way of an
historical

investigator

like

the

author of that
is

treatise.

In

this undertaking,

indeed, his view

directed less to

discover,

by

the

method he adopts, the

real

and

essential

relation of the

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.
is

And

to

that

undertaking,
;

generally,

the present

a necessary counterpart

and thus, on
it

the other hand, that method, resting as

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
for the

entirely

upon what

is

necessary on that ac

count that the results of the two should perfectly coincide,

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,
in
;

We

discover,

how

proceeding upon this method, but few definite

points

and

for the great majority of the dialogues only

somewhat

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

accurate

trace for

us.

Now

the anachronisms which

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

this fault;

but even

this slight

advantage

of

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

recasting

works

in

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. be yet another expedient hitherto unused with perhaps,
transgress

26
reference to this method.

Thus
if

the predominant rank

given to Socrates,

which,

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
as time advanced.
limitations,

But
any

all

this is

subject to so
it

many
be

that

confident

use of

might

more delusive than

beneficial,

and no inference thence

but only yield a slight
this

drawn can decide any

increase of probability.

thing,

So that by

method

it

might

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

though,

it

hypotheses.
consideration

may At

be,
all

not

always

according

to

correct

events, the results arising from the

upon

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

by means

of which that order also

may be brpught into connection

/Now,
if

with the external circumstances.

order of the Platonic works
is

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
is

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

2?
imgenuine
petent
in

connection
the

with

it ?

Or

is

it

to

be com

to take

problem given

itself as

a standard,

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

and

to declare,

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

tremely partial

decision of

a question

to
it

be answered
is

upon quite

different grounds,

and that

impossible

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 repose upon the long prescribed opinion
authority of editions.
cide accurately

This authority does indeed coin

enough with the list of Thrasyllus, in Diogenes, only that more modern criticism has withdrawn the Clitopho from our collection ; and on the other hand,
the explanations of words are wanting in that list;
these,

and

therefore,

would be the only dubious matters.

a better evidence in favour of this

Nay, we have

still

Grammarian Aristophanes, who has been already named, whose arranging catalogue Dio genes also had before him, and certainly would not have
collection in that of the

passed the matter over in silence

if

he had discovered
I

anywhere a variation from

it.

But how,

would

ask,

can a searching criticism, even though it would pay no regard to the doubts which one s own feelings suggest, rest upon those authorties ? For not only, with the

28
of a

exception

few poets,

have

insinuated themselves into

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

make an

but in Plato

case,

an additional circumstance comes

in,

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

in this respect

those

critics

have already rejected

a considerable number of

small

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

from

this fact that

at

the period

when

this

was done,

these dialogues must have already maintained their place among other works of Plato for a considerable time, since

otherwise no particular operation of criticism would have been necessary again to deprive them of it. And this

could not have taken usurpation, on the other hand, of the spuriousness of place if there had been evidence
these

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

men were
tradition

who preserved
cause,

the genuine Platonic

it

with zeal for the

is

not conceivable

that

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

dialogues and

others

If

it

should

be

said

that they had, with regard to all not rejected,

certain

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

we might
tion,

rejoin that the silence of contemporaries,

who
is

do not take the case of a future confusion into considera

and require an occasion
for

every

quotation,

29
neither collectively nor in detail a

ground

for rejection,

and

picion

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

might

against

proofs applied,

as several

examples both

in

former and

even in modern times have shown at

how

early a period

of antiquity supposititious writings have been adopted and learned men into the list of even

by

philologists

Now, if they judged chiefly upon inter genuine works. these at nal grounds, no prescription is valid as regards to renewed all events ; but they must remain fairly subject Hence then arises, late. trial at every period, however
especially
as in the

doubts

will

meets with,

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

attentive reader

their criticism start

from too limited a point of view; or whether they may not have failed to push principles, their full extent, and consequently though correct, to as have preserved much that might have been quite that There are two circumstances
appropriately rejected.
First, that to this doubt. give particular encouragement are not all of them the dialogues at that time rejected the a decisive line from all recognised at separated by same period, but whether we look to the subject-matter, some of the or to the composition and mode of treatment, second. to the Again, first class pretty near

that from the

approximate same period

at

which these authorities were

well

the commonly recognised, among

known

suspicious

circumstances attaching to the Erastae

critical soil to

and Hipparchus,

a stock of doubts has lived, which perhaps only require

to

be planted in a better

to a considerable extent,

and

strike out

spread perceptibly in many other

places.

But

if

our confidence

in the authenticity of the

30
collection
is

thus

shaken,

however

little, talent for such investigations, will

any one endowed with any, be fain

each particular work must
it is

to allow that,
itself

in

strictness,

be

its

own voucher

that

Platonic.

Now

this, to

continue, can be done in no other way except by coming back to evidences again; and, looking at what has been
said above,
it

might be doubted whether for

us,

at the

present time, there

totle.

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

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
the

circle in this case,

and founding,

it

may

be,

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

Aristotle
writings.

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
find

learn
this

easily to

distinguish.

When,

therefore,

we

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
Socrates. general, as one of Plato or of

explain this more accurately would carry us far beyond the limits of the present introduction, and is the less necessary as those who are ignorant of both sets of works the

To

among

doubts are not sufficiently strong to require such a pro

ceeding,

while those
to

who know them

objections

the

result,

hardly make that by this method we can

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

all

the rest seem to be only offsets,

that a
to

connection with

them

affords

the

best test

whereby
likewise,

judge of their

origin.
it

And

for the next task

that of arrangement,

follows from the nature

of the case, that

in possession of

when we have

that stock

we are

at

once

nection.

For

all the essential grounds of general con must have been natural for the first it

reviewer of the Platonic system to have especially taken a survey of all the most important developments of it

without any exception, and thus we do actually find these in the instances of the works most accredited by Aristotle.

As such, of a character which

in

both respects, as well

32
as regards their genuineness as their importance, entitles

them

to

constitute

the

first

rank

among

the Platonic

works, we count the Phaedrus, the Protagoras, the Parmenides,

the

Theaetetus,

the

Sophist

and

Politicus,

Phaedo,

Philebus,

and

Republic,

Timseus and Critias connected with

fore,

it.

together with the In these, there

we have a

firm footing-point from which to advance

further, both

in the task of deciding

the genuineness of

the rest, and investigating the place which belongs to each

and the second may be accomplished simul taneously with the first, and without the two by their mutual relation contradicting one another, but either very
;

of them

naturally supporting each other mutually in a variety of ways, as, it is hoped, the following investigation will shew.
task, that of testing the remaining our collection, and thus investigating whether or not they belong to Plato, is not without difficulty,
first

Now

the

dialogues in

for the reason that the character to

be drawn from those

several traits

that are proved genuine

is

made up of

and

distinguishing features, and it seems unfair to expect that all should be united in an equal degree in all pro ductions of Plato, and difficult to decide to which of
these distinguishing

marks we ought
to each.

especially to look

and what rank

things

to assign

Now
under

there are three

:

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

which

come

usually moulds

it.

Now

as regards the

language, the

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

matter in

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

we look

to the phi

among
s

the dialogues
it

whose claims

to

be considered as Plato

will

never-

33
be necessary to investigate, some which treat in general of no scientific subjects, nor of any in the spirit
theless

of speculation;
so immediately

while the rest take their subject-matter

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

mode

of thinking, that it is impossible to recognise in them a later or a strange hand, and yet they might, as

far as

depends upon

this point,

come only from

a scholar

or an imitator
his

who

master.

But

faithfully followed the footsteps of as regards the properly dialogistic

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

which

was the

work of the Socratic school

in

particular,

and from

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

in value
is

difference

and subject

all

these circumstances considered,

there any one now-a-days

who would venture

Greek

to

pro

fess himself sufficiently skilled in

to pass sentence

upon any expression whatever even in these small dia logues, and to decide that it is unplatonic with such
certainty that he
to reject

would undertake
?

for that reason alone

it

the piece the

Rather might we say that

of
the
is

is

not
is

so

much
and

indication

presence of what
native,

strange or the absence of what

choice

the want

of

embellishing
the
sentence

dialogistic

formula , that

may draw down

dialogues already accredited

as

of rejection upon those far as the language is

34
concerned.

Among

those

therefore

which

cannot

be

accused of that deficiency there is much that need not belong to Plato without its betraying itself in the lan

guage, so that this exclusively can scarcely decide any For when suspicions arise in our minds which thing.

depend more, upon a general impression than upon any distinct grounds which we can bring forward in sup
port of it, it may be assumed that these depend more upon the composition in general than upon the language
alone.

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

according to
class.

subject-matter of

those of

the

first

might be done in two ways. Either it might be maintained that nothing can be Platonic which stands in contradiction with the subject-matter
of these recognised
dialogues.

For

But Plato would thus

else, that

be deprived of a right enjoyed by every one

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
proof,

it

cannot be believed without the

that

upon

his philosophical career, or

from the period of his entrance still earlier, he always

if
all

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

less

the

particular thoughts than to the quality and importance of the subject-matter generally, and a rule be laid down
that

every

work of Plato

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.

cannot

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

author which belong to a higher sphere should develope themselves, and when traces of them are seen, their

appearance is accidental and supererogatory, and may not even always be taken as an infallible proof of their origin from him. Equally manifest is it that every
great artist of every kind will
his

work up

studies out of

and though the adept will dis cover in them more or less of his style and spirit, yet they neither belong to the class of works which pecu
particular line,
liarly

own

characterize

their

author, nor advance his great

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

views of art, or, what

subjects,

and even the method natural

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
deviations in
this

the

treatment

of

it,

might,
liable

according to
to mistake.

analogy,

be a

process very

These

difficulties, then, clearly

tend

to show, that
alone, nor

we should judge

neither from the subject

look

to

a third and
the

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

those two unite

Form and Composition

what
affords

in general.

For even
sists

in the language,

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

closest

most proof con whole tenor and the

stands
like in

the

relation

to

the

composition,

In

manner

36
this will betray itself in
its

principal

features

even in

which we miss the important matter of these works of a higher class. Moreover, and it is
those
studies
in
this which must contribute to give us a correct idea of this genuine Platonic form, we need not first abstract it, like those other two tests, out of the larger works

as an analogy, the limits of the applicability of

which

can

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

with regard to philosophical communication, and must

therefore

which

this

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

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

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

mode

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

for judging of their genuineness,

and thus the

solution

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

almost

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 persons and circumstances become and
individualized,

which, by general confession, spreads so much beauty and charm over the His great and dialogues of Plato.

undisputed
neglect
this

works plainly show us that he does not admixture even when he is most deeply

3?
absorbed

on the other hand they shew us almost universally that he admits it most co
in

the

subject,

as

piously when the subject-matter does not into the dark solemnity of speculation.

lead

so

far

Whence we

may certainly conclude that this peculiar form can never be totally wanting, and that even in the most insig
which he undertook, whether as a study or an occasional piece, Plato will have applied some
nificant
trifle

Moreover, the want of this is indis thing of this art. the first thing which, to the feeling of every putably reader, must distinguish as unplatonic the dialogues
rejected from correct
basis

antiquity

downwards;
that

as

it

is

also

the

upon which

old

critical

judgement

rests, that all

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

but

very

partially

and imperfectly.

And

to

the

in

ward and

essential condition of the Platonic

every thing in pose of compelling

form belongs the composition resulting from the pur

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
in

all

these threads do actually

;

common

center-point

that progression, often

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

meaning and of art ; the concealment, further, of the more important object under one more trifling; the indirect commencement with some
nevertheless
is

always

full of

individual instance

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

conditions
all

really

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

38
bearing.
racter can
to

Meanwhile

it

must be evident that

this

cha

show

itself in its full light

only in proportion

the importance of the subject-matter, and we here see first how, when we are employed upon Plato, the
task of proving the genuineness of
investigation of
its

right place,

any dialogue, and the mutually support and

verify each other.

For

recommends

itself

by

its

any dialogue which at once language, and which manifestly

in

treats of Platonic subjects, the

is

stamped upon

it,

with so

much
is

the

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

arts point

to

what
to

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

easier

determine

or between

which

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

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

any dialogue its place in of the others, these relations must become more
with the greater certainty, to Plato. in which Platonic matter is therefore,

it

is

to assign

to

marked by means of those expedients, and the dialogue

appropriates
itself,

These dialogues,
united
in

proper proportion

with Platonic form,

and

both appear

sufficiently manifest, constitute a second class

support of some of them, sufficiently authenticates itself by its relation to, and connection with, the first. But the more deficient a dialogue is in reference to the form, and when the subject-matter presents itself but slightly enough proportioned to it, the more suspicious,
certainly,

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

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

39
less distinctly perceptible.

selves will

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

the language also will have less opportunity to develope

itself in
is

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

conviction of genuineness does so likewise in

until, as
it it

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

place,

to

whom

was so easy and natural to refer from all particular ideas and separate opinions to his great original principles,
should have brought forward in a different manner any subject whatever in the province of philosophy, where every one may be so treated, because he must thus,

without attaining any of his well known points and for no purpose, have transposed himself into a forced position. With respect to such dialogues it is therefore imperative
to bring especial proof of the possibility of their being

Platonic, and a preponderant probability at least

must

be shown

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

not be at
will

all decided, even this continuing uncertainty not throw the arranger of the Platonic works into any embarrassment. For dialogues of this kind do in no way belong to the list which it is his object to make

out, for,

even supposing their genuineness proved, this would only be the case when a particular object or an of such heterogeneous especial occasion for the existence
productions was pointed out, so that in any case they can only be occasional pieces, which from their very
It nature are indifferent as regards this investigation. is therefore easier also to decide upon the genuineness

40
of
all

the arranger seeks, and

which can belong to the connected system which all in which the investigation of

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

collection

which do not

province of

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
rest,

to

show

in detail

how every dialogue

strikes into the

must remain in reserve

;

for the particular introduc

tions

while here

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

this connection, as has

which alone the main thread of

41

been already mentioned,

be fonnd perfect, there are some of them distinguished above all the rest by the fact that they alone contain an objective scientific expo
is

to

sition;

the Republic for instance, the Timaeus

and the

Critias.

Every

thing coincides in assigning to these the

last places, tradition, as well as internal character

in

different degrees of the

;

though most advanced maturity and

serious old age

viewed
this,

in connection they exhibit.

and even the imperfect condition which, But more than all

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

previously pursued, with which all the dialogues are more or less engaged; upon the nature of knowledge
in particular; generally, and of philosophical knowledge and upon the applicability of the idea of science to the

objects treated of in those works,

ture,

Man

himself,

and

Na

It

may

indeed be

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

to us, or even, generally,

composed any whatever of the works re any that would pro

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,

form an inseparable whole, and

the Republic, as
political

if

should be

said

that

properly

re

presenting

ethical

and

science,

though written

later than those dialogues in

its

which the nature of virtue,

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

than the dialogues immediately prepar-

atory

to

the

Timaeus,

those namely,

which

endeavour

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
icus,

it

would thence follow

is

in particular, that the Polit-

which

preparatory to the Republic, in exactly the

same

relation as the Sophist to the Timaeus,

was written

earlier,
itself,

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

Politicus, constitute
first

in fact the

But the Republic, as being clearly the part of it. earliest of the properly expositive works, at once sup the existence of all dialogues not poses belonging to this
class,

and

this

splendid structure contains, as

it

were

let

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

edifice

upon which it rests, and which, previous to entering that whose support they are, if one considers them in reference to themselves, and only surveys them im

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

imperfect.

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
is

s spirit

and

style of thought,

so strongly repugnant to the adoption of such an in verted order, that it is hardly necessary to say anything upon that point ; but we need only ask any one what

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

the

investigations leading

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.

It is

would, in

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

posed, inasmuch as according to this, a subject is not seldom anticipated mythically which does not appear For the very fact of until later in its scientific form.
its

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

ers to spontaneous origination of ideas,

upon the recog

rests,

nition of

which our whole arrangement

proof of

but

it

is

even

in itself a clear

how

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
as the transition of
tific

form, affords

much that a new proof

mythical into a scien in favour of the correct

is

ness of the order in which all this

may be most

clearly

44
perceived.

The

necessity,

therefore,

for

assigning the

last place to the constructive dialogues, is in

of view so great, that

if

every point well-grounded historical traces

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

were to be found of an

more,
the

will not

be found, we could not avoid

contradiction

falling into

most

serious

with

Plato, and
reconcile
telligence.

we should be much
instance
then,

our judgement upon embarrassed how to

with
his

this

of
these

unreason

vast

in

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

As

constructive

are

for instance,
first

of the
nides.

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

by a character of youthfulness quite peculiar

which may indeed be most two, but even in the last
eye.
will not

easily recognized in the first

escape the attentive

as

Moreover by the circumstance, that

all

by the

for

mer

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

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

them

is

their internal

45
matter,
for
is

in

them are developed the

all

first

of what
the

the basis of

that follows,

breathings of Logic as

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

These

therefore,

in

conjunction

some dialogues attaching to them of the lesser kind, form the first, and, as it were, elementary part of
with
the
others occupy the interval between these and the constructive, inasmuch as they
treat
ples,

Platonic

works.

The

progressively of the applicability of those princi

mon knowledge
Physics.

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

between
the
ary,

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

theoretical are completely united,

and the element

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

well

in the

construction of the

particular dialogues

as in

their

progressive connection,

and which might be named for distinction s sake, the indirect method, since it commences almost universally
with

In these three the juxta-position of antitheses. divisions therefore, the works of Plato are here to be
given
to

the

reader;

so

that

while

each

part

is

ar

ranged

places

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

seems to belong to them. Only it must be allowed that with respect to this more nice arrangement, every
thing has not

equal

certainty,

inasmuch as there are

to in

two things necessary to be attended

making

it,

46
the natural

and a

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

first

With

respect to the works of the

is

rank, the

first

of these two

contravened

generally perfectly decisive, by a characteristic of the second

first
is

and

is

never
kind.

Thus,
gistic

in

the

part, the development of the dialo-

method

the

predominant
is

object,

and hence,
of

manifestly, the Phaedrus

the

first

and the Parmenides

exposition
it,

the

last,

partly
a

as

most
to

perfect

partly

as to

transition

the

second part,
the
relation

because

it

begins

philosophize

upon

of ideas to

actual things.

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;
it

as trans

the

first,

from the anticipatory

sketch of
its

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

Natural

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

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

to the Protagoras,

and

in these

we can only

follow certain particular, and not

always very
several of

definite, indications; and, in the

second place,
the same

them might be

transitions between

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
:

so that

we must
bilities

rest

satisfied

with an accumulation of proba

as

collected

as

accurately

may be from

every

source.

The

third part contains no other subordinate

certainly, not only with

work except the Laws, to which,

reference to

that important triple work,

but also con

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

sidered in

we must give

and genuine Platonic origin, they are perfectly entitled to belong to the works of the first class. Lastly, as regards those dialogues, to which with reference to the point of view taken in the arrangement,
their extensive range

we have assigned
will

in

common

a third place, although they,

different value, they
all

in point of genuineness,

have a very

be distributed into appendices under

Platonic, assign

three divi

sions, according as either historical or internal evidence,

in so far as they are

place, or according as the critical

is

them a probable examination of them

this

facilitated

particularly

by comparison with
also shall

or

that dialogue.

For they

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

I.

I.

PH^DRUS.
usually
;""

THIS
"

dialogue

bears

as

second

title,

Or of

the Beautiful

and has been sometimes named,

Mind."

"

Of Love and of

the

Indisputably

all

such

second titles, appearing as they do to several dialogues of Plato, have arisen, probably accidentally, from a later hand, and have produced almost universally the disad
effect of leading the reader upon a wrong and thus favouring views in part far too limited, track,

vantageous

in

part entirely false,

philosopher and the meaning of the work.

with regard to the object of the This holds

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

in

quotations, though love

and beauty appear only

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;

and from

this

cause,

therefore,

as

well as from a desire to lay the Platonic

method
of the

as clearly as possible before the

first

mind, on occasion

dialogue,

this

introduction

must claim

to

extend to what
length.

may

appear a somewhat disproportionate

49
exclusive of the richly orna mented Introduction, consists of two parts, much alike in
extent, but otherwise, even at
first

The whole Dialogue,

from one another.

For the

first

sight, very different of them contains three"

that a

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

dispassionate lover rather than an enraptured and impas sioned one, and two of Socrates the first a

supplementary

speech, in the same sense in which such speeches were usual in courts of justice to defend the same cause with

the preceding; the other, on the contrary, a counterin favour of the speech impassioned suitor so severely accused in the first. The second part, to leave it, pre
liminarily, as
indefinite

as

possible,

contains

several

remarks,
speeches,

incidentally

introduced

on occasion of

these

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

technical

investigations

no return what
treated

briefly-drawn sketch, every reader must at once see that not only that parti cular erotic question cannot have been in Plato s mind the

again made to the Now, even from speeches.

ever

subject
this

of in

the

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

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

produce no

effect so sure as that of necessarily

drawing

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
is

treated

of
in
;

merely
this

upon the grounds

treatment

of pleasure and profit

ethically

the last, on the other hand,

and mystically might have so easily led

with

and

separate

to the true point of dispute,

regard

to the

nature of love
this,

and
notice

to its

essence

taken of

it

notwithstanding in the succeeding criticism upon the speeches,

is

no

higher whatever is

and nothing

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

if,

that

is

to say,

we

from the

subject-matter

of

those

three

speeches in order to

Now

if,

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

first,
is

instead of troubling ourselves so uselessly about the

the result seems to be that as the Art

treated of in the
first,

second part,

we

are to look at the speeches in the

to the
art,

more with reference

value as works of

mode of treatment, and

their

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
least
is

favoured by an

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

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

and

aside

the

correct
to

else in

them

is

paradigmatic in these speeches, and we must endeavour perfectly to understand every relation existing between

them and the theory advanced in the second part, which consists in the main of the three following points. Plato
attempts to make quite clear what is the proper busi ness of the art of speaking. For, as is clearly seen from
first

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

artists

and teachers of

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

to excite their
;

minds

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

was

their

and technical terms, and some maxims upon the use of language, leading at most only to harmony and fulness
of sound, or to the production of striking and brilliant And thus the art was effect, made up the whole secret.

All this then, altogether devoid of internal substance. for the art itself, is which up to this time had passed

degraded by Plato to the rank of technical knack, and while he exposes in its nakedness the principle of the

52
sophistical rhetoricians, that he

who would convince need

to

not himself

know

the true and right, he shews, that in

is,

order really to produce conviction, that

to be

compel as

it

were others to certain thoughts and judgments, if this is done at all, however without reference to the truth, with that degree of certainty which alone can lay claim yet
to the

name of

art

deceiving and undeceiving semblance, which can itself

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

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

is

rhetoric,

and that only what

connected with

its

principles, pro

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

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

at once appear,

even

if

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
rhetoric is cleared from many grounds of reproach, and compelled to seek its principles for all these various branches far deeper, and on the other the rising artist

hand

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

53
floats before

him

in his

strict conditions,

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

might have avoided.

rhetoric,
in the

But

as

by

this

very extension,
hitherto
himself,

sense in which

the

word was
clears

used,

is

in

a manner

destroyed,

Plato

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

away and

letting

it

vanish into the indefinite, which,

among

the moderns at least,

might

easily

be charged
hatred
that

upon him by those who bring with them

to this investi
s

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

by

declaration of his views according to which he sets

rhetoric, notwithstanding its maintained
dialectics,

up

dependency upon
is

sense.

and even by virtue of For true art, according

call it,

it,

to be art in a higher

to him,

nothing but

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

own

countrymen usually
is

a theory can be

made

for it

thus that Plato distinguishes art and artless dispatch. Now such a science can arise only when the classified variety, dialectically exhibited as resulting from the cen

connected in a systematic and exhaustive manner with what results from the perfectly whole range of the means and objects. Accordingly, he demands from the art of speaking, that it enumerate
tral notion of the art, is

the different kinds of speeches, and fix every one and each to correspond to all the different kinds of minds,
all

in order thus to define

how every

speech, under given

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

From
From
for

this point of

view thus taken up,

much

con

tained in this
it, first

work may be now more

of
all,

correctly understood. the necessity of the examples, at least

s,

a living

composition like that of Plato

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

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

the

On

this account, therefore,

would wish

to overlook the first

no one, we con of the two Socratic

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

Thus
the

the entirely different tone of each, accord

ing to its purpose, will

become

evident.

For

in the

one

pervading understanding and to sober worldly-mindedness, the ex

we have

direction

of the speech

to the

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

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

its

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

we have

close

connection with

the

Eternal

and Infinite;

the

manner moreover

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

is

only indulgence

thus

it is

that with indulgence to the

imagination a

young and noble mind must be wrought

growing Hellenic boy, springs

upon, which,

like that of a

55
fresh

out of the school of the poetic

art.
is

could not easily be better proved than

collocation,

Truly it done by this

it

how

necessary on every occasion

is

to

consider in
to

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

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

view

himself most on his

this

own
as

peculiar ground, and because

in

was

at

the

same time necessary,

it

order as well

to verify, practically,

were, the theory of the ex

circle of

tension
political

of the

Art of Speaking beyond the

affairs, as

and

civil

to suggest

a fitting rule

for

comparison between that more narrow province, and

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

mited.

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

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

and Sophistry began to separate, lost their consequence more and more from that point of view, there could be little else for him to choose but these erotic rhe
torical essays of Lysias,

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
ency

this

is

just the

point

at

which the

insuffici

even of this view

should
a

why
such
to

Plato

have

strike every one. For wished to confine himself by

must

self-imposed law,

his

own method

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

his Interlocutors

put into the

mouth of

what they have

it

never said, liable to the sole condition that

be like

them and appropriate ? And what therefore should have hindered him from composing a speech in any one s
name, unless he found one at hand upon a subject for which he not only had a peculiar interest, but which
also

stood precisely in the closest connection with

the

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

like

an

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

here treated

cause
points

for

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

sparingly
transitions

the

introduction

generally,

in

the

stands in
do, then

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

and

becomes incumbent upon us to discover a necessary connection between it and the main idea of the whole. Now if the main idea here were nothing
case love

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

these speeches,
accidental.

would
this

be,
is

as regards this point, purely

s

But

just Plato

method, and

it

is

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

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

57
co-operative according to his subjects range. And ho\v should we miss this intelligence altogether in this place, above all others, where the principles which he adduces
are pronounced in the clearest
1

manner

Thus, therefore,

it

is

at

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

to stop here.

For

is it

likely that

it

could have been a principal ob

treatise

ject with Plato to

in any way agree with his other purposes as a writer? or is it not rather the case that nothing similar ever occurs again, and the Phaedrus
?

of rhetoric

compose a and would this

upon the

technicals

would then stand

less

isolated
in

in a

manner

in

which a far
could

important work,

the case of this

master,

scarcely be allowed to

stand

Nay

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 extended to poetry and politics suddenly
as well, for these too are arts,
that,

and it can escape no one even rhetoric itself is set up properly speaking, and treated of only as an example, and the same even
said

is

of

it

setting aside

the higher laws which

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

therein, its whole operation

child s-play.

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

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

turn

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

onwards even unto

is

no other
the art,

than the inward

spirit

of

those higher laws,

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

but preparation, in order to bring about the discovery

it

of

in the Socratic

method by the exhibition of

and that one
in

its spirit

in a well

known

particular,

which an ex

clusively scientific

form was in part generally recognized,

to exhibit.

not only does Plato intend to celebrate this art as the root of every other ramification to which that name can apply, but, while

and

in part easy

Now

in

all

other

arts

we are indeed

to

recognise

it,

it

is

itself to

as appear to every one and perfectly divine, which is to be learnt and practised, for its own and for that by no means for their sake, but

something much higher

of a divine existence.
tics is

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

Now

with

all

the ardour of

first

love,

and thus

it is

philosophy

that Plato here extols, independently and wholly, as the as the foundation of every highest of all objects, and and beautiful, and for whom he may estimable

thing

to these titles be triumphantly demand that her claims And it is just because philo

universally recognised. not only as an inward state, sophy fully appears here

but,

in

accordance with

its

nature,

as

extending and

to communicating itself, that it is necessary to bring consciousness and to exhibit the impulse which forces it outwards from within, and which is nothing but that

which raises genuine and divine love

other,

itself

above every
nature excel

originating in and proceeding

as philosophy

upon any notion

its

of advantage,

does by

59
their subordinate arts which

are content to play either

attain
effect

with pleasure or profit.

For however much the

must be the

ment of the object of

of art
still

that impulse

and of the judgment that arranges its details, the impulse itself appears as something originally existing and ever at work in the mind of the finished

and perfect man, seeking its object from without, conHence, sequently as passion and divine inspiration.
therefore,
itself to
all problems are solved, and be the real unity of the work

this

approves bringing out

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

manner

in

which

it is

to the Phsedrus the first place

brought forward, irrevocably secures among the works of Plato.

are

To

this conclusion

we

moreover

at once led,

when

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

we observe

that

of

philosophical

matter,
if,

which

therefore
it

only
still

appears

mythically, as
for
logical

on the one hand,

exposition, and,

unripe on the other, repressed to

were

degree by that predominant consciousness. was very naturally the first state into which a worthily reflecting scholar of Socrates, and one already possessed with the art. must have been transported
certain
this

Now

by the mode of teaching pursued by that philosopher. For these two, impulse and method, were in all his
conversations the constant and ever unchanging elements,

with which therefore the mind would be most possessed, which, as to the matter, he used but to moot particular
questions in particular detail, without selection or con nected purpose. In later times, however, Plato, in

proportion

as

the

objects of

philosophy had

revealed

60
themselves to him more clearly, and he had practised

through all his productions and brought it to honour, would have abstained from making the core of a composition of such extent in the it
the

method more

fully

manner

in

which

he

has

here done.

Moreover,

the

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

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

acquired

readiness
it

in

the
in

application

of this

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

method.

Moreover

a variety

of ways to

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

up

seriously,

and contemplated

in

very

and upon grounds of art, all effects pro Thus the power which duced upon the mind of man. Socrates possessed of convincing and influencing the mind
with
still

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

passed,

and have

filled

him with admiration and

circumstances

love.

This then, under such

mind,
unity
inclined

and in such a

of

the

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

to
art,

ference of philosophy

the process of which at

the same time contained an explanation and defence of

his transition

from the

latter to the former.

And,
was

next,
his

his

immediate choice of rhetoric, which

art,
is

not

own

conceivable upon
it

the

grounds

that,

more

than poetry,

aims at conviction, and because he could

it

not compare what Socrates effected in

by the

science

61
of dialectics,
phists and
piricism.

with anything nearer than what

effect

the so

rhetoricians thought to

by mere em

But if such arguments, however accurately they combine with the only true center-point of the whole, should still appear to any one insufficient to decide
the

period

at

which the work

was

written,

let

him

further

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

mark

immediately in

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

the opponent set

up
in

and afterwards,

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

is

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

ration, is

praised chiefly,
praise
in

because

it

leaves

far

behind
this
is

what

men most
involved

and

admire.

Now
but,

in part

the subject-matter;

in

Plato

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

worked upwards,
at

it

reaches a point of extravagance.

the

all,

but

second
then

annihilates

Lysias,

at

speech the counter-speech

through ascending degrees, Look, first of that speech which

which

crushes,

still

serve
self

how

in

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

the great triumph

of

defending

opposite
the

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

of matter

in that every contradictory detail is despised

itself,

as regards the speech

and only premised

in

the

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

then the apologetic con

name of Eros

as regards Socrates,

attempt to deprecate the or assume a milder

instead, but even in a prayer for health

ends with love.

clares

what

is

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

first

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

challenge

Lysias; the droll, comprehensive, and almost confusing polemics against the early rhetoricians, ridiculing un
sparingly even what is good in their labours, because does not proceed from and this to right principles a length of which he would have them
it

scarcely

thought
itself

deserving at a later period,

and which does

make

somewhat ostentatious show of extent of reading;

as

finally,

the culminating

point in this
Socratic,

epideixis, the
all

exalted

contempt,
oratorical

genuinely
speaking.

for

writing

and
this

all

Even
itself,

in the in

outward form
constantly

youthful

spirit

betrays

the

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

and

affectation;

lastly

also,

in

against charges a somewhat immoderate

introduction of the religious, and here and there even

in a certain

awkwardness

in the transitions,
half.

not indeed

in the speeches,

but in the dialogistic

With
in

this

view, moreover, the historical indications accurately coincide, leaving as they to the time in which the

the

work

itself

do no doubt remaining as
less to

dialogue plays, so to speak.

attempt to

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

and

generally,

which

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

63
certain period is self-evident,
it

would be

folly to

form

any conclusion upon historical grounds as to the time at which work of Plato was written, if we are to any
grant what
is

maintained in Athenreus, that

Phoedrus

could have been no

contemporary
allowed

at

all

of Socrates.

For what
unless he

writer

ever

himself

such latitude,

was one in whose eyes nothing was impro whom no impropriety was too great ? bable, Not indeed that Plato was to be bound to strict his

and for

torical

accuracy, or as
is

if

no offence against the order

of time
it

to

be met with in him.

be the case
in

On

the contrary,

may

indeed

dialogues

which were

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

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

historical truth for

is

certain

effect.

But
as

this

one thing, and

is

another to introduce,

must

here be the case, two

men

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

be no want of a contemporary confidant

and

admirer of
to

and any one

whom

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

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

as
is

to

this

Phse-

not to prevent

us

from

treating
if

our
it

dialogue,

in

what

we

have to

say further, as

from

historical relations contained in

were possible to draw conclusions it. This premised,

we add
and
at

that
in

mentioned

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

Isocrates. Lysias, in Ol. LXXXIV. l, had travelled the age of fifteen years to Thurium, and returned,

as Dionysius tells us,

first

when forty-seven years old, in the of the ninety-second year Olympiad, from which
his

period

great

fame
still

as

an

orator
to

first

commences.

Now

if

we allow

some years

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

Olympiad.

And

certainly

not

later,

for

Lysias
Iso

could not well be

of and

more than

fifty

years old to write

as

expound love-matters without shame,

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

young man.

To

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
it

cannot have been written

is

much

later;

in

which case
at

at

once self-evident, that

Plato,

who

that time

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

drawn from
will
tell

Socrates.

For,
the

first,

every
in

man

own

feeling

him

that

manner

which

Plato introduces the speech of Lysias could only have had its proper effect while this publication was fresh in the memory of the readers of the Pha3drus, and that

upon the contrary supposition there would not only be a degree of awkwardness about it, but it would be difficult even to conceive how Plato should have fallen
in with
it.

Nay, when we consider further how hardly

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

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

more

perfect.

Moreover

to

what end the

as

mention of Polemarchus transition to Philosophy ? For, he died so soon after it, he could scarcely have
supplied an illustrious example for a later period than

in

we have fixed upon. But what chiefly speaks favour of the composition of the dialogue contem poraneously with those occurrences is the prophecy
the one

respecting Isocrates

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

and

rise

to a higher
this
s

kind of com
afterwards
it

For supposing what

orator

performed to have answered Plato

in that case, to say the least of
this

expectations,

was

it,

ridiculous to

make

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

would
told

in that case

knowingly and purposely have either

to

a false prophecy of Socrates, or falsely attributed

such to him.

But that prophecy seems

i

have reference
is

to an idea, which in several passages in this dialogue

66
almost expressed, that Plato would have gladly realised, school of elo by predicting its existence, an Athenian the principles of Logic in opposition to

quence upon

that corrupted and corrupting Sicilian school; and that he wished, if possible, to invite the support of Lysias,

considered as standing intermediate between the If we regard from this point of view the manner two. are here Pericles and in which

who

is

Anaxagoras,

Hippocrates

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

native city,
at the time.

can only be at

tributed to Plato

youth

In opposition then to all these arguments, which from so many different points all meet in the same cen in favour of a far later tre, what Tennemann adduces
of the Phaedrus, almost the period for the composition last of Plato s existence as a writer, can have little weight.

indeed no For, as regards the Egyptian story, there is occasion here to suppose with Ast a proverbial mode of us a pretty clear hint speaking, but Plato himself gives that this tale was himself, and in order to

composed by

have done

have been in that so, he need not necessarily from Thrace country any more than he actually brought the Thracian Leaf mentioned in the Charmides with the
Philosophy involved in
it.

And

as to the second ground,

is

what namely, the similarity between

logue of the
effect

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
letter,

which

is

the basis of the discussions in that

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

67
the younger But he only thinks, in general, Dionysius. that here also disagreeable circumstances in consequence

of writing must have preceded such expressions as we find in the Phaedrus. But of this there is no trace at
all

to

be found
the

and be the case

as

it

may

with that

letter,

depreciation comparison with true and living philosophical communication is itself per
1

of writing in

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
so, and did not end with believing to the same extent in the utter incommunicability of Philosophy, al though, as we see, he was well aware from the first that

to

do

could not be learnt historically. But perhaps that author does in reality hold to another ground still be hind that already brought forward ; namely, that in the
it

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
free

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

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

passive learner,

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
form.

For the existence

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
clear,
itself

and
so

at

the same time their imperfection betrays

in

clearly

that

direct

method

in

the conduct

of the

dialogue which constitutes the peculiar superi ority of Plato, throughout the continuous and unin terrupted course of the last half, that it may be ex

pected that skilful readers will agree as to the position

to

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

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

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

early

times,
to
this

in

order
;

to

destroy
to

several

objections

made

dialogue
it

as

whether, for

instance, the language of

kept within the limits of pure prose, or indeed whether the whole investigation was not excusable only in consideration of the youth of the
writer.

It is evident
;

what

is

meant by the
first

the erotic question

but in the

namely, allegation one of

last,

the most eminent masters of antiquity agrees, and that

in

no gentle manner from

mean Dionysius.

What

the

nature of the case

best

appear

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

;

69
preliminary elucidations the particular details of the work. cerning

namely,

to

add

certain

con

praised by Dionysius, and with out taking offence at the piece of natural description in he accounts it an instance of that it, homely and tem
is

The

Introduction

perate style, which, as the peculiar province of the school of Socrates, belongs, he thinks, to Plato in even an emi nent degree. The first speech which Phaedrus reads to
Socrates he clearly recognizes as a work of the cele brated orator, a point upon which no one will entertain a doubt, although an English Philologist has laid a

Now if more had remained penalty on the belief of at. 1 to us of the collection of Lysias erotic publications, we should be better able to judge of the relation of this
character

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

deserving of
in

much

praise in itself;

for the uniformity

the moulding of the particular propositions, as well

as the

mode of connecting them, could hardly be given

to

in the translation

the vicious extent

to

which they

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

interpreter.

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

Now

Then the towards an extension in the Art of Speaking. first Socratic speech carries forward the principle of

Now Lysias more thoroughly and clearly worked out. here Dionysius at once censures the invocation to the
Muses which precedes
it,

thinking that

it

comes down

suddenly like storm and tempest from a clear sky, de a tastless piece of poetastry. stroying the pure prose

And Dionysius adds

that Plato

means soon

to

acknow-

70
ledge himself that this
sentences
a specimen of high sounding and dithyrambs, with great pomp of words when he says to Phgedrus that he meaning,
is

and
what

little

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

rambs.

Now
in
it

as

to

that invocation to
affectation
in

the

Muses, we
sportive de

might perhaps allow an

rivations
;

the

looking to the whole structure, one would be disposed to scarcely any deny its claim to the title of on the con prose. By the
but,
surprise,
trary, which Plato expresses at the dithyrambic nature of his sentences, he certainly did not intend to express

any censure upon himself.

tention to

For any one who pays

at

the passage in which this occurs, will easily discover that it does not refer to any kind of Poetic but that Plato only intended, inspiration ; certainly not to his own to attract notice to the dis disadvantage,

between his own rythmus and that of Lysias. For in the latter all the periods are turned with a mo notonous uniformity, one like another into antetinction
split

theses;

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

the contrary, the rhythmus is in continuous gradation, so that he begins, where his ideas are far-fetched, with
short propositions at a quick step, and as the speech ad vances from the general to the particular, the sentences
also
last

become more developed and articulated the orator, when he has reached a
it,

until at

hovers around

and as

it

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

far the censure of

Dionysius, which

in truth, could
it

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

evident that Plato

different

upon

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

who do not

inquire quite so

much

into this matter, the

to

fulness of expression

seems

actually

reach

only to

the extremest limits of language

unfettered

by metre,

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

and

in

this

famous Myth

is,

lastly,

beyond doubt the most impor

logue

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

The consequence of this has been, Myth itself has been throughout
For the Love
far

that

not even

the

rightly

understood.

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

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

system of the
that

Platonic

Philosophy are developed

of
it,

so

the

more the

subject-matter

at

advanced,

from the mythic into the scientific, the stages, passes remainder is ever shaped out with less pretension, and So that Plato here becomes more vividly mythical.
seems most expressly to assume the privilege of inter of his Philosophy. weaving Myths with the expositions be here all this cannot proved, but

Though

regularly

must

verify

itself

by

the

sequel.

Now
of

as

to

what
little

relates to the particular subject of the

Myth, but
the

definite can

be adduced in

illustration

imagi

native in it; and the cosmographical conceptions espe which are the basis of it, are the more difficult
cially

to

explain,

as

the

Myth

rests

quite on

the

boundary

solutions of

More accurate between the Natural and Supernatural. it would be more welcome than certainly
Heyne some time
since

that discovery which

communi

cated, that the horses in this

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 upon the image, as upon comparison,
will

Parmenides, which

a similar application of

it

to the object.

Moreover, more

would be implied

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,
general, that several of the
it

may however be
this
;

said in

conceptions in

Myth
a

seem to be worked out from one another

several

and

that, as

expressions

are

derived

from

the

mysteries,

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

more accurate acquaintance with the Py

thagorean
the
true

Philosophemes

may

not

be supposed to be

key even to the mythology, still less to the doctrine of the human mind, as also the Platonic doc
trine of

renewed recollection

is

hardly to be explained
this

from Pythagoras.

Moreover the bulk of

evidently treated as a by-work to add to

the

Myth pomp

is

of

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

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

with

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

the

essentially

existent

is

beheld, not

in

heaven,

but
in
is

in the region
it.

But

it

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

said very particularly of the various character of

men
by
lie

according as they
the Eternal.

have been more or

still

less

penetrated

If therefore

greater faults do not

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

we

are not to look for too

much.

And, generally,

it

is

impossible to

draw

attention too

much

to

the
is

fact,

how completely every

thing in this

meant and applied rhetorically, so that even dialogue here, where untamed imagination has been so often dis
covered, like the wild horse as
it

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,
still

the style

is

in the

main prosaic

first
it

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

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

For

to sketch an image,

as is here done,

been said in general, there

is

nothing further to remark, except that, although not

fully applied to practice,

proved rhetoric Aristotle, who owes much to

will explain particular
will

was the origin of that im which dates its commencement from

it

this work.

The remarks
this splen

difficulties,

and thus the reader

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

II.

LYSIS.

unauthenticated legend, inasmuch as Diogenes does not give us the name of its voucher, makes this dialogue one of the earliest, at least among those
sufficiently

written before the death of Socrates.

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

Plato.
it

however, scarcely deserving as here the ground upon which

this

is

Such a testimony, of the name, is not

is

its

place

assigned

to

vour of

dialogue it, even though

;

the connection decides sufficiently in fa

it

were not supported by his

torical references.
is

related
all

of
as

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

the

to

love,

and the grounds of friendship and which constitutes its whole content, is a second
the

nature

ary and subordinate object in point of form in the Phaedrus, while in the Symposium it is, in form, pri mary and predominant. Clearly, however, it could hardly

occur to ony one to place the Lysis after the Sympo sium, as in the latter the question is not only decided directly and finished to the very last stroke, but also
considered in

So

that

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

Lysis consists, could scarcely be intended to form an ornamental addition to that discussion, while to work it
out as an independent whole subsequently to
it,

would

75
have been as
little

consistent

with the rules of art as

destitute of point, because every one already

had before

him

in

that

started in this.

dialogue the solution of every question And a mere dialectical exercise, especially
dialogue would then be, can hardly finished master of a later period.

one so

trifling as this

be attributed

to the

more

It would therefore only remain to be investigated, in the next place, whether the Lysis is to be placed before or after the Phaedrus. The latter does indeed likewise speak

decisively

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

so that

any one might

fairly think, in

this

circumstance,
it

that, as in the

case

of

the Symposium,

would be contrary
dialogue
treats

to the principles

assumed

to place that

before the Lysis, inas

much
evident
others

as

the

Lysis

only

of

the

same subject

sceptically.

to

But the great distinction must of itself be those who know the Symposium, while to
not,
it

who do

may

certainly be

made apparent

without taking an anticipative survey of that later di

alogue.
is

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

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

to

province of logic,

would be not only contrary

to

the

most recognized analogy in the

to

Platonic writings, and

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

upon a

dialectic soil of those mythical

elements

among

which the investigation began,

must render

the subject again complicated and uncertain.

To

this,

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

be added, one which

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

is

occasion

taken to start the question

but at what point

these others deviate from the former, or

tion admits of being applied to them, out.
is

how
is
;

far the solu

no where pointed
friendship in

In the Lysis, on the contrary,

is

it

general that

the subject of discussion

and

to think

of carrying on and bringing to a conclusion an investi gation begun with such universal bearings, and which
to think of doing this yet obtains no decisive answer by means of a mythical exposition, and that relating but is an to one part of the subject absurdity so great that
it

writer

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

The Phaedrus
as

by no means

to be looked

upon

growing out of the Lysis, as the former also could

fail to

not
it

appear ridiculous to any one who would read

still

with

lingering
in

desire to

resolve

the logical

doubts contained

the

Lysis

but this latter clearly

stands between the Phaedrus and the Symposium.

And

upon
it

this

it

may be
;

farther asked to which of the two

it

stands nearest

whether

is

to

be looked upon as a

supplement to the Phaedrus, or as a note of preparation to the Symposium. To the latter it does indeed approx
imate in
its
;

the subject

more general and various method of treating but not to mention other grounds which
being fully understood before we come

will not allow of

Symposium, in the Lysis any trace is so utterly wanting of what Plato wrote between the Phae drus and the Symposium and it is itself so
;

to consider the

entirely

to

be understood from

itself

and from the Phaedrus, that

77
it

occupies indisputably the place next after it, and is almost to be viewed only as a supplement to this dia logue, or as an enlarged dialectic elucidation of its
subject.

For what

in the

Phsedrus

is

brought forward

in

a mythical form, that love has its source in the identity of the ideal between two persons, is here proved dialecand in an enlarged sense. The tically, though indirectly
latter,

inasmuch as the notion of relation and

in

affinity

takes

more than
this

and indeed

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

that

indefinitely, that

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

that this

is

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.
raised against

the

earlier

position,

that resemblance

is

the source of friendship,

to be looked
will certainly

are

applied to this

likewise,

upon

key open up the entire meaning

to

as the

to the whole,

and one which

to every one

who

bears in

mind the

hints in the Phsedrus.

Like

is

only then unprofitable himself to his own external personality, and to an in not to him who, terest in his own sensuous being ;
taking interest
istence, possible
in

Like when a man confines

the

consciousness of a spiritual ex

at the

same time among many and

his

for

the

good of many, enlarges the sphere of

being

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

every

and related
deavours.

to himself,

and not

at

war with

his

own en

Similar hints are also implied in the similar as to the uselessness of the sceptically proposed positions in so far as it is conceived, not as an antidote to

good,

78
the bad, but independently and for
ever, seems
this
itself.

Aristotle,

how

not to

have understood these allusions.

And

misunderstanding of the dialectics and polemics oc curring in the writings of Plato, may generally indeed be
excused in his case, as his synonymous arts are of a coarser But metal, and of a composition admitting of no polish.
in

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
his

writings.

For

several passages

may be found

in

which he appears to have had the all of them look as if he Lysis thought Plato s apparent indecision real, and believed that he was only unable to extricate himself partly because he over
ethical works, in
in his

mind, and

looked the distinction

between friendship and

inclina

tion, partly because he mistook his three kinds of friend ship, and therefore, naturally enough, could not avoid falling into a contradiction, as often as he thought to

transfer to

the others what held only of one.

Now

it

must be

clear to every

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

the greatest justice,

as this

utility

is

never and on no

occasion anything for itself,

but always,

and

this accidentally,
Still

only

in

another.
likewise

speak in favour of a very early date for the composition of the Lysis after the Phsedrus. Thus, for example, we find in this
further
particulars

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

70
of examples
;

all

of which a

gives us a strong feeling of

inexperience

in

composer.

Thus

also

what

occurs

respecting the subject of the erotic speeches and

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

to

must now

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

what point the particular what rule they must be

produced

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

That many polemical

dialogue also,

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

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

not entirely reject the former.

Thus
that

it

can

escape no one how the secondary object

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

manner

in

which

it

suggests the principles

from which

it is

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

mean

to

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

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,
light

planets, as

it

were, only borrowing

their

from the greater independent bodies, and moving around them. Also of how the appearances of
those dialogues cannot be understood unless their relations to the larger are rightly comprehended ; and how neces

sary,

therefore,

it

must

be,

if

we would determine

the

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

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
genuineness
against nay, it could scarce be found necessary to refer the accuser further to its imitative and dramatic
effect,

form, which has so beautiful an

the Platonic
there
is

and so much of
themselves
is

character.

Of
;

the

characters

nothing to

be said

moreover, there
is

no trace

existing that an actual occurrence

the basis either of

it

the subject or of the dress in which

is

clothed.

81

III.

PROTAGORAS.
men
of those

To

the most celebrated

who had

at

that period

come forward

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,

moreover, the skilled in history

stores of art
;

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

and antiquity, rich

to Prodicus, chiefly

further, to the friends

and admirers of these wise men,

youth,
in

the

noblest

of the Athenian
fathers,

celebrated

through
their

their

partly

succeeding

partly times by

own deeds

as

generals,

demagogues,

and poets;

to the sons of Pericles,

to Critias, to

namely, to his ward Alcibiades,

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

of the whole; to these

that,
is

and a young man whom he

to

recommend

together with Socrates as a pupil

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

luxurious house

in

Athens, the house of Callias,

the
friend

who

was the richest

citizen,

of Pericles,

as the

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

Alcibiades,

who married

his sister Hipparete, recog

nised and ridiculed

by the comic poets

as the

most zealous

and munificent patron of the Sophists,

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

may be
this

obtained.

But the question how

it

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

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

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

father of

never

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.
as his
faults,

Athena?us, then, takes this

it

standing point, and from

accuses Plato of two

namely, that Hippias the Peloponnesian could not

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

which Dacier,

in

her introduction

83
to the translation of the Protagoras,

endeavours to justify
first

Plato

further that Plato, in the

of the ninetieth,

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

comedy of Eupolis, the

Flatterers, as already present in

the third of the eighty-ninth.

But even

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
and forcing
Athenseus,

to fixing the date of the dialogue in that year,

it

higher up

and
in

it is

matter of wonder that these are

hostile

not

mentioned

that

passage

of

although he brings them forward elsewhere.

Socrates
is

For

first

treated

by Protagoras
so,

as

still

young man,

and even

calls

himself

which

it is

impossible he could

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

termed a downy-cheeked youth, and Agathon, crowned as a tragic poet in the same olympiad, a boy. Nay, what is most decisive of all, Pericles is
called a general,
is

spoken of as

still

living,

and

his sons

who

died before

him

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

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

what

is

essential in

the dialogue,

as

for instance Agathon and the sons of Pericles, it is most clearly in Plato s mind, evidently that which was

and which he really intended to adhere

tion of the work.
it

to in the execu

But

as to the evidence for a later date,

may

be asked whether the comedy of Pherecrates had

84
not been

already produced
in Athenseus,

previous

to

the exhibition
in a

mentioned

whether in the same or

it

more

imperfect form,

especially as

is

an exhibition at the

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

Lenoea that

supposing him to have here come back to the time at which In like manner it may be doubted he actually wrote. whether it is absolutely necessary to conceive Hipponicus
as dead,

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

in

this

case

"

The Wild Men

"

also of Pherecrates

might be fixed to

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

Flatterers
"

better place

for this spectacle than the house of Callias,

"

and probably

of Eupolis were the occasion of this idea and the temptation to such a licence. And quite as
necessary for him was that earlier period in which those wise men were actually in the flower of their fame, and

The

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

could thus be collected at Athens

might well shock Plato

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.
says, exaggeratingly boasting of his age,

and the way

in

which Socrates depreciatingly mentions his own youth, may not be without its object, but intended to throw ridicule

upon the standard of those who perhaps reproached even Plato with his youth. For Protagoras was banished from
beginning of the ninety-second olympiad, during the change of constitution effected by Antiphon
the Rhamnusian, and died,
it

Athens

at the

would seem,

in his exile,

according to some, seventy, according to others, ninety years old. Now if we look for the truth even between
the two, although Plato in the

Menon,

plainly declares

himself in favour of the

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

exaggeration.

Therefore,

would continue,

if

it

is

thought not possible to solve the contradictions in the

dates, to rest

upon the point that the

earlier

time

is

that which belongs to the nature of the dialogue,

into which Plato

and

would properly wish to transpose the that from the later date only some trifling reader, and
circumstances are intermixed, perhaps unconsciously, in For at any rate it is but a shallow of ornament. the

way

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.

time to exchange the less important inves for the considera tigation of the external circumstances tion of the internal subject of this somewhat complicated
it

But

is

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

its

to

draw out the

subject of each particular one in

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
spins

is

the basis of the whole, but that every thing

out accidentally from

what

precedes,

as

much
and
is

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

On

the con

object

whole,

in

which much that

is

complex

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

now

to be
1.

preliminarily introduced.

First of all Socrates endeavours,

sceptical investigation into the nature

by means of a and the peculiar

desires

art of the sophists, to

to bring the

young man who

be taken to Protagoras, to reflect upon his purpose. This investigation is as it were continued by Protagoras quite as indirectly, though from a different point, in a
short lecture delivered after a request for it had been the extent and preferred, upon antiquity of sophistics. And in this he partly exposes the boldness of his

public

profession to this trade, partly deduces the thing itself as of considerable antiquity, not indeed from the most ancient philosophers, but from Not poets and artists.

anything

however,

uninvolved
until

or

definite

comes out
dialogical
political

respecting the art

section,

Socrates,

in a short

extracts
is

from

him thus much,

that

virtue

properly that which constitutes the object of

his instruction.

8?
2.

Hereupon
the position,
instances

Socrates, in a continuous speech, lays

slightly

down

sketched indeed,

but

sup
to

ported by

and the expressions of general opinion,

matter
;

that no instruction can be imparted in this

which Protagoras offers a counterproof, partly in a myth about the origin of men and of social life, also by partly
endeavouring, in some further investigations, to turn the

same instances of ordinary modes of acting, which Socrates had brought forward, to favour his own proposition.
3.

On

occasion of what

is

adduced by Protagoras,

Socrates, after some premonitory hints as to the difference between an epideictic lecture and a dialogue, annexes a discussion of the latter form upon the question of the

unity or plurality of the virtues, in which he first com who maintains their plurality, to pels his opponent, and piety to one another, and then when oppose justice

Protagoras has great difficulty in extricating himself from this dilemma, Socrates courteously breaks off, forces from

him

in a second course the confession that discretion also

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

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 dialogue, and while fresh terms have to the nature be entered into for the contest, since the affair has taken
4>.

Hence

the form of a regular philosophical prize-fight, to the the nearer it had increasing pleasure of the noble youths

now find approached that form, Prodicus and Hippias in their own way, with opportunity for coming forward
short speeches.

And

proposal to choose

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

88
form which, with
all
all its brevity, is distinguished above the strict dialectic process observed in it.

others
5.

by

According

to the conditions

proposed by Socrates,

Protagoras has now become the questioner, and after introducing a poem of Sirnonides, continues the dialogue
without however any definite point which he would conduct by this method, being but only the endeavour to involve Socrates in contradic
concerning virtue,
visible to
tions.

Socrates, however,

first,

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
is

ians

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,
is

lastly,

the Dialogue

is
it,

again taken

up, and Socrates

now

the questioner in

and

in that

character continues to shew that virtue

is

only one

knowledge, First he shews this

science, of that

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

him

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

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

science,
at

while on pains
to

the other Socrates

has himself been

his

the

prove

this,

though

purpose went

to dispute every supposition in favour

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

it

must be

that

even here the

common
as

methods of viewing

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

the

dialogue,

inasmuch

Some
as

for instance,
will

they

do even

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

easily

take

up

the

notion
it

that

this

ironical

treatment, or annihilation as
sophists,
is

might be called of the

to

be understood as the chief object of the

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

Protagoras. whether these

This

they are represented,

were valued to the same degree

and

in

the

same

sense
;

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

instance.

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

in

the present

For, on the one hand, what every eye however

in

inattentive universally observes

the

dialogue,

is

far

from being the highest kind of irony, either of Plato generally, or of this work in particular, but only that
subordinate imitative colouring which

may

be met with

90
not

unfrequently
given
to

even

among

the

moderns,

otherwise

so little

irony, under a more modern

name.

Again

it is

to be remarked, that

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

something
in

is

to

be

said,

and what

it

is

to

be,

that consequently this ironical imitation

may
so

occur any

where

Plato,

and

certainly

does

occur,

when

any point is discussed with these opponents of Socratic wisdom and modes of thinking, not only as mere orna ment, but as a means connected with the end, in
order to

make
it

authenticate

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

unnatural
reason
it

exaggerated should never be

and

but

that
as

for

that

very
or

conceived

the

first

proper object, because then in the first place the ex aggeration would be unavoidable, and in the next the
philosophical object, without

work of Plato

is

ever framed,

which certainly no larger must either have been

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

real

and

not

even

fortunate

discoverers

because

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

were to be here decided, whether

of virtue
or
its

it

were that of the

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

must

necessarily
is

waver.

And how
the

insufficient

fact, that from proceeding appears from such a point of view several parts of the dialogue do not admit of any explanation whatever; as for instance,

the

two sources mentioned of 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

is

those questions does not

advance but
first in

continually

beginning again

from

the

manner almost far-fetched and

certainly singu

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

:

lar

how could

the main

which

it

is

said at the

end of

it,

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 any change of the form in the different sections, to what is continually
interspersed

recurring in and between these sections, notwithstanding all the whoever does this will multiplicity of subjects
recognize, in this very dispute

respecting the form and

;

method, the main purpose

to

of the whole

the purpose,

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

genuine philosophical
all

communication,
all

sophistical forms,

in opposition to of which therefore make their

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

this dialogue con

by

manifold ramifications with the Phsedrus.

the

For

as

there

inward
so

spirit

of the

process was
discovered,

exhibited,

the

outward form
as

philosophizing is here
is

and
in

what

results,

such,

criticised.

Further, as

that dialogue the investigation respecting

92
the

method was interwoven

also with

the exposition of

impulse, and that not the common one whose object it is, from a feeling of vanity, to spread a falsely so-called and knowledge, but an
the communicative
really

empty

impulse which
so as

is

to

form the mind by means of

is

ideas,

that every thing else

grounded upon
philosophy
;

the
also

ethical

the base of the

Socratic

so

here,

the question regarding the possibility of satisfying that impulse is the subject on which the different forms are to display themselves, and submit to comparison, and
that in

such a manner that in this dialogue

exclusively
treats

also

the

argument

of

the

communication
that

of

the ethical,

which

is

the

very

point

constitutes

the meaning of the question as to

of virtue.

Nay,

even

in

the communicability what concerns the outward

conformation of the whole, a striking connection between

the two manifests
also
itself,

inasmuch as
contest
;

in

this

the form of a pitched

arises

dialogue agreeably to
set

the then condition of things

only

still

more vividly

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

be here continued and advanced.

Moreover from

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

made
of

all

the

more evident the

itself
still

further this dialogue

advances, and exposes

more

in

examples

how

easily

epideictic

discourse

lends itself to seduce the hearers from the true point in

93
beautiful in ap throw off without may ever understanding one another, and how on the con trary, the dialogistic form brings the true meaning of
question,
is

and how much even that

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

worse.

And

poses for sake of which they chiefly exercised their art.

And
that

this
is

harmony which must work

it

its effect,
is

like all

beautiful in art, even though

not recognised

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

upon

its

own grounds,

is

certainly for the

this perfect work.

Thus

the

first

at once discovers his self-conceit

and avarice

speech of Protagoras thus in the

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

when virtue

is

to

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

his

contem
whether

had before
to
is

their

eyes,

it

matters not
else.

relatively

Protagoras or

some one

For

that

philosopher

here less himself than the representative

94
of his sect.
that
it

In like manner the sequel further discovers

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

the

conclusion,

when Socrates exposes

which he
is

to

him the

great
that

contradiction in

involved,

we

learn

he has not reflected even

the

in

the slightest degree

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

upon

conditions

instruct
far

them

we have been meanwhile convinced how

that method,

removed he must continue from

the

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

compelling

him
has
is

to

independent
dialogistic

thought.

Such

the

proved

itself

method, then, meanwhile to be it

;

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

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

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

way be found which

and
dialectic

is

the aim of the

manifold

artificial

turns

which Socrates

makes,

which can

nicalities

and

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

quainted with the Platonic method.

if

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,

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

also the dialectic

maxims of deception and undeception

delivered in the Phse-

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
eyes of the skilful adept.
tical dialectics,

But

it

is

not only the prac

and the commendatory recognition of the

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

bearing
is

is

improved.

The
vice

proposition indeed
is
is

that virtue

the knowledge of what

to

be done or

chosen, and, consequently, that

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

left

as

it

indefinite,

it

belongs rather to the

web

in

which he

entangles those

who have not

;

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
decision

of the question,

the

more accurate

definition

namely of the idea of knowledge.

Thus

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

relation

evidently of

knowledge to teaching, after consideration of what had been already said in the Phaedrus upon the nature of

The opposition in reference to the School of Heraclitus between being (TO and becoming (TO
ideas.
e!i>m)

yiyvcaOai) although at the same time ironical as regards the Protagoras, has a similar tendency. As also the
subordinate question of the unity or plurality of virtue only a particular case belonging to the more general
of unity or plurality, or

is

investigation into the nature

the

manner

in

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

its

it,

the Protag
object,

oras contains, over and above

own immediate

the germs of several succeeding works of Plato, and that in such a manner that it is at once clear even from this
that
it

is

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
it

number

it

as

some have done, good-

naturedly raising among those of 1 Plato s own ; on the contrary, if not the property of Protagoras himself, as seems likely, though there is no
evidence to confirm the supposition, yet the manner in which Plato applies it makes it much more probable
that
it is

to an exalted rank,

at all events

composed

in his spirit.

For pre

to cisely as is natural

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
to

Simonides,
style

in

which the resem

to

blance in

manner and

to this is not

be mis

taken, which stands in a

similar polemical

relation to

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

who

IV.

LACHES.

AMONG
upon
the
it

because

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

only be looked upon as an appendix

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

its

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

similarity,

because in

nature

it

is

distinct

from

all

; and, even in experience is In opposition to this, Socrates with separate from them. had shown, that, if we look to the fact how courage ex

other virtues

often to

be met

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,

led

from the point which he had in view. Consequently he there opens up the investigation on another side, inasmuch as he shows, that upon the sup

him too

far

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

distant pleasure with near pain

but a correct comparison of consequently a measur

;

ing

art,

consequently intelligence

and ingenuity.

This,

99
main question of the Protagoras re garding the communicability of virtue, was the conclusion of the dialogue but the question as to was
to the
;

when applied

courage

clearly not exhausted with the conclusion here obtained* but on the contrary remained in a state so dislocated and

unsolved that Plato could scarcely let he had given up the first mode of
tion in

it

rest there.

For

considering the ques

an incomplete form, and the hypothesis in the second was not his own ; in respect of which, moreover,
readers of that day might as easily deceive themselves, as it has happened to those of more modern times to
do.

This therefore
dialogue, in

is

the meaning of this

little

illus

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

Hence, argued that boldness does not in its operation exhaust the idea of courage, inasmuch as the province of the latter extends far beyond the fearful, properly so
rately,
first,
it

and more from Plato

is

own point

of view.

called,

and resistance

to every kind of

pain, nay, even

;

to pleasure, belongs

no

less to

courage

that therefore

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

investigation in the Protagoras

to the conclusion, that,
;

is

repeated and

brought
is

on the one side neither

is

all

perseverance courage

nor, on the other, what

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

courageous,
severance,

is

as even too

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

the calculation.

to the degree of ingenuity displayed in

Hence,

generally,

physical strength,

courage because

is

not
that

to

be conceived as
it

in

case

must

be

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

Plato,

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

who

to make goras is not taken up again, until, in order any delusion impossible, the hypothesis that the plea sant is equivalent to the good, is removed, and a dis
tinction established
to
this,

between the two.

Now

with a view

there could be
intelligible

or

more

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

;

morals are only a geometry of pleasure, that knowledge which is to constitute virtue, can be
clearly, if all

nothing else but a prescience of results and their ac From this then the tual value as sources of pleasure.

knowledge of the good is here completely distinguished, and it is then first demonstrated, that in so far as courage is to be considered as such a knowledge, it can be no
the particular virtue distinct from other virtues, because

only principle of division, according to which, looking to the ordinary meaning of the idea this could be done,

namely, that derived from time, does not fall under con sideration in moral matters consequently, in this place
;

also

the conclusion,

that

virtue

is

indivisible,

is

con

firmed, as well as that the same

power which produces

one must also produce

all

the others.

While
is

therefore

the investigation into the idea of courage

continued,

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

opposed to them, but also actually projected further, although as is usual in these Pla tonic dialogues of this class, and agreeable to the
tation

of

what

is

principles of
it

them, this

were,
find

and with

only done imperceptibly as unconnected strokes, that he alone

is

may

them

who has been

already

put

into

the

101

way

of discovering them at
in

all

events of himself.

For

what Laches
moral wisdom,

his

innocence

as

being

says of the nature of harmony of the mind, and

life,

coincidence of knowledge and of

this is

the right
to
or,

key to the Platonic

Theory
that

of Virtue,
it

and

the

meaning of
knowing.
the

his

opinion
this,

is

knowledge,

And

we may observe

in passing, is not

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

remarkable

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

that this personage says exclusively the opinion

of

Plato,

who, on the contrary makes even the leading

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

effect,
is

in the Protagoras.

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

Among

other matter to that

and tending

to

show that the purpose of such a dia

logue could never be only to expose to another his

own

102
ignorance, while the expositor
for this
in

knows nothing himself;

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

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

young and unknown

or not,

is

certainly

defence

of Plato himself in regard of his treatment of Lysias as well as Protagoras ; and the other, in opposition to
is of itself to bring has a similar object in view. It can understanding, not be superfluous to draw the attention of the reader

those

who

are of opinion that age

of Plato to such particulars, partly because they bring to light still more the connection of these dialogues, partly that he may learn in time to estimate properly
the

constant

presence

of

a purpose

in

the

author

mind.

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

of Plato,

notwithstanding that Aris

his ethical
this

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

to

works,

circumstance
;

be wondered
it

at,

and

it

can

excite
for

for

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

would have been

no suspicion one who dis

ment of the detailed and popular parts of

his
is

virtue,
is

and

own

objections to

it.

Moreover,

all

that
in

external

here so perfectly

Platonic,

and even

explained likewise from the connection

with
the

Protagoras,
side
in

that
s

not

part to be of the dialogue doubt can remain

upon any
of

any one
are

mind.

The
as
it

richness

of

the by-work,

the change of the speakers,

the presence

mute

persons,

altogether

were

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

for

a long time the balance of power against Pericles with great ability, verify with much accuracy the re mark first offered in the Protagoras, that the greatest

statesmen were
their
art.

still

Moreover
purpose

in incapable of instructing others are clearly here for the they

additional

kept-up incompetent and insipid old age

comically

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

of
;

and in order

to

show

how
are,

perfectly worthless objections grounded

as

extreme
else

old

age, most
of,
is

of

all

upon youth when it has

treat

nothing even men of the ripest

as

to

be proud
treats

accustomed to
as

years

Lysimachus

here

Socrates.

depreciatingly In the

boys,
choice

of the other persons it seems to have been a general the Socrates of Plato object to repel the charge, that

only understood

how

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

parade consequentially before Therefore there are indeed boys

to

whom
fairly

Socrates

argues
to

upon

that

which

they

might
that
is,

be

supposed
rest

understand;

of courage,

with

captains.

And

above

the

of them

Laches may have been selected with the intention of enno

in campaign, and an eye bling Socrates as his comrade And Nicias, of whom Plu witness of his courage. tarch says that he was by nature averse to precipitation and ambitious hopes, and only concealed his innate

cowardice by chance successes in war, very appropri of courage, which ately defends the unusual theory

makes

it

more a

matter

of

insight

and

ingenuity.

104

Only the too prolix discussion of the first question re garding the art of weapon-practice, and the very agree
able though
little

appropriate

tale

of the

sickle-spear
to
at

of the utterly
understood,

unknown
it

Stesilaus, are not quite

difficult

be

and

might be
it

to
it

come
is is

any
the

other information about

excess of

than that

a luxurious
said in

that pleasantry, of which, as

Phaedrus,

there

must

necessarily

be an admixture in

every piece of writing.

V.

CHARMIDES.
applied in common in the Protagoras,

OF
life,

all

the particular virtues

as

Socrates

enumerates them

Discretion was there discussed in the most unsatisfactory

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

At

its

relation

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

notion

in the case of courage, partly of confuting this

of discretion and reinstating

in

it

as an independent virtue

the

that

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

first
it

with

On
the

behalf of the
particular

is

here shown at large, that the

action,
in

exhibition of outward
is

which

nature of this virtue

ordinarily

made

to consist,

may

as easily be an imperfection as a perfection,

and there

fore cannot in any

ethical notion.

way claim

to

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
case of each
as its sole

that in the

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

particular

mode of

the idea,

it

is

only a de

ceptive appearance, though one which might haunt the

as in the Laches,

minds of many readers, which, in would lead one

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

of discretion,

to

that

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

is

sufficiently

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

makes even
emphasis.
general

Critias coincide in this position with

Whoever
:

great then further connects with this the

proposition

no

man

can be discreet

without

knowing
it

as a consequence of Critias

it,

and also what Socrates

self-knowledge,

allows to pass from

is

concerning

impossible that after

with
this
s

the Protagoras
in

Laches and combining dialogue, he should continue

the

doubt

as
it

to

Plato
for

opinion.
decision

over leave

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
translation

of

ours

of

the

word besonnenheit, may

Greek sophrosyne by the have obtained in consequence

it

of our former application of

in the Protagoras, Plato s

idea could be expressed more appropriately in our lan guage than by this term. That of moderation (Mas-

was translated by Cicero, in which he seems to have had Aristotle in his mind more than
sigung),
as
it

Plato,

is

certainly not to be used at

1

all.

Socrates
discretion

transition

from the one explanation,

to

that
it

is

self-knowledge,

the

other

that

is

at

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

tion, of virtue or

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

a knowledge, which, rightly understood, must certainly be pre-supposed, and which Plato only ceased to repeat when the further repetition of it would have been te dious
;

then,

certainly,

self-knowledge

is

a knowledge

conversant

about knowledge or ignorance.

And

it

is

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

which

this

investigation

prefaces

the separation of the

dialectic

from the

ethical,

that the investigation of the

is

particular notion

of

discretion

connected

with

the

more general one of the nature of morals, which per

vades
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
all

these

dialogues, and

the

posed

as

recognised

and granted,
in

of knowledge

and action
the

required unity the province of ethics is

into the operation

the

brought nearer by
virtue
as
all

inquiry
distinct

of

separate and

from virtue

itself,

and

above

the distinction between that higher species of

107
knowledge, and that which
is is is

particular and empirical,

further carried out.

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

the

distinction

knows,

and

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

complete difference of knowledge from perception

reference to
its

power of making

itself its

own

object,

and the hints given as to the relative and absolute, are very remarkable as leading notices in the work.

The

fact,

that

all

these

general

elucidations

are

to discover yet new explanations of the idea of discretion, is a peculiarity which to a certain degree already assimilates the Charmides in point of execution to the artificiality of the

disguised under apparent attempts

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
all

the evident allu

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

events be

con

Laches and Char-

it

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

expositions
to

exercises

those

larger ones

of

and introductions preparatory justice in the Books of the

this to

Republic.

But even supposing

be the case,

still,

108
in the first place, a
;

would be wanting that larger work evidently stands upon a

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

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

own mind out of what

is

brought

forward

in

the Laches and Charmides.

Some
attaching

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

vanced, which makes

consist in every one

doing his

own

business.

And

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

this view. object to refute

On

liarly

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

emphasis comes from Critias,

will

see that

some particu

allusion must be here concealed, and will hardly be

to

able

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

com

of

the

dialogue,

which

may

be

conveniently

109
placed in the anarchy, for after the death of Critias such an allusion would be no longer in the spirit of Plato, so we should have to look already for an apo
logetic purpose in
it.

The

character of Charmides
represents
it,

is

strikingly the
this

same
is

as

Xenophon

so

that

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

VI.

EUTHYPHRO.
is

As an

which investigation into the idea of piety,

Protagoras Euthyphro connects
in

likewise brought forward

the

as

one of
with

the parts of virtue, the

that

itself

dialogue.

But when compared with

the

Laches

in the light of a very it appears, however, subordinate piece, because not only docs its imperfect dress stand in very disadvantageous contrast with the

and Charmides,

richness and ornament which characterize these dialogues,

but even

its

internal

substance,

when compared

with

what we

find in them, does not acquit itself

much

better.

For

in

the Euthyphro we can neither point

to a pro

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

the immediate

object of the investigation,

to

are

those indirect indications

attentive

be found which make the

well

reader

sufficiently

acquainted

with

the

views of the composer ; but it is clear at once, and upon the face of the work, that the object in view is as limited
as the

mode

the fact

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

is here wanting, might peculiar to the Platonic dialogues that the present dialogue is one fairly excite a suspicion

110
of those which are to be denied a place among the works of Plato ; and this suspicion is strengthened by many
peculiarities in the execution which, instead of the already

approved and finished master, betray a not unsuccessful, and therefore complacently consequentializing imitator,
little dialectics

eager to push to extremes the moderate acquisition of a and a somewhat superficial irony. Mean
while, the rejection of this suspicion depends

upon the

validity of the following grounds. Firstly, the dialectic exercise contained in the Euthyphro, though not so com

prehensive as that in the Charmides,

offset

is

no

less

a natural

tion to,

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

especially with regard to the development of the distinction between what indicates the nature of an idea, or only one

of

relations, as well as with regard to the origin of that usage of language which Plato observes throughout in the Moreover, in the sequel to mark this distinction.
its

remaining works of Plato, the notion of piety is cancelled out of the list of the four cardinal virtues, with which,
in

the Protagoras,

it

is

still

associated,

and

in
is

such a
altoge

manner

that a particular notice on the subject

if it

ther necessary, and,

were not to be found, must have

been supposed
the
in

lost.

some positive expressions

relation
in

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

it

which
is

stands

to

those virtues

but

our author what

;

and undisguised
the Euthyphro.

open and even these expressions are imme

with

covert always precedes what

is

diately connected

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

tion that this dialogue

was unquestionably written between

Plato could

the accusation and condemnation of Socrates, and that,

under

these

circumstances,

hardly

avoid

Ill

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

own

peculiar manner, connected as the charge against

this
it

him

very subject. Nay, might be, that the more pressing the circumstances, the more easily this apologetic purpose would so far swallow up the original
ethico-dialectic

was with

one,

that

Plato

neglected

to

introduce

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

hints

into

the

discussion

himself.

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

work may be explained from the urgency of the

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,

it.

therefore,
it

we continue

as Platonic,

may

to regard be added, that while

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

of those
in
its

it

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

which
place

more worthily without the references

still,

to Socrates,

though
it

allowed a certain degree of indulgence, certainly maintain it.

if

may

The

introduction

of Euthyphro as the interlocutor

is quite in the style of the

Laches, in which dialogue

112
also
in

Socrates has to do with

persons

eminently skilled
this

the subject

under discussion.
his

Now

man

was,

as is manifest

from some of

own

expressions, a very

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

knowing

in

matters relating to the gods, and

who
the

boldly defended the orthodox ideas taken from the old

theological
poets.

One

Euthyphro,

indisputably

same as
idea,

this, appears also in the Cratylus of Plato.

The

of bringing this person into contact with while the process against the latter was actually Socrates, going on, and to exhibit him in contrast with the philo
then,

by means of the piece of immorality which his zeal for piety had occasioned him to commit, was one by no means unworthy of Plato. The action brought by
sopher,
against his father, bears pretty much the of a real occurrence, though it might be trans stamp

Euthyphro

The manner, more be almost compared may with the story of the sickle-spear in the Laches only
ferred from other times or persons.
over, in which
it

is

discussed,

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
is

taken into consideration, can

be viewed

in

the light of a fault.

VII.

PARMENIDES.
in

WHO

knows not how

former times the Parmenides

at

was by many contemplated

an awful distance as a

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

113
after this fancy,

however natural
lately,
set

it

might be, had been

thougli not

till

aside,

that falsely

grounded

opinion of exalted wisdom was changed into objections of such a nature, that supposing the correctness of them,
the whole only becomes inconceivable in another point of view. Or is it not to be thought inconceivable that a man

of Plato s genius and philosophical acuteness should either not have remarked the multiplicity of meanings in the

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
all

still

unpractised

the Sophists

whom

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

instructed

with

the

performance,

or

of

disgusting them with the

liminarily, these objections

intention.

To

review,

pre

and the

different explanations

of them, and to endeavour to set them aside individu

ally or collectively,

might contribute more than anything

the

to

render

difficult

introduction

of the reader into

this dialogue,

many

in

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

advisable to state briefly the view which seems to be the correct one, as it may possibly approve itself suffi
ciently
to

give a

standard

whereby

to

judge of other

opinions.
It is in

general supposed

that the Parmenides be

;

longs to the later

rests

writings of Plato

but as

this

hy

pothesis upon hardly any other ground except a reluctance to give him the credit of having composed so

profound a work in his youth, the reader admit the opposite assumption,

may

as easily

preliminarily and

only

114
as hypothesis, and consider the Parmenides as belonging For as the Phaedrus to the Phaedrus and Protagoras.

had only

in general inspired
its

and admiringly praised the

organ
dialectics,

philosophical impulse and

while the

Protagoras,

artfully

connecting

the

external

and

the

internal, had exhibited by examples this philosophical passion and the sophistical pruriency, as well as the

methods resulting from each of the two so the Par menides also shews itself to be a similar efflux from the
:

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

Phsedrus, inasmuch as

to

it

and counterpart of

it.

For, in the

Protagoras,

the philosophical passion is considered as communicative, while in this dialogue it is represented in reference to
the independent process of investigation which must pre

cede communication
to truth alone,
all

how, I mean, and rejecting every

:

it

looks in

its

purity

collateral point,

and

alarm at any result whatever, starts only upon the

is

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

possible,

There

is,

therefore, no want of opposition taken between the true and the false, but it is shown partly in Zeno, who works onwards to a definite point, the refutation of others,

not without a consciousness of the inadmissibility of his weapons to whose books, at that time generally known,
the reader

almost tacitly referred ; partly also in Socra tes who does not yet go far enough, and from youthful still confines himself within too narrow apprehension,
is

limits.

That Plato did not by

this

intend to imply a
see, partly

censure upon his friend and master,

we

from

the circumstance that in the earlier dialogues he attributes to him a genuine zeal for dialectics; partly, because in those pieces as well as in this he represents him as only in an

115
earlier

and imperfect stage of

however,

his

philosophical career.

Two
this

things,

may probably be
side,

looked for in
a

indication

on

the one

mean,

censure

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

who only

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

the

Protagoras and the dialogues

belonging to
indications,

it

the

dialectic

purpose and the speculative

opposition, one

would

confound Plato with the

in

class just mentioned.

As then

this

side is only just

indicated, so

also is

cular expressions in the Parmenides, but

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

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

a conclusion,
in
it.

and by the

strictness of the

method

as regards the examples of philo here chosen, the doctrine of correct sophical investigations division of ideas was attempted in the same way in the

pursued

Now

Protagoras

and

it is

there satisfactorily shewn

why

the

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

From
in
is

the same grounds, then, and in the same

this

dialogue in

which

investigation

in

the

be exhibited, the exercise is undertaken upon the doctrine of the mutual connection of ideas, as it is only by such connection, and not by separation, that
abstract
to

knowledge can be

really extended.

And

it

is

perfectly

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.

moves

Now

it

can hardly escape any oneVv

116*

notice

that

such
to

coincidence

in

tendency
state
all

and inward
of mind and
that I

form

points

the same unaltered

to a similar view in the author.

And

would

regularly maintain is this, that the Parmenides has its origin in the same aims and youthful method with the

Protagoras; not that Plato constructed it as a counter part to the Phaedrus and Protagoras, with a distinct consciousness of doing so, which is least of all to be
ascribed to the youthful writer
at

that time,

for

now

the youngest writers are often the oldest and most re

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

We

see also in the

there

is

a youthfulness in the
into view,

manner

in

which these are

brought Parmenides himself.

and put into the mouth of the great

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,

is

it

point which
is

chiefly discussed in the first part,

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

which

these dialogues hitherto translated,

indirectly,

by

statement

of

only treated of the manifold difficulties

it

is

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

the

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

This however

dered as the seat of that doctrine.

appears certain in reference to this dialogue, even if

only
consider
the

Only thus much we

Parmenides con-

words

with

which

117
eludes the statement of the difficulties which
beset

the

assumption of ideas independently, that the substantia tion of ideas, as it is called, is by no means the
matter here in dispute, and which
Socrates to establish.
this
it

is

the purpose of

And what

is

said elsewhere

upon

only be brought under consideration subject For if Plato has been generally in its proper place. viewed, I do not say improperly, as a precursor of
can
the
this,

sacred
that
to
it

writers,
is

he

resembles

them

especially

in

ascribed

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

consider every expression in

in
is

own proper
is

place,

and

the

connection

in

which
is

there
in

found.

There

however much that

remarkable

the examples
in

under which Parmenides

states his doubts,

so far as

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

he divides them,
ideas,

first,

into those which, like the moral

most

easily

subject

themselves to the faculty of

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

and, finally,

those
at

which
last,

represent
idea of

relations

only,

and under
is

which,

the

knowledge

itself

again

brought.

And
itself

to the

reader

who does not overlook

the
in

this

dis

tinguishing character,
that

notion

will

scarcely suggest

Plato
as

had
to

view

to

contradict

any par
or the

ticular

theory

the

conception

of

truth,

118
existence

of
;

ideas,
it

Socrates
object
is

but

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

generally to

draw attention

to the difficulties

which the susceptibility of distinction does itself oppose to any one who attempts to give a general answer to the question as to what mode of existence or reality

must be ascribed
which
fall

to ideas exclusively of the appearances

under our observation.

But

this

was

far

from being the place in which these difficulties were to be solved, and the more so as with the preparations
here

made

for

that purpose,

a whole series of succes

is

sive dialogues

from the Theaetetus upwards

occupied
with

with the question.

ly

Even Plato
which he

indicates

them exact

in

the

manner
which he

generally

pursues

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

up

to this point,

it

will not

be

difficult

to

conceive

that

ready at

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

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

and

deriving

from

it

that

immediate

man

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

a higher

state
is

eminence

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

of

ideas of relation.

119
As, then, this
first

part annexes itself to the assertion

is

of Socrates, that there

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,

as
turns.

so

also

upon

this

senti

ment

upon the hinge of the whole, the second part

dialogue
to

of the

For Parmenides,

after

having

request of Socrates that he would subjoined enter upon the investigation of ideas still further, rules as to the method of pursuing it, allows himself to be
this

persuaded to illustrate these rules by an example, and thus actually to follow out a thesis upon a manifold and exhaustive plan; and with this view he selects the
instance of unity

a choice

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

besides unity, according as the former

exist

is

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

to

or

not

to

exist.

And

with

strange predicament, as

it

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

and

all

besides,

to

two contradictory

results.

and each of these parts attains For while the two in

and that into

vestigations, that into the nature of unity

all

that remains constituting plurality, are

worked out

in
it

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

120
that

and
still

in

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

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,

this of Plato,

that he intended only to give a proof of

false dialectics, or

even put into Parmenides and Zeno

own mouth
sitions

their

the

reader
the

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

will

survey

of

whole

certainly

refuse

his

assent.

To
the

follow

up, however, and elucidate this whole, with

view

of
it,

forward in

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

if
it

propriate here, and

to

should

still

appear necessary

do so

after

what may here be

said,

must

at

least

be spared for another place. But in this the following particulars only can be noticed. First, it must by all means be remembered that Parmenides had expressly
recognised
the request

of Socrates

to

institute

an

in

vestigation into the nature of ideas,

and that he there

unity
it

fore contemplates, in pursuing that investigation,

in general,
is

and as an abstract notion.

Hence, then,

not allowable to quit this point of view, though by so doing we be enabled more conveni might perhaps
ently to explain this or that particular point.
self-evident,
that,

It is also

taken in the main, the contradictory

results

arise

chiefly

from

the

different

significations

of the word existence or being, consequently from the different conditions under which the notion is brought. And it is by this in particular that the second part
is

connected

in

spirit

with

the

first,

where

other-

121
wise only an extremely loose connection would be per
ceptible,

by the prevalent purpose,

attention
to

mean, observable,
significations

of drawing
existence,

the

different

of

and

their relation to one another

it

and

to ideas.

And
own

in

this

the idea

process of unity is

cannot indeed be denied, that

according to its but this is, first, not an
also

considered

separate potentialities:

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

dicates
so

clearly

when

this

is

the

case,

that

neither

wrong, nor can any one suppose in the writer the intention of deluding by this If however, and this cannot be denied, the course.
can
the
attentive

reader go

idea

is

worked

out

by
all

such
to

predicates
still

as
let
it

do

not

appear

applicable at

an idea,

be re

membered, that nothing

established
tion to

definite
in

had been previously

abstrac

determine

what manner an

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

every point
tic

is

to be essayed,

in order,

by

this

dialec

process, to bring the

this

question nearer to a decision.

suffice

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

And

indeed

would

an

most
as

intricate developements,
sophistical,

and those most considered

are

intentionally

distinguished

by the
resulting
series

circumstance, that

the

train

of consequences

from them and

strictly

belonging to the general

easier

might have been discovered by a far

that nothing peculiar to unity
is

method, als6

discovered by probing

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

immediate

which these particular parts are he*re, is not the result, but the actual mode of ]M by
6r>f,

122
means of which, as
the
investigation,
to
it

recurs in the different parts of

intends, in
to

Plato

his

own
of

peculiar
certain

manner,
ideas

draw

attention
It
is

the

nature

of relation.
object

very
all

profitable to follow this

collateral

through
elucidation

the

turnings of the dia

it,

logue,

and to see

how Plato makes way towards

constituted

and

how one
these

That

ideas

always an important

refers

to

another.

subject
it

of
all

consideration in

his

mind, and that he held

in

by

means necessary to put them may be seen from a passage

he speaks of
to
it

a clear point of view, in the Charmides, where

difficult

as

an

important and
or

matter
in

investigate, to

whether any, and what, Ideas exist

alone,

reference
others.

themselves

only

in

relation

to

Now
in

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
the general form of all ideas alike, which Plato himself sometimes calls unities ; and that, accordingly, it is from this dialectic point that the opposition of
is

unity

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

not

sidered,

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

as

well

as

the

followed out

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

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

does not

one another, as well as

the

modes of treating homo

sections.

geneous

points in particular in all the several

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

123
section, certainly the

most ancient in philosophy,

the
reconciliation

to con

struct

knowledge
will

by

of

antitheses.

But few persons have divined

method, and

the

antiquity

of

this

mighty
attempt,

dialectical

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

to

so

similar

much

that has appeared

theories of

among

ourselves, sooner than in

many

Plato pro

perly of more importance.

Still

more remarkable are

where

two notions developed

the one in
the
is

in the course of the investigation,

attempt just noticed, the other

I

unity
the

supposed non-existent
small in
it,

infinitesimally
in

time,

speak of the idea of or of someting ob

jective existing

and of the idea of magnitudes

unity.

or

spacial

repletion

without

They

are,

as

re

gards
in
his

this dialogue, the result of that peculiar

manner

which, in Plato, from the fundamental character of

philosophy,

which

some have most

of thought
lofty

sidered to be a confusion

unjustly con with knowledge,

speculation

of

the

more

kind
in

is

combined with
this notion

the dialectic process.

The manner

which

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

ance to

all

management,

it

is

nevertheless grasped and

described,
is

appears so deserving

of admiration, that

it

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

of this dialogue, gives up, not long before this section, on receiving notice of the subject, as if he were weary of pursuing further this loose web of sophisms. One

should have thought that a commentator who, even in the middle, had met with much that had less claim upon
his
attention,
to

would
work

at

least,

on

notice

given,

have

been glad

to the

end through these

difficulties,

124
were
all,
it

the sincerely earnest reader

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

beforehand every way, for all conclusions drawn from the hypothesis of a non-existent unity? to which, as

an indispensable supplementary part, even It is not Parmenides himself so significantly points. difficult to adduce still more, though of less import
constituting

ance

for the

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

search

and

explanation

of

this

investigation,

in

which almost every point radiates with the germs of whole lines of fresh investigations, and each succeeding
gradually increasing and mani fold significancy, admits of a more extended and com prehensive survey of all connected with it, may be
one,

by reason of

the

induced,

sooner
to

than

they

would be by
this

deficient

in

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

share the notion,

philosophical and poetical creations, corresponds to those

imaginative and pregnant compositions, which, under the

inward form of things, and the true history of the world, with a richness and a depth which no one can ever be fully conscious of
tales, represent the

modest name of

having fathomed to the bottom

many

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

readers

who

with

even though perhaps their author in

And
we

further,

the reason why, in

as

the present

work

at all events, as well

in those poetical compositions,

are not

in

a condition to
particular,

come
is

to a perfect

under
our

standing

of

every

grounded

upon

ignorance of

many probably

existing

relations.

Wha,

125
for instance,

can

tell

whether many of those points

at

in the

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

We

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
tician,

and has here adopted his method, he himself but it also seems quite as certain says clearly enough that he put no great value upon his genius as a
;

philosopher as exhibited in the work here brought for ward. Similarly also, in another place, where he has to
deal with the Eleatic philosophers,

Zeno

is

mentioned

not

Par independently, but only as connected with menides. How far, then, the notices drawn from the
higher province of speculation relate to the philosophy of Parmenides in particular, and whether, for instance,

world as deprived of unity in opposition to that grounded upon and resolving itself into it, is intended
the
illustration and corroboration of the op which Parmenides institutes between the world position of reason and the world of sense; to decide this ac

to

be a fresh

curately

we

possess,

and ever

shall possess,

too scanty

it

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

Parmenides

is

one

of

those

who were

earliest

misunderstood, and even the means to which we must resort are still in an extremely unproven and imper
fect
will
state.

Even
unite

in

Plato himself there

is

much

that

not

with

what

is

generally

assumed from

126
only that Parmenides is intended to contradict himself by the contradictions in which unity Had is involved, is a thing not to be thought of.
these

sources

Plato at that time had so

little

respect for

him

as to

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

ing

would

certainly

have

been

most

wanton display of irony.

put

accompanied by the But whatever value

according to with his earlier
intended
first

may be
which
views
of
at

upon
seems

certain
to

expressions

Plato

be
all

dissatisfied

Parmenides,
the most,
is

that

can

be

by
re

them,

that he did

not just at

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

quite in
ical

his

own
are

spirit,

that
at

many
once

particular

dialect

strokes

borrowed

from

him,

and,

consequently, that this whole

owe very much

to

him.

method does indisputably And it would certainly be

an injustice to look here for Plato^s opinion generally upon the system of Parmenides. This work, suppos
ing even we were to assume that Plato, at the time of its composition, had already made up his opinion
is in no degree nor in devoted to that object. Much rather is the any part main point of view on the strength of which Parmeni

upon the Eleatic philosophy,

des

here

comes
the

forward,

and

for

which

in

fact

he
first

conducts
to

dialogue,

that

of having been

the

make

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

dialectics

which

he praises in him from those of the

first

as well as the

127
universal founder of the art.

Hence

his

visible

endea

vour to represent the dialogue as one that actually took For place, and to put its authenticity beyond a doubt. otherwise it might have been a matter of perfect indif
ference to
critic,

him

to

be tauntingly asked by an over-curious

this dialogue, as Socrates,

whence he could know

after the lapse of so

many

years, did certainly narrate

far then
it

nothing of the kind.

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

How

point

we

cannot,
is

think, decide

For there

in

point of fact

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

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

is to

be placed

upon the

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

obscure and indefinite, or,

if

he wished to

reduce
at his

it

to objective certainty,

he had greater licences

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

command than

unhesitatingly availed himself.

finite description,
if

To

what purpose

this

de

Plato neither knew

stance

had taken

place,

how the circum nor had calculated how it might

have taken place ? But without reference to truth of fact, and suggested only by Plato s undeniable endeavour to
gain the dialogue an appearance of historical foundation, a circumstance is here to be brought into notice, with

regard to which no one yet seems to have entertained any suspicion, although the general opinion of it tends
to charge Plato with an absurdity of

which

should be

128
sorry to believe

him

guilty.

For who,

would

ask, is

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

supposed to In Cephalus,

tell
first,

the story

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

it

bring the dialogue so far in order to repeat

presence, and such
is

in Plato s

the supposition,

must have reached

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

zomenae comes,

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

two following
not to

this is a fiction of

Plato

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

make
?

Sicilian

men

inquire curiously after dialogues

of Plato

would be a somewhat ponderous and complicated process in order to remedy a more trifling evil, and one that might have been avoided with perfect
that
ease.

But

To
in

introduce, then,
so

think
reason,

doing

that

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

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

and on that of the remainder

intrude itself more upon the notice, and, in the next, Cephalus need not on that account be made a Clazomenian, but need only have hospitable acquaintances there.

Or Cephalus

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

the

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

But

this

only in passing.

The

who

are Glaucon,

Adimantus and

Antipho

The

first

well-known brothers

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

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

where

else

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.

But do
?

these

things come even within the range of

it

possibility

For

cannot, notwithstanding the uncertainty which attaches

to Cephalus, be in the Republic,

meant

to be said, that Plato

brothers,

advanced age, of the same Cephalus arrival

1

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

and ready

to promise
to

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

But even sup have been another of that name far

their interest.

him

makes a Cephalus relate it who has himself heard it from Plato s own younger brother so that Plato might
;

have had

it

by a

far less

roundabout process.

And

the

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

much

and while

still a growing boy, from an ear-witness, whose minion he appears to have been, and, notwithstanding, should be already a man at the time of Socrates early

youth.

Whoever

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
tale.

Let us therefore
this half-brother

without more ado

relieve Plato

from

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
;

who Glaucon and Adimantus

called
to the

were, unless perhaps Glaucon the elder and Callaeschrus had yet another brother

Adimantus from

whom

the

name was transposed

about the out younger. But too much already ward circumstances of the dialogue, as there is yet some the internal matter thing remaining to be said upon
itself.

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

The

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,

seems, whether

we regard

it

as disproportionate or over

simple, entirely unworthy of Plato.

Whoever

recollects

how
out
in

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

whole course,

will,

in this dialogue too, expect

conclusion at least a

similar

indication

of surprise,

and an express confession that a

investigation
is

requisite.

How
;

still more searching then such a conclusion,

supposing
it

it

to

is

difficult

to conceive

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

through so much that was tiresome would hardly have There refused to add the little that was gratifying.
remains, accordingly, scarce any other supposition except that Plato was interrupted for a considerable time by

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.
tion,
if

the supposition

is

to

out,

may have been either the

after

be more accurately made flight to Megara, which

Plato
s

followed
first

the

death of Socrates, or even

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

For even supposing Plato, agreeable with probabilities. and this supposition is of itself hardly credible, to have
composed such a work during the unquiet times in which Socrates accusation was prepared and finished, in that
nothing could prevent him from giving it the finish It is much more probable that ing touch at Megara. it was at Megara, when, during Plato s composed stay
case,

there,

and certainly not without

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

having exercised the school which took its

itself

his

especially

to

was formed.

But

if

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,
as that, generally, the best part

are lost,

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

put
ideas

in

connection with the

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
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
s

to another, will find in the

it,

work as

we

at present

have

that dialogue, and

will

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

But as to the reader who is not convinced thing further. we can only lay before him the following con of this,
siderations

which to the reader yet unacquainted with The difficul Plato can be verified only by the sequel. to every theory ties which are here adduced in opposition of ideas, are not to be solved in the philosophy of Plato
otherwise than by an accurate comparison of the purer or higher knowledge with that which is empiric, and
further,

by the doctrines of Original Contemplation and

;

Recollection

subjects,

therefore,

to

the

exposition

of

important dialogues from the Theaetetus upwards. Now if he is to be sup posed to have already completed this in the Parmenides, to what purpose are all these dialogues, every one of

which Plato has devoted a

series of

which

treats its

subject as
all

if,

from the very bottom,

before
?

it

had never been at

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

But

if

the

Tennemann assumes, than

toil it

the Sophist, what an

to

unhappy
and

would be for one who knew how

do
;

better, to propose as riddles

what had ceased to be such

at

to repeat

with useless

what had been said

language
is is

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

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

for, partly of itself,

it

and partly as compared with them,

still

shews

itself

to

be technical language

in a state

of earliest

infancy,

by

its

unsteady

manner

in

which

it

grasps,

wavering, bv the not always successfully, at

fact

correct expression, and

by the

that

it

can scarcely

133
clench the most important distinctions in words.

This
trans

circumstance
lation.

occasioned great difficulties in

the

But

the

spirit

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

under the appearance of

of
the difficulty

understanding

of doing so infinitely aggravated, it, there was, I say, no other expedient but that of ob serving the most accurate fidelity, and of introducing

the reader altogether to the simplicity, and, if one may so speak, the helplessness of the growing philosophical

a process by which alone a translator is pre language vented from attaching to his author what does not belong to him, and, on the other, his own merit in having seen
the truth through
cially
all its
is

conceived

it,

ambiguities, and himself espe diminished.

APPENDIX TO PART

I.

I.

APOLOGY OF SOCRATES.

IN the general Introduction to this exposition of the works of Plato, it has alreaSy been said that when
any pieces are thrown into from intending thereby at
of
at
all

this

Appendix we are
to

far
in

once

deny or
also the

call

question their Platonic origin.

Socrates,

Thus

Apology
the

times

loved and

admired for

spirit

sents

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

found

place because

it

contents itself with

its

peculiar object and has no scientific pretensions.

The

Euthyphro too has

reference
to

indeed

an

undeniable apologetic
:

the

accusation
its

brought against Socrates

it

but on the other hand

started in

connection with the notions

the
to

Protagoras gave
that

a manifest right to
the

be subjoined
contrary,
as

dialogue.

The Apology on
can
find

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

which

Jet
it

not
is

the

reader

start

it

might indeed be
I

said that

no work of PlatoV
his

mean

that

it

is

hardly

work of

thoughts,

any

thing invented

and composed by him.

the intention

For

if

we

attribute to

Plato
first

of defending

Socrates,

we must then

135
he might have done so, either during his process, or at all events at some period, how soon or how late is indifferent, after
of
all

distinguish

the

times

at

which

his condemnation.

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

who was

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

writings,

but

we

shall

soon

come
enough

to

know an
interwoven

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

important work, with his scientific labours,

and

one

closely

an Athenian as well as his

political virtue.

Now

a pro

ceeding of this kind admits of explanation, but Plato could scarcely find occasion at a later period for a piece

which merely opposes Socrates to his actual accusers. It must then have been during the process that Plato

composed
all

this
it

speech.
clear

events

is

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

on
their

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
obliged to repeat
ful.

much
the

or say something else less power

Hence
better

then,

more

excellent

the defence and

the

adapted to the

character

of

Socrates,
to him.

the

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

But
hypo-

to this

136
thesis.

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

to

establish a

memorial of

it

for

future times

or to

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

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

Socrates

but

to

another
latter

advocate

could alone

furnish of

them.

For the

could then

adduce
to

much

what
of

Socrates
his

would be

compelled

omit on

account
that

character,

and show

by

provided only the cause of the accused had been conducted by one not accustomed to despise what many even of noble birth did not
the

work

itself

despise,

it

would have taken

any

quite a different course.

for

Were
a
very

there

ground
one
it

whatever

an

anecdote,

Diogenes
writer,

improbable has preserved

for

must be confessed, which us from an insignificant

object

Plato^s

more natural

would

have been

to make known what he would himself have said if He would then have had he had not been prevented.

displaying in practice those higher precepts and expedients of language the power of which he had himself been the first to discover ;

an

opportunity

here

for

and he

certainly

would have been able

and
art
to

to

with great truth

sation

that

point

in

apply them the accu

which related

to

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
a

the
in

accusers of

Socrates, and have spoken of his

tone.

merits

a different
to

On

the other

hand, in

speech

attributed

137
Socrates himself but
tually
different

from
have

that which

he ac
object

delivered,
to

Plato

could

no
have

other

than

show
or

what

Socrates

would

voluntarily
his

neglected
fence

involuntarily

omitted,
in

and how
order to

de

must have been conducted

effect.

a better

Not

to

produce mention then that this would

without

have

been

scarcely

possible

renouncing

the

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

such a purpose.
the

For

after
in

such a speech

how should

supplement come

subsequent to the

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

pronunciation of the verdict

It therefore only remains to suppose that the sole

pose at the bottom

of this

piece

was to exhibit

pur and

preserve the essential points in the actual progress of the cause for those Athenians who were prevented from hearing it, and for the rest of the Hellenes,

and

for posterity.

Are we then
the

to

conceive

that in

such a case
unable
to

and under such circumstances Plato was

withstand
temptation
of
ascribing
to

Socrates an artificial piece, wrought

perfectly

by
in

himself, perhaps

strange

to

Socrates,
like
?

with

the

exception

of

the

first

principles,
set
:

pupil

rhetoric

who has
be
once
at
his

an

exercise
to
in

him

This

we

should

indeed

loath that

believe

rather
this,

would

we

assume

case

like

where nothing of
so

own
to

was wanted, and he

his

had entirely devoted himself

short

friend,

and

especially

time

before

or

after his

death as this piece was certainly composed

I

we would assume,
must have been
too

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

find the case to

art
this

have been

different.

For the

critic in

who had

at

the same time undertaken to improve

Thus
is
it

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

far

would have been possible

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

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

every thing in the service of Apollo,

made

sufficiently

prominent

from being and any reader whose eyes

is

far

are but half open will discover

more weaknesses of

this

to

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

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,

theless
insist

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

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

The
the

questioner, if he

is

otherwise ac

with

language

of

Plato,

need only be

referred to that to perceive

betrays that
Plato.

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

him speak, and

as

we, according to

all

that remains to

139
that any other of his pupils did make so little does this similarity admit of that on the doubt, contrary an observation of some im

us cannot

say

him speak.

And

portance
certain
larly

may

be founded
in

upon

it.

mean, whether
particu

peculiarities

the

Platonic

dialogue,

the

fictitious

questions

and

answers

introduced

into

one

proposition,

and the accumulation and com

often

prehension
positions in

under some other of several particular pro

common,

much

too enlarged for this

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

subordinate

period as begun
so very

whether these, as we find them here

are

prevalent,

not properly
in

to

be referred

to

Socrates.
in

They appear
is

Plato most in
;

those places

which he

particularly Socratic
least

but they are most

frequent and

clear

of their

accompanying negli

gences in this dialogue and the following one, which is And from these con probably homogeneous with this.
taken together a manifest probability arises that these forms of speech were originally copied after
siderations

Socrates, and consequently are connected with the

arts of Plato,

mimic

who endeavoured

to

certain degree to

imitate the language also of those

if

whom

he introduces,

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

they had

arrangement

here established, will find it very much And that other Socraticians did confirmed by them. not attempt such an imitation is accounted for on the

one hand, from the circumstance that no

required to

little

art

was

bend to a

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

and

on the

other,

more courage

was

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

upon

this

One circumstance however

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

which might be brought forward against the supposition of this dialogue having come from Plato, and indeed with more plausibility than any other ; I mean that
Plato stripped of the dialogic dress under which produces all his other works, and which is not wanting
it

is

Menexenus, which otherwise consists in of only one exactly the same manner as this does, Why, therefore, should the defence, which speech.
even
in

the

would
of
all

so

easily

have admitted
Plato
then,

of this

embellishment,

the

works of

alone
this

dispense

with
still

it ?

However convincing,
to allow

may

sound,
is

the

preponderance of to be it
reply

all

the other arguments

to

too great
;

sufficient

excite a
to

suspicion

and
It

we

therefore

as

follows

the

objection.
at

may be that the dialogic dress had not

become quite
so

that

time

a matter of necessity to Plato as it subsequently did, and this may serve to satisfy those who are inclined to set a great value upon the dress of the Menexenus; or Plato himself separated this de fence too far from his other writings to admit of his

much

And then again, wishing to subject it to the same law. it would be in general very unworthy of Plato for us to think of considering the dialogic dress, even in the
case of
into

works where
principal

it

the

matter,

capriciously appended ; a meaning and contributes

effect

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

to

does

not

the

conformation

and

of the whole.

Now

if this

would not have been

141
the
case here

why should
to

Plato have wished

it

forcibly

to introduce it?

Especially as

is

extremely probable
as

that

he

wished

hasten

as

much

possible

the

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

nion as to the result of the case, which,

the speech in a dialogue
it

if

he had involved

avoid, or this form would have been utterly

would not have been easy to empty and

in

unmeaning.

As
we may
from

to the

Athenian judicial process

all

similar cases,

certainly suppose

that has been contributed

various

quarters

for

the
;

understanding of

this
it

piece to be generally
self explains

known

moreover, the speech

necessary.

most of what

is

II.

CRITO.

HAVE
"

preceding
similarly

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

circumstanced

with

that

piece.

For

it

is

not be a work regularly possible that this dialogue may framed by Plato ; but one which did actually take place
as
is

here described,

which

Plato received

from the

interlocutor

could give
embellish

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

and

in

the

well-known language

of Socrates,

ornamenting

the beginning

and the end,

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

here and there

when

142 For in this dialogue also there is the same Apology. entire absence of any philosophical object, and although the immediate occasion invited to the most important
investigations into the nature of right, law,
pact,

and com
at
all

which certainly engaged Plato

subjects

attention

times, these

are treated

of so exclusively and

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

the

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

Plato

s,

in

the composition

of which facts
it

had no

in

fluence, then

we must
occasional

attribute to
piece.

the character of

perfectly

It

is

indeed
in

expressly
it,

shewn that philosophizing has no place

particular
are
laid

as

the

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

down

as

other

writings

of

Plato,

process

which,

in

those works of Plato which have a philosophical

mean

ing

is

perfectly unheard of.

And what may be thought

to have been
if

the occasion of such an accidental piece,

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

was not

contained

in

the

Apology.

Or,

if

we

are to believe that

that the

Plato intended to
Socrates

make known
assist

the fact

friends of

wished to

Socrates to escape, but that he would not allow them

to

do

so,

and that

all

the rest with the exception

is

of

this historical

foundation

his

own

invention, in

that

on closer consideration, only about the first half of the dialogue would be intelligible, the latter half
case,
not.

For, on the one hand, there

tliis

able in

is nothing remark but the manner in which it circumstance,

143
takes place
;

inasmuch as the

foreseen from the defence,

result might be at once and therefore the friends of

Socrates

were justified

even

by

that,

supposing them

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

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

tion always

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
easily start

away from a thought

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,

excite

without addition and advancement,

nor

expectations
Crito
is

which

they

do not
the

satisfy.

Now

the

clearly

framed
is

plan, and although out beautifully and

the

idea

in

former upon the main worked

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
therefore,
I
still

hold

it

possible

may

have composed

this dialogue,

and think

that so immediately after the death of Socrates, he

may

have had the same conscientious purpose

cation of
it,

in

the publi

as in that of the

"

Apology".

Not before

a remote period, that into which, according to my views, the Pha3don falls, could Plato even in what relates to
the death of Socrates, pass from literal accuracy to a greater latitude in treating of those subjects, and inter-

144
weave them with an independent work of
for philosophical
art,

designed
will
still

exposition.

at

all

events,

for Plato, until a

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

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

language, against which Ast brings

no important objection, and which quite as clearly as that

in

the

t;

Apology"

unites all the peculiarities of the first

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

the subject of the di

alogue, and here abstains from

all

admixture of investi

gation into the

first

principles, an act of abstinence

which

was certainly not possible

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
is

also

the strong emphasis with which the announcement

that to those
principles, all

who do

not

start

from the
is

made, same moral

deliberation in

common

impossible, an
in

emphasis

to

be ascribed rather to

Plato,

order

to

explain the style and method of the dialogue,

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

Little value
is

first

principles.

be put upon the story of Diogenes that JEschines was actually the interlocutor, and that
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
also, died
all

soon after the death of Socrates.

We

see at

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

So that the circumstance

it,

is

and only the cause of

superadded.

by whom who

probably founded can tell ?

fictitiously

III.

ION.
to the

SOCRATES proves two things

sodist
:

First,
is

that

if his

Athenian rhapbusiness of interpretation and

it

criticism
to

a science or an art,

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
rhapsodist generally to judge of the poet, but that this can only be done in reference to every particular passage by one who is acquainted, as an artist and adept, with

what

Now
it

every instance described in those passages. will be at once manifest to every reader that cannot have been Plato s ultimate object to put a
is
it

in

rhapsodist to shame in such a manner.

For even they

s
is

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

who can never

writings directed

towards
overlook

common
the

life

and the improvement of

that

it,

cannot
a

circumstance

those

rhapsodists,

somewhat subordinate

class of artists,

who were

for the

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

146
cultivation of the youth

of a higher rank,

that

Plato

should have

made them an

object of his notice

and

Sobutt of his irony. Nay, viewed even as a genuine cratic dialogue, we must still look for some other and more remote purpose in it for which Socrates committed
himself so far with such a man.
It

was therefore very

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

from many very

fall

definite

allusions

to

the Phaedrus, to
is

into the supposition that the rhapsodist

shell,

be looked upon as the

and that what

is

only to here said

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
art.

in

But not only

in

is

this

proposition
it

brought

forward
that

so

direct

a form,

that

could

scarcely for

very reason be considered

the main

purpose of the dialogue to maintain it, but it returns upon us in almost the same words as we found in the

more deeply grounded, as it might be inferred from the same principles that poetry is but
Phaedrus,
neither

an
it

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

logue,

art

and

in this

was cursorily attributed to the tragedians, manner the two ideas, that of art and divine
be combined with one another.
is

inspiration,

nothing of the kind

here to be found,

As then how should a

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

set

and

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

one and indivisible

that every art

from one another, according to which it cer This is upon the tainly would not in that case be one. whole so very much in the Platonic manner, to lead from
distinct

one proposition over to its opposite, that whoever has remarked the gradual transition will certainly look at once
for

of poetry,

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

solved, as the real object

Now

him who searches

and purpose of the dialogue. carefully, there do indeed

;

that the pro something like the following posed object is by no means an object of the poet in the sense in which it is his who deals with it for a
exist in

certain

end according

to the

rules of art,

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,

there

is

a greater want of any kind of instruction

for

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,

already quite

and certainly placed

;

upon a better and more

dialectic foundation

so that the

dialogue does nothing for them, further than investigate them in disconnection with the principles on which they
rest; a process
slightest
use.
itself,

which can never be of any but the very

Hence

the question naturally

is

upon

this

presents

what the Ion

to

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
For, compare as

we

the appearance of the

view,

and

not

the

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

that what might lead the reader to consider the notices

to

which we just now alluded as the main object of

is

is

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

distinguished

from
it

artless

handicraft,

but not from

that

which presents

as

endeavouring to produce a

work by means of that knowledge, whereby it discon This latter point is nects itself from pure science.
cursory manner only, and never accompanied by a hint of the kind which in the Pro tagoras and its family, and even so early as in the Lysis, marked out the way with so much distinctness.

touched upon

in

And

this

can

be neither

attributed

to

the

nature of

the dress in
ascribes

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

poet

nor does

confusion

of

the

unities

of

the

object

and the work wear the

appearance of purpose

sufficiently to

make

it

petent

guide.

And

going further, a com since the conclusion comes round

without

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

present themselves,

when

we consider
reference to
tion

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

and language;
spirit

for

many

details
in

are
his

so

much

in

the peculiar

of

Plato

and

most genuine

149
method, that we think we certainly recognize him in them alone ; and then again we come sometimes upon
his

weaknesses such as we could scarcely ascribe to him in earliest stages, sometimes upon faulty resemblances
other passages

to

which have completely

the

appear
will

ance of

unfortunate imitations.

The

annotations

show

this

more accurately,

as

points of that kind can

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

as

we contemplate
drawn from one

this

dialogue,
to

our judgment
other,

thus

side

the

and

the

balance wavers unsteadily without giving a decisive kick,

two
it

distinct theories spontaneously arise,

between which
keep a deter
s

may

not be very easy to

choice.

make

or

to

mined

For

either

one of Plato

pupils

may

have composed the dialogue after a hasty sketch of his master, in which some particular passages were worked
out more fully than others, or at least taking Plato s hints and expressions as guides, whence the obscure

arrangement of the whole, as well as the various exe

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

correction

of the finishing hand.

The

only period in

which
early

it

as

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

viewed only as the

ing the dialogue

essay towards the

mode

of treat

commenced subsequently

to this

work,

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

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

nature of the Art of Poetry, or whether

had nothing

150
in view tain

beyond a playful and polemic extension of cer sentiments expressed in the Phaedrus to attempt
might be hazardous.
that

to decide this further, in the present uncertainty of the

case,

to

maintain

the

Sooner might one be able bringing out and publication

to

of the work were,

not

say unintentional,

such

as

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

no trace of external circumstances can be found

might
perhaps
like

most
a

naturally

have been
spoiled

that

pretty,

though

pet,

somewhat
loadstone,

and

abused
for

comparison with

the

from fondness

which, in

Plato

may
have

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

off this

little

more

hastily

than

would other

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

wise

been

done,

without

of

it,

if

he did
the

not otherwise
subject.

lay

any par
this

ticular

value upon

main

But even

comparison would have found a place so appropriately in the Phaedrus, where the dependency of different men upon different gods, and the attractions to love
thence resulting, were under discussion, that
it

were to

be wished Plato

had discovered

it

at

that

time,

and
Ion.

by
so

that

means perhaps spared us

this
little

this

ambiguous
it

In any case

dialogue,

betraying as

does

many

suspicious

features,

and devoid of any par

claim
it.

ticular philosophical

to

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

151

SUPPLEMENT.

IT
this

is

not

without mature
to
;

reflection

that
as

I
it

leave

introduction
written
in

stand
for
it

in

the

main

was

originally
to

does not seem to

edition
all

extinguish

later

traces

me good of how

circumspectly,

and

have

gone to Plato which appeared

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

me

at

first

suspicious,

that

my method of proceeding might be the less liable to be confounded, by attentive readers at least, with a frivolous and precipitate criticism coming in after the
As for the rest, every reader thing was decided upon. who compares the annotations with the introduction
remark that I give more space to the grounds of suspicion than to the defence, which last however
will

thought

case of a
entirely
frain

it incumbent upon me to investigate in the work which, with all its weaknesses, is not without a Platonic tone; and even now I re

from cancelling that defence, as it may pave the way towards explaining what is unquestionably Platonic in detail, supposing the work itself to be condemned
as not genuine.

But Bekker marks

decisively as
full assent.

this

and the follow

ing dialogues more

doing, has

ungenuine^ and, in so

my

152

IV.

THE LESSER
a great
its

HIPPIAS.
similarity
to

THIS dialogue has

the

Ion,

considered as well in itself and

whole design, as any

in

one must see on a comparison of the two, as

ence to the

refer
in

ambiguity of

its

Platonic origin.
find

For

the Hippias also

that
is

we not only

combined with much

that
is

genuinely Platonic so

much

suspicious,
also

that one side might easily balance the other, but

in point

of peculiar character each looks so like

in that dialogue that the

what

we meet with

same view which

rejects or adopts

the one must draw

down
in

a like sen

tence upon the other.

For
is

as regards, first of all, the

essential

subject-matter and what

is

the form,

each

hitherto

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

agreement with them.

The two
first,

positions

which are im
is

mediately adduced, that,

the

man who

right

wrong in any matter is one and the same, namely he who knows something of it; and that again which in itself I can by no means consider,
is

and the man who

as

Ast does, unsocratic, which maintains that he who

in
all

errs intentionally errs

things

is

better

than

he

who

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

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

nature of the will

the

same time

to

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

virtue can

can

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

no one
Platonic

earlier

153 method of philosophizing.

in the

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

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

to

be established as coming

from Plato?

Now

if

the Hippias was written after the

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

the latter.
for
it

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

case:

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

namely, the Good.

is

it

is

introduced

quite

in

different

manner, and
in

in

both
goras

conducted negatively
it

only.

For
the

the

Prota

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

is

that

that Virtue, in so far

as

it

is

a knowledge,
it is

is

not

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

concerned
persons

many

easier

to

discover

the

positive

conclusion

in

the

Hippias,

can

prove nothing in favour of the

dialogue.

later composition

of that

On

the

contrary,

154
it

is

manifest

that

Plato

was very well

satisfied

with
little

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

as in

the

and the

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

goras, a position which
it

in

the Hippias.

after

the

Prota

always occupies, must ever Moreover we find interrupt the natural progression.
neither in

the

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

part of

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

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. the notion that the hypothesis in the Prota entertain
goras might be laid
is,

down naked and unsupported

as

it

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

155
place the Hippias before the Protagoras, and to re gard it as the first attempt to bring forward those ideas
to

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

in to

successful,

and from that cause

it is

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

woven

into

it,

with

all

immediately

dependent there

upon would be an addition perfectly new, but then it is also very conceivable that something of the kind must have occurred to Plato when he wished to improve and discuss anew a And this subject already treated of.
view might even be brought to a higher degree of pro if it was more bability, accurately shown how some kind
of germ, though mostly in an extremely imperfect state, of every thing else contained in the Protagoras may be found in the Hippias, whether we look to the
subject-

matter,

or
is

to

the different

modes of treating

it.

As

then this

the most favourable view which

it

may

be taken

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

true,

supported

the Hippias by the Prota

it

goras, in no case could any other place be assigned

except in this appendix.

But when
vestigated,
this

details

come

to be

favourable

view wanes

more accurately in again, and a

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

immediately and at first sight only on consideration of the dress in which the dialogue appears. For, first, there is much here so awkward that we can
it to Plato, and then, in the whole conversation about Hippias olympic exhibition, the irony upon the sophists is severed from the
1

do indeed

arise

hardly attribute

remaining subject-

156
matter of the dialogue in a way not to be found in Plato elsewhere; and again, the variations in the manner of
the dialogue are so pointlessly introduced, that that Plato should have so scarcely possible
it

seems

applied
the read

them even for the

first

time.

But when once

er s attention is taken

by

these particulars, he will then

be led to view more

eye.

in this dialogue with a suspicious

blances to

for example, of the unquestionable resem the Protagoras are open to the suspicion of imitation, when we consider that in that dialogue they arise out of the additional subject-matter not found in while in the Hippias they furnish only the

Many,

Hippias,

unmeaning ornament. And again, the manner particu interlocutors start with Homer looks larly in which the
like

an expedient of some pupil unacquainted with those as also the com more valued by Plato lyric poets,
;

plaint

that

it

is

impossible

now
is

to ask

the Poet what

he meant by the sentiment,

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

dialogues.

Nay

more,

whoever

once

looks

whole dialogue in this light, the closely at the

it

example

affords of

the practice of dialectics, will

him of a remarkable kind;

awkward, and almost
that

appear to sometimes timid, sometimes

the
to

only resembling
led

Ion.

So
it

persons might easily be best to apply to the Hippias also the same theory as to the Ion ; reserving, that is, to Plato, his undeniable

many

consider

property in the

first

invention and arrangement

and re

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

157
taste of his master.

Hence Bekker

has, in

my

opinion,

done quite right in

to an

at once ascribing this dialogue also

;

who, it is extremely proba ble, might be one and the same person with the com On the other hand however, others poser of the Ion. may regard it as a preponderant argument in favour
of the genuineness of this dialogue, that Aristotle quotes it not indeed under the name of Plato, but still just
as

unknown composer

he

will frequently

quote other decided works of his

teacher.

For

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

to Plato.

V.

HIPPARCHUS.
after

IT

was not until

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

discover in the dialogue,

is,

is

Pla

tonic enough.

This

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
that

that

when men
Hence
s

embrace the bad they do so only in

it

error.
it

might be very easy

to

believe

was Plato

158
purpose
to to
start
life

also

from

this

idea

appertaining

common

as

he did from that of discretion and

courage, and thus to penetrate to the central point of his As it is also the case that this notion philosophy.

very well calculated to be projected into that higher and genuinely ethical theory relating to the love of the
is

good. to be

This favourable view of the dialogue appears

still

more corroborated by a passage almost

at

the

end, pretty clearly alluding to a further extension of the principles and views brought forward in what has pre ceded. be that this Accordingly it

might
is

thought

dialogue, like the former,

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

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

Plato,
to

as in

the

Lysis the preliminary dialogue

does

the rest.
case,

An

present

because

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

cussion the idea of

transition

good there
it

receives,

that

the

to

an extension of

like

that in the

Hip-

parchus
that

may
is

what

very easily be conceived. Except indeed there hinted of the idea of the useful

be far more Platonic than what we proclaims have here in the Hipparchus. The dialogue would then be a small fragment of which the commencement is want
itself to

and whose present conclusion must have been added a very unskilful hand. For no intelligent reader will by be able to discover in any thought of Plato s, however
ing,

cursorily expressed, any ground for believing him capable of annexing such a termination, nor would any one with even the slightest insight into the plan of the dialogue think of concluding or And interrupting it thus.

quite
a

as

little

is

it

Plato

custom to break

in

with such

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

introduction.

Meanwhile,

even

though we would

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,

For,

firstly,
is

that
to

connection

with
is

other

Platonic

ideas,

which

save

the piece,

never

even in the slightest degree forthcoming, and the sup position of the existence of a higher ethical object, or a genuine dialectic treatment, has no foundation in any
since there is no dialogue of thing but good-nature Plato, take it where you will, such that, if a portion co-extensive with the Hipparchus were selected or com
;

piled out of

the main branch to which that portion not be recognised by any one from in belongs might fallible tokens. On the contrary, the Hipparchus as
it,

we have

it,

is

connected with no
is

other

dialogue of

Plato whatever, and

its

so far

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

calculated

to

remove

it.

For the

dialectics

which

it

and lame performance, always re volving upon the same point on which it was fixed at the commencement, without making a single step in advance.
exhibits are a tedious

And even supposing the plan of the dialogue to have been designed with far more enlarged views, who could think of ascribing to Plato that digression about the
Pisistratidae,

with

which so much that

is

not to the
contri

purpose buted even

is

mixed up, and which could not have

in

the sb ghtest

degree to any conceivable

160
object

whatever of the whole, so that

it

might rather

be looked upon as a specimen of antiquarian knowledge produced by some sophist who wished to display his
erudition.

But above

all

the Hipparchus

is

denounced

by the total absence of that which in the general preface, with the assent it is hoped of every reader, was men
tioned
as

test

of

Platonic

dialogues,

mean,

the

individualizing of the persons

Socrates.

who

are interlocutors with

For

there

is

not a single trace to be found here,

whether internal or external, which might indicate more accurately anything about the interlocutor. Nay even
the most external condition, the mention of his name, is not satisfied the by a single notice of it

throughout

so that the prefix of a name to his conver dialogue sation seems to be only the addition of some old copyist
;

or perhaps grammarian,

who was
title

usual circumstance, while the

surprised by this un* of the dialogue seems

only to have come from that digression about the Pisistratida?.

Thus much

at

least

may be

easily

shown,
not
in such

that if Plato
called

composed the dialogue, this

at

man was
first

Hipparchus with his consent.

the

For how

a case would Socrates even

very of the Pisistratid have abstained from noticing the si milarity of his name to that of the interlocutor?
Certainly on no supposition whatever. But the intro duction of a quite indefinite and anonymous person is not only completely at variance with the nature of the
Platonic dialogue, but here in particular
it

mention

would have

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

So

that,

even

plan of
to

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

according

which

some

other

writer

has

worked

161
for the plan

must have contained the

of
the

first

outline,

upon

which the
rested.

suitability

On
in

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

and a very poor one

be pointed out frequently

enough

particular

instances

by the

notes,

in

order

to confirm the sentence of rejection

from

this side also,

although even here only some points are indicated while

the rest
lological
starts
is

left

to

reader.

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

could

not

be rendered otherwise than

although
in

by
this

gewmnsucht
one.
to

(avarice,)
so

common

life

word does not bear

bad a

signification as the

Greek

For the
in

essential characteristic of eagerly seeking

gain

trifles

word than

in

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

to the ethical notion of love for the

good cannot
purpose

strike

the

ear

too
is

strongly

as

far

as

the

of

the

dialogue

concerned.

162

SUPPLEMENT.

SINCE
gress

first

has

been made

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

following dialogue.

That both might

the

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
;

buted to one and

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

that hypothesis

is

by no means of much
have
let

importance.

Notwithstanding
it

this I

my

cautious

introduction stand as

was, partly that the history of

entire, partly for

the investigation
ity s

may remain
and

uniform
left

sake.

For the same reason

that

also

have

the

dialogue in its old place,

fully

in the title,

though

am

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

of BoecklVs

the original one

anticipation

with regard to the next dialogue

also.

163

VI.

MINOS.
will
suffice

FEW words

again

to

gain assent to

the rejection of the

First, as

Minos

as well

as

the Hipparchus.

assigning this as its proper reader must see the remarkable place, every similarity between it, and the Hipparchus, which is so great that they seem both of them to have been turned out of the

to the reason for

same mould.
ly,

The beginning

breaks

in just

as violent

weakly and inappro after a new priately, investigation had apparently but So that even with regard to this just begun.
off just as

and the end breaks

sorry

performance some persons have quieted themselves with

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
;

the supposition, that

all

that

discussion, not tending at all to advance the

ject,

main sub

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

upon a personage of

And, what

this

character and circumstance, but also nameless, and can the less be called Minos, as he no where gives even a hint that betrays him to be a and Minos was stranger,

never an Athenian name.

to the
it

And

further, whoever looks

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

abundance of examples, nor anything more accurately defined by comparison with a similar idea; on the con trary, they pass with the most unsocratic carelessness from one idea to another; as from that of to
certainty

that

of opinion,

and every

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 ;
the supposition of an identity of composer, but nature of the subject. ciently explained by the
is

in-

this

circumstance, however, excites no presumption against

suffi

For the

the purpose of the dialogue generally cannot have been is all show and pre investigation of an idea, but this because no Socratic dialogue can tence, adopted however, exist without it, the main object being only a poor jus

But prejudice in favour of Crete. this Minos has in itself a still further and more peculiar
tification of Socrates

mark of

spuriousness, in

of the language.

the pre-eminent awkwardness Instead of either seriously using the

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

and without sophistical

trick,

the author,

clumsy workman, miserably entangles himself be tween these two processes. Again, the name of the
kingly art is put abruptly and without any referential notice as a thing conceded, for the art of statemanship, This is and that of the kingly man for statesman. brought in here out of the later Platonic dialogues,

out of which however the composer, whose imitation of Plato is always harping upon the most frequented places y

was incapable of drawing anything more profound. But it is unnecessary to add more upon a subject clear as to any one who will see. day

165

VII.

ALCIBIADES

II.

ALREADY

in ancient times,

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. the more probable that there was at least only

some decided reason existing for denying this little work to Plato; though no such testimony is in fact wanting

The upon which to hang a decisive sentence of rejection. case however of this dialogue is very different from that For many might of those hitherto rejected or suspected.
probably say that
it is

better in

many

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

points of view, but to confess that it

ment, and also in the execution.

For,

first,

as regards

congratulated trine of Socrates upon the subject of prayer; and this is principally the reason why this place in particular has been assigned to this dialogue, in order to refer

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

back

to the

Euthyphro and

the

Apology

together.

For

when we

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
it

could any one

who has understood

the spirit of

the hints in

the Euthyphro and the

Apology

consider

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

man must

trary, this is

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

nature of those of which Socrates says in the Euthyphro, that it is perhaps because he does not consent to anything of the kind, when people maintain such propositions con
cerning the gods, that he is calumniated and accused of And the latter view is quite as manifestly at impiety.
variance with
in the
all

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

And

is

Socratic or not,

how poorly

worked up.

For

as long as the supposition remains

in existence, of inconsistency

of the gods, of what use can

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

knowledge of what
that Plato

is

best, if they
?

may

also refuse this

according as they think proper

But

if it

should be said

by

this contradiction

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

is

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

dialogue, but

what we

find

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
a

this doctrine is certainly Platonic

enough, and

preliminary discussion of it might fairly find a place here with reference to the But dialogues soon to follow. the manner in which it is forward is far from

brought
;

Platonic,

or even

Socratic

for

it

was,

as

we know,

good, private and public, can arise only from virtue, and not conversely ; while here the necessity for the knowledge of the best
that
all is itself
is

Socrates

himself

who

said

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

like

manner

this

method of drawing conclusions

is

neither

moral nor
to

scientific

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.

immediately

before the last result quite comes out, that those namely must rule in the state who have attained to the

knowledge

of the best, Socrates shoots off again to that discussion about prayer, which can however be nothing but the

even before that the unity of the work is destroyed by the proposition being maintained that ignorance itself may be to a certain degree a good,
a proposition which, in default of anything better, leaves
still

setting of the whole.

And

of

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

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

The arrangement,
in

moreover, as exhibited in the manner

which

this theory

about the knowledge of the best

is

connected with that of prayer, reader so capricious and so

that
it

must appear

to

every

entirely destitute of

any art

is

not possible to tax

Plato with such a work.

And

in like

manner, as regards the execution, the un-

168
Platonic character of the work
1

upon the whole

is

shown

in the poverty of Socrates sentences, the miserable little formulas with which, in order to tack the dialogue on

again

as

it

is

slipping

through his

hands,

he

asks

opinion of it, the very slight use made of Alcibiades, his want of anything like marked character,
Alcibiades"*

all the by-work, and still more matter be brought forward all this is so prominent, might that particular turns, which come out Platonically enough,

the indistinctness in

that

can excite no doubt whatever of the spuriousness of the dialogue, but only confirm the opinion that the composer

had indeed read

less

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
into
his
spirit than

his

worst anachronisms of which he can be accused.

is

For

it

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

reference to certain facts connected with this dialogue,

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

chelaus

say nothing of the fact that in the same dialogue the intention of murdering Pericles is without
;

to

any necessity lent by supposition to Alcibiades, as if it were possible that the former should have been alive a
short time after the death of Archelaus.

END OF THE FIRST TART.

PART

11.

I.

GORGIAS.
greater dialogues

LIKE

all

Plato

up

to this point

laid before the reader, the following has

his principal

For we

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

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

missed,

all

correct insight into

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

particulars, and

that reason could hardly form a conception of the meaning

of the whole

so in

the present instance, misled in like

later title of the

manner by a second and unquestionably

dialogue,
far too
"Or

much

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

Speaking,"

upon the Art of

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

earlier)

more

fully in

the books of the Republic. An idea which for the very reason that it is more ingenious than they are aware,

conveys nothing

at all definite as to the peculiar character

170
of this

may

For what important production of Plato be said to contain, rightly understood, such not
work.
?

outlines

So much, however,
that according
to

is

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,
;

especially

the inquiry upon

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
can

for that very

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.
yet, as the latter, endeavour absolutely to set forth

at a

Nor
the

two

real sciences, Physics

ratory and progressive steps

that

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

when considered

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

collective

works, and
before us,

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.

and perfectly existent, in other words, of the eternal and unalterable, with which, as we have seen, every exposition of Plato s philosophy
intuition of the true

The

commenced, has its opposite pole in the equally general, and to common thought and being no less original
and underived, intuition of the imperfectly existent, everflowing and mutable, which yet holds bound under its
form
all

action

and thought
reality.

as they can

in actual, tangible,

be apprehended Therefore the highest and

most general problem of philosophy is exclusively this to apprehend and fix the essential in that fleeting chaos, to display it as the essential and good therein, and so

drawing forth
reconcile
it

to

the

full

light

of consciousness the

apparent contradiction between those two intuitions, to

at the

same time.

necessarily resolves itself into

different

This harmonizing process two factors, upon whose

rests

relation

to

each other

the difference of

the

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

methods.

for the first time to

awaken and explain the conscious

the immediate

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

ness of this contradiction

means of

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

very necessity of such a mean towards it, this is the method which we have named the indirect or mediate,

172
and which being for many reasons especially suited to one who commences on ethical ground, is here placed

by Plato in the centre, as the true mean of connexion and progressive formation from the original intuition,
his elementary

starting-post, to the constructive exposi

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

and
and

the principal object for the second part of Plato^s works, their common problem, will be to show, that science
art cannot be discovered, but only a deceitful sem blance of both must be ever predominant, so long as these two are exchanged with each other, being with

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

yet without holding each course entirely

:

apart in different writings

that

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

are made, from the very position of

knowing and acknow

of ledging that antithesis to develop rightly the essence

science

and

art

and
at

their

fundamental outlines.
this
class,

The
it

Gorgias stands
rather limits

the

head of

because

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

ing

herein,
its

fixing

on

its

inmost

spirit,

as

the

root,

The openly displayed arrogance as the fruits. observe this general distinction, they remaining dialogues
and
in the observation of the scientific partly go farther back in mere seeming, partly farther forwards in the idea

of true

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

From

this point, then,

we observe a natural connection

between the two main positions demonstrated to the inter

locutors with Socrates in this dialogue.

The

first,

that

their pretensions to the possession of an art properly so

called

in

their art of speaking are entirely

in

unfounded

and the second, that they are involved

a profound

mistake in their confusion of the good with the pleasant.

And
in

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

whole,
is

may be

explained.

For when

it is

the good that

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

that

is,

unity

is

to
it

the work generally.

And

moreover,

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,
from
the state, to its least, the em greatest object, bellishment of sensuous existence. Only, as his custom
its

most fond of using the greater form as the scheme and representation of the general, and the less, on the other hand, as an example and illustration of the
is,

Plato

is

greater

that no one

may

lose himself, contrary to Plato s

latter,

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

which can never be

rhetoric,
it

For

is

to

be

observed,

is

here used to represent the whole would-be

art of politics,

only to represent it, and account especially, the introduction to the Protagoras is here repeated, verbally one might almost say, in order to draw attention the more certainly, by this change in

but

still

on that

the

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

more
it

closely

drawn

in

that

dialogue

and the Phaedrus, and further, to what

is

notwithstand

ing here more intimated than expounded or systematised, the separation of rhetoric from sophistics, so that the
former, regarded as an art under the category of the science of semblance, is to contain whatever refers to
the greatest object of
all

art,

the state, while sophistics, the semblance

as is further explained elsewhere, contain

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

is,

proper sense of this indisputably

that

sophistics are to be supposed to imitate the knowledge

of

the

first

principles,

from which

certainly

original

composition

the application
is

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

and

conformation

and

rhetoric

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

human
its

pre

; rhetoric, on the contrary, like politics in the ordinary sense, can never be anything but a remedial art, and applies those principles to a given

and production

corruption.

Here

then, to discover

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,
is

The

shown on the

whom

a similarity in disposition

had made a pupil of the other two; and then in the last section in which Socrates recapitulates all that had pre
ceded, both sets of principles are shown to originate in the same one vicious principle, and to point to the same
deficiency.
Still,

as

it

is

not natural to Plato to

make
do

any

decisive divisions in his general plan, so neither

find

we here

them

in particular in the different sections.

175
In the
to
first,

then, of these, Socrates shows to Gorgias,

whom

Plato,

we know not with what

that

justice, ascribes
in his instruc

at the outset a
tions,

somewhat limited purpose

purpose

representing that

tends
in

only

to

proper conduct of political

cultivation of virtue

life,

and

no way to the

own method,
justice

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

injustice, which nevertheless he is obliged to recognise as the objects of his art, can never be consciously contained in it, or given by it. To Polus however the
still

and

nature and relations of the art of semblance are

accurately exposed, and he
in
is

more
that

shown

in particular
still

the idea of the beautiful, which he

as

refuses to

give up unmeaning, and persists in assigning to it a of its own, the commission of injustice proves to province be worse than the sufferance of it, which leads immedi
ately to a distinction between the

good and the pleasant.

Here again
in

the comparison

very near, that we

his

may

with the Protagoras comes be enabled to see the use which

indirect

investigations
;

Plato makes of the idea

it

of the beautiful

formally and hypothetically only, and, allowing it to be entered as an abstract and exclusive notion, explains dialectically its relation to other homogenous ideas as to which

mean, that he propounds

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

is

so

multifariously

explained in the Protagoras itself

nected with
it.

and the dialogues con In the dialogue with Polus the identity

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

in

(what indeed had been already contradicted

dialogues), that this distinction

previous

would depend only upon time. Whence, as soon as the distinction between the and the pleasant is made out, the result comes good
out of
itself, that the idea of the useful is immediately connected with the good. In the conversation with Callicles Socrates imme
*

diate purpose

is

chiefly to

awaken the consciousness of

that opposition,

and

to

force his interlocutor to allow

all

that the proposition,

that

good

is

exhausted in

the

pleasant, has no

support

in internal consciousness,

but

that this hypothesis compels

good

beyond the sphere attempts which in conjunction

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

with

Callicles

Socrates-

makes

for accomplishing this end,

and which, moreover,

are especially remarkable on account of the admixture,

might fairly be allowed to constitute in themselves the most ingenious I mean, when we further take into part of this work. consideration the manner in which they fail and the
first

the

as

yet,

of

Italian

wisdom,

necessity for this failure,

as
is

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
it is

something in per
as arising in the

petual flux,

and can only be conceived

177
transition
is

from one becoming state to another.

far too

All this

in

fact

ingenious,

far too fully

worked out

and too accurately treated

it

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

only collateral

This explanation, as soon as Callicles has admitted a distinction between the pleasant and the good, though only quite in general terms, is followed by the third
which connects and comprehends the two pre In this, then, Socrates, in accordance with the ceding. ethical and preparatory nature of the work, concludes
section,

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
the Phaedrus,

and there

is

to

certain

extent

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

will

and

to

art

in

this,

as

the

past
in

does to

science

and knowledge in

that,

and that

the one as

only an image, while the essen tial point consists in the consideration of mind divested And thus Plato is so far from intending of personality.
well as the other
is

Time

to set such a

lead us to take

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

the popular mythology.

gias

Nor, moreover, does the Gorunnoticed,

leave

the
is

subject of love

but

in

this

dialogue love

quite as
it

much

the guiding principle of

the political art, as

tion

is in
;

the Phaedrus of the cultiva

of the individual

only, as

we must

at all events

suppose, relying upon the investigations pursued in the Lysis, it has already divested itself of its mythical dress.

178

this

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

us to our comparison with what has preceded brings to the proof second result: I mean that with reference

which the form

to
it.

supply, the Gorgias not only belongs the second part, but also occupies the first place in For in that which constitutes the main subject of

may

the dialogue, the

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

mutable, in

this

the

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

thing external,

could only serve for illustration.

so prepared the way,

But now when the Parmenides has

that
its
it

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

method, art is set up as something formed and finished, and the connection between the arts as something ex ternal, and the investigation is pursued rather with a
view of discovering whether they have an object, and

mere structure, a decided transition may be pointed out from the Phoedrus through the Protagoras to the Gorgias, and from this
what
it
is.

Nay,

if

we look

to the

to the

Euthydemus and
in like

Sophist, in which the form of

utter negation comes out most strongly.

And

manner

all

these dialogues are penetrated

throughout by

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

series,

it

is

quite

as

manifestly the

first

member

of

it,

partly on account of the similarity

already mentioned to the earlier method of instruction, partly because the last-mentioned combination of the
is far from being so ingenious and complicated as in the subsequent dialogues,

negative object with the positive

the Euthydemus for instance, and Moreover, Sophist. the subdivision of the under several heads, investigation and the apparently return to the commencement

frequent of the subject, are forms which the sequel and become most
the Lysis and
the
little

appear more often in important features, to which

connected with the

dialogues

Protagoras afford but slight approximations. Add to this, in order to fix the place of the Gor
gias
still

more
all

decisively,

the

ingenious

manner

in

which almost

the

earlier dialogues are

again taken

up

and sometimes particular points out of them, sometimes their actual results are more or less clearly
in
it,

interwoven

with

it,

and, on

the

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

series

already

lie

folded

up

in

this.

been already touched upon in point general with reference to the Phasdrus and Protagoras, but might still be pursued much further, and still
has

The former

more numerous references might be discovered in de tail. Thus from the Phaedrus the objection might be especially brought against Plato by other Socraticians,

180
that

notwithstanding

his

apparent

intention

in

that

method of that species of dialogue of correcting the rhetoric which tends only to delude, and his depreci
ation of
it,

he

still

allows

it

to
it

hold
as

such

place,

that

person might look upon

attainment.

an object of de
for
this,

sirable
in the

And

it

is

precisely

that

Gorgias its only possible between me principles, and of the necessary connection in so emphatic a form, and thod and thought, appears
is

use, according to

moral

so

multifariously
it

repeated,

in his

order

to

show how
to

impossible
to

is,

starting from

principles,

come
from

any view, with regard

here
projected.

to this subject,
in

different

that

And

the Protagoras

the de

be scription of sophistical self-complacency might easily and the game too easy, when the thought exaggerated,
writer

of

the

dialogues

attributes

to
in

his
this

opponent

such

when Gorgias

dialogue, himself similarly circumstanced with Protagoras, he proves far more pliant and docile with regard to the turnings of the dialogue, and draws less
finds

follies

and absurdities.

Hence

ridicule

upon himself.
in

But,
at
all

on

the

contrary,
that there

Plato
is

shews afresh

Polus

events,

no

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
rious play with

the method which, though

certainly in

some degree an echo from the first series, manifestly stands here in a far more subordinate relation than the
similar one in

the Protagoras.
is

Lysis

not only

again from the the notion of the neither good nor

Thus

bad taken up as a thing granted and acknowledged, but also what we find in that smaller dialogue upon the
subject

of

love,

predominant as

it

is,

in

confined

181

and limited form, obtains in this, in the Phaedrus upon the nature

like

what was said

love generally,

of

an extended application, beyond mere personality, to the more important civil relations as well, inasmuch
as

with almost verbal reference to the

love for the boy

the people and

ordinate.
clearly

Lysis, love for are laid down as co

for

And

thus

too

it

is

now

the

first

time

proved,

that in
to

the

was justly attributed

allowed,

the doctrine, not,

Phaedrus a peculiar value must be it

every

brought forward with sufficient clearness for one, which inculcates the necessity of a simi
or character,
for
this,

larity in the ideal,

the production of

love between two minds.

With

moreover, we are

to put in connection that view of Plato which supports

itself against all

unmeaning disputation and persuasion,

principles morally opposed, can

that those,

who pursue

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.
Socrates

Moreover,
expressly

in

our present dialogue, Plato makes

that
that

acknowledge
the

the

principle

brought
nion

forward

in

Laches,

courage

cannot

be conceived apart from knowledge, is certainly his opi ; and, in like manner, what has been declared in
the introduction
to

the

Charmides

to

be the result of
I

that dialogue with reference to discretion. Socrates agrees in the explanation, that
virtue,
in
;

mean

that
is

discretion

so far

as

it

is

to

be regarded as health of

the mind

So also piety appears here, exactly

this principle also here receives corroboration. as it was defined in

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

first

that the supposition started at the end of the

that

sec

tion, just man always wills to act justly, appears to refer less to the general position already ad vanced elsewhere, that every one always wills the good, than to the principle that willing belongs quite as as knowing to the nature of necessarily justice in par

the

ticular,

and that

the

sceptical

this is exactly the natural result of treatment of the idea of justice in the

Hippias.
far

But any one must

being
either
as

see

that this reference

is

from

important
itself,

or

as

certain

as

the others.

For the principle

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
as

the majority of the subsequent dialogues, appear quite clearly as the references to earlier works which we
;

have instanced above

partly in the design of the whole,

partly in particular passages.

in

The manner,

for instance,
essential
dis

which,

after

the establishment of the

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

is

interwoven with the subject of the Philetus, the

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,

upon separating and divesting and the mode of exhibiting it my personality,

stress

laid

is,

as

it

were, a prophetic anticipation of the

Phasdo.

much
which

in

this

So that we may even decide from hence, how second period proceeded from the point
specified
as

we have

the

centre

point

of the

Gorgias, and what on the contrary belongs, so to speak, to a second formation, or must be referred to the point

And already indicated, as contradistinguished from it. I speak not so much of the as of the prin dialogues, cipal factors of the dialogues ; for it is precisely in this
reconciliation

of the two points of view, the theoretical

it
is,

and practical, brought about as

without

uniting

them

so

completely as to cancel
still

all

opposition between

the two, that the

more

artificial

form of the sub

sequent

dialogues consists.

Hence, even the Gorgias, strictly taken, can only be viewed as a moiety of the beginning of this second part, and it is not until we have combined it with the
Theaetetus that we can look upon
it

as constituting a

complete commencement, inasmuch as the latter treats of the opposition between existence in the abstract and
conception,
the

exactly as the Gorgias does

that

between

Hence, considering good and perceptive feeling. the total absence of any decisive testimony whatever as
to the period

of composition,

and moreover,

that

the

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

up
the

those traces and references, and

acquainted with

manner

in

which

it

is

Plato^s

custom to mark such notices,

will

undoubtedly discover

of himself more of the same kind copiously interwoven with the details of this dialogue. For other persons we be allowed to draw attention to some of them only. may

For

instance,

with

what

in

reference to

the

Phaedrus

and Protagoras appeared to us before in an apologetic light, still more matter connects itself in this dialogue
which we can only understand as a review of particular
declarations
as

had

of opinion against such Platonic writings hitherto appeared. However, what might be
this

said
limits

upon

must always remain within the of supposition, and the best method therefore
point

only to give slight indications in the particular places and passages where such matter occurs. And,
besides this, there
is

will be,

much

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
diate personal relation.

And

it

looks almost as

if

the

Apology of Socrates, changed as it thus is into a defence of the Socratic modes of thought and action, has rather
changed than
lost its personal relation,

and become a de

fence of Plato.

Least of all can this repetition lead us to agree so far with another writer as to believe that the

Gorgias must have been written soon after the death of Socrates, because assuredly Plato would not have
reproached the Athenians a second time with so detailed
a

history

of that

act

of which

they had long

since

repented.

For when we

recollect that this also applies

naturally to the Phsedo,

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,

is

would have no conceiv

able object; nor

there any sign whatever of ridicule

suffered or anger felt, for

either, that

no trace appears anywhere of have driven Plato to such reproaches might

of his fellow citizens.

On the contrary, the purpose I have indicated, of justifying himself by a retrospective view of what had lately happened, for his continual political inactivity, and at the same time of showing
how
fearlessly

he intended

to

continue his philosophical

course

this is a

purpose which he

may

well be

con

ceived to have entertained at a somewhat later period. Though indeed, as Plato, after having lived some time
at

Megara with

the other Socraticians, does not appear

to

what
at

have returned to Athens, for any long time at least, I have suggested can hardly have been the case an earlier period than after his return from his first

travels.

Soon afterwards, however, he might have had

A A

186
abundant occasion
kind.
for expression

of sentiments of this

For

in the

disfavour as

Apology Socrates represents his calumnies of having commenced with the

own

false reports respecting the Aristophanes, and similar Plato also experi tendency of his exertions ; and thus

Let enced something of the same kind soon enough. but the reader recollect how in the Ecclesiazusae of
of which Aristophanes, the representation
as early as the
is

usually put

the political ninety-seventh Olympiad, views and new doctrines of Plato were exposed, and he
will

have no

difficulty

in

conceiving

how

easily

Plato

may have apprehended

in

a similar result.

order at the same time to justify

to his friends

Hence, then, and

those

hoped perhaps have recalled him from abstract thought and brought him nearer to the world thoroughly, I say, to justify
to

relations implicated in the concerns of public life that his travels had friends who

would

them

his persevering

withdrawal from the government

as well as his opinion, corrupt, upon the forms of it,
to

of a state, in his

own

own disadvantageous judgment

and
to

show the necessity of being allowed

philoso

of politics; hence phize freely upon the art

come those

outbidding anything in the celebrated Athenian states Protagoras, against the most man of all time, with a slight reservation in favour of
very
strong
expressions,

the living, as
in

if

they were less guilty

into

hence the way

Callicles

which

he

puts

the

mouth
arises

of

the

imputation of Laconism

against

himself,
at

in

order to

show that what

rally

is

so

called

once quite natu

and

spontaneously

from

the

most

simple

and

every-day experience. Nay, even what he says cursorily upon the subject of may, in its more accurate application, be
poetry,

187
connected with the same circumstances.

Much

of the

natural hatred and spite of bad persons in the possession of power towards wiser men seems brought out exactly in the form in which it in order to touch, with a is,
slight justification

and correction,
first

upon what had oc

to

curred to Plato during his

elder

stay in Sicily with the

Dionysius.

And

this

again leads almost

the

supposition, that

the example also of Archelaus, if

we

monarch had not already at so early a period Socraticians about his person, and proceeded with them in a similar way, was chosen with
the

are not to imagine that that

same

referential

purpose,
it

in

order
that

to

show most
as

strongly

how

impossible

was,

Plato,

had

perhaps begun even at that time to be the opinion of some, should have sought the friendship of an unjust

and oppressive despot.

traces,

slight

These however are the only ones certainly, of the time at which the
;

and we could indeed place but upon them, did they not coincide so admi rably with the position which must be assigned to it, between and after others, the period of which may be
dialogue was composed
little

reliance

more
right

decisively fixed.
to
s

According
as

to

this

it

would be

consider

it

the
first

first

or

second work after

is,

Plato

return from his

journey, as soon, that

as his school

had become

so firmly established,

and

so

widely extended as to induce Aristophanes to give a comic representation of it. For unless all accounts of
this

journey are
it,

previous to

Plato can scarcely have formed, a particular school of his own.

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

There

We

phical

work of Gorgias, and the question

may

very

188
fairly

be started,

how Plato could have made Gorgias

dialogue
or

the principal person in a

syllable
allusion.

about

this

work,

without uttering a noticing it by a single

the

Put the dialogue

into

period at

which

the process against Socrates was still going on, and we then have a very easy justification, in the supposition
that at that time Plato

had not yet become acquainted

will

with

it

but

this

supposition

not

hold

after

his

return from his travels, as he must unquestionably have

made acquaintance with

case, there are

this

work

in

Sicily.

In

this

but two hypotheses from which to choose: either Plato, contrary to his usual custom in this par ticular, has kept so accurately to the time in which he
places the dialogue, that he does not mention this

work

because at that period

it

was not yet known at Athens,

if as

and
says,

this
it

may
was

certainly be conceived,

Olympiodorus

written

in

the

eighty-fourth

or Plato did not consider this

Olympiad; work deserving of parti

of
its

cular notice, not so

tendency,
style
;

as,

much by reason much more probably, its

sophistical

utterly rhetorical

and thus he only comprehends

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

II.

THE^TETUS.
difficulties
itself,

IF the reader looks only to the surround this dialogue considered in

is

which
it

and as

usually understood, and

to

the sophistries of which

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

to

at

once clear from

the

place

we

assign to the Theaetetus,

and from immediate reference

what was said on the Gorgias.

For when
the

bered what was there

stated to be the

it is remem common object

of the two dialogues, and

to

how

Gorgias

is

intended

pursue object more on the practical side, the Theaetetus more on the theoretical, the perplexity must
that

at once become considerably less intricate, and some notion will be given of the real subject of the dialogue,

in which,

otherwise,

at

first

sight,

every thing

seems

to cancel the rest,

is

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
;

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

additional

confirmation.

to that view,

the main

pletely

separate Truth and Being from the Perceived and Perceptible or Apparent. Only that in this dia

logue, as the sciences generally were not so strictly sepa rated and individually defined as the arts, Plato himself

having been

almost the

first

to

attempt

this,

the dis-

190
cussion does not here enter
sciences, as in the

upon the whole system of

arts,

the

Gorgias on that of the

but treats

element, or of knowledge in the strictest sense of the word. And not only this, but it was a prin ciple of Plato, as well as his object to show, that both

of their

common

counterparts of one another, that the search for the good in pleasure, and that for pure knowledge in the sensuous perception, are grounded upon one and the same mode of thought, that,
investigations

are

in

their nature

There namely, which the Gorgias exhibits more at full. fore it is shown betimes, and no one will wonder how
this subject

came

to

be here introduced, what influence

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,
itself

knowledge
as he

who

can only refer to pleasure, and that, seeks only pleasure ends in the annihilation
others, contradictory

of

all

community of sentiment with

even to the inward feelings themselves, so also he who, instead of knowledge, is content with sensuous impres sions, can find no community either of men with one
with God, but remains confined and isolated within the narrow limits of his own per
another,
sonal consciousness.

nor of

men

These

allusions

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
in the province of the senses that,

sought

as

the only source

of pleasure

is

in the transition
is

other, so also perception

from one opposite to the inconstant, and that whoever

its

thinks to confine knowledge within

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
denial

that the Pro-

of a general

standard

of

knowledge,

and the Heracleitic theory of the flux of

all things,

and
all

Becoming

alone

remaining

to

the

exclusion of

Being, as well as the principle here tried throughout, which sets up Perception, and Perception alone, for

knowledge, do
system.

all

refer

to

one another, and form one

Socrates shows this while he supports the prin

and mutually upholds them by means of each other better than their authors had done, who
ciples himself,
in

part, perhaps, less

perfectly

understood

themselves,
it

and

the connection of their

thoughts.

And

is

not

before the Platonic Socrates has thus armed the theory of Protagoras against his own preliminary objections,
as

well as the nature of the

it

subject admitted

of,

and

exhibited

in

different

and more connected form,

that the dialogue proceeds to grapple seriously with those

theories,
it

and
to

to

show

that the whole system, in so far as

affects

be

falls to

pieces of
first

knowledge and matter of instruction, itself, and can never attain its object.
the theory of Protagoras
itself,
is

Thus,
on two

of

all,

attacked

sides,

which the dialogue

in

order to pre

vent any misunderstanding, pronounces victorious. First, upon the side of the contradiction involved in the pro
position which

makes opinion the

arbiter of knowledge.
still

For, as long as other

opinion,
that

men

place a knowledge

above
as
is

proposition

destroys

itself,

inasmuch

the

number
the

of those to

whom

a thing appears true,

now

measure
the

of

certainty,

and

the

predominant
itself

by supposition, the value of opinion. Then

opinion,

maintains
it

against

is

shown that although

192
it

hold for the time being, that what appears to every one, is, as regards him, yet that it cannot hold for the useful, or for any thing which concerns the future*.

may

Now

should any one discover in this conclusion a con

tradiction to the

way

sidered the future

which Plato has already con elsewhere, when he showed that the
in

knowledge of the future is not a particular knowledge, but that only he who is cognizant of the present can
possibly be in a condition to judge of the future, he would nevertheless be mistaken. For, in the first place,

Plato here places himself at the point of view of those to whom the future is a particular, and then the whole
series

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
it

is

distinct

press of accumulating investigations and applications, all of which were intended for this dialogue, as indeed he
leaves throughout

many

conclusions in

it

to

be drawn

by

the reader himself.

also of Heraclitus

Next, and in a manner resembling this, the theory which had been already contained in
is

the exposition of that of Protagoras,

*

attacked inde-

See Thesetet.
E-rt
el
i

p. 178.

A.
iiv

TOIVOV

evdevSe

fjia\\ov
c

TTUS

T<?

o/jioXoy^aeie
ia

TCWTO.

frepi Travrcx; TIS

rov

lSov? epwrwti, eV

not

TO

ia(j)\tfjioi/

ov.
,

<TTI

Se TTOV KOU irep]

TOV /ueAWra xpovov.

orav yap

&c.

193
pendently,
that,

and upon such

grounds that

it

is

shown,
neither

subject, nor a subject to a predicate, because even during the finding and the fitting, every thing ceases to be what it was, and thus, whatever resembles a knowledge or an enunciation
is

according to this theory, strictly taken, a predicate could be found and adapted to a

destroyed*.

Hence an immediate though suppressed

consequence brings us very close to the conclusion which Plato had in view, which is, that the subject of these untenable fluent operations is itself an untenable fluent,

which sense, as regards the immediate alterations of the body, Plato had already admitted the existence of
in

After simple and undeceiving perception. the expression of the same idea, attributed
to

this,

lastly,

immediately

Theaetetus,
notices

is

especially

contradicted,

and now we and

;

have

wherein

pointing chiefly to that, whereby true knowledge is alone to be discovered

for

perception itself, properly considered, points to operations in nature and origin entirely sepa

Socrates shows

how

and how, provided only we begin with securing the notion of being, it thus becomes at once manifest, that perception on no possible supposition
rate
it,

from

can attain

to

being,

and

that

truth

therefore

must

necessarily be sought

beyond and without its range. the dialogue is advanced as far in refer Thus, then,

ence to the theories hitherto tested as is possible under the conditions of the indirect process adopted, and now takes another turn in order to consider more
closely
*

P. 182. D.
877

Euirep de\ Aeyoi/ro? ifare^ef^crai, are

el
(f)ai>r],

pcov.

To

co?

COIKCV,

iravTa. KiveiTat,

7ra<ra

ctiroKpicri*;,

7rcp\

OTOV av
fjitj

vqrat, dpo iias opdtj eivat, OVTCD T

I

e-^eiv (pdvai KOI

diroKpiOU TWS, el Be

TIS

va

fj.r]

<TTtj<rt)jL6v

aJroO?

TU>

E B

194
the discovery
that here also
last
all

made.

In such a manner, however?

belongs to the indi

that necessarily

rect exposition is abstracted

from ideas, and even being

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

is

for

it

is always only in this sense that conception (&>) For with reference to the of in what follows. spoken

inquiry into the nature

is

of knowledge, a
it

set

up affirming

that

is

right

new principle conception, and it is

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 whence he concludes hensible mistaking of knowledge, Hence that the latter must be found before the former.
false conception at last

must

still

rest

too, there

as

grows a very important consequence, though before, not expressly drawn, that it is impossible that pure knowledge should lie within the same sphere as error, and that truth or falsehood cannot be predi
cated

of the former,

but

only possession

or

non-pos
is itself

session.

After this attempt then, that principle

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

the distinction between

practical and the true conception to be

all

at mediately attained, and knowledge all things immediate.

times and in

This, again, paves the way to the last attempt here made to grasp the nature of knowledge, starting with

195
the assumption, that
it is

reasonable
largest

explanation.
is

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
space
relations of the simple

the
is

and compound to knowledge in and then again the principle itself very soon dispatched according to the two significations
sense assumed
;

given of reasonable explanation, which Plato especially distinguishes, inasmuch as the refutation of the last is
also

good

at the

same time for the

first.

Wonderfully ingenious,
ticular

when we consider

these par

grand divisions one with another, is the uniformity of execution in the structure of the whole and of the
particular parts.

To

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,
;

brought
it

to a deceptive similarity with knowledge, though can never exalt itself to a level with it. It may be

said as
it

and

mere perception, here represented, to right conception generally, from this to such conception as is full and clear
is

that these three transitions from

enough

to furnish

reasonable explanation, give us a

simplest,

graduated
ness, so

scale for the

and

so to

speak, the

rudest up to the most refined view of

that
it

common
its

conscious

is

rejected with
is

all

pretensions to

knowledge, and a question

at last started

which mani
but

festly points to the necessity of an opposite principle,

*

P. 201

D.
(i\r]6rj
/jiev

Tffv /xeV (t-era \ojov

co^av
^tj

7ri<rrtj/jLt]v

6KT09 eTTurrrjw;
avftoff} xa\

KO\

tav

e<TTt

Ttjv 3e a\o^nv Ao yoc, OVK eTTKrTrjra en/at,

e?i/a<,

ovo/ndv,

t ve

196
at

the same

time the sphere within which

is

that lower

consciousness

true

is

assigned to

it

throughout, and the

element of right which it contains is conceded to it and defined, which even the terms themselves imply in which
those untenable pretensions are stated.

For we

are

by

no means

to believe that

what

is

gained in the several

parts of the dialogue

by the production of objections which Socrates afterwards either allows to drop or to be

refuted

by Thecetetus, or by

investigations

which with

reference to the

immediate subject of the dialogue are

that all this
to nothing.
is

only incidental, we are not to believe

intended to fall to the

far

ground and come

is

So

from

it,

that all this matter

:

assuredly to be pre

served
this in

and used

detail will

but better opportunities for noticing occur in the notes on the particular

Again, each of the several parts is constructed The Protagorean prin precisely in the same manner. for example, is more finely worked out at every ciple,
passages.
fresh addition to the dialogue, and
is at last

confronted

by

the question as to opinions about time future held in

time present.

In like manner conception

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

it.

In like manner the idea of

false conception is

rid

by

the interposition of that of exchanged conception* ,

it

of the rude form under which

*
T/? TI

was commonly and

(fia/jLev

A\\o%oiav
TWV OVTWV
ovrto
<ydp

Tiva

ovaav

\]/ev%fj

elvai

8oai/, orav
TV]

a/\Ao av TCOV OI/TWI/,

a i/Ta\Aaa /jiei/cK
2>e

eu/cu.

ov

/xei/

aet

Soaei, erepov

a i/0 eVe

ov ea-Konet BJKCU W? av KCI\OITO \/ev%r

oa

197
sophistically

discussed.

At

last,

however,

the

whole

explanation given of knowledge is made to fall to pieces by the question, how even that true conception which is recognised most generally and authentically as right,

The same thing happens at last to the notion of the reasonable explanation which is taken up quite from the most idiomatic usage of the Greek
can be knowledge.
language, and exhibited in
is

its

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

may
to

say that the

ridicule
is,

the

whole dialogue, as

far,

that

as the

question was directed to

the explanation of knowledge,

although as o

is

natural from the difference in the time and

is
;

the age of the author, this ridicule proclaimed as in the Prothagoras

not so triumphantly
a comparison which

must

strike every one, as in fact the question as to

the

explicability of

knowledge

is

the

same theoretically as
is

that of the communicability of virtue

practically.

particular
in

uniformity is discoverable in yet another For almost in every discussion of any point of view. occurs question in this dialogue a digression

The same

which immediate and distinct reference

true

is

made

to

the

and

right,

though

these

subjects

nowhere
thus also

come out

in the discussions themselves.

And

198
an
extensive
itself,

digression

is

introduced
its

into

the

main
;

dialogue

containing

share of these allusions

but which, as regards the immediate progress of the inter dialogue, seems to be an extremely capricious no better and ruption, not less violently brought in,
kept within rule and rein, than that so justly censured I speak of the whole passage prece in the Phasdrus.

ding the last refutation of the Protagorean principle where the distinction between the tyros in philosophy

and those in rhetoric and similar

arts is

and the divine, the true and the good,

full relief of their peculiar

come out

pointed out, in the

nature as perfectly opposed And indeed this narrow sphere of the personal. soon after the be digression seems purposely placed
to the

ginning, that at all events the attentive have a clear point by means of which he

reader

may

may

find his

way among

the complicated

mazes of the dialogue.

the Thesetetus connects

By
itself

these digressions then,

immediately and, among the earlier dialogues is almost solitary in so doing, with the Parmenides as
a continuation of
it,

although from an opposite point

of view.

And
in

works occur
the dialogue.
able
;

any other allusions to earlier what belongs to the essential matter of

scarcely
digressions,

These

however, are remark

for

instance,
is

the

way

in

which not
the

only

the
also

Eleatic

Ionian, opposed Parmenides to the other Eleatics, can scarcely be other

doctrine

to

but

wise understood except as intending to imply that the

others,

especially
to Plato

Melissus
to

who
in

is

particularly

named,
as

appeared

deviate as far from the truth

the lonians, to

whom however
philosophical

who would grasp every

cribes

thing with

comparison with those their hands, he as

a truly

tendency.

For

if,

as

he

199
expresses himself, the lonians
able, so,

moved even

the immove-

probably, the Eleatics were for reducing even

rest,

the

untenable to

and

Parmenides alone

by

his

hypothesis of an opposition between the intelligible and apparent, of which we may regret that only rough
outlines

and particular traces have come down to us, appeared to have found, or at least to have divined
the right road, although even to his doctrine Plato has
objections to

make

in

a subsequent dialogue.

Even

in

what Plato here says about Parmenides we may easily detect the inclination to consider the doctrine of that
philosopher more thoroughly at a future opportunity, in short an announcement of what he afterwards carried
into effect in the
it

Sophist.

At the same time however

contains an almost tacit exposure of Zeno,

who

is

by

among considers undeserving of much notice, and a hint im plying how little any one should venture to make Par menides the object of his satire, and how difficult it
was
to

no means excepted from

those

whom

Socrates

penetrate to the

real

meaning of
to

his

doctrine.

Both

refer

manifestly

enough

the dialogue

of that

name, and to a variety of misapprehensions in the un derstanding of it which from these allusions may be
easily surmised.

So again, without any particular men

dis
this

of the philosopher, several of the antitheses cussed in the Parmenides reappear elsewhere in
tion

dialogue, in part accompanied by

is

elucidations of what

there barely stated as briefly as possible, so that the position of the Theaetetus between the Parmenides and

And moreover, Sophist is thus in every way justified. besides these that are contained in the general plan,
there

occur in

detail

several allusions

to

the Gorgias,

and among

these

too,

individually

considered,

those

200
which presuppose the Gorgias have a great advantage over those which look as if the Theaetetus ought to be placed before it. In two other respects, moreover, these two counter One of these parts especially resemble one another.
points of similarity is, that in both dialogues a variety of perfectly similar matter occurs incidentally. Thus
also in the Theaetetus important passages

from the de
it

fence of Socrates are brought up, and as

were com

mented upon. For Plato expatiates in a peculiar man ner, and one which almost warrants the conclusion that
he must on some occasion have exposed a weak side

upon the extremely natural and very pardonable ignorance of a philosopher in all civil mat ters and More skilful persons may decide usages.
in
this

respect,

whether
in

this is to refer to

that apology, or to passages

traces

some other writings of his, or to some fact of which still survived. Moreover we find in several pas
*

sages a manifest defence, partly of his indirect mode of speculation in general, as in the explanation of Socrates

midwife practice, partly directed against a variety of objections which must have been made to his writings,

and likewise censure of the form and method

in

which

many
him.
well

of his opponents probably endeavoured to confute

Thus
as in

for example,

he constantly repeats here as

that
in

the

Gorgias,

philosophical matters

apparent consequences are not to be

of confutation,
tions

made the grounds and particularly lays down the condi

in

under which,

the

dialogue,

a position of the

So that, these opponent can be regarded as confuted. vivid expressions which recur so frequently in the course of the two dialogues rightly considered, we shall remark
a concealed and gradually gathering indignation, which

201
afterwards strives to vent itself thoroughly in the Euthydemus. Secondly, the two dialogues have even in
philosophical bearing some polemics in common one another, quite of a different kind from what with we meet with at an earlier period against the Sophists. For, as in the Gorgias, the philosopher especially con
their

futed under the person of Callicles

in

is

manifestly Aris-

whose system the principle that nothing is tippus, naturally just, but only becomes so by capricious esta
blishment, occupied an important place, so also the first half generally of this dialogue Aristippus is the person
especially in view.

That Aristippus took the impres

progress

sions of the senses to be certain knowledge, that he did

not notwithstanding deny the possibility of a

towards greater perfection in knowledge, and the exis tence of a distinction between the philosopher and other

men, we learn from all the sources of information we and this furnishes us with a key to explain possess and why it happens that Plato represented this how
;

doctrine as Protagorean though supported

by

Socrates,

and we

who
is

Aristippus especially did not indeed follow the doctrine

still

find

denoted

by those

of Protagoras

exclusively, but

ended with the principle that there

;

nothing just by nature

for

we

find

him with
in

his pro

long di represented themselves do not occupy gression as one of those who with philosophy in the proper way, and some perhaps
pensity

good

living

that

may
cratic

even think

fit

to view

that exposition of the

So-

that midwifery as at the same time a protestation in no way learnt from Socrates. that philosophy was

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
they are interwoven witli the whole, so completely without detracting from the universality of
with bearing, so that the reader, with of very particular allusions which do not the exception interfere with the progress of the whole, and which
its

which

purely

scientific

every

one

may

easily

be content

to

take as embellish

ments without thinking to find in them any thing par ticular, may understand the whole without having been aware of those allusions. The second half gives great
occasion
lemics
only,
I

to

suspect

against
regret

presence in it of similar po Antisthenes of whom we know, though

to

the

the most general way, that he maintained the principle of the impossibility of con
say,

in

tradicting

successfully

any position

whatever.

These

polemics appear to begin in this dialogue at the com mencement of the section about false conception, and are elsewhere concluded under more definite and ex

tended views.

The

character of this opponent and what

to

we know
that

of his

relations

Plato

make

it

probable

much

has reference to

defence against unscientific

him which appears to be and rude attack. There may

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
is

traces.

What
than

is

said of the

particularly

strange,

and

it

may

be

doubtful

whether

others

themselves are
themselves;
in

meant

under
it

their
is

name, or

actually
to

which case

scarcely possible

avoid thinking of

Plato having sojourned in Ionia, probably on that great when, according to some accounts, he wished journey,
to penetrate even into Persia.

Historical testimonies upon which to determine the time of the composition of the dialogue are not to be

203
found, with the exception of what follows immediately from the allusions to all those circumstances, that the
schools

of Plato as well as of most of the other So-

cratic philosophers had been already formed. Not much can be built upon the mention of the battle at Corinth
in

which Theaetetus had been wounded

it

the most to
also

be inferred from

would be only what

is

certain

upon other grounds, that the dialogue cannot have been written before the middle of the ninety-sixth olympiad.
should however by no means be warranted in con cluding that the fight thus mentioned is the same which

We

Xenophon
on
the

notices in the fourth

book of
find

his Hellenics

contrary

we might

easily

just

as

much

reason for thinking of less important events which may have taken place subsequently, when Iphicrates had the

command

in

that

quarter.

We

have

however every

reason for considering as historical, both the character of Theaetetus and what is said of him, though not the
literal

words of the conversation held.

Suidas mentions

him

in

two characters,
;

as

scholar of Socrates and a

hearer of Plato
to

we
:

see clearly that both notices refer

same person he also mentions him as a phi and mathematician, and knows that he taught losopher
the

at a later period in

Heracleia.

So

Proclus

also

mentions
it

him

among
this

celebrated

mathematicians.

Hence

may

easily

be inferred that
expression

from the school of Socrates, as far as

may be

allowed, he passed

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
befrn
this.

glad to possess and immortalize a young friend like What Theaetetus here produces about the square root has very much the appearance of having been at
that time something new, but whether
it was a discovery of Theaetetus himself, or one of Plato^s with which he

ornaments his

pupil,

cannot

take
it

upon
is

myself to

not necessary decide. to say anything, as he is sufficiently known, and the only question which could be a subject of curiosity,

With

regard to

Theodorus

namely,

why

he
is

is

found

in this place particularly,

and

urgent with him to unite in con why ducting the dialogue, cannot be satisfactorily answered
Socrates
so

Meanwhile the more probable out of the dialogue itself. the fact is of his visit to Athens, the less probable the
account becomes that Plato went
to learn
his science

expressly

to

Cyrene

from him

there.

III.

MENO.
mind the end of the Theaetetus,

IF the reader bears

in

and compares

it

with the beginning of the Sophist, where

manifestly the

same persons again meet together with

it

decided reference to the plan we find there concerted, may fairly be matter of surprise to him that the

Sophist does not here follow immediately upon the Theae tetus. And there ought indeed to be very sufficient

grounds to justify

us

in

disregarding

so

clear

and

But for this very apparently so intentional a notice. reason these grounds are of such a kind that they cannot
be perfectly understood by the reader until he can refer back from the Sophist to the Theaetetus, and the matter

205
which the present arrangement introduces between the two. Only every one must at least allow that that
does not contain any compulsive necessity, or exclude the possibility of the insertion of several dia For how easy logues between the two just mentioned.
notice
it

is

to

suppose that Plato

may

indeed have intended

Thesetetus, what

to produce, immediately after the

we

now

find in the Sophist,

and yet have been afterwards

first to

either called

upon by particular occasions

or have

explain

certain points,

even

seen

that

he could not

appropriately comprehend in one dialogue all that was necessary, in order to attain to the results he wished,

and that he therefore subjoined intermediately several smaller ones, without however snapping the main clue
might even have been his original intention, when he ended the Theaetetus, to continue the same persons in the Menon, making
after

having once indicated

it.

Or

it

them say what we now

he

find in

this dialogue,

and then

may

have been

subsequently

influenced

by some

motive or other to prefer the choice of others for this purpose, and to apply the intimation formerly thrown
out to a later work.
stance, explicable as
it

In short,
is

that external circum

in a

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

the

does really connect itself immediately with the Thesetetus, and must at all events be placed between

Menon

And this, as far as and the Sophist. this place admits of an elucidation of the subject, will, it is hoped, be clearly enough manifest from the follow
that dialogue

ing comparison. find the

We
of

first

indication in the fact that in that

part

the

Theaetetus

where the opposition between

206
knowledge and ignorance he prefers setting aside
up, Socrates says that for the present the states of
is

set

Learning and Forgetting as lying between the two, and clearly speaks of them as if they involved a problem which he would suspend until another time, in order
not
is

to

lose

sight

of his principal subject.

Now
and on

this

precisely

the

problem

stated

in

the

Menon,

and
this

whoever compares attentively must

at once,

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,
I

mean by

a mythical

hypothesis,

so

that

we here

find

after this

precisely what according to his own method, question had been once started, was necessary

to be done. As then in the Sophist, as well as in other dialogues manifestly belonging to this series, the

same question
cally
:

is

treated

more

dialectically
to

and

scientifi

the

Menon

naturally comes

stand nearer

to

the Thesetetus and before the others.

For when Plato

already done in solution of this

wrote the

Menon, had
as

as

much been
scientific

public expositions towards the

question,

we

shall find in

mythical

treatment

of

it

in

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

to the

in

his

writings,

works

in

which
will

this

was better done.

the

And
several

the

same conclusion
another
question

ensue from
likewise

consideration

of of

which

pervades

these dialogues, I
soul.

mean
idea

that of the immortality

of the

When

it

is

considered
is

how
of

in
all

the
little

Gorgias and

Theaetetus

this

first

more

than
out.

hypothetically

assumed

and

mythically

sketched

207
and then
in

this dialogue set

it

up

as a

ground of expla
it

nation of a fact, and as

were postulated, how

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
with

Plato

penetrates to the
culiar to

very centre-point of the subject, pe can enter into the discussion of this, Plato,
first

and that the

thing which

Plato had

to

do

after

that general projection,

was precisely to show that he

was justified
in

in thus
is,

so

far, that

as the possibility of all science

assuming the doctrine of immortality, and

communication of knowledge must stand or fall with it. However, this is certainly no proof for those who are able to consider the Phaedon an earlier work than
the
until

Gorgias.

But we

cannot

notice

these

opinions

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
of

immortality, are brought into connection with one another ; and on the other, how the question of the
possibility

of attaining

to

knowledge

is

here

reduced

within the other, of the possibility of attaining to virtue, and of the nature of virtue generally, it will be seen
that

belongs quite as immediately to the Gorgias as to the Theaetetus, and that the view taken of the relation of these two dialogues to one another
the
still

Menon

is

the

Menon

more confirmed by means of it, inasmuch as is intended to draw the two still more close
them with one another, and

together, and to interweave

208

who might not perhaps yet be able to comprehend how the main problems of the two how in dialogues are connected with one another, and
this

for

those

readers

each of the two what

is
is

is

brought forward as digression

And this view connected with the principal subject. of the Menon, confirmed by all closer consideration
the more nearly

which,

we take

it

in

connection

with

those two dialogues does the more closely and sponta neously connect itself with them, and this so immedi
ately that
it

is

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

it

must present
enunciated.

itself to

and pure knowledge properly so called, every one as the last result of the

Theaetetus, though not in that place regularly and fully And this in the Menon is not only as
as

proved and expressly put among the little of which Socrates can maintain that he knows it, but it
is

sumed

evident that
the

the decisive
possibility
is

treatment of the question

political

respecting

of teaching

virtue,

(7ToXiTt/e; aperrj)

nothing but an immediate deduction,

Theaetetus intended to apply
to

a corollary from

the

the subject of the Gorgias the last results of the former. In like manner the Menon gives us an immediate con
tinuation of the Gorgias, inasmuch as
in
it,

it is

demonstrated

that the ideas of the good

little

and of virtue can be

quite as

determined by any more accurately defined

to the pleasant
is

method of attaining
in

as

by the pleasant
the two

general, and that it connected ideas purely

necessary to discuss

for

themselves
that

upon exclusive

and original

principles,

And

the connection

may

209
not be overlooked, the interlocutor
ciple of Gorgias,
is

introduced as a dis
to a dialogue of

and expressly referred

that philosopher. Moreover Menon an swers precisely in the sense in which Gorgias and his friends must have understood the beautiful. And as

Socrates

with

the

last

result
so

of

the
is

Theastetus
of
the

is

confirmatively
repeated,
it

enunciated,

also
to

that
still still

Gorgias
last,

and

it

is

shown

be

not the
higher.

and that

carries the investigation

The same
is,

result also appears

when we look
;

to

what

or seems to be, accidental matter

for in the

Menon

this is

throughout so identical with

what we

find in those

dialogues, that

we

are compelled

to infer

from them the

existence of

still

circumstances.

further similar relations and connecting The same use of mathematics for ex

amples as
in

in the Theaetetus, nay,

even the object selected

visible connection with

is

that

dialogue.

For the pro

is

blem which

the foundation of the Pythagorean theo

rem, to find the side of the double square,

precisely the instance in which the incommensurability of two lines with one another was most immediately, and
certainly
also
first,

made

palpable.

This consistency

in the

matter
the

from which the examples are taken can be so

result of accident,
it

little

that

we might rather be tempted by

example
itself

to

attribute

to

the

still

higher

symbolical value;
is

especially if

we remember

that Plato
his

in

the

habit of introducing
his

remembrances into

works for the hearers of

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.
logues

Plato

was

the

Menon

taken

from natural
with

philosophy
is

are
in

most

the manifestly Theastetus in illustration of the doctrine of Protagoras, and is intended defensively to show that Socrates did

connected

what

adduced

really there bring forward

in the sense in

the doctrines of that school

it

which the master of

meant them.
is

And

Gorgias
tion

as a disciple

of Empedocles

here expressly

associated with
is

the Pythagoreans, and moreover, atten thus drawn to the inward connection between the

like

dialogue which bears his name and the Theaetetus. manner the Menon connects itself with both

In
dia

logues by the similarity of its polemics. For the allusion to Aristippus, the bosom friend of rich tyrants cannot

be mistaken, when

Menon

the friend of the great king

declares that virtue consists in the compilation of wealth,

even

when he makes
s

the limitation,

not,

according to

Xenophon
that
this

description, consistent with his

own

opinions,

should only be done by legitimate methods. In like manner every reader will think of Antisthenes

conceded somewhat contemptuously by all and repeatedly asseverated, that a sophist cannot teach

where

it

is

virtue,

for

Antisthenes maintained
s

the positive side in

views, and where his

a sense which did not meet Plato

first

master Gorgias

one who made

has
in

held up to him as a pattern of no claims to this. Moreover the Menon

is

common
to

with

the

Theaetetus

and Gorgias

a
as

similar allusion
in

the accusation of Socrates.

For

the

Thesetetus
is

express
it,

and
in the

somewhat

gratuitous

mention

made

of

prophesied, and in

Gorgias it is almost both dialogues much from the Apo-

and

211
logy recurs in a very remarkable manner, so here the future accuser himself appears, and we see his anger rise exactly as Socrates describes it in the Apology ;

and these allusions are found

in so similar a dress that

manifestly a similar occasion lies at the bottom of

in
this

them

dialogue as in
into
this

the two others, and the

the

Menon

falls

coincidently

dialogues.

And
still

period with those connects itself with the dialogue

same

and more particularly by what by questions from Anytus, and says himself about the Athenian statesmen. For Plato assumes
Gorgias
further,

Socrates extracts

appearance of changing into a more favourable opinion what he had maintained in the Gorgias; but
the

he

does

this

apparently

only,

and with

sufficient

quantity

of irony which at
It

the
to

end rings out clearly

be a regular apologetic enough. recantation with which Socrates presents them, intended
seems,
indeed,

convey that there have always been among the poli Athens many honourable and just men, and that he would here only maintain that their virtue did
to
ticians of

not rest upon knowledge, and that this was the cause why they could not also teach and communicate, and
this explanation

seems

all

the

more powerful

as Socrates
its

now comprehends under

the sentence, in this

milder

application, even Aristides himself, whom he had before exalted so far above the rest. But this man, whom
as
far

as

communication
to

is

concerned he was certainly

compelled
the

other

give up, remains nevertheless free from objections of which no further mention is

here made,

and the

possibility

of his so remaining

is

founded upon the principle that there may be men in whom the correct conception which they once have con
tinues

unchangeable

and

it

is

precisely

this

which

is

laid
is

down

as

the

true

value

of

that

virtue

which

not accompanied by a perfectly

finished reason,

and

consequently
so called.

does

not

rest

upon knowledge properly

The

rest,

on the other hand, of

that

whom

it

has

they cannot keep possession of the useful, are, with their true conception, which will not remain without knowledge, most gently

been already

shown elsewhere

merged and it

into the
is

same

class with

soothsayers and poets,

at

last

distinctly

declared
all

what was meant

by
as

this elsewhere,

namely, that

these

shadows

to

one, if

such there be,

men are but who knows and

can teach.

This leads of
between
latter

itself

to

a
the

still

further resemblance

the

Menon and
it

Gorgias.

For

in

the

we found explanatory

references to several earlier

dialogues; and

may
so

be said of the
in

Menon

that

it

touches
cludes
their

many words a large share of common subject-matter of which the decision was
were
still

upon almost and seals in

all

the

first

series,

and con

as

it

left

open.

This holds especially of

with

the Protagoras and the dialogues immediately connected account of this relation much matter it, and on

too fully, is again taken up, almost too literally and out of the Protagoras, which already lay at too great a distance to admit of Plato s referring to it only by

one or

two

slight

allusions.

It

is

now shown

here

how much

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

at

the

same time the whole dispute,

Socrates
is

which,

in

the

Protagoras,

not only en

gaged with Protagoras, but

himself as
to

also

each of the two with

of
virtue

the

identification

with

know-

213
ledge,

and the

possibility of

communicating

it,,

is

solved

preliminarily by And in doing this it knowledge and true conception. that the more exalted species of virtue rests is said
certainly

the

established

distinction

between

of

it

upon knowledge, though upon a higher mode than that calculation of the pleasant, and is more
thus

over

communicable

in

the

sense

in

which

it

may be said generally that remembrancing, and the excitement and reanimation of ideas, is communication;
while the ordinary political aperrj is not communicable, but rests for the most part only upon correct conception,
to the upon a feeling which has never penetrated up If therefore, in consequence point of true knowledge.

of what was
to

first

remarked, the

Menon
of

is

indispensable
the

us as

which
is

form

key-stone the beginning of the second

strengthening

dialogues
so
it

series,

also

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
also,
is

particularly

mentioned,

that

of

the

and that hence those two dialogues must be placed before the Menon and in connexion with one reader another, is clear to every one, and no intelligent

and saying that those dialogues were later in point of composition, and intended to be further continuations of what is here
will

think

of

inverting

the

relation

preliminarily said.

The same

is

true of the Phsedrus,

which dialogue by a resemblance

to

reference is made sufficiently decided in the diction, which, though without,

anything

like

verbal

coincidence,

strikes

us almost as

214
an enlargement upon that dialogue, though without any deviation being admitted from the abrupt very diffe Here too, no one on rently pitched tone of this. comparison of two passages will find it to
possible entertain

any view except that the Menon

to

refers retro

spectively

the

Phfjedrus.

Otherwise

we

shall

be

obliged to conclude that he

relation

is resolved to recognise no whatever between the mythical and philosophical method of exposition, and intentionally to overlook what

This is the struggling to show itself spontaneously. we obtain from the somewhat complicated relations of this dialogue, after placing ourselves upon
is

view which

and corner-point from which alone an accurate of the whole can be made. Thus prepared, we survey
that chief
shall find
it

no
with

difficult

may
this.

stand

matter to judge how the case two other views very different from

Of
even

these views one

had not up
only

to a certain time
in

been

published,

but

circulated
entitled

private

by

learned

men
It

in

some

respects

to

much

attention.

might

however be
it

produced

under a

form which should give

bility,

in

my

opinion,

a certain degree of proba that is a far better one than

that

under which Ast lately produced it. This view undertakes to deny our dialogue to Plato,
conceiving
it

that

contains

but

little

philosophical

matter,

not

precisely and better stated elsewhere, that it may therefore be almost dispensed with for the understanding of the Platonic philosophy, and is not moreover in of arrangement and treatment of the respect

more

subject

particularly

worthy of Plato.

And

certainly
in
first

whoever,

from not having considered the dialogue

connection, has convinced himself of the
easily find

the proper

point

may

many

particulars to corroborate the second,

215
which
will necessarily

strike

him the more

in proportion

as he has less understanding of the whole.

For

instance,

the abrupt commencement without any introduction is not very Platonic, and an introduction seemed here the

more necessary

as

we

learn

for

the

first

time,

and

of the dialogue, that quite unexpectedly in the middle a thing Anytus has been present from the beginning

which occurs no where

else

in

Plato.

Moreover,

it

is

the turn could be justified only by an introduction that of the dialogue rests, that upon which the last part

Menon

is

in

want of a teacher in

civil

virtue
in

for

we

Again,

disproportionate of the dialogue seem only ca strides in the progress the supposition of some pable of being explained upon in the characters of the speakers, precipitate impetuosity which however no where comes out in the dramatic
representation

are not prepared for this by anything several harsh transitions and

the dialogue.

of

them

and

the

resemblance

to

the

Phsedrus and Protagoras might seem nothing but me

diocre imitation, the rather as

upon what
compelled

principle
to

Plato

can scarcely be conceived could have found himself

it

do a second

time

what he had already

before discovered the fruitlessness of, I mean, enquiring

after a quality of virtue, whether, that
is,

it

is

commu
But of
in

nicable or not, before investigating

all

its

nature.

these

objections no

part

will

remain good

the
the

estimation

of

one

who

has

rightly

apprehended

of the dialogue, except that, with philosophical bearing Menon as one of the more us, he will consider the
careless

For,

and not perfectly finished expositions of Plato. shrink and all this objections
granted,
particular

as they partially vanish,

the manifold

with agree almost universally subordinate views of the dialogue which

216

we have pointed
cution of details
the rather as
it

out, and
is

some negligence

in

the exe

is

be looked upon with indulgence, probable that the larger works which
to

follow in connection with

floating
close

the

Thesetetus were already

to

before

him

in

his

mind and he hastened

nothing
is

with them.
to

And
that
all

truly

more strange
of a great

than

desire

the

works

even

master should be possessed of similar perfection, or to that he cannot have suppose produced those that are
not
so.

On

the

other hand,

this dialogue contains

shall

look
to

for in

as to the objection that a kind of investigation which we vain elsewhere, this is not after all

For by the assumption that virtue can only be communicable when and in so far
so
fatal

the

cause.

as

it

is

identical

with knowledge, the question becomes

one,

part
itself.

of the original

what virtue

is

or
calls

is

not in

And

as

to

what Ast otherwise

the

un-

Platonic propositions of our dialogue, his objection is in part tantamount to this, that he is unable to recognize

throughout that simply preparatory character of the dialogue which prevails over the larger portion of the
subject
to use

matter, and

then that he will not allow Plato

words

in different dialogues

sometimes

in

a more

limited,

sometimes

in

more extended
in

sense,

and

in

some of them more

scientifically,
life.

others

more

in the

manner of common
this,

Had

it

pleased him to allow

in

he could not have indulged

such severe censures

is

upon the point that the virtue here spoken of

rated

sepa

from
it

(ppovrjffis,
is

and

it

would not have escaped

is

him

that

precisely the distinction between political

virtue and
started.

virtue in a higher sense that

here to be

All

other

objections
in

give

way

partly

from

what has been adduced, and

part appear to

me

to

217
deserve no particular notice; where so
excellent
that
it

much

is

undeniably

and Platonic, and we may confidently affirm would be impossible ever to discover any other
it.

probable composer of

The
to
it

other view different from our

a
different
to

in

manner,
the

is

that

own and opposed well known one

which

attributes

Menon
it

tinguished value, because

exercise in

is

an important and dis supposed to be a noble

as
is
it

the doctrine of reason

is

called,
in

and
it

moreover

practised midwifery with particular adroitness, and supposing it to be

the

Socratic

first

intelligently prepared,

much
it

that

is

beautiful might be
in

demonstrated out of
it

to little

boys

school.

Only

a pity that Plato was not in the habit of produc exercises in logic at al! 5 such things being rather ing
is

to

that

be found in the later compilation of little dialogues were foisted upon him, and that if he does here
to

seem

represent

anything

himself

under

this

form,

this is only

done

in order to disguise to a certain degree

the introduction, subservient to quite different purposes,

of a foreign ingredient.

Pity also that we find in the

more

artificial dialogues far

more

artificial

and

fruitful

examples of his midwifery according to the ideas which he himself lays down in the Theaetetus and he declares
;

only moreover treat conceptions to consciousness, and does somewhat lightly the merits of mathematical elements

this

to

be

the

first

commencement of bringing

comparison with philosophical, upon generally accustomed to exercise this art.

in

which

he

is

Pity, lastly,

that

it

is

not

quite

so easy

a matter to prepare
of
the

and

demonstrate this
tially

very
as

and

entirely,

dialogue has been done

it,

Menon
with then

essen

particular
are

fragments detached

from

but

which

not

E K

themselves

understood

in

their

relation

to

the whole.

Hence
in

again,

these panegyrists are themselves involved

a learned

dispute

as

to

what

may

really

be the

opinion of Plato upon the communicability of virtue, whether he is indeed in earnest with the whole question,

and whether
attainable

the decision come to, that it is only divine inspiration, coincides with other ex by

And among the pressed sentiments of the philosopher. are many so truly divine, that whatever they disputants
are to understand

must come from divine

inspiration,

and

that because they have

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

to
first

three

passages, question as to

whether virtue is knowledge or something quite distinct and separate from it, and then to the limitation that
in
apGTrj^ right conception may supply the of knowledge, and finally to the last sentiments place about the true statesman.
political

As
is

to

the persons,

not, as far as I

Anytus the accuser of Socrates know, mentioned either by Plato or

name.

Xenophon with
consider

his father s

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
the

too clearly in favour of the supposition that Plato had

him

in

his

mind

to

render

it

necessary
it

to

look

for

other vouchers.
to inquire

Hence,
the

therefore,

is

not necessary
in

who

numerous authors can be

whose

219
writings
crates
it

was found stated

that the accuser

of

So

was a son of Anthemion.

Menon

is

unquestion
in

ably the same with

the campaign
scribe

him whom Xenophon mentions

of Cyrus,
so

him

as

although Plato abandoned a profligate.

does not de

His country^

and the friendship of the Thessalian Aristippus, who cannot be supposed to be also a are circumstances duplicate, sufficiently material and to
his beauty, his wealth

the purpose to establish

the fact.

IV.

EUTHYDEMUS.
if

IN the Euthydemus,
which
is

the reader regards the part

at

once the
is,

conversation, that
the same

most striking and amusing, the in which Socrates and Ctesippus,

whom we

already

know from

the

Lysis, are

engaged with the two sophists, Dionysodorus and thydemus, and how far it is from being conducted
lectically
in

Eu
dia-

Plato^s

sense,

with

view

to

rectifying

their

mutual sentiments and

is

to the extrication of truth,

but

most perfectly

worked up

in

the

style

of

regular prize-fight only with a view to keeping the right if he considers how in words perfect Plato shows him
self

to

be,

though

this

is

but his

first

and

solitary

attempt, in exhibiting the

the sophistical

way

in

which the matter of

questions that may be started continu dwindles away, while at the same time the plea ally sure and the pride of the actors increase, until at last
the former merges into mere nonsense, and the two latter

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

one
not

will

however

afterwards discover in the

garded

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

piece

which can only be conceived to be

be surprised to find
it

occasional,

and

will

given in the

strange enough that attention has always been exclusively given to this
sophistical

series of scientific productions.

But

it is

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
;

which, though

but

interrupted and intermitted form, Socrates carries on with Clinias, and which, like the dialogues up
in

an

this point, treats of the communicability of virtue and the nature of the most exalted knowledge. This conversation may be regarded as an illustra

to

Menon, and therefore, mediately, Theaetetus and Gorgias, as it enlarges further, by an indirect method, upon the same subject. For the consequence which we have often only inferred from
tive continuation of the

of the

it

former dialogues as their proper result, without finding verbally enunciated, is so verbally enunciated in this,

were already evident, assumed and the with which the subsequent dialogues are en problems gaged arc here discovered and pointed out. By
and, as
if it
;

then, if

it is

actually the ease, the place which

we have

assigned to this dialogue, is sufficiently assured to it. And of this every reader convince himself

may

if

he considers the course of this conversation, the main points of which we will here note down in a few
words.

In

this

it

is

at

once

assumed almost
in

at

the
that

beginning,
pleasure
is

as

had been

proved
with

not identical
is

the

Gorgias, good, and therefore

the

that happiness which

for the

sought as a

common

object,

is

defined, only purpose of keeping to the ordi nary translation of the word eudaimonia, to be "right
doing"

(or,

"well

doing").

At

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
is

there called

correct

conception.

But
this

this is

imply
or

that

distinction

by no means a sign which can had not yet been made,

any way
consci

that

Plato contradicts himself in

:

but the ground of it is as fol ously or unconsciously at the beginning, where Socrates states the lows just
:

problem, the two, the search, that is, after wisdom and the diligent endeavour to attain virtue, are laid down
as identical or as connected in
ner.

the most intimate

this,

man
show

He

intends therefore by

expressly to

what he meant by what is only thrown out at last in the Menon, that it is certainly necessary to seek that virtue and statesmanship which proceed from wisdom,

2-22

notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet existed, because without them those more common kinds which
are satisfied with right conception, can have no

perma

After the proper result of the Menon has been thus enunciated and elucidated, it is now en
nent existence.
quired further what that knowledge must be, and after it has been established, in part with reference to the
Gorgias, that
it

must be an

art

which

is

capable at

the same time both of producing and using its object, and thus several particular arts have been brought for

ward by way of example which

satisfy these conditions,

the conversation comes at last, less by the strictly scien tific method of and investigation, than by the analysis

real

unmethodical process of promiscuous adaptation, to the political or kingly art to which all others surren

der their products for its use. But now the progress ive advance of the is at an end, and the con dialogue versation changes again into a hesitative kind of specu lation which starts riddles and hands them over only
with
their

a few

hints
It
is

to
is

the
in

reflection
this

of

the

hearer

for

solution.

sense then that the pro

is

duct of that art

able except that

investigated, and nothing

in

discover
to
in

if

the good

we

are always

quire after
circle
;

the
this

end we must always come round

sense

in a

in

Socrates quite

at

the beginning

started

the

question

whether to teach wisdom and to

it

create
it

a passion for
precisely
in

belongs to the same art

sense

and

is

this

that the

relation

between

and the good, wisdom and art, is so multi And thus, as fariously repeated and brought to light. was before maintained, this conversation contains, on
the
true

the one hand, corroborative illustration of the preceding dialogues: on the other hand, the reader is to be

223
excited

content with the assumptions there made, as that virtue and wisdom are the useful, and
rest

not

to

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

Euthydemus we have
in

found

occasionally

engaged
to

controversy
;

already with the

I

founders of contemporary Socratic schools

say, likely

was he,

now

again

commence a

battle, for which

the

had quite gone by, against earlier sophists whose influence and exertions were suppressed without
time
as

it,

soon

as

ever
?

the

Socratic

schools
to

had become

regularly formed

superfluous contest
art,

likely support this such an expence of demonstrative by and to be so well pleased with himself in the ex

and

was he

ecution

of

his

task

as

is

here

manifestly

the

case?

Who
ment

then were these men, Dionysodorus and Euthy demus, to deserve such notice and meet with such treat

other of the

them more than any mentioned by Plato, so that we sophists may certainly maintain that they never formed anywhere any kind of school, nay, it would even seem that they were not generally men in very great repute. Xeno?

History

is

silent respecting

phon mentions Dionysodorus and speaks of the time when he taught the art of war, whence we must con
clude
that
it

is

real

fact

which

Socrates mentions

224
that they did this first, though probably more as tac ticians than trainers in the art of fighting, and only

Plato him applied late to philosophizing sophisticism. self in the Cratylus brings forward Euthydemus, but with a sentiment flowing immediately from the prin
ciples of the

Ionic philosophy, and from

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

almost

all

the
ver

formulae which
bally, without

here occur, several of them

or

even

mentioning Euthydemus but ascribing them entirely to the Eristic philosophers. Moreover, there is an important passage in our dia
the

his brother,

forward are logue in which the catch-questions brought

mostly
there
is

referred

to

principle

of

Antisthenes,
if

that

Now no such thing as contradiction. with this several particular allusions in the dia compare of Aristotle, where he says logue, and another passage
that Gorgias, the
first

we

instructor of Antisthenes, taught

how

to practise these matters,

but not upon

first

prin

ciples,

ticular

more

light

and consequently only communicated a few par maxims and not the whole art itself, more and falls upon the whole, and it becomes very

the name of those two sophists probable that under Plato intended rather to assail the Megarian schools and
Antisthenes.
for

might be inclined to spare the former old friendship s sake, which connected him with the

He

225
founder of them
Antisthenes
;

and he might prefer not mentioning

much

as

possible

by name in order to avoid personality as and to expose himself less to his

this point

rough treatment And in considering we must remember, in order to come

clusion,
raries,

indeed

to the right con

notice,

was very intelligible to contempo and would spontaneously obtrude itself upon their which we can only discover by laborious means,
that

much

and a variety of combinations and From comparisons. the extravagant ridicule moreover the attentive reader is made aware throughout of a profound and bitter
satire

upon the then prevailing degeneracy among those

even

who
Still

professed themselves disciples of Socrates. however there remains yet to illus

something

trate
it

and explain.

For

if

we consider accurately what

and controverted
it

in reality is that is here criticised,

only in a spirit of ridicule,

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
its

whole tissue of these

lies

and cheats was in

nature nothing but that scepticism, which always ac the doctrine of flux and progressive incom companies plete existence, generally or partially taken up, in its
particular application to

language.
art

If Plato therefore

wished to treat this

for itself,
it

sophistical

independently and

was necessary for him either to show short how closely it was connected with the principles ly already refuted by him, or he was obliged to penetrate
proper object, language; and in this also to point out together with the changeable, the un The first he certainly does, changeable and constant.
deeper into
its

but in such a manner that the greater part of the ex To the latter amples discussed have no business there.
F F

226
lie

appears rather
to

to point

preliminarily

than actually

to set

work

in

earnest

upon

the subject, which was

indeed under the circumstances scarcely possible; and one may see that Plato does not draw from the

any

various character of his examples the advantages which Hence then the present themselves for this purpose. the examples there found inference manifestly is, that referable to the treatment of the sub are not

merely

ject,

and have not been determined by it. What other cause then produced them ? and did Plato indulge him self in this empty trifling, and continue it so long from mere pleasure in the exercise of dramatic power which
are at least not compelled to he applied to them ? hold to this, and to ascribe to Plato in this dialogue

We

mode

him.

of proceeding which is not generally peculiar to For if we consider the particular examples ac
to
their

them meaning, we shall find among much the appearance of allud several which have very
cording
ing
to

attacks

directed
the

partly

against

the

thoughts,

in Plato s language and expression partly against earlier writings; inasmuch as his opponents might have

twisted this point or that into

sophistical
tricks.

nonsense by just such

find,

And

thus we again

and
in

cer
this

tainly

without

feeling

much

surprise

thereat,

of polemics and extorted dialogue also the same kind self-defence which we had already found, almost gradu
in ally increasing

which

is

the immediately preceding dialogues; moreover the character in which, in the in

troduction to the Theaetetus, attention has been already

drawn

to the
it

Euthydemus.
only by
all

And
that

is

this

collectively

considered
itself

the

management of

the

whole can justify

before the judgment-seat of a higher criticism, or phi-

227

For otherwise it might seem a vicious and a disproportion destructive of all more proceeding, exalted purpose, so to interweave as is here done mere
losophical spirit.
ridicule

of

things

utterly

worthless,

with

the

further

advancement of genuine philosophical It be objects. comes however quite another matter when on the one
side the ridicule
is

only the disguise of polemics which

to science itself, and in which, by the method pursued personality is avoided, and on very

have relation

the other

moreover the

scientific

bearing

is

itself less

than

clear

moreover perfectly dialogue upon which we come after the Theaetetus, repeated only as it is and not
It
is

and only affords delivers any thing of its own.

usual,
in
this

illustrations

rather

than

the

first

immediately represented, that Plato was necessarily brought back to this method from wanting to give free scope to the dramatic element which was not possible
otherwise than as a narration.
of this

Again, the construction

dialogue has yet something peculiar in detail, not only from the two-fold internal dialogue, the mem
bers of which are quite separate from one another, but still more from the circumstance that the external one

between

Socrates

and Crito

to

whom

he narrates,
;

is

afterwards continued in a and though criticising spirit such a proceeding is not to be found anywhere else, it
agrees very well with the particular artificiality of this dialogue. Besides, this appendage contains further some

own, which have a different bearing from the dialogue itself, against the manner, namely, in which a certain respected class viewed and treated Philosophy,
its

polemics of

probably not without confounding it with Sophistic-ism. The same thing had been already alluded to in the
Gorgias, but probably not properly understood by those

228

whom

it

immediately concerned.
part

Hence the

practice
in

is

here in

more thoroughly attacked, and

;

part

and the person more distinctly indicated of Isocrates was the most important of

as the school
this

kind at

Athens, we can scarcely suppose otherwise than that the objections of this school were particularly meant.

V.

CRATYLUS.
all

THE
to

Cratylus has at

the

good

and

sturdy

times given much trouble For it friends of Plato.

seemed
he

difficult

to decide

does in

reality

what opinion about language of profess; whether he is indeed

that which places the origin of language in convention and consequently looks upon all the and

compact,
in
it

details

as

indifferent
it

and accidental

or of that

ascribes to

which considering production it inward truth and necessary correctnessj or whether he may not perhaps have secretly in reserve
that other opinion concerning language which

in the light of a natural

suspects
divine

it

to

have

been

introduced

among men by
be implied that

agency.
tell

Just as in
it

the Menofl we can never quite

to

whether

is

intended

virtue

is simply practised without, and is consequently pro duced by custom in a kind of conventional manner, or viewed as matter of inward necessity, or whether it is

to

be regarded as a gift of the gods to men which comes to them according to the divine pleasure, and A still is properly on that account the only good. task was it to defend the great man in more difficult

229
the matter of the utterly false derivation
tion of the words,
is

and explana

among so many examples hardly one that can meet with toleration, to For even though we may say nothing of support. be disposed to excuse, and that the admirable
!

when

alas

there

regret

philosopher,

from
little

fault

producing so

was capable of instructive or sound upon so im

of
the
times,

portant a subject, still this resource can never suffice, because in fact the ignorance is too great, and even
against

our
will

inclination

something
stress

like

feeling

of

upon the obligation we are under to know the variety and extent of our ignorance, should have plunged into such trifling and
unmeaning play, upon a subject about which he mani

contempt that one who

always
laid

enter into the

surprise

we

feel,

so

much

On the other hand, much has nothing. indeed been gained by the discovery of modern times, that to Plato likewise all this was but play and jest, and that here, as in several of his works, we are to
festly

knew

look for no exalted wisdom.

it is

Only even upon

this

view

for such a

again difficult to justify the profound philosopher mass of ponderous and pointless jesting, and

for his unexampled proceeding in allowing his unfor tunate propensity for playing upon words to break out in so astounding a manner; as a natural philosopher would be astonished to come suddenly upon a complete

and prodigious layer of a rare kind of stone which usually only appears distributed here and there in small
grains.

And
from

this

discovery imposes upon

us

diffi

cult investigation,

the

jest

the

with a view, I mean, to separating earnest unless Plato is to be

;

accused of the worst joke of

a
serious
air

all,

namely, of affecting
this

in

serious matters,

and

too only for

230
a joke.

Whoever then has embraced

kind of way,
it

this latter

view in
content
to

a random

and thinks either

or

to

himself with

in

general,
for

by

such

method

open
the

up further
details,

traces so

and
old

taste

judging of or separating about with a new palate

among
his

the

fruits
;

and
us

cates,

we commend him
it

to

employment
itself as

for

however

is

strike

into another road,

if

and rather

to follow

necessary to out the

it,

work
to

nothing had been said about

to

and

try if it

will not betray

us what

it

really means,

as also to ascertain
ticular
in
it.

how we

are to estimate every par

ease

That we may then be able to consider more at our the more important matter, it may be advisable
look at
to
all

first to

the details, in order to

is

draw attention
and what
to
is

separately
jest.

what

intended seriously,

And

first

the principle which

appears

be the

ground-work of the whole, that language is the artificial instrument of the dialecticians, and that appellations

must be given in conformity with the nature of things, does indeed sound strange when we hear it thus super
ficially

stated

but

it

bears

too

great

resemblance
are

already investigations acquainted, and follows too closely the fundamental laws of all Platonic speculation, to allow of our rejecting
lit

to

other

with

which

we

as

not

seriously

laid
this,

down.

But

the

illustration
less

which follows

upon

by

means of more or

known proper names, which

tion

are

referred to the condi

and

peculiarities of persons or to circumstances in

this is

their life,

clearly

not serious in a similar sense,

it

inasmuch

as

Socrates
that

himself subsequently destroys

the
is

by

the

remark,
are

manner
not

individuals

named

which particular the same with that in

in

231
which material things acquired their appellations, but
that

we must look
the

in the latter case to the appellations

of

various

species

of

the

general

and

eternal.

Now

this is

again manifestly

said in

earnest, inasmuch

as these

names do

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

pursues

this

further,
first

rectness of nouns,

and investigates the natural cor in the names of the gods, which

are so treated that

we cannot well say, that as proper names, they would not have belonged rather to the first
section,

and then

in

their

relations,

the

those of the heavenly bodies and elements, the virtues, the various

other

phenomena
thought

of the mind,

and
itself,

finally
all

the
this,

poles

of

all

and

knowledge
is

when
infer

thus taken in the gross,

this not only

manifestly

jest.

We

from the violent method of dealing with the words, from the total neglect of the distinction between fundamental and inflected syllables, and the

commutation and transposition of letters, so that often times a scarcely similar sound is produced as well as from the unlimited share ascribed to the desire of
;

embellishment in

the

then

construction

of words,

so

that, as Socrates allows,

something was introduced from

to

the

very

first

in
in

order
entire
;

conceal

the
to

meaning, and
the

consequently nature of language

supposed but we recognize the jesting spirit

species of

contradiction

even far more in

the expressions of Socrates himself,

this

when he
ration

ridicules

wisdom

as

an inspi
follow

quite

foreign

to

him,

which

he would

to-day, but to-morrow would purify himself of; when by the same process he educes a similar sense out of

opposite words, and shows consequently that

it

destroys

232
itself;

when
or
the

he

appeals

in

one

origin

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

mean, between fundamental

investigation

and derivative words,

to

the

of what

is

the proper object of representation in language, to the distinction between the imitative and musical use of
the voice, and to the illustration of

how

in

conformity
for

with
in

it

the

original

significancy
this
is

must be looked
serious,

the letters.

And

certainly

because
purpose,

Plato

makes

Socrates

sketch

theory

on

perfectly corresponding to

those dialectic ground-forms which he has already brought forward in the Phsedrus.

But

the

manner again

in

which

this

is

illustrated,

by

way of example, in particular letters, and their mean for ing investigated, can hardly be taken for serious ; the way in which Socrates sets to work in this must
appear very frivolous to any one, who, however super the problems and solutions against one ficially, balances
another,
as
;

our annotations

will

do

in

the particular

passages
his

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
it

is

intended

to
lies

of Heraclitus

prove by violence that the doctrine at the bottom of the formation of

disguise from himself the
fact,

language,

let

him not

that in the few examples in which an

Eleatic style of

thought is intended to appear there is quite as great an But if accumulation of all that is random and vague.

233
there
is

any one

to

whom

the grounds

suggested for
sufficient,

forming a judgment do not otherwise appear

we would recommend him,

in order to decide accurately

fol

between jest and earnest, simply and exclusively to

low Euthyphro, and when he

the wisdom
is

a party to the sport, and referred to him, then let the reader con
is

sider that he is certainly in the province of jest.

More

over, from

this the serious parts also will

admit of being

recognized, and

we

shall discover

where they begin and

how

far, inaccessible to that pleasant spirit, they reach.

And

in

whatever light we regard the dialogue we must

arrive
at

inevitably

the

same conclusion,
view
of

that

Plato

only marked out the

particular details of that discussion

upon language
comedy,
or
that all that
is

with

bringing

forward

whatever

may be the meaning of it, but general is to be taken quite as seriously

And
this con

as the core of every Platonic dialogue.

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

suspect
in

that

Cratylus a similar arrangement to the Euthydemus, where likewise an ironical

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
until,

points,

or

otherwise put into a

perfectly clear, they

clearer light,

as being

made
trace

are

taken

work.
thread,

But

up we

into

the

great

and

have

no
it

all-comprehending whatever that this

it
;

of which certainly
to

cannot be said that

is

here spun

the end, was ever again continued

and

had

fate

grudged
subject

us

the

possession of this
totally

one dia
omitted,

logue,

the

would have been

and we should be obliged to say that Plato s position for relatively to language was that of a genuine artist
;

that he understood excellently well

to construct
it

how

to use

it,

and
own,

for himself after a

method of

his

And this but had nothing to say upon the subject. indeed even now, notwithstanding that this loss has not occurred to us, is the opinion of many persons,
from being our own. For if we take in which he grapples to the opinion of Hermogenes, and instead of something com piled at random and confirmed only by convention,

though
notice

it

is

far

of

the

manner

language as a thing which followed in its as and process of formation an inward necessity origin of an idea, and as an instrument of art to be a type
considers
criticized

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

ground of

all

that

is

significant

language, not so

much

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

position

to

Cratylus, when he speaks of

of assuming the

presence

in

the necessity language of a capricious

element, intelligible only upon kind of convention,

the supposition of some

may appear

of a weaker character,

and even in the light only of a subterfuge resorted to by one who was incapable of giving a satisfactory ac count of the matter ; but it is equally certain that it
only appears so because
it is

more
to

difficult

to

under

stand, and required continuation

For only delivered in imperfect hints. sidered that this whole_proof proceeds
ciple that a-better -and a

complete what is when it is con

upon die prin

into the
affix-,

worse* enters
this

ing

of

appellatives,
in

and

not

so

that

the

better

exists

asmuch
elements

one and the worse in another language, in as every language, beginning with the first
of
speech,
is

but that

-each.. appears in

something essentially peculiar, the same from a comparison

of the variations which take place within the substance of eyery one^-and consequently with reference to their
it will be seen that the ca growth and progress pricious element in words according to Plato^s peculiar
;

Crat, p. 429. B.

2f2.

OuBe
;

%rj

ovo/ia,

ore

fame, BoKe?

croi

xeicrQai

TO

/txeV

^e ipov,
to

TO

de u^eivov

KP.

Ov

SfJTa.

K.

T.

A.

Where
.

Socrates

argument goes

prove the affirmative. P. 432. D. he says, ea KO.\ ovo/jia TO /mev ev KfTaOai, TO 8e /Jirj

Qappwv TO IVOV, J
.

236
principles as to imperfect existence,
isting merely in

must vanish

as ex

appearance, provided only we proceed

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
naturally not quite so easily seen in the case of less necessary known objects. And this may be the part in which,
is

origin of the positive element in that 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
in

any way unworthy

the case

may be

with

him, thus

much
that
it

is is

clear, as

every unprejudiced person

must

only by .j^moval of the opposition between th-~ci^nion of Cratylus and that of Tlermogenes that Plato s view of language is intended to come
see,
.

out,

though- -the. manner and means of effecting that removal are only just pointed put; and Plato himself

seems to have

considered

further

subject, according to

these views, as something

enlargement of the on the

one side as no longer possible, and on the other as not

yet
so.

The more however

plete, the less claim
it

this subject appears

it

to be only

sketched, and the discussion of

left

altogether incom
s

method, be considered the subject of an exclusive work. We should rather be led to believe that it is started only
to

has, according to Plato

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

afford instruction
will

upon

this point.

And
seeks.

the

attentive reader
^

soon discover

what he

of language

.For although tJ^_specjixUtioji_-iiito_--the theory is not brought to a successful termination,

we

find notwithstanding, in the very first outlines of it, thus much at all events clearly enunciated as an imme that the relation of language to know diate ;

consequence

for a moment the ledge is such, that, even assuming divine origin of the former, it is in every way impossible for it to be regarded as the source of the latter, whether

and the object of discovery, or derived and the subject of instruction, and that if a dependent relation is to obtain between them, language must be considered rather as a product of knowledge, and exist
original

ing conditionally through it. the same time the use that
the ironical
part,
in

Now
is

if

we consider
from

at

made
justify

of etymology in

order

to

language
seriously

the Heraclitic doctrine,

so that Socrates even

allows that this

guage,

in lan tendency may be pointed out whole is and again the manner in which the

pervaded throughout by a continuous polemical spirit

in opposition to

that

doctrine,

with the
it

which the dialogue concludes as

begun,

expression of. assuming the

existence of something constant and self-independent, discovered a point capable of we have

unquestionably
a

spreading

sufficient light

over

the

whole, inasmuch

as ifr-4ays-- before

us such

a connection of that

whole

238
the same glance enables us clearly to determine the purport of the work, and also the place which it is to occupy in the series

with

the

preceding

dialogues,

that

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

on

some

and supposes that such occasions applied ; and

to

these
efforts

polemics
to

essentially

belong
in

that

series

of
its

establish

the reality

of knowledge,

and

eternity

and impersonality,
this
difficult

which we

see

Plato en
it

gaged during
to

second period.

Neither does

seem
look

be a very

question where

we

are to

for this process.

For

as on the one hand, even

collaterally

among
true

the

disciples

of

Socrates,

with

the

philosophy,

mere

empiricism,

the

offspring

of

lower

modes of thought, soon got the upper hand again, and in the Gorgias and Theaetetus Plato especially wages
war against
this,

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

unmeaning play again got the upper the play with the equally un hand among them substantial and exhausted forms of philosophy, which
scarcely preserves any subject to which
it

side a system of

can attach

itself

This abuse can be imputed to one except language. of the two opposite extremes which Plato always only has in view, that, I mean, involved in the doctrines of it the Ionic Philosophy must however, when taken
;

in

connection with

this,

present

twofold appearance.

239
One, when viewed with the apprehension of the scepticism of these doctrines as to the essentiality of knowledge,

and that

it

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

Another, when

is

remembered that these doctrines themselves could

felt

be dogmatic, and hence

ing
to prove,
it

when they
to

no compunction in attempt could, that even language,

its

though
objects,

may appear
itself

grasp and keep hold of

in
this

does

nevertheless,

process

of affixing

recognise, by the ceaseless flux of all things.

appellations,

the

But

method pursued, at this point we

seem to be almost deserted by history. For it does not appear that language was used in any particular manner as a means for the foundation of knowledge,
or as a canon whereby to judge of
it,

until

we meet

with such an application in the exaggerated

tical

gramma
scarcely

tendency of the Stoic school

and

it

will

be thought necessary to pursue

that
in

this solitary trace.

But,

we may not lose ourselves deeper in details and obscure hints, when it is once remembered how largely
natural

philosophy of the Stoics borrowed from Heraclitus ; how Antisthenes is to be regarded as the founder not only of the Cynics but also of the Stoics,
the

only

that

these

latter

reverted

more

to

Plato,

from

whom

the former, seduced

by

personal differences,

had

separated himself more widely probably than their scien tific views had rendered necessary ; and when it is
considered further that Antisthenes
is

supposed to have

240
expounded the work
while,

of

Heraclitus,

without

however

mentioning by name any

subject,

particular work

upon

the

on

the

other

hand,

several

works of

Heraclitus

occur which
;

their subject
is
it

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

it.

For the

relation
its

of language
subject,

knowledge, which constitutes

rests

principal

manifestly
in the

entirely

upon

the

doctrine

adduced

Thesetetus, about the distinction between

conception.

know
it

ledge and right

,

for language,

as

is

stands here upon exactly the same actually given ground with conception, or rather is in reality one and the same with it. IJms. jwords are signs and types

of things, and in them a closer or more indistinct, a more or less pure, a clearer or more obscure impress,
is

possible

thus in both error has

or
this

its

province traced

out by confusion even coincide in

exchange
respect,

of

relation,

and

both
is

that

the

attention

drawn
tion.

a particular object of considera one however who remembers the position Every
to
as

numbers

which this distinction occupies in the Theaetetus, will allow that the essential matter of the Cratylus could by no means have been taken into that dialogue as
a digression.

And

so

much

the less because Plato, in

order

say what was of most importance, required the result of the Menon, which we find therefore here
to

supposed, that
pass

by

knowledge does not, properly speaking, transference from one to another, but that

241
discovery and learning are the same things in all men, In like manner the relation to namely, remembrance.

be established
nects itself

between language and knowledge con further and more particularly with polemics,

against the strange and all-confusing denial of the pos sibility of error in the province of conception ;
in the

polemics

which we find begun in the Theaetetus, and continued

Euthydemus.

If,

then,

we remember moreover

temptation which presented itself to overwhelm the hostile Antisthenes with a whole bodv of ridicule, we
see the Cratylus

the

form

itself as it

were into an exclusive

whole, out of the Theaetetus and Euthydemus, and by means of its character, as well as what is connected

with

the

immediate

subject,

secure
it

its
is

place

in

this

series of the

Platonic works; for

as little devoted

to personal polemics as the

Euthydemus.

Moreover

it

contains not only supplementary matter and illustrations

of this dialogue and the Theaetetus as, for example, at the beginning the decisively repeated declaration just
in opposition to Protagoras, from a point at which, in order to continue the dialogue, Plato had himself opened

a loophole for

immediately
in

the philosopher to escape through ; and thereupon the manner in which he de

scribes the peculiar nature of the sophistical philosophy

exposed
tinction,

the

Euthydemus
and a

and further on the

is

dis

which also in the Theaetetus

a

allowed to drop,
is

between

whole

collective

mass,

explained
;

from the opposition between quality and quantity and there are many particulars of the same kind. Quite as little can it be said that our dialogue only states
the unity of the theoretical and practical as

we have
Gorgias,
is

already found

it

stated in the Theaetetus and

and

their relation to one another

it

although this too

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

here also at last connected with that

besides
all

of knowledge.

But

this, the

Cratylus also

advances the

scientific object of

Plato in the same

it

way
it.

as the character

of this

series carries

along with

Two

are here to be taken into account, things especially of Types to First of all, the doctrine of the relation

the Archetypes;
tion to things
is

where

in

fact

language

and

its

rela

as an example, only to be considered to throw out but one by which Plato did really intend and their relation a first notice of the doctrine of ideas

to the material world, which is immediately preparatory

to

the Euthydemus the the Sophist. Secondly, as in of which can only be absolutely kingly art, the object for itself in is set up as that which exists the

good,

all other arts, the identity of use and production, while or using, the object of which, whether as producing
is

are merely its instruments and subor only partial, dialectics are here dinate agents so, on the other hand,
;

represented true in the

as

the

art

whose object

is

absolutely

the

identity

of

while every thing pression,

ex knowledge and external else connected with it, and

is

conception and language especially,

only

its

instru

ment.

Now

this parallel

visibly

between those apparent opposites

a by being placed
step higher

draws the connection closer together; and

at

we

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 means of the strange 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
gible
that
lan

guage, inasmuch as
exists
in

it

is

repeatedly said that

so

language

virtue

of a law,

that
as

the law-giver and

identical.

word-maker are viewed almost

This

is

introduced by the circumstance, that as, according to the saying of Hermogenes, language is to be regarded

only as the work of caprice and convention; though it must be remembered that convention, even tacit,

and

law,

merged

into

one
;

another

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
discovers in the moral
cessity
itself.

Hellenes than

Plato, on

the contrary,

judgment the

same inward ne

that he does in language, though this necessity cannot be outwardly expressed in either, purely and one profoundly acquainted with perfectly, except by

the nature of each.

And

if

we pursue

this indication,

a further application will reveal itself for what is said upon the subject of the capricious element which enters
into the

works of the
as to

legislator.
is

Now
most part
is

the etymological part, which

for

the
that

ironical,

although in this likewise

events
in

much
if

seriously

meant may be found dispersed,

at
all

not in
of

the

etymologies,

the

explanations

them,
ful

we should
just,

still

and

or

how
is,

be best able to judge how merci unmerciful and exaggerated, the

the

satirical

imitation

if

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

here.

And, what

is

we should then be
sions

better able to see

most important, what other allu

may

be here further concealed.

find in

For
is

it

is

certain

that

what we

the dialogue
is

not

all

directed

the object of the satire, but, at the as we have seen also in the Euthydemus, a large share
is

one person who

intended to be devoted to self-defence.

in

This

is

here

the more evident, as the playful manner

which Plato

may have found censurers who were in the habit enough, especially among of availing themselves of much not very different from And in this point this play in proof of their opinions.
sometimes
used

language

those

of view too

we should naturally expect

to

to see this play

here pushed
in

extremities,

and

to

find our

dialogue
as
it

indulging were in this kind;

the

very
as

last

degree of

epideixis

from
its

elsewhere are outdone

in strange explanations brought in it by still stranger of

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.

do
this

On

the other

hand,

proper was necessary to preserve the ori and since both methods now stand in com ginal tongue; reader will at all events pany with one another, the
it

was not possible to

it

with the

names

in these

245
have occasion to congratulate himself that no one ex But as that which else clusively pervades the whole.
here in

where occurs only in detached particulars comes out a mass, so on the other hand it cannot be

denied that the art of dialogic composition goes some

what back

the Euthydemus, with which nected in so many respects,

latter

and when we compare the Cratylus with it stands most nearly con

we

shall

find

that

in

the

the ironical and the serious parts are interwoven

far

more beautifully with one another. Here, on the contrary, Plato appears almost overcome by the super abundance of philological jest, so harsh and abrupt are
the transitions in the latter part of the dialogue
after
;

some

short digressions, he turns back to what times, has gone before, as if it were something new rather than what had been already said sometimes he does

bring

forward matter actually new, but for which no preparation whatever has been made and which is harshly subjoined to what immediately precedes, in a

manner
to
it

that

might almost lead us

to doubt, if

we were

consider such passages as these exclusively, whether is Platonic. This is particularly noticeable at the

point from
plained.

which the

signification of the letters

is

ex

But

the whole will admit no

manner of doubt
is,

of

its

genuineness, and the most that can be said

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

;

as

a not

rich brother of the rich Callias

Cratylus

is

mentioned

not only as a pupil of Heraclitus, but also as a teacher of Plato in his youth a piece of information which

246
does indeed rest upon the authority of the Metaphysics of Aristotle, but has fortunately too little influence

upon
it

our dialogue to render

it

necessary

for

us

to

test

more accurately

in

this

place.

VI.

THE

SOPHIST.

first

at once and at the two perfectly separate masses, one of which, glance distributed into the two extremities, starts with the idea

IN the Sophist we distinguish

of art, and endeavours, by continuous division and ex clusion, to find the nature and true explanation of a Sophist; while the other, which forces itself into the

middle of
the

this,

after the introduction of the

problem of

possibility of co-existence and community in ideas, speaks of the existent and non-existent. If therefore

we regard solely the construction and connection of the whole, we must look for its essential object and chief
matter in that external mass, and take the internal only
for

well-chosen or indispensable

mean

for

attaining

that object.

For

it

is

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

can

be
so

continued,

this

investigation

completely up they conclude simultaneously. If, on the other hand, we look to the importance and scientific bearing of the two parts, the external falls into the backentirely

comes

in,

and

fills

again the dialogue that

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
is

Sophist, the novelty consisting solely

method and combination.

less

Hence

this

question

be considered as the subject of a work so important even in point of extent, than the other part, which is in itself so much more philosophi
far

entitled

to

cal.

this part not only is the nature of the -which was at that time the subject of such non-existent,

For

in

various dispute, discussed

more thoroughly than

else

where, and, as we
to

may

clearly see,

the question solved

that of positive perfect satisfaction, but also existence itself profoundly entered into, and the methods

Plato

hitherto pursued in the philosophical consideration of

criticised in

it,

some important

features.

So

that, looking
to look for

to this circumstance,

we might be disposed

the real subject-matter of the dialogue solely and im in the middle part of it, and to believe that

mediately the nearer the extremities any thing

is

found the more

setting.

such
this

matter

passes

into

mere
in

shell

and

To
in

may be

added,

that

the

method

pursued

the enquiry after the nature of the Sophist, it is impos sible to overlook the spirit of ridicule which indulges
itself

out the close connection be partly in pointing tween the business of the Sophist and all manner of

mean

in representing him occupations, and in particular in a great variety of ways as a pedlar, and then again anew the image of a sly beast constantly takes up

And even the method applied very difficult to catch. of finding the object sought, merely by continuous sub
division, is here

almost spoken of with contempt.

For

248
although
lectic art,
it

constitutes
is

and

elsewhere
Plato,

an important part of the dia very seriously pursued and

it

recommended by
the subject
led,
is

still

appears
of

here,

when
hand
is

jocular, to be not only negligently

for

as

when,

example,

first

all,

exchange

made a
as

subdivision

ing of exchange;
parallel

of fighting, and then again fight and these two were originally placed
to

and similar

a sort of caprice pervades the whole;

is

one another, and generally but this process

himself, inasmuch as he

actually ridiculed

by Plato
is

shows, from

the very multitude of the

attempts, that

the nature of the subject

never discovered by these

means, but only particular marks collected by which it may be known, as indeed at last, when the subject
is

correctly

starts

and exhaustively exhibited, he no longer thus from a general position, but from a deter
this external
is

minate notion.

But on the other hand,

would not appear
former.
itself

part

still

most closely connected with the internal, and the

in
its
,

latter

full

light

without the

For, to go no further, the idea that the de scription of the Sophist might be a merely subordinate work, must be rejected as mistaken, simply because the
statesman

and

philosopher

are

required

in

the

same

manner
of

as the

a great seem, Plato did not perfectly execute, but the purpose of it must clearly have been to complete the expo
sition

Sophist, and thus the foundation is laid This trilogy, indeed, it would trilogy.

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,

life

the

inclina

and the

in

it

are to be represented as
existence.
his
is

removed from true knowledge and real Nay, as the Sophist only appears fully by being definitely discovered, and not before it
far

place

so dis

covered, so,

place

is

on the other hand, the discovery of his and the dimness and obscurity of facilitated,
fallacious opinion

mere semblance and

made

intelligible

by starting from the well-known occupation which he And thus, even pursues and can only pursue there.
here
in the middle point of the second part Platonic works, we find a confirmation of what

of the

we

said

at

the beginning of that part

upon the peculiar form

of the works belonging to it. we consider this circumstance,

The more
the

closely, then,

more we must be

here nothing to be rejected as mere shell, but that the whole dialogue is like a precious fruit of which a true connoisseur is glad to enjoy the
is

aware that there

outward peel

at

the

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
relish

of the latter.

This being supposed, we cannot now overlook the remaining characteristics in which this external part
of the dialogue from whom too
is

For the reader, pre-eminently rich. much does not lie concealed under the

cover of insignificant things, the knowledge of which is here brought forward, will see Plato, in part de fending combinations made in earlier works and which

had
the

perhaps

been

assailed,

and showing how nearly

related to the largest in a

smallest thing

may be
;

particular point of view

words,

almost

and then again constructing extravagantly, in order to show how

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

and the
is

sophist

under

among

the explanations

reason why just the characteristic

describes

that

most distinct one which

in

which the stranger the process of the philosopher, left in doubt, whether he is to allow is
continually
it

to

obtain

as

an

explanation

of what
sets

a sophist

is,

and on the other hand repeatedly

up

the

close

connection of the sophist with the demagogue. more If we look only to the inward, and in itself
philosophical, part
will

of the

appear
it

strikingly

dialogue, its characteristics similar to those of the whole.

as to whether there begins with the question resolved can be a false in speech and thought, simply of a non-existent, and of into that of the

For

possibility

its

or whether non-existence possessing any attributes, The arguments cannot be predicated of anything. forward on the positive time brought usually at that and with which we are already of the side

acquainted

from

question, notices

of

them

in

the

Theaetetus,

are here a second time ad Euthydemus and Cratylus, on all sides, and vanced, strengthened and confirmed of assuming as soon as it is shown, from the necessity

the possibility

of a non-existent,

that

the existence of

251

mere fallacious appearance and error must be admitted, and as what they are to be admitted, this part also is at an end, and the dialogue goes on into the in
vestigation

about the
with

Sophist.
also

Accordingly
to
this

it

would
it

seem

that

reference

part,

what

begins and ends with, namely, the question relative to the non-existent and error, must obtain for the proper subject-matter; and on the other hand, that what is

between the parts of this investigation and oc cupies the middle of it, must appear partly to be
let

in

only a mean for reaching that end, partly a digression not unwillingly seized upon. But what reader, when he looks to the tenor of this digression, will not be

compelled

to

apprehend

in

it

immediately

the

most

valuable and precious core of the dialogue, and that the more as here for the first time almost certainly,
in

the writings of Plato, the most inward sanctuary of philosophy is opened in a purely philosophical man
ner,

and

as,

generally,

existence

is

better

and more
of the

noble

than

non-existence.

For

in

the

course

investigation about the non-existent, exactly in the way in which this arose as a something higher in that about the

Sophist,

the

question arises

as

to

the

community of

ideas*, upon which all real thought and all life in know ledge depends ; and the notion of the life of the existent,

and of the necessary identity and reciprocality of ence and knowledge is most regularly disclosed.
there
*
is

exist

And

not anything within the sphere of philosophy

P. 251. B.
Crj

TTOV

-^aipova-iv OVK ewi/re*? ciyaOov Xeyeiv

-

a\\a TO
Koi

ayadov dyadov, TOV Se avdpunrov avdptoirov Ti6ia^ev je avTovs Xeyeiv, el fiouXet, Trpwrov
p.ev
Kotvtovia<;

E.

iav Bu i/rt/xji/ e l^eti/

els

252
more important, or any method peculiar to the views and method of Plato, more suitably adapted to con duct pupils and readers to the point than that which
is

here pursued.
the

Let the reader but notice

and,
in

first

how
far

this

most

inward,

point

of

extent,

from important kernel of the whole, exactly according to nature s method, forms itself into two halves exter
nally, quite separate

from one another, but quite grown

together, and organically connected in the closest

ner.

man
the

For

first,

starting

with
persons

the

statement

of

impossibility,

that

these

should have reached

the sphere of abstract existence

unity, or they

who begin with mere

who continue
the
real
life

to

of opposites
all

remain within the sphere of the existent, in which

is

opposites reciprocally penetrate and unite,

pointed

out, and at the

same time

it

is

shown that knowledge

nor without motion,

can

subsist

neither

without

rest

neither without

station

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 opposites, inasmuch as this is the last amalgamation point at which the indirect method of demonstration,
at the highest

summit of which we here

find ourselves,

must terminate.
matter

And

was arising, and

thus again, as if some quite new without even the connection

being pointed out, a descent is made from this sphere of the highest existence into that of opposites, which
are here represented
rest*,
posites

by the great one of motion and and it is shown that, first, community with op is founded upon the self-identity and diversity
-f-

P. 254. D.

t TO TavTov

KO.\

60.7 epov.

253
of the existent as

common

properties, and

that in this

sphere of diversity the existent exhibits itself neces sarily, and in a variety of ways under the form of the
non-existent,
in

so that there can never be any opposite of that highest existence itself considered as respect

such,

true existence cannot,

to

but he who has not penetrated to the light of in general, advance further than
knowledge, and the igno That, therefore, the nature of
fact

this non-existence of true

rance of true existence.

all

true

philosophy

is

in

here

enunciated
for

is

position requiring no further elucidation

is

him who

generally capable of apprehending it. Only let every reader notice the manner in which these conclusions

mean, that Plato starts from the point which every one necessarily finds himself, the sphere of conception, which is indeed at the same time that
at

are

drawn,

of contradictory opposites, showing that the establish ment in this of any propositions respecting the existent, carries with it the same difficulties as the exactly establishment of propositions respecting the non-existent, and that any one who thinks but to conceive or state

anything, must first acquire a title of possession by virtue of which he can do so ; and for this purpose the
glance
closed
into
for

that
all

higher

sphere
penetrate

of speculation
into
it,

is

dis

who can
the

defence
repulsed,
in

against

pretensions,

not

to

only be otherwise

as

the

of sophistical contentiousness. And because our present the advance commences from dialogue this point, and presses forward up to that, the
highest,

immediately and

without

calling

in

the

assistance

of

mythical expedient, or otherwise deserting the course of the purest dialectics, we may fairly regard the Sophist as the inmost core of all indirect
specula-

any

254
tions of Plato,
in its

and to a certain degree as the first, and kind as a perfect image of the philosopher himself. The latter moreover for the reason that as Plato
as
it

were from the comprehensive sur in vey and penetration of all earlier Grecian efforts the province of philosophy, so also the inmost and most real substance of our dialogue results from a test
himself grew

ing of the

principles

of

all

earlier

philosophizing, of

which we would here

reader as
possible:

recall

to

the recollection of the

much
for

as is necessary,

and

at the

same time
which
it

I regret that as

to every point

might be necessary and desirable to clear up, it does First of all then, that not also seem possible to do so.
position which
asserts
it

is

especially an object to refute,

which
is

the

utter

impossibility

of

the

non-existent,

its most especial and preg and supported out of his own peculiar source, works, and it is accordingly demonstrated to him, with reference to existence, that it is not attainable under

referred to

Parmenides as

nant

that higher potentiality of the unity of being

and know

ledge,

by him who

starts

from

simple

unity without

existent multiplicity, under the conditions of which the could not be under every form, not, consequently, both
as a whole,
in

and

as in a state of progressiveness.

It is

every way significant, that this refutation of Par menides is put into the mouth of an Eleatic, and it might easily suggest itself that in what he here says,
Plato only had in view a more correct explanation of the much misunderstood Parmenides ; did not the ex
pressions of the

view, and moreover he

Stranger himself seem to oppose this is not set up as a strict disci

he forms

as a dialogic personage, ple of the Eleatic wisdom, but, in an extremely remarkable manner the trans-

255
ition

as

it

were, from Parmenides himself to

the

Py
in

thagorean
this

Timaeus.

We

have,

therefore,

certainly

dialogue the chief locus of the difference between

the Platonic and Eleatic philosophers, though

we could

by no means maintain with Simplicius, who otherwise says here and there much that is instructive about our
dialogue, that in the dialogue of the Parmenides

Plato
;

adopted the
in
is

existent

unit

from

the philosopher

and
it

the

Sophist,

contradicted

him throughout.
I
fear,

Only
1

a pity that

we have

not,

enough remaining
s

of Parmenides to enable us to

conceive Plato

opinion

philosopher, and especially for the reason that Plato nowhere expresses himself decidedly upon the philosophy of Parmenides as to the sensible world,

about

the

though we might really

fer

feel ourselves

authorized to re

much upon
What,

this

notwithstanding that he
it.

subject to the Eleatic philosopher, is not named as the author of

for instance, are

we

to

say of those friends

of the ideal

who

are mentioned at the last,

who con
without

ceive the possibility of an imperfect

existence

that perfect
sider

existence

man

as

participating

and separate from it, and con in both * ? It would not

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

in

this

doctrine also

in the perplexing contradiction cannot be discovered, that this, on the other hand,

which the existent

is

only pushing
*

his

indirect

method

to

extremity.

But

P. 248. B.
6ie\o/Jii>ot

Tevecriv, Ttjv Be ovtriav y^wpis TTOV

\ejTe, rjyap

Kcu
ce

(rta/jLCiTi

/jLv tj/j.as yevetrfi Bt ctlaBija-ews KottxaveTv, Bict

f}v

\o<yi<r/j.ov

^v^rj

7T|Oo<?

rtjv OI/TCO? ovtriav,

de\

Kara

0are,

yevetrtv Be

a\\ore a

256
the contradiction in this doctrine were to be removed, then also the distinction between perfect and imperfect existence must be and thus Plato would destroyed,
if

have started from a manifestly

false

statement of his

own

doctrine.

And

moreover, that
to

something
refute,

is

here

meant which he actually intends

must be

obvious to every reader of any penetration, from the whole tone of the argument, from this giant-combat, and this defence from the region of the invisible*. It
easy to see that he has in view a per well-known doctrine. Now we know Parmenfectly ides to have assumed the possibility of such an im and a world of appearance separate perfect existence,
is

moreover

from perfect existence and in opposition to it, and thus, that man has communication with the one by means of perception, with the other by reason, would also be
as
at

Parmenidean enough. If then we are to risk a guess to why Parmenides is nevertheless not mentioned
all

here,

and
his

it

is

entirely

separated from the cri

that in
this

ticism

upon

doctrines,

we might say

part Plato had not so much Parmenides in his mind as other philosophers, against whom also he disputes elsewhere without naming them, I mean the
original

and
lars,

first

Megarians.

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
it

liberty to critical combination as in this province

* P. 246.

is

KctJ

p.r]i>

eo/Kg

<ye

ev ai/ro?? olov
<yi

yavTO/jia via Tt? elvai

Bice

Ttjv

O!
K.T.A.

pel*

<yrjv

ovpavov

KO.\

TOV

ddpaTov

-KO.VTO.

\KOV<TI

257
certainly necessary to

do,

traces are not wanting,

that

even

without

the

adopted much I should be inclined

province of regular dialectics, they out of the Eleatic system, and of this

to account this passage also as an instance, unless some one can give a better founded

explanation.

As opponents of the
Aristippus,
also of
latter

materialistic empirics,

of Democritus and
in his

for

Plato has certainly

these philoso

mind the

the two,

phers might be most especially noticed.

difficulty

Again, no less

may seem
whom,
the

to

precedes,

for

instance,

attend the explanation of what Plato means by those

as involving
multiplicity,

who

look upon

existent

and in particular as double or triple, since so many have equal pretensions to be considered, and then again

when we come
fectly

to

examine accurately, nothing

is

per

satisfactory.
loss
;

At
to

first

the reader
to

may probably
is

be quite at a to be referred
the

know

what the argument

but as soon as he remembers that in

not other

language of our dialogue Plato could wise denote what Aristotle calls the setting
principles,

up of
in

these

references
all,

and allusions pour

in

clouds.

Least of
the

whole

however, will the appearance and tone of passage allow us to surmise the existence

of an allusion here to any thing abstruse, and advanced And quite as only by a few less-known individuals. little, certainly, to the Pythagoreans, although it might

otherwise be said of them, most appropriately, that their existence is threefold, divided into the finite, the inde
finite

school
is

and the privative, but as no reference to this occurs anywhere else in the whole dialogue, it
it

not probable that

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
functions,

that they set up these principles, so also Plato has here especially in view the old Ionic philoso This seems also to receive confirmation from phers.

the a

circumstance of his
threefold

separating

those

who assume
a

from

those

who assume only

this

twofold

existence,

though he does

superficially.

For

it

is

but very slightly and precisely among the lonians

that so vague a description

may be supposed

to

have

existed, according as the fundamental matter

was given,

simple
to to

and independent of the functions, or conceived

itself

be

comprehended under the functions, as seems It is only have been the notion of Anaximander.
named, that as
far as

to the philosopher just

we know
threefold

the idea of the combat of the

existence

parts of the

with

one

another

would
to

apply.

Should,

however, this view appear

suspicion,
as

still

be liable to
case,

much

may

perhaps be the
that

we

are on the

other hand the more certain as to the later Ionic and

Sicilian

Muses*,
are

docles

intended.

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

in
is

which Plato expresses himself about them

sufficient

elsewhere

to

establish
also

the fact.

Quite

as-

undeniable,

as

Tennemann

has already

observed,

are the allusions to Antisthenes, where those philosophers

are spoken of

who do

community

or connexion between ideas, but

not admit the possibility of any would take

every thing independently and for itself, or tain the proposition that a false assertion
*

who main
enunciates

P. 242. C.

259
nothing.

These polemics cannot

notice

fail to

force themselves

upon
several

the

of
in

those
the

readers

who have already

of them

accompanied

us

prosecution

through

dialogues.

A more
the other,
is

intimate relation between the

Sophist and

the Parmenides on the

one side,

and the Timseus on

every even though it should be considered in a negative preliminarily, point of view alone. Hence it is natural to start the ques
close

indicated not only externally by the more passive condition of Socrates in these three dialogues, but must also be of itself clear to one, from the

connection in

the

subject-matter,

whether by a comparison of the three it may not be discovered from the dialogues themselves which
tion,

of them was the latest and which

the earliest.

With

respect then to the Timaeus no doubt

its

can arise as to

being the latest of these three works; but between

Sophist

the

and
as

Parmenides

critics

have

certainly
in

hesitated,

and,

we have already remarked

the

Introduction to that dialogue, have considered the last named as the later of the two. Now, disinclined as
I

by anticipation to what is to come, I would ask any one who knows the Timaeus, whether the foundation of the Timaeus is not laid perfectly and
dialectically

am

to

refer

by the way
is

in

which here,

in the Sophist,

the existent
posites,

brought down
as

as

well

by

the

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,
to to

is

intended

to

be

said

preliminarily only, in order

from which the question

is

show generally the point be viewed. But let the

260
reader only

one

compare the Sophist and Parmenides with another, and observe whether anything whatever

resembling an announcement of the dialogue named after the latter philosopher is to be found in the manner
in

the former Socrates appeals to his conver sation with him; or whether, on the contrary, it is not

which

in

manifest that the notice marking the age of the inter locutors* is there introduced with reference to and in
justification of this dialogue,

so that the whole passage

has

being intended to bring the appearance Parmenides to the recollection of the reader. If we
the

of

compare further the particular corresponding passages, as for instance that about unity and totality, we shall
unquestionably recognize in the Sophist a surer hand, And we may even find and a more enlarged method.
the

key
a

to

all

that

in
in

the

Parmenides

appears

to

have

double sense,

the
in

way

in

which essential

existence,

and existence
is,

another

sense,

by

partici

pation that

the originally existent and existence in the sphere of contradictions are here kept
so also

and

separate

so

that

it

would be strange

to

have already
however,
let

given the solution here, and then to have set the riddle
afterwards in the Parmenides.
the reader but look to the
first

Above

all,

part of the Parmenides,

and the problematical character of the expressions there as to the existence of ideas, and then consider whether
this

character

could have

found place,

after

the

dis

tinction

had been

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

throw a glance of comparison, not upon the Parmenides alone, but upon
it

But

may be

useful

here to

the

remaining
of the

dialogues,

with

the

view

of

availing

ourselves

opportunity of testing from this im portant point the arrangement we have hitherto pursued.
is

First, then, the Sophist

that

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

member
For
a

in the investigation,

and conclude the whole.

dramatic
character
is

work
as

in
it

which
is

the
the

so

predominant

in

Protagoras, must precede a dialogue

as far

like the present,

mythical expositions elsewhere productions of purely dialectic

as

precede

the

speculation. Moreover, the Protagoras supplies us with yet another, although subordinate point, of comparison. For what was said

vice is here mani and protected from misconception, by the instancing of two species of it, so that we may say that, in this point of view, on
festly intended

in

that dialogue about baseness

to

and

be illustrated,

Sophist brings the Protagoras into agreement with the Gorgias, and on the other, that it forms the transition to that ethical character which

the

one hand, the

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,

type,

and imitation, in order to explain from them the nature of what is false and bad, manifestl with thr

262
appearance of being earlier than
is
it

is

here,

because
is

it

there put only hypothetically, while here it Moreover, the larly deduced and established.

regu

Sophist

appeals to the notion of the semblance of the just as

rhetoric

known, and sets up a connection between and sophistry, such that they both coincide in the idea of mere appearance. And as the Euthydemus
to

thing

generally
in

is presupposed in the Sophist, and every thing which Plato could appeal to that dialogue is briefly

dispatched, as, for example,

that

non-existence cannot

be ever made the predicate of a proposition, and that

it

is

self-evident,

that

when

man

asserts

falsely

about a thing, he does not speak of the thing at all ; so also, any one may easily see that much that was too shortly touched upon in the Euthydemus, is here

demonstrated more

If we compare further at length. what the Cratylus and Sophist have in common, we can scarcely doubt that the illustrations about types

and imitations preceded the application here made of the same thought especially if we notice the easy
;

way

in

which the stranger

that

is

satisfied

with the expla

to

nation,

type

is

second reality made

re

semble a

first,

explanations as to

and
in

in

part

while in the Cratylus we find extensive how the type can only be externally the same with the archetype ; and even
in

the
is

manner
first

which

in

the

Sophist
easily

the idea of a

type

introduced,

we may
himself so

observe

the

reference to the Cratylus.

scarcely
relation

In like manner, Plato could

briefly
if

have

expressed

as

to

the

between thought and language, himself already represented words to

imitations
certainly,

he had not

be

immediate
points,
in

of things and

actions.

From
an

these

every

appearance

of

inverted

order

263
the arrangement of the dialogues will easily

admit of

being destroyed.

And how

beginning of this dialogue, knowledge, not as resulting from an act of production, but of appropriation ? and how, with his accuracy, should he thus have allowed himself to maintain this
point without further discussion,
if

should Plato, just at the have come to consider all

he could not reckon

to

upon what the Menon was supposed

to his

have made clear

readers

This short analysis

reference

now

to

much
fully

hoped, suffice with that has been already said on

will,
it

is

separation of the Sophist from the Theaetetus, notwithstanding the two are placed so closely in connection with one another.
justify

former

occasions,

also

to

the

For

while,

with

regard
these

to

some
the

of

the

dialogues
their

introduced

between
with
the

two,

manner of
been

connexion
clear,

Theaetetus

has

made more
it,

and how they develope themselves from

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.
rests diately certain, that the Sophist

upon the Theae and would be perfectly unintelligible without the tetus, distinction previously established between knowledge and

conception, and the suggestions in the Theaetetus respect ing the first, which constitute in fact a sufficient foun

dation for what

necessary.

is

here said, and no other

is

essentially

Let any one, however, conceive the Sophist to have followed immediately upon the Thesetetus, and
consequently to have contained in can now take for granted out of
itself
all

that

he

the

Menon,

and

264

Euthydemus
to

especially,

and then say whether

if

it

would

not necessarily have

been a shapeless work for Plato

have composed,
further added,

and

to

its

present

difficulties

such

superabundance and

been

complexity whether it would not

of

matter had
then

have

been perfectly unintelligible. Only it is not here in tended to be said, that in completing the plan of this dialogue, Plato projected in his mind those other dia
logues purposely with a view to the future;
is

but this

only to be

understood

in

the

sense

in

which one

may reasonably speak of the natural course of the de velopment of inward conceptions from one another.
Hence,
as to

the assignation

made

at

the

end of the
at

TheaBtetus

and the continuous connection

is

the

be

ginning of the Sophist, it ing into a more accurate

scarcely worth while enter

as

explanation,

any reader,

not satisfied with that given in the Introduction to the Meno, can do this for himself.

VII.

THE STATESMAN.
at

how

every reader Statesman, as the second part of the trilogy announced in the Sophist, is connected with that dia
the

IT

must be

once self-evident to

logue.

But although
annexes

it

takes

place

among

the

same

persons, and
as
it
it

itself in

a continued conversation

in

were with the investigation concerning the Sophist, would be too much to think of viewing the two as and on that account one There reality dialogue.

265
on the contrary, reason to believe that some time in tervened between the publication of the two, especially
is,

we are to give any weight to several particular sen timents in our dialogue, which have fully the appear ance of being intended to defend the Hence, Sophist.
if

we have not

hesitated

to

follow

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

as parts of a whole.
to

For they do

in fact,

correspond

one another in their whole

than

construction

more accu

any other two dialogues of Plato ; and whatever difference is to be met with appears only to be the result of the general distinction, that in the
rately

Sophist the immediate

object of aversion
it
;

in

object of the speculation is an the Statesman, on the contrary,

something genuine and excellent. Although even in this our dialogue approximates again to the respect
is

Sophist, for
at

collaterally

the

same

with the meritorious object, it time, and with great pains, deduces and
just
as in

describes the reverse;

the Sophist also

is

the

all philosopher, sketched out collaterally with the elaborate de Thus then our dialogue justly scription of its opposite. the middle place in the occupies designed trilogy, as

meritorious
events

object,

namely,

the

at

it

does in fact form a middle term between the Sophist and the promised description of the Philosopher, as
as
is

near
latter

we can conceive what

to be.
I,

the

character

of

the

266
impossible not to recognise a great coincidence between the two ex For in the Statesman, as isting parts of this trilogy. well as the preceding part, the object of the whole

Even

in the

very

first

outlines

it

is

problem

is

a delineation,

and

it

is

to

be discovered

in like manner by subdivision of the whole province of art, though proceeding upon a different principle of the Only, as in the case of the Sophist, separation. whole process was not seriously meant, so also neither For scarcely, had this been an essential is it true.
to Plato part of the whole, could we have attributed For instance, under such errors as are here committed.

the department of Command, in so far as it is a part of the province of knowledge ; the office of the mere
exercise publisher of commands is comprehended, in the of which no knowledge, properly speaking, is necessary, and which we accordingly find afterwards numbered

among
in

the merely serving arts. Again, at the end of the whole subdividing process, swine are made to stand
closer

and

more

direct

relation

to

man

than

to

horned cattle, whereupon Plato himself exhibits a little that pleasantry, and afterwards tells us more seriously

man
to

is

related to other beasts as the nature of daemons

that of man.

Similarly

also

in

the

repetition

of
it

the panegyric upon

is

the

subdividing method, where

itself

said

that

this

method does not concern

is

with
a

great and small, there

in

what

is

said

seriously

touch also of jest ; if that were not the case, would have been justly censured by that well-known bad joke of Diogenes with the plucked hen, which bears accurately enough upon one of the subdividing
processes here pursued.

Plato

And

after the

delineation

has

267
been discovered,
it

turns
the

out

not

to

be suitable, but

more adapted
in

daemonic protectors of mankind an earlier period, than to the real statesman of an

time.
to

to

For as regards the latter, much that the province of other arts must be belongs sepa rated from the character under that ex
historical

comprehended
to

planation,

in

order thus

obtain that of the art of

This separation now, from a digression upon the enough nature and the use of examples, and which can only be introduced in this place to defend the method em
properly so called.
clear

the statesman

because, as

is

ployed in the Statesman and Sophist, because,

it

I say,

is

new

process,
is

as

that
as
in

of subdivision itself was

that

in

the

Sophist,

tried,

method was

in

the

preceding dialogue; first, namely, that of the art

last the

an insignificant instance, of weaving, with which at

stand in the same

statesman
as

art turns out to

relation

the practice of the

sophist

does
art of

with that

weaving, explained by the former method of subdivision, and as the explanation discovers itself to be one that might have been far more found

of the angler and several others.

is

The

however,

itself

easily

by

immediate inspection, a digression is here subjoined upon the method of measuring great and small, and upon the measure which every And upon thing has in itself. this, every thing is separated, first from the art of weaving, and then conformably to this example, from that of statesmanship also, which is merely subservient
to
it,

or

is

connected with
the

its

province, as remotely co
art.

operating
this, the

to

end and object of the

is

And

in

argument

visibly progressing as to its proper

point,
true,

to the separation of the false statesman

from the

though there

is

nothing analogous to the former

268
in

the

art
all

of weaving, and he
artificial

is,

therefore,

notwith
dis

standing
cussion

preparation, by means of a

upon the various forms in the constitutions of somewhat hardly, it might seem, attached to states, And that class which is only subservient to the state.
the connection, which does not appear very clearly,
is

properly

governors governed according to existing laws, if they remain true to the supposition, that such laws are the work of
;

this

that

of

such

states

as

are

a really skilful statesman, are only servants and in struments of such a master but, as soon as they
;

presume

to

throw

off

this

character

of servants,

and

imitate the freedom of the legislator, they then

that great

become

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,

therefore,

and quack.
description

We
of the

see manifestly,

described also as the greatest sophist how the whole of that

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

separation
is

continued, in order to separate from the

officers

according to the exer cise of their respective duties come next in the general description, so that at last, the statesman s art remains

statesman

those

who,

as that

which
all

is

to

men

their

supreme over all others, and assigns duties, and then again by a harsh
natural

transition,

and without any

the

connection

being

apparent, returning to the

as
in

example of the weaving art,

philosopher

the

Sophist,

was

incidentally
so

described as a separating and analysing

artist,

here

269
the

statesman
it

whom
duty

is

described as a combining one, upon incumbent as his chiefest and almost only
is

to

connect

together different,

and therefore

reci

procally repugnant, natures. If now we look only to what forms the chief thread of the whole, and to the last result, these may certainly

And that indeed, not only to appear scanty enough. the great mass of modern politicians, whose highest
problem
wealth
;

is

ever only

how they may

to these

increase the public

this,

for

how

little

Plato has to do with

must

at once be clear

enough
is

men from
when

the begin
agriculture,

ning of that
as

process

of separation,
treated

well as trade,
to

very contemptuously with

they
also

reference

the

state.

But

who bring
views
barren,

with

them more

exalted

moral

and

scientific

might look upon

this

the result arrived at

as

and

last, and only object of the statesman, although to a certain degree an important one, might still not their expectations, and the less, as it does not satisfy

appear

even

once

to

be
this

what

particular

end

immediately mentioned to combination of nature and

that dominion over the business and affairs of the state

is

to refer;

or under what form, whether always

the

same, or

varying according to circumstances, the two

are to be exercised.

And
as
in

next

suspect,

that

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

the

statesman

may
as

litical

relations at that time existing

be given with reference to the po among the Helle

this,

nes
as

inasmuch
noblest

in

the

the

views

are

taken

most profound as well of the confusion and

to

madness of

parties,

and certainly

relieve

the

state

270
from
these,

or
as

preserve
the

it

free

from them, must be

of
the

represented
art.

highest exercise

statesman

Chiefly however, they

present dialogue, exactly composition obtain as in the one preceding, and that therefore it may not be in vain to look for the most

the

might observe that in the same complication and

important conclusions on points which they miss in that immediately connected main-thread, in matter which is
given merely as digressive and incidental. as regards the form of the state, first

For
of

instance,

all,

Plato

gives us clearly enough to understand, that from the rarity of political wisdom the real state can scarcely

admit of any other than the monarchical form but if we, as he also does, leave the real state completely
;

out of the question, and only regard the Statesman as prescribing his laws to another state which is to be an
imitation,

Plato then allows

all

three forms

named
s

to

obtain

as

such

but

from

the

statesman

business

or regulating duties alone, it cannot appear under what circumstances he will give to any one state any one of those forms; or when he

of

combining

natures

would prefer
the
fore

to

charge one individual, or the few, or

it.

many, with the imitation of

that

And we have
us
to

there

digression

upon

the

merits of the
gives

different

forms,
that in

which clearly enough

in

understand

bined
trated

proportion one, or in

as

courage and discretion are com a few, power also must be concen
;

in

him or them

while,

in

proportion

as

the

two are separated, the power also must be loose and disunited, and the state consequently weak in the same
proportion as that main object of the statesman
imperfectly accomplished in of the statesman s art is
it.

is

still

Again, the whole view

illustrated

greatly

by

that

271
other
digression
in

upon

the

idea
to

of the

measure,
subject,
it

introduced not
to

reference

though but only

with
so

defend

the

method pursued.
to

For
subject
s

is

not

out reference
definitely

his

principal

that
art,

Plato
like

explains

that the

statesman

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
this,

and

in

common

with them, to mark

state,

outward and limiting circumference of the

its

and also to assign

regard,
lastly,

own

to every part of

it.

With
state
in

to

the

highest

object

of

the

that great

myth

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
part

correspond to those exertions of

of
the

the gods, and of the daemonic protector.

Meanwhile,
that

similarity

between

the

present dialogue and the

the
references

Sophist
as

consists in

the fact,

mediate

subject the purport of these interwoven

therefore,

bearing upon the im of the dialogue, do yet not exhaust

adduced

pieces,
still

and we must,
further, as

follow

up

that

purport

well

272
as

the traces admit of being indicated in

a few steps.

which appears to have been an Egyptian tradition mentioned by Hero suggested by for if any thing resembling it occurs elsewhere, dotus
as Plato does certainly suppose the single point

For instance the myth,

which he

forms into a great and important image to be well known by tradition, such resemblance has escaped the transla
tor,

this

myth has manifestly a

far

more comprehensive

tendency. relation of the Deity to the world, or to judge how far it might be available to search in it for the doctrine
ascribed to Plato, that the principle of evil exists and
originates in matter,

To

explain the description there given of the

would not be appropriate

It

to

this

without the limits place, because the subject lies quite

of the present
dialogue.

may, however, be indeed

remarked, that Plato here intended to lay

down

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
is

harmony of the whole,

that

this degeneracy also explained from the absence of from the presence in the state living knowledge, and

of

that

mere imitation

in

which

the

resemblance

to

truth vanishes, more in proportion as the imitation con But whoever considers this description, tinues
longer.

and follows
discover
pression
at
life

it

in

out more according to our method, would not erroneously, the first finished ex it,
views,

of these
earlier

much

which have already appeared period, and which contemplate the

It
is

of the world as alternating in opposite motions, and

again

reproducing

itself.

moreover remarkable,

273
and a task very much
this
to the

purpose here, to compare

Protagoras.

myth

with

that

in

the

For

it

is

who pays attention on perus hoped ing this myth, to the manner in which the Protagorean one is here taken up again, will consider what was said
that every reader

about the

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

by which it might be conceived that they are only great or small in comparison with one another, so that the same action

to prevent every possible misunderstanding,

when considered with

be
considered

reference to one of two others

would
to

courageous,

and

with

reference

the

other, of a contrary character; or indeed in comparison with the one courageous, and with the other mad and
precipitous,

and that

it

may

are only virtuous, for the very reason that

their

be established that they they have

measure

in

themselves.

And

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

the physician

for the disease of the soul in general,

inasmuch as he

gradually temper, and together with true notions of the good and just, implants at the same time in all its natural abilities, which, as long as they want
corrects
its

must stand up in rebellion against one another, their true and proper proportion. So that now, by means of a complete adoption of true and correct conception into the idea of knowledge, from
this

essential unity

M M

274
which
the former
in

must

still

always proceed, that

first

view returns
all

more exalted

objections,

which
all

sense, and raised above maintained that all virtue was

knowledge, and
elucidation

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

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

that, namely, against demagogues, rhetoricians, and state-quacks, and that after the thorough handling which they here receive, nothing more was to be brought

mics,

up
as

against them, but the battle was to be looked

upon

once a species of perversity has been so fully exposed, particular and incidental ex pressions may indeed be continually called forth
at

now

an end.

When

upon

275
the

same

subject

by

particular

occasions,

when

an

author thinks he

may

never be taxed for

an answer,

but such
will

expressions, however pointed they may be, always say less than what has been said before,
after

and hence,
cious

such an exposure as
Plato,

this,

by a judi
readily

writer

like

they

will

not

be

brought forward with such freedom and unsuppressed abundance as we have been accustomed to find them in
other dialogues, which do, therefore, from this circum stance prove themselves to have been earlier written.

To

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

calling attention runs more or less through and to observe, independent of the similarity of purpose in all, how also the strength and efficiency of

are

now

all

depend upon and correspond with the gradual growth and development of the scientific ideas, and keep pace with that progress, and also, how the
the

polemics

dramatic and

ironical

skill

ceases here
its

to

be so pro

minent, and continually keeps

for scientific

pretensions more in

the back-ground in proportion as preparations are

speculation.

made
a

And
suffice

the results of this ob

at

servation

will infallibly

the same

time as

justification of our whole arrangement up to the present dialogue, if we take a retrospective survey of that For, first of all, arrangement from this point of view.
it

is

manifest

that

the

Statesman

lays

holds

of
it

the
also

second side of the Euthydemus, and sticks to

quite as decisively as
the Sophist did to

the

first,

and

276
that here as well as there,

we are only reminded

briefly

of what had been discussed at sufficient length in the when we recollect in what a help

Euthydemus,
less

Nay,

condition

Socrates

and Clinias separated

were
not
in

in

that
to

dialogue,

because
the
that

they

condition

discover

observe,
is

same kingly art, we must at the the Statesman presumes what the reader
time

supposed to have learnt from that helplessness.

In

like

manner

it

is

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 Theaetetus

onwards
perverse
less

as

what was said

of

in the

Gorgias upon
as

the

tendencies

common

state-quackery,
its

being
itself,

positive,

and containing

own

reasons in
is

must necessarily have preceded what

;

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

again

discretion,

which

are

here

apparent opposites, have preceded what we find in the quite of Gorgias on the same subject nay, that all matter

brought

forward

as

must

as certainly

an ethical character in the strictest sense,

is

here

sum

med up

in a

the highest peculiar manner, and under

a political possible for Greeks, namely, and thus preserved entire for future discussions. one, Hence, then, the Statesman together with the Sophist

point of view

constitute

the

middle point

of the

second

period

of

the Platonic system.

For

in them, as regards the

form
ele-

on the one hand,

the

combination of every thing

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

ethics

outward form physics and

become more

distinctly

united in a peculiar manner in both separate, they are And in the Statesman this is done by the dialogues. the historical as view, only mythical indeed, taken of
subject
to

the

world
it

itself,

law of nature and conformity of the and in this point of view, our myth, a*
is

is

generally regarded,
such,

and, as

corresponds

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
to

ing

the beginning of the

Sophist,

why

the Eleatic

Socrates enquired what place the Sophist, Stranger, when all these occupy both in Statesman, and Philosopher

dependently

and according

to

their

distinction,

form,
as re

and relation to one another, has answered only And we the third. lates to two of them, and not

him on the one hand, that this Eleatic might repeat to because it would have been a sacrilegious
act

Stranger, to describe

the

sophist
to

first,

has
that

already

mixed
the

up with
him, as

his

attempt

discover

character,

description

though without naming has already been remarked in the Introduction

of the philosopher,

278
to

that dialogue;

on the other hand, that Plato,

anticipation,
tired

in

dependent of this
leviated
in,

with

the already

twice repeated and strict form, which could only be al

and enlivened by the touches of humour thrown

wish to
describe the
it

did not

philosopher

also

by

the same method.

Whence
who

arises, that the

trilogy,

regarded in this point imperfect, but to those

principles,

of view, does
consider
it

indeed

continue

on

less

narrow

it will appear in general more beautifully and nobly completed by the dialogue now before us, and the next that follows, the Phoedon. For in these

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

to be

attributed to
still

the description

is

usually done,

the remaining and

279
.1

larger

part cannot be

thrown

entirely

into

the back

ground, and as regards the present dialogue, it may seem as difficult to explain how the preceding speeches about love are to be connected with this panegyric of Alcibiades,

as
is

that panegyric
as

with these speeches,

if

the

But our regarded principal part. answer was intended to apply only to the first inquiry, a half which does not pretend to be more than the
former
the

whole.

On

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

opinion

only goes to uphold that, from the point of view here established, the whole may sooner appear as

really

we

one united whole, than from any other so that might maintain that whoever considers the Sym
;

posium only with reference to itself, and independently of this connection and purport, as is usually done, sees,
as
far at

least

as regards the

composition, only
beautiful indeed,

as

it

were the external

Silenus-form,
still

and

elegantly worked, but

extravagant and eccentric,

costly

and not the

infinitely

more

image of the god

enclosed within.

In order, then, to open the former and bring the

latter

to

light,

we must connect
started
in

the

Symposium
which

also

with

the

problem

the

Sophist,

an

nounces a complete trilogy. Now, in addition to the and the Statesman, the third object of Socrates Sophist
*

enquiry is not merely the idea of knowledge and wis dom, but a philosopher, a man also like them, who,

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

life

is

to

be described, but
life

its

and appearance in the mortal man, in which wisdom herself, for

Plato
s

of the visible
is

this

manifestly

principal point

in

all

his

explanations respect

ing philosophy,
herself

has put
to

on

mortality,

and
as

displays

subject

the

conditions

of time,

a pro

of gressive and expanding power, so that even the life a philosopher is far from a repose in wisdom, but an

and, attaching it to every pro of time and the jecting point, to create in the whole whole of space something upon which an immortality

endeavour to retain

it,

may
is

arise in the mortal.

And when

the

name of

love

given

to

this

endeavour,
only

and the excitement and

of the

living

formation, not

of true conceptions

good and just, with which the statesman is engaged, and of which even the great mass is susceptible, but
rather the formation of knowledge in the few who are capable of it, is regarded as a species of procreation,
this is far
it

but from being merely a poetic comparison was absolutely necessary that Plato should look upon both as one and the same, and only view that spiritual
;

procreation
larly

as a higher order of the similar

and simi

named energy,
natural
birth

since, according to his theory, even

the

was nothing but a reproduction of form and idea, and, consequently, the the same eternal

Now that the immortality of the same in the mortal. of every means of production generally is the recipient
beautiful,

the

same,

that

is,

in

whose particular
is is

life

and existence the harmony of the universe

recognised
as

visibly

peculiarly

innate

which, to any one who is Hellenic nature, can require

therefore,

a point not a perfect stranger to the

in
it,

this

no elucidation.
the beautiful

When,
is

the love that creates in

de-

281
scribed,

the

business

of the

described at the same time,

his place in
particular,
it

philosopher in general is and in order to designate

is

only necessary to define

its

the relation of his love and

species

object,

to

every other

and object

easily appears 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
possible that
fact, that this wise lady,

any one should be misled by the single when out of the more general
she
seeks for

idea of desire,
in

the proper idea

of love
love

the

more

contracted

sense,
it,

excludes
this

the

of

wisdom, with others like

Or,
if

from

narrowed sphere.

any one should take occasion from this circum stance to object to our explanation, let him only try
whether
it

ject in that light

would have been possible to place the sub which the purport of Diotima s speech
1

required,

setting aside, by way of beginning, the endeavour after wisdom also, as coming under the idea of desire, in order to obtain for love as its general

without

peculiar

from

the desire to create. But starting the whole discussion this, manifestly displays the uninterrupted gradation, not only from the pleasure arischaracter,

ing from the contemplation of personal beauty, through I that which every larger object, whether single or mani- L_
fold,

may
is

occasion,
in

source

immediate pleasure whose the eternal beauty, which, without further

to

that

contemplation of that which

displays
itself

is
s

particular and individual,

to

the

mind

eye when practised and

quickened by dation from the

that

this order of training,

but

also,
life

the gra- A

procreation

of

natural
to

through
I

of

correct

conception
all

up

that

participation,
in
detail,
in

which ranges far beyond

master-skill

NN

282
that

immediate

knowledge

which

alone

beatifies

and
it

is comprehends within itself all other good ; to be shown how it is in philosophy only, that the

so that

greatest

good

is

the object

of that

for general desire

an ever-enduring possession, and to make this highest to it alone object immortal in a mortal subject, belongs
as to the highest species of love.

thus appear, accordingly, to have discovered the essential part of our whole work of art, in what So
crates

We

For

about Socrates. says about love, and Alcibiades the former exhibits to us the proper nature of the
it

philosopher,

a totally different external form, but when more closely considered almost accord of the establishment ing to the same method, by means

may be under

of a general idea, and by the separation of the other and Statesman, the nature of species, as in the Sophist
these
real

two characters

is

described,

while

the

life

and

actions of the philosopher, with respect

to

which,

as regards the

a few Sophist and the Statesman, only

scattered traces appear in these dialogues, are exhibited

before
picture,

us in

that

last

panegyric
half

of

Alcibiades,
out,

in
is

a
at

which

though only
so
far

worked

least finished as far as the outlines are concerned.

Yet

may we not pretend

this
last

to discover

the

whole in

half,

that the earlier

love-speeches are to be

looked upon only as embellishment, or as devoted en it tirely to other subordinate points; but, although be an unsound Eros to love any one of these might
speeches,
self,

or

regard

it,

as

of

any importance in

it

as
as

sion

Eryximachus the physician describes that pas his own, yet must they have been necessary
in connection with the rest,

when taken
each in
its

and consequently
and, certainly,

place and

its

kind, beautiful

283

we may

at all events assume, in

its

that the whole cannot be

rest

understood

immediate connection with the

of the works of Plato without them.

to continue, these speeches serve in a of ways to denote the sphere of love variety 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

is
is

mortal and
a morbid
are

passion,

and

the

left-hand

love,

with

which we

already acquainted from other dialogues.

for

Eryximachus,

given by Pausanias, mentions the cooking art, and consequently reminds us of the Gorgias, and the opposition in the constitution of man there treated of, so that we see how
enlarges
description

instance,

who

the

even that which

ference to
its

most opposed to philosophy in re object, may still be united with it under

is
it,

the idea of love, as co-operative with

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
in the speech

details in

of Socrates,

who

them are again taken up represents them as only

correcting

conditionally

and

partially

true,

what

is

We learn wrong, and supplying what was wanting. also in them, to examine by comparison what the com
mon language
of that period comprehended as belonging
to the appellation of love,

and to separate that which,

in
this

coming under the more modern notion, does not belong

to

respect, particularly the speech of Eryximachus is remarkable, whose phy siological and medicinal notion of love is ludicrously

it

in

this place.

And

284
introduced by means of the
interruption occasioned and for that very by the hiccough of Aristophanes, reason is not again particularly referred to in the speech And as these speeches show us the dif of Socrates. and the not-philosopher, ference between the
little

in

do they also, in enunciation and expression, partly by means of a loose, unconnected extravagance, partly by a corrupt musical
their

philosopher subject-matter and ideas,

so

rhetoric,

and the application of

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

distinguished

from

the

other

by a

peculiar

manner, which the translator has endeavoured as far as to imitate, are certainly not deficient in Pla
possible
tonic polemics.

For

it

is

indeed hardly to be believed,

that

these peculiarities

tended to

show

were merely dramatic, and in the manner in which the characters

introduced were generally accustomed to speak ; since, as several among them do not seem even to have been
authors,
as

Phaedrus,
to

Pausanias,

Eryximachus,

and,

supposing them

have been

alive at

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

Also, the mention of

lead us to quite different notions on

these polemics, dramatic in

For hardly can

are,

deed as they plainly

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 only the instrument of a false Eros, where one cannot avoid of the thinking
particularly
later

schools of Gorgias though the myth of

and on those of Socrates

in
its

al

Aristophanes

whole

style,

turn certainly excepted, so beautifully imi tates those of the poets themselves, that it seems to me to bear a striking to that told Pro
similarity

the comic

tagoras in the dialogue that bears his name. upon the whole,

by So

that,

Sydenham may
that

certainly
this

have been
the

right

when he conceived,
imitated

in

dialogue
those

persons

may

be not so

much

actually

introduced to speak, as others represented name, only that he himself followed too

under their
slight

hints,

and was over hasty

in

in

his

particular decision;

where
to

we

will

not

imitate
so

him, but leave

the matter
as
it

other learned men,

much

the rather,

belongs

not to our object to follow out such points. But, on the other hand, without these the relation

speeches,

of

the

Symposium
is

to

other

dialogues of
so

Plato, namely the

to to

earliest,

would not be near

clearly

open
refers
it.

recognition, and there

much

that

these

dialogues

intentionally
will

introduced

into

Every
by
this

reader, for

instance,

naturally

be reminded

work of the Phsedrus and Lysis, as when we were engaged with that we were compelled dialogue
to refer in

To the Phsedrus there anticipation to this. appear references sufficient in the first speeches, espe cially where the relation of the lover to the beloved object is spoken of, to render it unnecessary expressly to bring them forward. But several of these speeches
have, more especially, a peculiar reference to the Lysis,

286
as

they respectively take up respective points of what was there laid down as the ground of friendship and
love,

and always found inadmissible

and they pursue

so that that dia

their panegyrics of love accordingly

logue, of the over-sceptical tenor of which complaints might with justice be made, finds here its appropriate
solution.
ral

Thus Phasdrus
the

way

lays down in the most gene endeavour after the good as the ground,
it

and the secure attainment of

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.

ther assumes that
site

Eryximachus fur

there is a sympathy between oppo and Aristophanes lastly gives a comic principles, dress to the theory which maintains that love tends to

a .union
as

of counterparts.

His view

is,

that

not all

good, appropriating and informing, is the counter part of being, but that the notion to be entertained,
in

speaking of the good as the object of love, is a supplementary completion of the sensuous unity of ex

istence.

And

nearly the whole of this

is

criticized

by
sets

Socrates, from. the notion of love which he himself

up;

whence
is

it

is

easy

to to

see
reject

how
the

far,

and

in

what

sense, he

compelled

tends to the good, and to the union

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
with

here

we can

illustrate,

from a particular

side,

and

a view to showing its correctness, the arrange ment we have adopted of the dialogues up to this point. If we first consider the Lysis, it now becomes incum

bent upon us to show satisfactorily that this dialogue must stand nearer to the Phaedrus than to the Ban-

287
quet, and
it

why
to

it

must do

so.

And

this

is

seen,

as

me, evidently enough from the different appears form under which the notion common to the two dia

logues, of the neither

in

good nor bad,

is

stated in both;

the Lysis, indeed, quite inartificially, as being derived from the common conversation of ordinary life, so that it can be considered only as a feeler in refer

ence to the higher department of the investigation

as

something, as
cessary

were, which might be true, if the ne confirmation were added. And what confir
it

mation then
surprise
at
?

is

there here,

when Socrates expresses

forward by
the

his

the

theory

brought
of
a

wise

Diotima
in

The analogy

mean

precisely

similar

department, namely, the notion, treated of in the Theaetetus, of true and every reader conception will certainly be put in mind, even though it is not
:

another

expressly here mentioned, of what

is is

said in the Sophist

no real opposition as the peculiar ground of the certainty with which this theory may be enunciated. If, therefore, these con
of non-existence

namely, that

it

firmations had been already given in the works of Plato

when

the Lysis was written,

why

should he have enun

so precarious

ciated the ly
?

We

theory have the

in

that

dialogue only

Lysis therefore manifestly rejected

the
if

to a place the other side of

Thesetetus, and

when
its

once
place
time,

there,
to
it,

it

becomes easy,
force
it

we would

assign

to

to retrograde a

dialogue at

and remain in

its
;

natural

position
if

next after the Phsedrus

and the more,

immediately we bear in

mind the remarks

as

there

made upon

the

weakness of

the Lysis in point of dialectic composition.

For
Plato
s

as soon

we

have

become

fully aware

that

whole

theory of love rested upon the Hellenic character, and

288
that in

every thing even of higher purport

this

which he

would contemplate under

to proceed

idea, he was compelled

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
sophical

sense,

as

a representation

of the philo

impulse, declaring it only proportioned and appropriate to the notions of a beginner; and because
the desire to

generate
object,

is

now no

longer

according to

him the highest

and in

itself

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,
in

though only

in

so far
in

as

that

principle

exists

the mortal

being,
;

order also to produce

the immortal in this last

especial pains to

and therefore Diotima takes

in mortal
;

show that

ledge herself appears as mortal is ever immutable and self-consistent, but only as that which is ever renewing itself; and therefore, confined

man, even know not as that which

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

another,

makes

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
its

eternal essence, as contained in the

Menon

and elsewhere, only require some still more palpable assistance. So that from this point also, the place we
have
assigned
to

the

Symposium
is

acquires

additional

justification.

more, our general arrange ment receives remarkable confirmation from what Dio-

And what

love.

tima says of the gradual advances in the mysteries of For this gradation harmonises most accurately
with
tion

the
in

continually developing philosophical specula the works of Plato, so that he here, uncon

sciously

perhaps,

as

is

often

the

case

with

beauties,

most elegantly exhibits a mirrored likeness of himself. For first of all, the Phsedrus with its enamoured pre ference for one object, is excused as a work of youth;
then
the

beginner rises

to

the

contemplation of the

beautiful, in practical exertions

to investigations into

and laws; consequently,

virtues,

the

political

such as

we

find

in
it,

the

with

Protagoras, and and in the Gorgias.

the

dialogues

connected
the modifi
still

Then come

cations of knowledge, in their plurality indeed, but as modifications of knowledge, consequently, with

the

consciousness of the peculiar character of knowledge as exhibited from the Theaetetus onwards; and thus the

mind

rises at

last to the conscious

absolutely

beautiful,

as

it

is

contemplation of the beheld in disconnection

all

with any individual beauty;

o o

and, as producing

in-

290
dividual beauty in the world, both moral and material? will manifest itself to us in the last and later division

of his works.

For the determination of the time also when the we find yet further some evi dialogue was written,
dence, though of an

uncertain

character,

in

the
in

ana

the chronism already censured elsewhere, by which, of Aristophanes, mention is made of the destruc

speech after tion of Mantinea, which followed four olympiads at the death of Socrates, and it is certainly true that
the time

when Plato

been fresh in

men

have wrote, the circumstance must not to 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
sufficiently

well-known poets, have been already intro duced in other dialogues of Plato, and in Wolf s In
troduction
to

his

edition

of

the

Symposium, enough

for the satisfaction of every reader is compiled together But why these persons in particular, and about them.

not others, should

have these speeches put into

is

their

mouths by Plato,

of them, might be a

a question which, as regards difficult one to answer.

many

s character as found Only we might regard Agathon ed upon historic truth, and we find Phaedrus here, he was described in the dialogue that partly because as a bears his name, as a great friend to speeches and

cause of many, partly to remind us

of this dialogue.
clined
to

still

more

decisively

As
his

to

regard

in Aristophanes, I should be introduction here in the most

291
friendly relation to Socrates,
sation
for as an honourable

compen
from the

what

was said in the

Apology

especially

when we take
clouds
;

into consideration the quotation

perhaps also to

show how

entirely all

bad

feel

ing had vanished in him who had in earlier times written that beautiful epigram upon the poet, notwith all the satire which the latter had aimed at standing
the

philosopher.

IX.

PELEDON.

IT now becomes incumbent upon us to explain more accurately the proper meaning of what has already been
said

preliminarily in the Introduction to the Sympo sium, as to the relation and connection between these

two dialogues.
us,

Now,

if

the reader

would assume with

by way

of experiment,

that the

Symposium and
that

the
the

Phaedon constitute the third description,

Philosopher, given of the
as

of

connected

with

the

other

two

already

Sophist and the Statesman, we would then, in order that a more accurate view of the

subject
fact,

may
is

not escape him, draw his attention to the

the

that in

speech

of

Diotima

the

passion

for

wisdom
in

expressly excluded out of the idea of love, order that this province may be assigned solely to

parturition in the beautiful*,

it

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
denied, that
if

the good

is

the object of love in general,

a\ta.

ev

Symp.

292
then wisdom for
its

own

sake

is

to

be the

predomi

nant object of the love of wisdom, so that this feeling as essentially belongs to a man s life and conduct, as
the communication and engrafting of

wisdom
the

in others.

And
the

it

is

by the mention of these two

that
first

peculiarities

of

philosopher,

his relation

to

sophist

and

the

statesman
as

is

fully

defined.

For the
as

states

man
their

such

also

creates,

but only

kind the superior natures which are thus diately between the furthest extremes,

preparing in that vibrate interme

made

most

susceptible

of

knowledge

so

that

the

of his love out of philosopher best receives the object the hands of the true statesman, in order then to
create

and perfect

in

that

object

the
is

higher
also

life

of

knowledge.
in
dialectic

And
the

the sophist likewise

engaged
confined
in

separation

and combination, but, and involved

to

as

he

is

to

world of sense,
he
adheres
obtain

plea

sure

and

vanity,
will

only

the

terrestrial

copies,

and

thence

only the non-existent.

struggles
it

The

and possess for itself philosopher on the contrary

to

acquire the

self-existent,

and

to

preserve

knowledge, and, therefore, in order to exalt pure himself to the archetypes, in which alone it is to be
in

found, he seeks
they dwell, the influence of
this
is

how he may make

for
itself

his soul, in

which

work

alone,

and go

free

from

sense

and matter
desire
to

collectively.

And

that

passionate

that

wish

for

death
at

in

become pure spirit, the wise man which we find

this

described

here,

the

beginning of

work,

and

out

of which

all

the
it

following

investigations

develope

themselves.
this

But,
for

will
is

wish

death
in

be said by many, even though the other essential inpulsc of

s

the

philosopher

Plato

opinion,

still,

it

does

not

293
form the most principal subject-matter of the Phsedon, but appears only to subsist as an introduction, and an
occasion

subordinately giving rise to the souPs upon immortality, which that to which the chief importance
that

all

the discussions
constitute

clearly
is

attached.

Now,

subject of immortality, at least, goes equal shares with that of the wish for death, I am not going
to

the

deny, only

let

it

not either be overlooked,

that the

possibility

and truth of knowledge are continually, and

with the allegations of proof re

repeatedly interwoven

specting immortality, and that as regards our author, the two are in fact most For intimately combined.
the endeavour after knowledge could not exist at all under the form of a wish to die, not even in a philo sopher, if it were necessarily, at the same time, a wish
if the soul is to apprehend the L which is not subjected to origination essentially existent, and destruction, and to all the conditions of imperfect
^

for annihilation.

And

__

---*--..

M -i

.-

-I,

--.

n^-

existence,

it

can

only

do

so,

(according to

the

old

principle, and one, which in this argument must be always born in mind, that like is only apprehended

by

like,) as

existing similarly, and in the same

manner

with

that essential existence.

Thus, then, the immor

tality of_the soul is the condition of all true

as regards
is
is

knowledge men, and conversely, the reality of knowledge the ground upon which the immortality of the soul
most
certainly

and

easily
also,

understood.

Hence,

in

the

former

dialogues

investigated,

investigated

knowledge was always presupposed and and one may say, that, simultaneously
immortality
;

in

which

was

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
combined.

Whoever then comprehends

the connection

of these two points in the sense in which Plato meant no longer hesitate to place the Phaeit, will certainly don and the Symposium together, and to recognise the relation of the two. For, as the love there
reciprocal

described

exhibits

the

endeavour
that

to

connect

the

im

mortal with the mortal,

represented
as
is

pure contemplation here the endeavour to withdraw the immortal,

such,

away

from

the

mortal

and
with

the

two

are

connection manifestly in necessary in its advances towards if the soul For,

wishes
to

one

another.

knowledge removing further from the and appearance, and to sphere of imperfect existence from it, it is but a return be at last entirely separated
be continually
fairly

due from a soul

in this

condition,
it

as

it

is,

not

withstanding, incumbent upon

to interest itself

con

not endowed with soul, first, to tinually in every thing move longer knowledge in other souls destined to
engraft
in
this

sphere.
itself

And
its

on the other hand,

the

if

the

soul

exerts

to

introduce
love

truth

into

others,

the

only

proof
it

of

for

them

that

can

be

given

truth alone, and fly as far is, semblance of it. Now, of these as possible from the two essential characteristics in the conduct of a philo
that

adhere

itself to

in each of our two dialogues sopher, one predominates did although their necessary connection respectively in that respect not admit of a complete separation,
;

also

entirely

corresponding

to

the

character

of

the

For, as the second period of the Platonic composition. of Diotima could not description of love in the speech at all without reference made to pure contem exist
plation,
so also in this dialogue, where, properly speak
is

ing, that contemplation

represented,

wo

find

manifold

295
allusions throughout
live

to

with sympathetic

the passionate desire always to minds, and to co-operate in cre

ating truth within them, as a

only,
that

common

task and profit

it

as regards Socrates,

in order as
is

were to

secure him a tranquil departure, this

represented as

already essentially completed in his own peculiar circle. And this leads us also to remark how the dramatic cha
racter in both dialogues appears so very analogous, and indicates the same relation. For, in the Symposium,

eminently exhibited in the joyousness and pride of life, though it is not forgotten at the same time how he is plunged in philosophical contemplation, and can postpone all else to that ; in the Phsedon, on
is

Socrates

the contrary, what appears most prominent is the tran and cheerfulness with which he expects death, quillity as the liberator from every thirjgf that IrUeTrupts"" con

templation
theless

and on the other hand, he does not never

his

interrupt

accustomed

social

practice,

but

even with the fatal goblet will observe the sacred cere monies of the festive meal. It is, indeed, al
generally

lowed that
scription

little

is

to

be met with
in
its

in

the

way of de
this

more beautiful
but

kind than

of

the

not completely dying filled with the greatness of the subject before the two of the same man, that images given here and in the
Socrates;
still

the

mind

is

Symposium, are combined

If then
it

into one.

should be asked why, if the case stands Plato has not done this himself, and in thus, general worked up into one piece the description of the phi
losopher in his two-fold character,
since

we may

reply,

that

we can no longer enquire of Plato

himself, this

question on

the one hand goes too far, and it cannot be incumbent upon us to give an explanation of the

296
tact;

and, on the other,

it

is

easy to point generally

this period

to the progress

which even

at

the philoso

phy
to so
all

itself

of Plato had
it

made towards
upon the form

perfection,

and
;

the influence
that

had

of his works

without total separation, there yet prevails in of them a preponderating antithetical character, and

the

Symposium and Phaedon

together,

are

most naturally con

nected

exactly

in
are.

the

same manner as the

Gorgias and Theaetetus

say, that in

the dialogue
particularly

we

are

One may even venture to now considering, this

the description of

influence

is

reflected in

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

be completely
rest,

disconnected from one another.

it

For the

however,

would be a strange misunderstanding of what has

said,
if

been

any reader were to understand

as to

this

so

strictly

and

literally,

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
tic

was by that perhaps induced to divide his subject, and thus constructed the two dialogues with one another, and sketched them at the same time. For this would be too dry and mechanical a process for us
form,

he

to think of maintaining

it.

But Plato may

easily

have

let the trilogy go unfinished, thinking that his readers now turn a speech in the Phaedrus to the con

might

struction

of

philosopher

after

the

manner

of

the

second part of the trilogy,

combining much both

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
as the Philebus forms the first, second point of transition from the dialogues that have and were characterized preceded, by the indirect pro cess to those that follow, which belong to the immedi ately constructive class. And, when Plato was

dialogues

form

the

the point of adopting another

once for

all

to

upon method, and wished yet connect together what he had surveyed

already used, and what, although without where enunciating the results with every equal precision, he had also in reality taught and established, when he

by

the one

process philosopher as a purely mental process, as he had prac

tised
it

wished to conclude the old matter as well as prepare way for the new, what could be a more natural result than that he should describe the of a
the

according to his

for the description of his

own inclination and judgment; own mode of operation would

in
his

now
deed,

for the first time

come
a

way?

It must, in

always remain

remarkable

circumstance,

and

one that might point to an earlier period for the com position of this dialogue, that that dramatic character,
the dialogues immediately preceding had al most vanished, and in the Philebus again is likewise
in

which

much
these

suppressed,

comes out
were in
place,
its

in

such strong relief in

reader

two,

as

it

last

But, in
there
is

the

first

every

and highest glory. must see that

no other dialogue, and least of all is it the case with the earliest, as the Phsedrus and Protagoras,
p P

in

which the dramatic character

of
in

is

so

completely part

and parcel
with
never
it

the
this
itself

subject,

or

so

intimately identified
it

as

dialogue,
in
its

and

could

therefore

display

perfect right. stances

And

with more splendour of other circum again, a variety

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

vantage
of his

in

own

the Phsedon, probably, Plato s recollection Sicilian affairs, and the wish to show how

was that a cowardly fear of death should impossible it It exist in the breast of a true disciple of Socrates.
is

therefore

by no means the
that

close connection with the

this

Symposium

alone

determines

as

the proper

Phiedon in the works of Plato. place for the that it is that combination of should we
say,

Rather
all

that

has preceded, which

especially
refer
all

manifest, and to which we who would be convinced upon this

is

so

that particular relation pre point; and then, whether sents itself in a light more or less clear, can make

but

little

difference as regards
first

the principal question.

And
that
it

of

all,

it

must be evident to every one,

transition
to

is

only on
those
that

the
are

from
that

the

works to

would be

in its proper place,

come, which Plato

the
in

previous account
the per*

son of Socrates here gives us of his own advances in the turns in his philosophical career ; speculation, and of

how,

for instance, he

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
all

cosmical

contemplation,

first

shot

upon him;

how

by

the dialectic

method he convinced

himself of the

unsoundness of the Empedoclean doctrine of physics, and therefore, so long as his own ideas were not sufficiently clear and distinct to follow them out and
plenarily
as

consistently principles, he could not proceed otherwise

;

than critically and hypothetically

ticularly
to

and

this applies

par

his

speculations

upon
in

the

Eleatic

and

Heraclitic
culations,

philosophy, and to the which taught him that

result

spe the eternal forms

of those

alone

is

found

the

constant

as

connected

with

the

changeable, and real unities as connected with plurali ties, and that it is only upon them, and the relation
of things to them,
that knowledge or
science of
this

any

thing whatever can be constructed.

is

And

principle

here for the

first

time established so totally without

so

restraint,

and

with

much

reference

made

to

the

construction of science, that every reader who is familiar with the Platonic turns, and the value of Platonic ex
pressions,

must very

easily

see

that

when Plato wrote

this, the idea of the good had ceased to be too strange to him, or too obscure to him any longer from prevent

constructing in connection with

sciences which

that
to.

principle the

two

are

here alluded

But every

really

attentive

reader must feel in

this

place the most

de

cided inclination to pass at once from the Phsedon to the Timaeus, until he reflects that in Plato s specula
generally precede the physical, and on the other hand, that the idea of the good itself was still susceptible of more accurate explanation, and
indeed,
tions,

tions

the

ethical

more

especially

on account of disputed ques

unsettled, even required
to
it
;

at that

time

still

and

we have,

therefore,

yet

pass through

the

Philebus

300
and the Republic, of both of which the germs mani
festly
it

And again, appear in this place in the Phaedon. can hardly escape any one of sound and unpreju
mind, that
still

diced

the

doctrine

of

the
in
its

soul
last

is

in

our
of
1

dialogue

imperfect,

though
in

stage

mythological chrysalis sheath, as in the Phsedrus, but like the just emergent
longer
butterfly,

developement,

no

whose wings only want to grow to maturity, And a process which a few moments may complete. this circumstance in the case of the Phaedrus, points

For the manner in which very nearly to the Timaeus. the soul is here described as producing life generally,
and as related
proximate to and we observe here exactly the appearance of an authors only producing so much of one subject,
to to

immutable essence, does indeed ap strict definition, but still is not definition
to

itself;

which a particular investigation

bear
another,
ado.
as

is

to

be devoted,

upon without more

every

reader

must grant
still

As then

all

these allusions to
its

what

is

to

come,

place before the last great works of Plato, though in such a manner as to bring it near
assign the Phaedon
to them, so also, all references to the dialogues
its

already

given determine
to the dialogues
in

place after them.

For,

if

we look
that
in

forming the second part,

are

in the order

which

they

here

published,

we

find

that arrangement the connection which obtains between the Platonic doctrine of knowledge and that of im

mortality
strokes,

has

not

as

inasmuch
is

but only in as, wherever perfect and immutable existence spoken of, in opposition to that which is imperfect
mutable,

yet been indicated by decisive a vague and sketchy manner,

and

mention

is

also

made

in

some

way or

301
other
the

of immortality.

It

is

first

brought nearer, by
the
doctrine,

way

in
is

which

in

the
is

Menon

that
into

knowledge
in

recollection,

expounded and put

tangible form,

and to this Plato himself appeals here the Phaedon, perhaps more definitely and expressly

a denial

than he anywhere else alludes to an earlier work. of this appeal would scarcely leave us

For
any

thing remaining, but to suppose that the speech of the Socratic Cebes refers only to colloquial discussions, whether of Socrates or of Plato, and that the Menon
said by Cebes, though but by some one else, a Plato, however, which it would be difficult to supposition, make appear probable to any one who understood the
after this

was composed

had been

not indeed

then by

practice of sound criticism.

But the connection of which

we speak could not be

until

represented quite clearly contained in the Sophist had preceded; and the ease with which Socrates admits all principles relating to this point to be taken for granted
the
investigations
as long since dispatched,

well

would be, without such a

re

ference, inexplicable.

The

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

the kernel of the whole.

agreeably with this sup position, the Platonic Socrates himself clearly lays most
that

And

weight upon the theory,

exist

the ideas and

the soul

by

a similar necessity

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
it

appears in

life.

To

Socrates and his

tain

disciples this

is

the immediately cer

principle

to

which

they

firmly

adhere,

simply.

302
because
it

is

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
stration,

might learn to be cautious from

associate

this passage,
it

not

to

themselves

without intending
that,

with

those

who dream, erroneously enough,

had a kind of

according

to Plato, the ideas

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
here also followed out as a regular theory, that, namely, the repeated appearances of the soul in
soul,
is

and

the

body always proceed out of the abundance of that immortality, and are real repetitions, and not new crea
with
the

tions;

exception

of this,

Plato

arranges

all

other conceptions and minor points subordinate to that doctrine, as something not homogeneous with it, nor of

an equal degree of certainty,

in the light of

considering them

partly

amusing conversation,

and exorcisement

of the baby within us which foolishly fears death, while Thus, they have in part quite a different bearing.
for instance,

ances

the repeated and always perfected appear of the soul in the life of the body are quite
with,

and correspondent to its different places upon the earth, in one of which it may see more clearly, and be less exposed to disturbing influences

homogeneous

than in

another;

but what
it

it

sees

must

still

material things, and

is

not in a more distinct

be only con

ception of clearer impressions of ideas that every glimpse of higher and really immortal existence is vouchsafed to

303
Hence, both do in deed serve more to specify the whole province of the soul in the kingdom of imperfect being and of corpo
it,

but only

in

knowledge

itself.

real life, than

tality itself.

to exhibit or define

more

closely

immor
1

Nay, who can say that the whole of Cebes

not
nevertheless
is

objection,

that the fact of souls lingering

among many
immortality,

bodies

does

prove

their

an objection which

somewhat harshly and unexpect edly directed against Simmias the disciple of Philolaus, is not covertly meant against the Pythagoreans, who
thought that they had in the doctrine of Metempsychosis demonstrated the immortality of souls, and therefore, produced no more accurate information upon this point;
a deficiency upon which some regret is expressed in an earlier part of the dialogue. Only, let no reader be

misled by
to

this,

suppose

that
that

and by the mention of the harmony, Simmias probably brings forward his
the
is

argument,

soul

may be

after

all

but a dis

position of what

given in the body, in the name of

the Pythagoreans.

On

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
to

in

the

spirit

of the

strictly

atomical system,

which indeed Empedocles, in

;

this

point of view, in no small degree approximates

it

so that

might scarcely be possible to decide, from whom in is put is particular the dress into which the thought are any to And if there either borrowed or adapted.

whom

the answer

appears,
let

partially

at

least,

obscure
it

and unsatisfactory,

them not overlook that

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

expressing independent
in

existence,
for

have also their own measure

themselves

from

this it may be discovered, although it is not quite after our manner of viewing the subject, how far the theory of the disposition may be placed among the former,

and the soul only among the latter. Now without taking into consideration
reference to

this this

general
point,

the previous

dialogues

up

to

by means of the connection between the doctrine of knowledge and that of immortality, further allusions to
other earlier matter

more or

less

connected with that

pervading and principal point, are not wanting.

for

Thus,
in

example,
are
also

besides the quotation already alluded to,

we
and

further put in
is

mind of

a passage

the

Menon, by what
it

would

seem

here said of public and civil virtue; as if Plato here wished to show

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,

this

forms

as

it

and others to that species of were, the transition between the

virtue
is

two.
it

So

also,

when the true

spoken

of,

and

described to be rationality, the way in which the Protagoras is referred to, and every possible misunder standing of the dialectics there employed is once for
is

supposes the existence of all the intervening dialogues between that and the Pha?For we are now first enabled to learn, what don.
all

now removed,

necessarily

nevertheless necessarily belongs

that

to

the

subject

of

that

dialogue, comparative degrees of pleasure against one another, cannot consti tute any kind of knowledge. Moreover, the derivation

the

estimation

of different

305
from the dead, of those who are in the natal state, which is here taken generally from a natural law af
fecting every created being, has been already given in the Statesman in a mythical description, which every

one
also,

will easily recognize as the in

earlier of the two.

first

So
is

laid

very same place, the of the most sublime expansion

the

foundation

of,

and most gene

it

ral speculation

upon, the idea of the soul, as

is

said

that even heaven

ture of the body,

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
closely

definitions.

In like manner, when

said of pleasure,

we consider
the

what

is
it

here
is

we

can scarcely suppose that

discussion
is
it

of an earlier date than

so

in

the

Gorgias,

much more
at

dispas
so

sionately

introduced,
:

and

drawn from views

much more profound

nize
tains
it

while

we must

as

earlier

than

the Philebus,

once recog which first con

the full discussion of the

it

pleasant in this point

if

of view, nay,
to prepare
this

seems almost as

Plato here wished

the

way

for

still

necessary discussion of

subject, which was to be more mature, more tran But for all quil, and with more regard for nature.

who from
survey
parison

the Phaedon as their point of view, take a of the works hitherto communicated, the com

of this

dialogue

with

the

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,

306
to

them too
two

similar to allow of a great interval between

the

and even many in which they discover a ; foretaste of the Timaeus, and they might on that ac count consider the Phaedrus as later than the Phaedon ;

whence

explain

to

myself the
its

fact,

that this

opin

ion also has not been without

followers.

Whoever,

on the other hand,

places both works at an equal dis

is

tance from the Timaeus, and

dition
to survey

consequently in a con

the

whole system uniformly from the

think,
fail

two,

can hardly, I

to

feel

surprise

when
;

he sees
wiser,

how much more

and
worthy
of

perfect

the Phaedon appears

;

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

people
part, to

in

the

market-place.
further,

For even the

mythical

go

no
!

how

much

more

In this dialogue we hear no sober and judicious is it more of a supercelestial region, and of a dazzling gaze
and no necessity arises to assist the dry un it is certainty of them by an indistinct image; but sufficient, in order to demonstrate the revolution of the
at

ideas,

though con structed indeed upon lore of poets and wise men, is taken from later sources, and such as contain more of
soul, to give a theory of the earth, which,

a presentiment of science. ing is not to be looked

should,

Nay, though a
for in

special

mean
we

every

particular,

nevertheless, scarcely be disposed to disagree with any one who might suppose that what is said of Socrates treatment of the J^sopic fables, is a justifi
*

cation
tonic

of the fact,

that

in

the

majority

of the
is

Pla

myths

so

little

original

invention

contained.

And how much more finished is the philosophic talent in the Phaedon, how much more definite the connection

307
of the author
s

own

views,

how
the

differently,
first

compared
is

with

that

youthful

joy in

elements,

the

philosophical method spoken

of, after long practice

and

complex knowledge
the

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.
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

is

insufficient

in

their

doctrines.

And

the

proof given
the
soul
;

in

the

Phaedrus, of the

immortality

of

to believe that this

any one bring himself would be an acceptable supplement,

will

after all the discussion in

our dialogue upon that point? Or, must not every one see, on the contrary, that Plato set aside this proof, and as it were disowned it, be

cause he
does,

now shrank from

soul?

calling the soul, as he there

;

the original principle

or

God, who

is

the

real

original principle,

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

the Introduction

to

the

Phaedrus,

except

perhaps,

on the one
first

are not the

in the

to

side, the grand discovery, if we make them a present of it, that

is

Phaedrus Simmias

ranked

above Phaedrus as

an occasion of arguments, because he occasioned those in the Phaedon and on the other side, those particular
;

passages in

the Phaedrus in which doctrinal points are

308
enunciated with greater precision than appears suitable
to a
first

piece,

pose

the

which words occur, which sup existence of investigations not to be found

and

in

But any one must see except in subsequent dialogues ? at once how little that circumstance will avail against
all

that

we have

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

in

an

entirely

undeveloped

state,

so

that there

may
first

be no occasion for the subterfuge, that

they were

introduced on a subsequent elaboration of the work, although they look sufficiently as if they
so introduced.

had been
to

Finally, without any reference

the

Phaedrus,

there

would be nothing

to

say

in

that

favour of so early a position of the Phaedon, except so elaborate a description of Socrates would have

been in

its place only a short time after his death, that the passage in the Theaetetus about the flight from this world, is intended to be an elucidation of the wish

and

for death in the

Phaedon

arguments is sufficiently the weakness of the cause.

and the allegation of such tantamount to bringing to light

;

This

analysis, into

which

all

that there was to say

by way of preface upon the

subject

of the dialogue,

has at the same time spontaneously worked itself, will, it is hoped, secure to the Phaedon its place between the

Symposium and

the

Philebus.

Beyond

this,

we

find

no immediate chronological traces, though several indi cations do indeed point to a somewhat advanced period.

We
the

will

draw attention
in

to

two only.
Hellenic

In the
in

first

place,

way

which Socrates not only

the

myth de
as

scribes

the locality of the

education

the

309
worst district
his disciples

upon
to

earth,

but also

expressly

advises

seek for

wisdom even without Hellas,

bears

among
dress

the

races
late

of barbarians,
period,

of a

where from

throughout the an acquaintance

probably with the Pythagoreans in particular, the pas sion for the wisdom of the East was excited, and has

dations

an entirely different bearing from particular commen elsewhere bestowed upon the Egyptians, or
Locrians,
or Geta?.

And

in

the

next place,

an

ac

quaintance with the writings of Philolaus is manifestly here supposed, and the dialogue itself sufficiently teaches
that these
in

had not yet

itself,

at

that time
it

become naturalized
to
his

Athens

because

is

only

Theban

friends that

losopher,

who had
is

a knowledge of the doctrines of the phi lived there, is attributed ; and a dif
usually observable in enquiries

ferent style

made

after

writings already

known

at

Athens

so that the legend

a degree of probability, that Plato certainly acquires these books home with him from his travels brought
as

a present from his friend.

X.

PHILEBUS.

the earliest times to the present, the Philebus has been regarded as one of the most important of the

FROM

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

grown

into a clearer insight

into
in

the work, for those

on the one hand,

who have

general taken a right

view of

its

fortunate in
tails,

most universal bearing, have not been so their endeavours to penetrate into the de
to

and superadd, therefore,

the difficulty of the

perplexed style of expression, and confusion of language upon these points; while they who speak
subject a
easily

and

intelligibly

of the

same,

display

little

else

than the narrowness of their own capacity to see the meaning of such works, and consequently a very defi
cient criticism.

Now
its

in

this result

of the pains we have bestowed

it

upon the dialogue, the place which

connection
facilitate

occupies,

and

with

the

earlier,

will
it,

contribute

to

the

understanding of

much with those who

adhere to the indications already given. And, next to these, every reader who pays sufficient regard to the structure of the whole, and the way in which the con
nection
a
clear
is

interrupted

and

again
is

taken

up,

may

get

meant beyond what is conception said actually following exactly the recommendations we
of what
;

were obliged to give in the case of the Sophist, to which dialogue the present bears an especial resemblance
in
its

principal

features.

For here

also

we have a
to

question, and that not an unimportant one,

which

of the two, namely, in the life of man, the prize is due, pleasure or knowledge, proposed for decision just at the beginning of the work, and as soon as the ques
tion
is

satisfactorily
it

answered

the

dialogue
its

concludes,

as if in this

had

entirely exhausted

subject.

But
is

on closer consideration,
weight and importance
is

we

see

that

much

that

of

intermediately introduced, not essentially connected with the solution of that problem,

311
or of which, at least, as

much
this

as
in,

was necessary might

as
is

have been incidentally brought

with
the

here the case

much

besides.

And

circumstance excites at
the question
started

same time a suspicion,

that

just at the

nay, may of the dialogue.

by no means the only one, not perhaps contain even the main purport
is

commencement

For,

after

the

dialectic

foundation,

which proves that we are not at the outset to consider pleasure and good as two names of one thing, and consequently as identical, and after the allegation of
proof, that neither pleasure nor knowledge are in
selves sufficient,
this is certainly

them

nay more, that accurately speaking, for

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

false pleasure, of

between pleasure and pain, and might have shown how which several kinds spontaneously pre

tions,

from these explana cannot partake of that admixture with knowledge And if he had there necessary in the life of man.
sent themselves to his notice solely

further shown in conclusion, how, on the other hand,

the
latter
is

harmless in

all

its

degrees

even

to

the

lowest,

and how every species of it is capable of being combined, and is already naturally combined with pure
pleasure,

the

satisfactorily

question started would have been answered. Such matter as would

thus

have

entirely

gress to

dropped out, supposing this uninterrupted pro have been adopted, consists chiefly of the second
which those two pairs of ideas, that of
the
the defining,

dialectic piece, in

the indefinite,

pounding

cause, are established.

compounded arid com These ideas do indeed

312
come
into application, in so far as
it

belongs be disposed to maintain that they are set up here Rather should we say, that only for that purpose. the passage connects itself with that in the Sophist,
will

pleasure that

to

the

shown of impure indefinite, but no one

it is

which in a similar manner there forms the kernel of

Sophist also, he begins with speculations upon the nature of our notions of things and thus shows the necessary union, in know ($o
the

whole.

For

in

the

cu),

and constant, and, correspondingly, the necessary union of existence and knowledge in that
ledge, of the fluent

principle which

is

supreme and

original.

And

in

like

starting from the same point, he investigates more closely the mode and manner of created existence, and of the origin of the fluent and

manner

in this dialogue,

constant elements in

it.

For,
in

if

thing

connected

with

form

we take away every our notions of things,

that can in any

under which we must reckon

all

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
;

of

apprehended comparison which is precisely the same with the absolutely mani
fold,
tially

as

and

never self-identical,
existent.

and consequently, not essen

that

Now

the fact

Plato here avoids

this definition of the non-existent, current in the Sophist

and elsewhere, and

thereby,

although

certainly

unin

tentionally, increases the difficulty of connecting the

two

passages,
in

fact

is in part the result of the same subject being here viewed from a different side, and conse

quently needing different forms of expression; and more over, Plato wished to avail himself of the language of
the Pythagoreans, and that the more, because he
is

here

313
already upon his

way towards

the Timaeus, in order to

show, by so doing, the coincidence between his of thinking and theirs. This
indefinite,

own mode
and

therefore,

the principle of definiteness, here expressed particularly under the schema of number, because this expresses the mean between the infinitely great and unity, are the two sources of created existence; while the real cause

and compounds these two, the eternal nature of Zeus, expressed also under the name of Reason, in which the Sophist had already pointed
it

of

is

that which connects

out the necessary union of existence and knowledge as

taking place.

This doctrine is certainly expounded very and imperfectly, both as regards the necessities briefly of the reader, and also as compared with that to which
is

supplement, although the exposi has the advantage of not being given in so indirect a form, but more And this part of positively.
tion here

it

to

serve

as

our dialogue might be added to anything in the others that have preceded, if anything can be found tend
ing to justify the opinion, that a full understanding of the philosophy of Plato from his works was only
in

the power of his disciples,

call to

who, on the perusal of

instructions,

them, could

mind

his other

while,

from others, the best part remain concealed. But we have not been so badly dealt with; attentive readers

who

have

followed

hitherto

the

developments of the

doctrine of forms and original existence, and that which is derived from it, will follow also here. But even to

such

it

must ever be matter of

the universal

surprise,

that

Plato,

when he denotes

causative as reason

or

mind, appeals only to the general feeling of mankind, and when he establishes that principle of indefiniteness
as

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

subject

lies

close

upon the border

of Plato, and

properly

philosophic

speculation

approximates to that which he believed it possible to explain mythically only, not even the immediate scho
lars of the philosopher

were more

scientifically instructed

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
indefinite.

soul favours the view of the originality of the

here said incidentally only of the soul of the universe, intimating rather than explaining
is

Again, what

the

mode of

connection between created being and ori

the closest

ginal existence, stands in

reference to this

speculation
little

upon

the former, and has, on the contrary,

or nothing to do with

the question of the prece

dence of pleasure or

upon the Phsedon, and

whole extent
of
its

depends only be understood to the meaning by those who bear in

knowledge.
will

This

also

mind how,
soul
is

in that dialogue, the immortality of the demonstrated from the nature of consciousness, to

and the law

which

all

opposites

are

subjected

in

it

the sphere of apparent existence, and an alternation, as were, established between a personal existence of the

soul,

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,

desire

is

in

this place

considered in

the

same way
is

as, in the

Menon and Phsedon,

for

this doctrine
if

demonstrated with regard to ideas, as

those de

sires also,

when they appear

the

first

time,

must

315
be based

upon a
object

recollection

of

that

state

which

is

now

the
is

of

them.

And

the

purport
also

of this
is

clearly

to intimate that brute

instinct

to

be

taken into the nature of the universal soul.

Now

if

we

collect together all that concerns the

im

mediate object of the dialogue, the comparison, that is, of pleasure and and then ask for the knowledge,
connecting link whereby those hints and this discussion are combined together into one whole, we shall find
the answer immediately in that passage in which Socra tes says, that if pleasure were the good, it could be
so only in

the

mind, and that

in

then

there

would be
and

none whatever

bodies,

and

all

other beautiful

good

things.

He
good
at the

therefore cherished
to

the idea of not

alone,

confining the
it

the

life

of

man

but of

same time over the whole sphere of extending created existence, and it must also have been a great object to do this, with one who had made the idea
of the good the principle of the knowledge, not only of man himself, but also of that of all other things.

And

he

wished

at

the

same

time

to

establish

this

common

basis for the books of the Republic, as

is

well
in

as for the Timaeus, and this

the

object of

the

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

having thus discovered the nature of the good,

satisfied

and
done,

himself,

first

of
as

all,

as

is

likewise

here

that

material

things the

they

experience cannot form

object

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
speculation
is

upon man

as
this

well

as

nature, and

the

Philebus

eminently, in

respect,

the

immediate

introduction to those two great works.

From
ficult

this

to

be

much that was dif point of view then, understood or overlooked by the majority

of persons

How, for be pretty easily explained. descend to the fourth instance, knowledge and pleasure instead of taking the second and third. and fifth

may

For
and

places the end the two opposite theories therefore the formal elements of the
at

are

united,

which the perfection of the

compound

good, upon mixture, as such,

to material things, depends, and which are also common ranked first, and that which exists in men in par are
ticular,

forms the conclusion.

which as the cause, as the

Again, why the mind, source of universal order,

and as the compounding power, is admitted to be ab of the first place, obtains solutely good and worthy

And the reason is this, it is not here only the third. here the divine and most supreme mind that is spoken is exalted above all of, for the true and divine Reason
and is presumed to be re struggle for the precedence, in the highest cognized and acknowledged as the good
sense,

but of that
as

which has

itself

entered

into

the

compound
scurity

such.
to

not

Although here, a degree of ob For be disguised, must ever remain.

first

truth, which

Socrates

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
also,
first

We

must, therefore, say

in

ex

as the sole locus of truth, does

as

and there give reality to material things, stands be the mediating power, rightly
elements
of
the

tween the

general

created

good and

317
those which are peculiar to man. Another point too, be understood appearance not less obscure, can

in

only

upon a
identical,

similar

view of

it.

It

is,

why

Socrates

first

explains proportion and beauty as to a certain degree and then again separates the two in the most

decided manner.

And

the explanation

is,

that

it

is

by

the presence of definite measure generally that a thing first attains and becomes a thing; while individuality

beauty,

although limited
to

by

definite

measure,

is

the

superadded perfection From what has been hitherto

clear in

that essential condition.

said, it

must now be

what sense our dialogue intervenes immediately and next between the Phgedon as its immediate ante
cedent, and

the two

constructive

works,

the Republic

and Timasus; and that

last,
it

in its particular relation to the

if

is

we would go back to the farthest possible point, grounded upon the Parmenides, but next and im

mediately upon the Sophist, to the dialectic profundity of which it is supplementary by sensible and palpable clearness. And partly on this account, and in part be
cause the reference to the Republic, and, consequently,
the ethical character,

has

not,

like

the

predominant in it, this dialogue Sophist and Timasus, any other

is

leader than Socrates himself.

ciated,

For the expressly enun

for

though

less general subject, the

in the definition of the

good

mankind,

claims of pleasure is the especial

foundation of the books upon the Republic, because it is only after a decisive subordination of pleasure that the idea of a really common life can be estab
lished

otherwise

it

merely

remains

to

mediate

the

antagonist claims of self-interest.

Hence, therefore, the

books upon the Republic

with
this

very naturally

recommence

point.

318
the principal matter now of the dialogue, which concerns the comparison of pleasure and knowledge, it be said that it again takes up and perfects the

Of

may

Theaetetus and
the same

Gorgias together, so that we have at time in the Philebus a justification of the

which juxta-position in For what is here said

we place
of false

these

two dialogues.
is

conception
set

exactly
in

the same with what has been already

up

the

Thesetetus, though
lost

in

that

dialogue
its

it

may have been

disguise
;

to

the

many

under

sceptical

and

relation of perception to that con generally, the whole which contains at once the assertion and the ception

judgment
sure,

in

itself,
it.

supposes

the

Theaetetus

and

is

supplementary to

And

the disquisition

upon plea

manifestly an excellent and finished physiological view, is in like manner partly a repetition of, and what is said in the Gorgias, partly supplementary to, and penetrates far deeper into the nature of
certainly

the subject.
as
it

And

is

more

the present dialogue, in proportion mature and judicious than that, is also

Plato here justifies as necessary the harsh treatment which the advocates of pleasure there receive, if, without thinking of the persons, the theory

more

charitable.

is

to be exhibited in

its

true

light

yet

how

slightly

he touches upon the subject.

to

Nay,

even with regard

the

art

of speaking,

there

degraded so low,

we

here find an extenuating sentiment. Even tragedy and comedy are spoken of in a different feeling, although
the ingenious
find

manner
point,

in

which he explains what we

refers
to

upon
class

that
that

certainly

his

repug

nance, at
this

time certainly
composition.

of

of

Not

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,

upon

the

here to be defended.

Thus much may be

gards the subject-matter.
true
that

said

by way of preface
to the form,
its
it

as

re

As
in

is

indeed

the

Philebus,

inward

construction,

nearly
indirect

enough resembles
series.

the
its

main

dialogues
dress,

of
it

this

But

in

outward

may

with justice be accused of a degree of negligence, and it will be an universal opinion, that in this probably
respect
as the
it

does

not

furnish

any such pure enjoyment

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
ions

the

transitions

are

the

result

neither

of

the

incidental occasions 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
person
ality

and arbitrary character of a connected speech.

In

transition clearly to the properly constructive works, the dialogic charac ter begins to be only an external form, from which

short

we may

see, that

here in the

Plato cannot escape, partly from habit, partly he will not dispense with Socrates. Perhaps
cause

because
it

is

be

he

feels

the

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
less,

and somewhat pedantically twisted in order to in troduce something more than the ordinary formulae of So that one might
character
is a certain say, that there

answers.

unpleasant

spread

over

these

conversations

is sur upon pleasure, that we observe that the author hitherto feited with the indirect method of proceeding

used, and that nothing

than the manner in

is kept up more dramatically which we may perceive, especially

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.
I.

THEAGES.

THE spuriousness of the Theages has been already recent times so often pointed out, and from such a variety of sources, that a particular allegation of proof in support of that opinion is now no longer necessary. For, such readers of Plato as can pride themselves
in

upon any degree of critical perception or skill, will have ere this discovered the grounds of it themselves, and as regards those of a different description, such a

judgment

is

in their eyes only verified

it,

by a

sufficient

frequent repetition of
present instance, they

and such a
find.

repetition, in

the

may

The
of this

fable,

if

we may be allowed the

1

expression,

little

dialogue, consists in Socrates

is

a
are

pupil,

and the person chosen

in

adoption of one of those who

mentioned

the
final

Apology
sentence

dead

before the

of Socrates as already was passed upon that

philosopher.
wise

known

we know, Theages is not other than from two notices of him in Plato
far as

As

himself,

and has no opportunity

of showing

whether

he received

much

or

little

benefit

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
in

how though without understanding of it into to interweave the more profound meaning
the

Thesetetus,

his

composition.

For Plato
is

principal

passage,
influence

which

to

show how
not

that object in Socrates exercised an

so

upon

his

disciples,

as by developing truth out of their untouched by our composer,

entirely

much by teaching own minds, is left who adheres only

that

to

the consequence
to

which follows from this;

ac

cording

method of proceeding, exactly Socrates succeeds with some pupils and not with
a

similar,

others,

or predetermination; by virtue of a divine ordinance this point he has fallen into a and in illustrating

strange

confusion and most perversely

distorted

amal-

voice;
crates

o-amation of this divine ordinance, and that personal preO sentiment which, with Socrates, becomes a heavenly in the Apology, where So whence the

passage mentions this voice,

is

the

second hinge upon

turns.
It
is

which the whole of the

very remarkable Plato does not

little

dialogue
in

that in that passage

the Theaetetus
that

make

Socrates say that

daemonic

him admitting any one whom sign has ever prevented

soever
that he
to his
society
;

intimating as

it

were by

this,

owed

this privilege to all,

and could not allow

himself to feel a decided presentiment ; hence there might be for a time among his hearers those who were
easily

incapable

advantage from his philosophy. But he makes the voice come in then, and not before,
of drawing

would attach himself, bemust have a cause, then certainly the inward feeling worthiness is to be re voice to decide, whether the un of seduction from without, and garded as the effect love for the true and good, the return of a

when an unworthy

disciple

genuine

or,

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 one, but even this particular allusion every
does not seduce him into going beyond the character which in the Socrates attributes to that dae Apology

monic
sign.

mean, that it was merely a warning Our author on the contrary, while he enunciates
sign,
literal

this

in almost

conformity with what we find in

for

the

Apology, does,
this

in

exceed
as

principle,

the description itself, carelessly with him this sign appears

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,

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 uncrates in the

supportable, from the manner especially in which So Apology contradicts the accusation brought

against

him of

infidelity,

as

was

there,

we hope,

satis

factorily shown.

And
found
stories

other dialogues foisted upon Plato, for the most part to resort to necessary

as in

it

is

little

to

taken from antiquity or foreign parts, in order disguise the poverty of the subject-matter, so in

this,

two
little

stories

are
to

introduced about
foretell

the

this

daemon

such

results

power of as must

have depended entirely upon accidental circumstances; power of which Plato never knew any tiling, and

324
which
is

phon. that misled by a passage in the Euthyphro, in which with the voice of Socrates his own person connects in individual impulse, by virtue of which he predicts, The two the Ecclesia, some accidental event or other.
stories

not even justified by the expressions of Xenosuffered himself to be Probably, the composer

moreover present,

in

themselves,

a sufficiently

For one of them, which concerns strange appearance. is not brought to an a well-known Platonic
personage,
end, and
is
it

we

are left uncertain as to \vhether the author

it

to suppose

or whether he found generally known, or whether he did not elsewhere in the same form,
to extricate himself out of his talk
it.

know how
had begun

when he

In the other, the voice cautions against

an undertaking, the nature of which is utterly unknown would it to Socrates; not to mention that we have, with very into company seem, the wise man brought
inferior
in

people,

and of a

class

which we do not find

Plato.

bad imitator appears from under the mask he has put only too manifestly
In
other
respects
also,

the

on.

be

politics

stated, badly the proposition that the stated, out of the Euthydemus, the works of all other arts rules over
is

How

or fails
art
!

to

of

How
induc

this

Socrates accumulates in the most tedious manner,

clumsily
tion,

and

at

random

aping

the

Socratic

examples which are no examples never satisfied, but begins yet once nothing, and is still
again
in

as they illustrate

just

as

tedious

form,

only
!

to

display

common knowledge
only
that

of

common

things

How
for

Theages,

an

opportunity

may

be given

harping

of Euripides, is obliged to delay be upon a sentiment he does not really want to be a thinking himself that

325
he had previously admitted an incli nation towards it, as if the innocent boy were a second
tyrant, although

whom, however, he bears otherwise no resemblance at all. And how Socrates twists the proposition for him under his own hands,
a Callicles, to
as if he

Alcibiades or

had now ceased to wish to be

to

statesman,

and only desired

instructed

be a good
slightest

citizen,

without having
as
to
!

him

in the

degree

how
But

far
to

the

two characters are identical or

all

distinct

enumerate

that
is

is

ill

done, would be,

for
in

as far as the

subject-matter

concerned

much

of the lan

guage there
its

Platonic colouring enough to copy off the whole dialogue, and we would rather conclude with
is

character

for

brevity,

and imitate

it

in

this

re

spect.

II.

ERAST.E.
little

THE

spuriousness of this
force

dialogue

is

proved
in
it

with equal

by every thing we meet with by

its

from beginning
well
as

to end.

most outward
matter,
in

dress, as
far

by
it

its

most inward
of the latter

so

as

it

contains enough
further,
sons,
is

description.

To go

no

the

evinced by the namelessness of the per abrupt manner of Socrates in his opening-

questions,
narrator,

which, being himself the he concludes with the announcement of the

in

and the way

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,

when he has

to deal with sophists

who

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,
in

or incul

some further doctrine, and we look

of
this
s

vain for

anything even for Plato

kind
first

in

the present
this

instance.

But

exercise,

dialogue,

so

awk

ward and unmeaning as it is, would be far too bad. For after Socrates has already allowed himself to ad
mit, that only moderation
in

everything, and

not ex

cess, produces advantage, he does not at once draw the immediate consequence from this, that philosophy must

therefore be a

passes

first

to

bad thing when a question which

it
is

is

multiscience, but

and which

again he lets drop which to a reader of Plato must appear utterly strange;

here perfectly idle, at once in a manner

327
and then again takes up the preceding one in a differ ent manner quite from the beginning, and this, in
order to deduce from
tained,
it

less

than he had already ob

amounting
is

only to the proposition, that the phi

losopher

a useless and superfluous character as long as there are masters in the several arts; just as if he
it.

had before gone too far without intending

discussion
object
is

This

is

to
is

which

it

followed lastly, by yet a third, whose show that there are kinds of knowledge in disgraceful for a man, such as a philoso
to hold only

pher must
in

be,

that second

rank beyond
that

which multiscience cannot

is

rise.

But how much

no way connected with the subject, and which is serviceable to no end whatever, is mixed up with this
!

last part

That about the

of
it,

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
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,

some
the

thing upon this subject might be patched up.

other hand,
several

On

opportunities, which however un

sought
or

for,

necessarily

present

themselves for

saying

beyond hinting something explanation, or at least for pointing out

is

affirmative

that negative

by a

different

method where such an explanation

left

to be found,

are

without any
of Plato,

use

whatever being made

of them.

For one who had understood even

art
it

in any degree this been in fact a not un would have

this

worthy problem, taking

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,

skilfully

members of
it

the

dialogue
this

as

we now have
of view,

and

finish

further in
to

point
this.

might

accomplish might even be supposed that the first idea and ground-plans of the dialogue, which do indeed betray some such
purpose, may perhaps be mediately or immediately the work of a more skilful hand, or that some traditionary
notices of Platonic conversations

make an attempt

Hence,

it

may

be at the bottom
itself as
it

of

it.

But

to imagine the

performance
still

lies

here before us to be Platonic, or

as

more

decisively

the third part of the

trilogy

still

owing, and con

sequently as the representation of the Philosopher in addition to that of the Statesman and Sophist this is
the strangest notion
that can possibly be entertained.

III.

ALCIBIADES

I.

IT

is

well

known

that old commentators

upon Plato
to the

celebrate this dialogue as the

best introduction

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

to

and modern times many authors, themselves unable

invent anything original, have, not without success, ela borated introductions to the wisdom of others, and thus this opinion of learned men might continue to stand in
full

possession
to

of

all

its

honour and dignity, with

even

re

present dialogue, though before the judgment-seat of a quick-sighted and accurate cri ticism the work should be discovered not be one of

ference

the

Plato
first

s.

It

is,

indeed,

but

little

profitable to be

the

to

communicate doubts of

this

kind, and

to

ex

plain the grounds of

them

for the

faculty of critical

sparingly distributed, and among those, perhaps, who are not deficient in this respect, an accurate knowledge of the author, without which,

perception

is

but

rare.

however, a judgment cannot be formed, is still more And then come at once the great multitude of

those who, incapable of investigations of this kind, pro ceed in defence of what is traditional in such a manner
as

neither

are the

who

And yet these those afore-mentioned, he suggests such doubts as those of which we speak
to

instruct

or

satisfy

us.

men

to

whom,

after

In the present instance, however, it is imperative upon us not to shrink from declaring our
opinion upon the dialogue in question. let us once for all undertake to

has to look.

And
that

therefore,
this
little

say,

work, which, with those who are accustomed to admire in the gross, has been ever a subject of most
especial

commendation, appears to us but very insignificant and poor, and that to such a degree, that we cannot ascribe
it

to

Plato,

even

though

any
T T

number of

those

who

330
think they can swear to his spirit, profess most vividly
to

We will, however, apprehend it in this dialogue. only declare our opinion, without making any very great over others to coincide with it; and exertions to
gain

main generally the and in the annotations, points upon which it depends, to the particular instances tending occasionally to point reader may then take it as he to confirm it.

we intend now, only

to

establish

Every
to

will,

and others

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.
First of all then,

we venture

thing in particular,
in

if

to prophesy that one can trust to our own feelings we

any respect,

must

strike an attentive

reader already

of Plato; that the dialogue acquainted with the spirit a first perusal of it, will leave upon his mind

upon

an impression of singular want of uniformity to which Particular passages, very he is totally unaccustomed.
beautiful and genuinely
Platonic,

may be found

spar

in a mass of worthless ingly dispersed, and floating matter, consisting partly of little broken dialogues

busied

Of nothing, partly of long speeches. as it these, the first is so tedious that the god, when, to defer the colloquial seems, he resolved
about
especially

until an opportunity meeting of Socrates and Alcibiades these speeches, did neither had arrived for delivering

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

in

riches

and

luxurious pomp, for the reason that no irony can be

discovered
these

laudatory

descriptions,

in

a style

331
throughout unsocratic.
feel

Accordingly, the reader will also himself utterly unsatisfied, and regret that he has

been compelled to wade through useless digressions raised upon the most trifling subjects, and that on the con
trary,
or,

most important matter

is

superficially passed over,

it

so to speak, the

cup

is

broken before

is

tasted.

first impression has been overcome, he thinks to inquire more closely into the real mean ing of the dialogue, if such there be, he will feel at

If then, after this

a loss where to turn, and

all,

will

certainly

allow

first

of
the

that

the

work contains extremely

title

little

subject
that
it

which the second

is

of

it

professes,

upon I mean
a

to treat of the nature of

man.

Viewed from
kind
in

without,

the

whole

bears in

its

construction

of false resemblance to certain

dialogues

contained

our second part. For these, so to speak, have first of all an external thema, expressly enunciated, and yet

forming to a certain degree only the shell of the whole, and then another concealed one, connected with the
former,

and

containing

more
it

thus, in the present case,

And profound results. might be considered as the

is to prove to Alcibiades he must acquire from him other kinds of know that ledge previously to devoting himself to the conduct

external thema, that Socrates

of public

affairs,

and, on the other hand,

all

that So

crates brings into

the argument with a view to estab

lishing

this

proof,

might be taken

core of the dialogue.

be the proper But even the first point is not

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
this
of,

and in

the next, again, he goes beyond thema, and by way of conclusion, is induced to make some remarks

332
upon education
in

general.

And

still

less

does the

matter intermediately introduced

constitute of itself a

For that Alcibiades has complete and regular core. neither discovered nor learnt what is just, that what is
just

the same, and then again that Peri and here more than cles, though an excellent statesman, ever in any other Platonic dialogue, extolled without

and useful

is

a trace of irony, has, notwithstanding, imparted his sa have no connection gacity to no one, all these points and each stands where it whatever with one another,
is,

only in

its

loose external relation to Alcibiades

im

perfect
for a

state of

mind.

Finally,

we must not imagine

some philosophical
be contained.

moment, that

in these speeches to

secrets or other are intended

On

the

contrary,

very
the

though many genuine Platonic with what is here closely connected

trace of

doctrines are
said, not

even

slightest

them

is

to

be met with.

Thus,

Alcibiades might have extricated himself out of a very inconvenient dilemma by the slightest mention of the
doctrine of recollection; again, other matter
is

connected

with the distinction between knowledge and conception;

but in both instances these references untouched, and we are only reminded
ternal

are

left

totally

in the

most ex

manner by one passage of the Laches, of the of the Protagoras again by a Gorgias by another, and
It

third.

of must, however, be allowed that the majority

readers

have not looked for the

secret

treasure

and

proper end of the dialogue

in

in these speeches,

but rather

the

little

that

is

here

said

at

the
this

end,

upon
to

the

necessity

of

self-knowledge.
at
first

Now,

does

certainly

come forward
fundity,

with

many
to

pretensions
the

pro

but

presently

turns

most

superficial

333
matter, and
fectly

we

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
the

dialogue,

scarcely

insight

into the
as a
is

anything else remains but the nature of the god-head, which is re

commended
our

means

for the

knowledge of man, but

dialogue incapable discussing this subject in the most meager style so that the morsel except seems in fact not worth the whole apparatus, indepen
;

of

dent of the fact, that the particular members of this Neither apparatus are not in any way connected with it.
in the composition, generally,

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

in the

apparent

Sophist and Philebus, or even for passiveness of Socrates in the conduct

of the dialogue, under which every thing seems so the more to grow purely out of the subject itself.

much On

the

contrary,

Socrates

intrudes

in

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,

which

in

fact,

every

point to shame his interlocutor, so that the whole ac

quires

an

eristic

character,
it

no other
manner.

Platonic

dialogue bears with

in a similar

And when
is

we

reflect that

the interlocutor so rudely treated

not

a sophist, who is to be exposed in his worthlessness, nor even a boy who must be content to be the object of a
little

bantering for the profit and advantage of others, nay, not only a noble Athenian, but that Alcibiades, who is universally celebrated by Plato as the richly

334
endowed minion of
to maintain that

his instructor,

we might be

inclined

the treatment of the relation

between

these two, and the keeping, or rather the want of keep

ing, in their characters
else in
is
still

more unplatonic than any

the present dialogue. For instance, this thing with the mute character which he boasts of Socrates,

having so long played with his minion, and this careful watching which could be neither agreeable to him nor

worthy of him, now introducing himself with a long speech, the like of which he hates as he says elsewhere,

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
direct
all

appearance of the love of the boy

is

avoided

as

pedantically as possible,
fact,

and due merit assigned

to the

that Socrates has not even once addressed Alcibi

ades until the time of his youthful bloom was as good

as entirely

passed.

But how are we

to

reconcile this
is

with the manner in which the same relation

treated

of in the Protagoras and Symposium ? In the Prota Pericles is still alive, and yet Socrates and Alci goras
biades appear as old acquaintances, who must already have conversed much with one another; and what Alci

us in the Symposium, must also be taken from the time of his bloom ; for he can hardly intend to say that he wished to force himself as a minion upon

biades

tells

Socrates

when
then

his

bloom was passed.

Alcibiades

And

how completely
!

himself

ap
find

pears without any resemblance to him

whom we

elsewhere represented

At

first,

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
his

answers.

In

short,
is

however
in

we may consider

it,

our present dialogue

diction of all

this respect either a contra

own

other Platonic dialogues, or else Plato s And dialogues are so with reference to the rest.
feel this,

whoever does not

we cannot indeed

afford

him

any advice, but only congratulate him that his notions of Plato can be so cheaply satisfied. We would, how
ever, yet

further

draw the

attention

of

others to one

or

two points from which

in

perhaps

in

the

sequel

for

we are not
sult

the subject here,

as
to

any way inclined ourselves even to start more accurate conclusions might re
particular

the

mode

in

which the present

dialogue originated, and has come down to us. what is most Platonic in it may be indeed in
imitation,

For
part

sometimes

more

close

and

sometimes

more

remote, of other passages, and as regards

the subject;

matter

may

be drawn from reminiscences of other works

such a description, that though we can

in fact, it is of

not believe Plato to

have

literally

written

it

thus,

it

may be perhaps
instructions
relation
;

based upon
to

hints taken from his

own

as for

of justice

example, the discussion upon the a very avail profit, which was

able example in illustration of his doctrine of the

com

munity
are in

of ideas.
fact

Moreover, some particular passages of such a nature, that we might not be

very loath to suppose that they

exactly as they stand here. ther the way in which the

came from Plato

if

pen

And

we consider fur
part
is

greatest

here not

336
worked out, but only laid down as a thema, the ab ruptness or awkwardness of the transitions from one
part to
another,
especially

when
a

piece

of worthless
begins, and

and empty

dialectics

ends or

new one
is

how

the

superior

matter

which

torn

asunder and

deformed by these foreign additions might stand in far more accurate connection, we might almost be tempted
to think

that an

immediate disciple of Plato somehow

or other

got hold of a sketch of a dialogue of his master which had probably come down from earlier times, and which the latter did not finish but reject,
distributed
into

and

other
still

dialogues,
later,

and Meno, and

teach in
really
it.

some
this

Gorgias what he intended to

least
if

as

the

But
it

dialogue,

at

Plato had

finished

himself,

would

scarcely

have

been

called
little

Alcibiades.

This appellation was certainly but

to

colloquy with Socrates. For his boiling vivacity would not have borne to have attributed to it the character of a passive interlocutor,
appropriate
a

such

though of the best kind, like Theaetetus for instance, and Plato could scarcely have thought of engaging him
in

violent
;

cles

so that

polemics against Socrates, as he does Calliit may certainly be fairly maintained that
Alcibiades
1
,

instead

of two

which up
Plato,

to

the

present

day have been attributed to

write
one.

he did not

even

337

IV.

MENEXENUS.
it is

No

reader of Plato,

properly philosophical writings, to which, inasmuch as no philosophical subject is treated of in of it, the Menexenus has as little claim any part
to belong as the Apology of Socrates. The occasion of the latter, however, is clear and manifest; but what can have induced Plato to venture at a late period into the province, to him entirely strange, of regular
state

surprise at finding this in the series of his

little

presumed, will feel any work not brought forward

speeches,

may
for

reasonably be expected to be not

very possible

us now to decide; at least, nothing appears in the work itself which could give a deter minate direction to the That conjectures of ingenuity.
the

speech

is

placed

in

some

relation

to

the

funeral

oration of Pericles, which

us,

to

Thucydides has preserved to is certainly manifest, but when Socrates refers both one authoress, and that authoress this is
out of which
it

a
to

jest,

will

Aspasia, not be easy for any one

nor,

extract

any serious meaning;

that the later oration contains

in

much

when he says that was omitted

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

that

we do not

see

why

opinion,
laid

if
it

any way contained what we and we might feel more satisfied with it was a later author pronounced

by

starting, that such a speech must from the begin beginning with a pane gyric upon all the exploits of the Athenian people.

who had

down

as a law at

u u

338
Another thing which may
that Plato probably
easily strike

any one

is,

intended in this speech to set up

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.

together

in

Lysias

is

here combined into a whole, by

means of
which
is

the connection of distinctly enunciated ideas, impressed upon the hearer by means of words,
is

whose sound

an echo

of their

sense,

brought into

element in the strong and prominent relief; the tender sorrow is compensated by manly advice, and the whole
speech
aim.

same time pervaded by a more exalted But had this contrast been the actual object in
is

at the

we not suppose that Plato, who so well un derstands how to give a hint, would have found some
view, must

means of intimating the same

comprehends the speech
If then this
?

in

the

dialogue which

we explanation also leaves us where intended were, might we not venture to say, that Plato by such a speech as this to give a practical answer to
the objection occasionally brought up against him, that his dislike to the art of speaking was the result of
incapacity to prepare speeches, which Socrates in his dialogue is so often obliged jestingly to acknow
his

own

ledge? and that he chose in particular this opportunity for doing so, because in the Corinthian war one of his

own
the

friends
to

had met
this

his

death

Nay, that from

his

partiality

exhibition,

he has himself practised

the
historical nar-

severely

censured

and hypocritical department of

as
in

the corrupting art,

inasmuch

339
rative here given, none but the fair side
is

ever presented,

and

all faults

in the state are

in

withdrawn into the dim

the later relations

mest obscurity, while

with
king,
the national
are

particular,

enemy of
and

the

Hellenes, the Persian

in

embellished

represented

manner

which may scarcely be

And

therefore

it

is,

justified upon historical grounds. we might suppose, that Socrates

treats it as such an easy matter to flatter the people before the people, and hence too, that the speech is ascribed to Aspasia, who must have been pretty well versed in the art of seductive embellishment. And in
like

in the

say, that as Plato Philebus relaxes his overstrained polemics against the art of so likewise he did the same at an speaking,
in

manner another person might

earlier period

the present dialogue in act and deed.

is

For

that

the

Menexenus

in

fact

nothing but

an

attempt to improve,
all

by giving them a better

direction,

these speeches in
;

which the people were ordinarily

this flattery

only flattered
is

and that the appearance of

preserved in

all

that
is

is

the present case, and that

there
into

manifest
vivid

throughout,
consciousness
state,

an

endeavour
true

to

right

the

idea
this

bring of the
to

Athenian people and

give a
a third, again, might

in order

by

means

more exalted turn

to

the national mind.

And
the
dif

make an attempt to connect with the Symposium, in a sense present dialogue

ferent from that in which the former connected
it

with

the

Philebus.

For appealing

to

the

great

difficulty

which exists of explaining the whole, if we take it in a serious point of view, and to the way in which even what Plato must have been most in earnest with, I

mean

the

recommendations

to

virtue,

is

itself

beyond the

line of all that is serious,

by

repetition

pushed and

340
bantering,

he might attempt to represent

it

as

in

the

main a playful imitation of the rhetorical

styles.

And

who

can

tell

how much

a skilful

critic,

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 more profound and various than what Dionycertainly
in the orators,
;

of Gorgias, Licymnus, and Polus, and once^ in passing, of Agathon.

sius says,

who only reminds us

as

But
find
in

as far

we

are concerned every reader

earnest as he

may
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,

which arises

from the circumstance that none of the

will

different views

We meet with any confirmation in the dialogue. are indeed fully aware that by many persons even the
introduction has

been discovered to be beautiful,

them.

and

has been
that
is

much admired by

But with

how much

when it has unplatonic has this been the case name of Plato. Certainly, once come forward under the
even supposing Plato to have written this in To troduction, it is not particularly worthy of him.
at
least,

go no further,
it

for the

omission already censured, that

does not assist us

in the slightest degree to a trace

with

regard to the particular

this dialogic setting deserves

meaning of the whole, some blame, and moreover

no discriminating reader, we presume, will receive much deference of Menexenus, who pleasure from the awkward
will

only

take

in

hand public

affairs

when

Socrates

341
nor from the pointless way in which Socrates expresses his opinion, that he must certainly be a great orator by reason of Aspasia^s instructions, nor from
it,

permits

the coarse jest, that he nearly got a beating on account of his slowness at learning, and that he would even

dance naked for love of Menexenus.

It

is

certainly a
is

very pardonable suspicion, that this setting

the

probably

work of another author, who gladly

set

himself to

construct a dialogue out of the speech, and thought it impossible that a Platonic creation should come into the Such a person may then have world without Socrates.
easily

Diogiven in Aspasia an awkward imitation of tima, and thus have fallen unsuspectingly into an ana chronism with which none of the others of Plato are
at

mean, that Socrates delivers a to something speech referring completely and entirely after his death, and that that did not ensue until long
all

comparable

he professes to have this speech from Aspasia, must have been already dead long before him.
thus
it

who

And

would be
the

in vain

to look for

any serious mean

ing

in

more such
tress.

promise given by Socrates to produce yet state speeches from the mouth of his mis

V.

THE LARGER
is

HIPPIAS.
certainly purely phi

THE

object of this dialogue

losophical.

For the explanation of the idea of the

its full

beautiful in
as

extent, as

it

well

as

immaterial,
as

would certainly be

embraces material things worth the

trouble,

and quite

important as regards the philo

sophy of Plato, as the object of many of the smaller

342
dialogues
to

which we

larger series.
in

have assigned a place in the But the reader, if he looks to the mode
is

which

this

subject

treated,

will

certainly not be
in this place

surprised to find the Hippias

in the

Major only

For it is throughout sceptical to a Appendix. a mul which characterises none of the others degree
;

titude

of

different
all

explanations
of them
all

of

the

beautiful

are

taken

up and
is

refuted.
to

And
of

even, when
is

the upshot

taken of
in

which the reader

con

ducted
find
liar
is
it

or
to

referred
consist

this

process

refutation,

we

only in

couple of perfectly fami

of the bad positions, which teach that the origin and that the beau not in power but in impotence
!

and good should not be separated and this last, indeed, is the only point upon which Socrates expresses In consequence himself with clearness and precision.
tiful
;

of

this

absence of scientific

tone,

we cannot number

the dialogue

among

Thus,

it

does not

stand

those properly called philosophical. in any visible connection of

In whatever. progressive development with any other the persual of it, certainly, every reader is immediately

reminded of the Philebus, and it is only on account of this connection, and not with a view of indicating,
even in the most remote degree, a period at which the Hippias might have been written, that we assign it its

For in the Philebus, Plato expresses present position. himself with the greatest precision as well upon the subject of the connection of the beautiful with the
good, as upon that of the nature of the beautiful itself, and considers it not only in its moral bearing, but also according to the first elements of that which we
call

beautiful

in

material

things.

But no one
reference
to

will
in-

there find

even

the

most distant

the

343
vestigations here pursued, nor the Hippias is any proximate
to

again

in

any

part

of

preparation discoverable

what

is

discussed in the Philebus.

it

In short,

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,

so

completely
is

is
it,

all

such
the

kept out of sight

and quite

as certain

that

impression which every reader must receive from the whole is, that a polemical purpose is the predominant
in it. And under this purpose the dialogue has in view two remarkable explanations of the beautiful. In one of them, that the beautiful is the fitting, we easily

recognise the spirit of the Hedonic schools, in so far,

that
is,

as

according to them the good

established,
it

is

only

some

thing

capriciously

consequently

agreeable
in

and

fitting.

Only

may

excite our surprise, that

discussing this point

Socrates adheres so exclusively to a

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

kind of almost verbal

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

close at

is

certainly given

hand, notwithstanding that we very cannot now point out the author of it, it is impossible to believe that the substance of these explanations which
as lying

344
Plato puts into the mouth of Hippias about gold, and the pretty girl, was derived from any other authors.

And

thus

it

is

himself,

how

impossible for any one to avoid asking it happens that Plato exhibits the not

undistinguished sophist as guilty of such an unheard degree of stupidity, as not to be even in a condition
to

understand a question as to how a word

?

is

to be

explained here under a far coarser form than anywhere else, not excepting even the Euthydemus, where the persons are

The

personal ridicule indisputably appears

probably

in

no instance
as
it
is,

strictly historical,

and

it

would,
its

exaggerated
effect.

have certainly destroyed

own

This manner, or rather absence of anything deserv ing the name, scarcely reconcileable as it is with the propriety and polish of Plato, may perhaps excite a
suspicion in the minds of many as to the genuineness of the dialogue, because we might certainly meet with

very naturally in a less experienced imitator, who felt that it was necessary for him to give himself an easy task if he was to succeed in any degree in the irony
it

and

dialectics of his prototype.

And

the suspicion once

excited,

much
it.

certainly
at

will

be found apparently con

in

firming

Thus,

the

very beginning Socrates

dulges in

induce
it
is,

a piece of sophistical dialectics, which might us to believe, that not anything, being what

can be useless, a piece of art which would not be unworthy of any of the persons in the Euthydemus.

Were
it,

it

this a parody of anything of the kind resembling one should think that Plato would rather have put into the mouth of the sophist than of Socrates. On

the contrary,

Hippias meantime exhibits in his beha viour a plain common sense which he is not quite able

345
subsequently to keep up, and with a moderation which is not very carefully returned on the side of Socrates.

Then,
strikes

in

the

arrangement of the whole,

strange,
all

it

certainly
first

us as something

that in the

half

of the dialogue

explanations of the beautiful come

in

from Socrates, who there contradicts himself, and that for the most part in an unnatural and precipitate manner, without being

from Hippias, and

the latter

all

in

any way compelled as

it

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

have come from the hand of Plato

for

the

man

threatens to beat him, like Aspasia in the

Menexin

enus, and Socrates afterwards puts himself

by name

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

effect

whatever

is

pro

duced by his doing

again
is

so,

and the resort

to this expedient

But it might, be rather precipitate to entertain the notwithstanding,

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
is

strictly

and

unconditionally rejected. santry dispersed over the

There

an abundance of plea

whole,

and when

we have
that this

made due allowances and considered further

was the principal object
part
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
shall

as

well

be readily disposed to pardon the exaggerations as the extravagancies of the humour which

xx

346
prevails in the dialogue.

We

ma}

moreover, easily see

is

how much
self-defence.

of the polemics generally

The

earthenware,

kitchen-furniture,

grounded upon and

the golden mill,

are purposely introduced in defiance of

those

who were
things
;

pleased to ridicule examples taken from

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
this or that objection.

how he must answer a third person making And who then can say how many

may be here concealed in con sequence of which much that remains is even more Even the senseless beautiful than it appears to us.
other personal allusions

answers

of

Hippias

may be

parodies
in

of

others

like

them, or of the

superficial

manner

which the good

to

and the beautiful were by many made

this

consist

in

thing without penetrating into But why Hippias in parti the real essence of them.
or
that particular

cular

is

upon
it

the person to give his which no one will look

name
for

to these, is a point

information.

Only,

not very probable that Plato should have chosen him twice, and each time for the unfortunate hero of
is

a private colloquy with Socrates, especially as the two

dialogues
another.

have no

internal

relation
is

whatever

to

one

If then one of them

to

be considered Pla

tonic, and the other not, the victory will be with the

larger

of the
in

two.

For many

traces

exist

that

the

author

the composition

the larger before him.

directed against

of the smaller dialogue had Particular expressions of ridicule

which the larger dispatches in a few words, are spun out in the former with dis and the banquet of speeches to proportionate prolixity,
the man,

which
crates,

in
is

the larger dialogue the Sophist invites exactly concluded in the smaller.

So

347

VI.

CLITOPHON.
the

IN the old catalogues of

the

writings

of

Plato,

Clitophon stands, not among those condemned as spurious, but in the middle of the genuine list, and has been in like manner adopted into all the editions

up to that of Stephanus, who, like other later editors, has followed Serranus. And thus it finds a place here, with the same as all the other right dialogues of that
collection.

The defence of its legitimacy, however, is a task which we could not pledge ourselves to undertake with success. The very commencement, where Socrates ad
dresses

Clitophon,

who
in

is

only person present,

his

moreover represented as the the third person, and laments

depreciation
to

in

say

him

that

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,
is

fully repelled, both immediately

and by the
little

ironical matter contained in them.

If then
is

we are once agreed

its

that

this
is

piece
for

not

from the hand of Plato, there

no

yet

room

great variety of opinion as to

There

is,

indeed,

question

tendency and object. that in the works of

348
several of the lesser Socraticians the

wisdom of Socrates

as a confutation of the errors

sufficiencies
itself

itself in its negative character only, especially presented and exposure of the in

of other methods.

Now,

if

this

method

is

intended to be here censured as insufficient, the

piece

might be regarded as complete. This Socrates is then to be represented as actually reduced to silence, and this method might thus be intended to convey a
the objection made against Plato of far exceeding the real Socrates. from various sides, And perhaps it was under this supposition that the

justification

against

ancients

assigned

the

Clitophon
it

its

place

before

the

Republic, to stand, as

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

particularly
first

and
the

the

place,

insufficiency

ought to have been represented more fun on the side of doctrine and knowledge, than damentally on that only of admonition and excitement, for which

wisdom can only furnish a mean. And then again, it would be strange that the dissatisfied person applies
directly
to

a sophist

like

Thrasymachus.

It

is

cer

tainly, therefore,

down from one of

more probable that the dialogue comes the best oratorical schools, and is

directed against Socrates and the Socraticians in general,

Plato not excepted.

in
this

And we must

be much confirmed
is

view when we see how the whole

actually a

running parody and caricature of the Platonic mariner,

especially

of

all

that
art

appears

against

the

sophists

as

teachers

of the

of politics,

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

reminded of what occurs

the Gorgias,
;

to this

pur

pose in

the Protagoras,
first

the

Euthydemus,

and even the

Alcibiades

and the elegant negli

gence of certain Platonic periods is here imitated with a richness which cannot well fail to make a lively im
pression.
If,

on

the

other

hand,

this

dialogue
to

is

to

be ascribed

to

the

Platonic
in Plato s

school,
spirit,

and
then

be looked
cer

upon

as conceived

we need

tainly consider

what we have here

to

be only an intro

duction,

and

must

suppose
to

that

Clitophon
defeat,

was to be converted
satisfactory

a serious

triumph and that a

and

brilliant
still

justification
this

of

Socrates

was

yet to follow.

But
the

original design, as,

can hardly have been the in the first place, the return of the
is

conclusion

to

commencement

too

decided,

and,

in the second,

Socrates would certainly have begun his

attack at an earlier period in the dialogue.

350

PART

III.

REPUBLIC.
we compare the compass of this work with even the largest of those which have preceded it in our
arrangement, and consider that it is a second repetition of a continuous dialogue advancing without interrup tion, and, moreover, one that began first, in the evening,

WHEN

we must have been already very

what
is

vividly convinced

by

said in the

Symposium,

that he

whom

Socrates

once gets into conversation must hold out the whole others night, and even to the morning dawn, though

may have
sleep,

all

made
is

off

or

surrendered

themselves to
his

and that he

as little wearied

by repeating

own

or other persons arguments, as of investigating and developing truth from the first in common with In this character he here appears, inasmuch others.
as he repeats again

the whole dialogue on

this,
it

mediately
the day
large
first

succeeding
before,

and such
was
first

also
held.

the day im was the case

when

For of the
which
are
at

party,

the

individuals

composing

crates and
in

partly as accompanying So and partly as already present Polemarchus, the dwelling of the latter, the majority disperses one

mentioned by name,

knows not how

prefer the

at

least,

they do
is

spectacle which

in

say that they reserve, of the newly

not

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 to
its

first

disputed with

testified

by stout

stoutly continue the argument in alternation with Socrates,

call

to the task,

appearing however to be of any particular whether Glaucon or Adimantus sustain the importance
conversation.

without

the author appears by this dress to convey a wish that his readers should in like manner conceive
if

Now

and enjoy the work as one undivided whole

as

in

itself,

arguments themselves are to be supposed de livered without interruption, and again related without a pause, the division, on the other hand, into ten books
is

the

an obstacle to the accomplishment of that wish.

although
Aristotle does not

This
is

division,

notice

it,

cer

tainly of great, antiquity,

and since from the time of the

the

commentators upon the Stagyrite until now

is

work

always quoted according to it, this division must be always kept, but it is not so easy to make it probable that it comes from Plato himself. I, at least, cannot pre

suppose that if Plato had found it necessary to divide his work, he would have been likely
vail

upon myself

to

to project a

dismemberment of

it

so perfectly mechanical,

and bearing no relation whatever to the subject-matter one which every reader who would search into the in
ternal connection of the
if

whole must entirely

into

set

aside,
it

he

would avoid

falling

confusion.

For

is

only with the end of the first book that the first part also of the work concludes, and in like manner, the
conclusion of the whole commences with the beginning

of the last book, but beyond this, only the end of the fourth book and of the seventh coincide with an im
portant division in reference to the subject-matter.
All

352
the remaining books break
oft

in

the middle of a dis

cussion in
in

such a manner that not

could

them

be

turned
then,

to

even any phrases denote conclusion or

commencement.
case, that the

Since

the
it

books

pretty
easily

much
be
the

resemble one another in extent,

first

may

important break was adopted as the

as

standard, and as

many compartments formed

similar
in

would

come out

sufficiently

length to this, a pro

libra ceeding in which, clearly, the transcribers and the ries must have been all that was had in view.
this Accordingly, if we totally reject the notion that an original subdivision, or one connected with the

is

internal arrangement of the whole, and

latter

go

to

find

the

according to the indications in the

work

itself,

we must give the composer credit for having attempted by every method to recompense the reader for the
want of regular external
divisions,

and to

facilitate as

much

as

possible

the

apprehension of the

connexion.

For with exemplary accuracy the point of commence ment of every important digression whatever is distinctly marked, and at the end, again, reference is made to the
point from

which the thread must be taken up anew.

it

In like manner,

is

generally

made very observable

little

where a new section

maries of
that
it

begins, and comprehensive sum

all

that has gone before are so

for

spared,

every reader with nay, that any degree of attention to keep the thread it seems almost impossible to fall into any uncertainty
as
to

must be extremely easy

the real object of the work,

and the relation of

particular parts to the

Now,

unity of the whole. the course of the entire work is as follows:

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

as

the

most important advantage of wealth, that the rich man can meet what awaits him with a more confident spirit,
as

he has been
injustice.

less

tempted than the needy one

this

to

commit

To

Socrates tacks the question

as to the nature of justice, while he immediately rejects as insufficient,

by the

a very

current

application of familiar instances, explanation of it, that it is truth in

speaking and honesty in restoring.

And

here
is

Cepha-

lus, who, independently of any thing else,

already too

far

advanced in years for such dialogues, resigns his place to his son Polemarchus in order to attend to the
sacrifice

out

of

doors.

And

Polemarchus

then

en

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.

Upon

this

the Chalcedonian

Thrasymachus comes
sophist, here

for

ward with the big swagger of a

and there

reminding us of the rough jests in the Euthydemus, and occupies the place of Callicles in the Gorgias of
Plato,

the

up the ordinance made by

setting
;

proposition that justice

is

only

tage

and hence that

to

it

the stronger for his own advan tends to the hurt of the weaker

party

be just, while injustice is wisdom, and the Socrates defends unjust life the only one desirable.
himself

of governing powers, which universally provide for what is best for others, and indeed for the weakest, and by no means

by the analogy of

all

the

arts

for themselves.

And
their

because the wise do in no case

cherish

exorbitant

notions

observed

among

beyond the due proportion fellows, and inherent in the thing

YY

354
itself,

while the unjust, recognising no proportion what

ever, do not follow this rule, injustice, it is argued, can scarcely be called a part of wisdom. To this is at last annexed a proof of the position, that injustice,

from giving strength, and by that means con ducing to advantage, is, on the contrary, since it
so far

naturally

excites

discord,

of

a
is

weakening

tendency

consequently, that a just life

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
tion,
its

own proper
and not

perfec

and that
the

is

confessedly

Thus
victory

first

by justice, book does indeed conclude

over
the
sophists,

injustice.

with
also

the

of

Socrates

but

with

the lamentation of the conquerer himself, that the nature

of justice has

still

not been yet discovered, consequently,

it

that the question started remains where

was, perfectly
is

untouched.

And by
as

this conclusion

the book
so

clearly

enough marked ments up to this point can only have any value as preparatory to what is to follow.
an introduction,
that the argu

And by
maintained of

this
all

conclusion the same also

is

virtually

the Socratic dialogues previously given

in this translation, as

many

of them at least as discussed

as

any

virtue

whatever, inasmuch

they

all

failed

to

discover the correct explanation.

Thus

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

is

discussed,
in

and in

the Charmides, discretion.

And

since,

the question

opposition between friend and enemy forms an important element, even the Lysis might occur

of justice,

the

7n/e\e?(r0m

icai

355
to

the

mind on the present

in

occasion.

Hence

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
view
to the

ethical pieces

memory

of the reader, whether

investigation,

we
the

look

to

the

method of the

or

to

general outline of the composition, or to the language

and the
is

style. Throughout, indeed, the tone here given an echo of that in the Protagoras more than in the others, and that dialogue likewise treats the ethical ques

tion

reminded of

more generally than any of those works. We are it by the pomp of the appointments and introduction, by the number of persons all possessing

by the preference of the sophist long speeches furnishing no proof, by the appeal to
celebrity,
lyric poet in ethical matters, in a word,
;

some

for

the

by almost every

thing.

And

if,

as

is

certainly the case, the

Thema

of

Thrasymachus reminds us very

this

definitely of the Gorgias,

with the place which we have assigned to that dialogue, as a transition, that is, from the first main division of the Platonic works to the does not agree
ill

second.

This method of
is

recalling
is

to

recollection

by

resemblance what

gone before

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

the entire

phenomenon
reached

is

not

to

be

explained from

this

circumstance alone, as
easily

this object

by particular we would completely understand Plato s meaning, we must not overlook the fact that all this resemblance between the work before
might
allusions.

have

been

more

On

the

contrary,

if

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
all

are once

more represented

as present

and summoned
stirs

to

the scene of action,

Thrasymachus

on one single occasion more, and then quite only appeased and pacified, as it were to shew that all Even the enmity with the sophists is at an end.

method is completely changed Socrates no longer comes forward with questions in the character of a man who is ignorant, and only looking for greater ignorance in
found
god, but as one who has already seeks, he advances onwards, bearing along with him in strict connection the insights he has
the
service of

the

what he

acquired.

Nay, even

in

point of style,

it

is

only the

immediately
to

succeeding

speeches

of the

two brothers,

as constituting the transition, that bear

any resemblance

what has gone before, no dialogic embellishment or

is

attractive irony
strictness of

hereafter to gain the prize, but solid

alone.

argument
is

The whole

store of the

youthful virtuoso
troduction, and
to

glitters here once for all in the in then extinguished for ever, in order

make
is

it

as

well

as

possible

understood,

that

all

beautiful and pleasing of this kind occupies a place in the province of philosophy only in preparatory
that
investigations, the object of

which

is

more

to stimulate

and excite than

conclusions;

to

advance

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

assist

the perfect comprehension of the

subject.

And

in

these

preparatory
it

arguments

some

points are established to which

to
call

may

be useful shortly
the

attention,

as

they prove

of importance in

357
sequel, without being here

made

particularly prominent.

The
that

first is

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
exercise

of profit

is

rather

set

up

as

particular
in

art

which
with

one and the same

others.

man

possesses

conjunction
first

This yields a conclusion,

the

we have,
and espe
art

upon what was

cially
terfeit

said in the earlier dialogues,

the Gorgias and the Sophist, of the art of coun

in all its

manifold ramifications.
counterfeit
art

For every
it

may become

when

comes to be
for the
this

way and a means calculated And we have also from of gain. acquisition
treated only as a

further result, which

is

made

the basis of

many

of the

subsequent propositions,
as

that every art,

it

especially such

exercise authority, the higher

it

rises

and the more

the

purely

is

practised must be

so

much
profit.

more

free

from
point

all
is

admixture of desire for

The

second

that position, so very easily, and

we may even

at that time say, notwithstanding many circumstances favourable to the case, too easily granted by the inter

locutors, that those

who are most adapted for governing do yet only engage in it because there is a punish ment for refusing, which is, even if there be no other,
by
so

that instead of governing themselves they are governed Meanwhile we should not consider as others worse.

a fault in Plato the facility

important
in
it

as

regards

his

with which this position, Republic, here passes for

the
particular

true

its
is

general form,

since

way

in

afterwards brought into application justifies In the itself by an extremely brilliant illustration. third place, further, it is to be observed that Socrates"

which

358
last

discussion

with

Thrasymachus begins
separate

to

take

turn, representing justice not only as something existing

between two persons

also as

from one another, but

something internal, and so likewise injustice as something causing discord and distraction when it in
habits different parts of one and the same whole.
it

And

is

by

this consideration that the

the form
is

and method
what

in

way is prepared for which the question of justice

treated of in

follows.

The

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
book.

and

third,

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,
as conceiving

inasmuch as
justice
is

to have given up his cause too soon, has by no means been yet proved that more advantageous than injustice. For, that
it

him

only

the appearance of justice has been shown

to

be

useful.
test,
it

But
is

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

bearing

all

of justice.
this

And
it

after

Glaucon has estimated

injustice in

manner, Adimantus also comes forward and further

that
is

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,

come under consideration, but,

is,

that the only question

what

effect

they

each

have

on

man

in

and

for

359
themselves.
If then,

by

this postulate,

Plato does as

it

in the

were supersede himself, and declare the demonstrations Gorgias and Phaedon insufficient in what relates

to this point, a
first

purely ethical ground is now for the time gained thereby, and the same Socrates un dertakes the more subtle and laborious problem, and
to

lays

down his plan of proceeding, which search for justice in the state, where
characters,

is
it

to be,

first

must be

in

larger

and,
to

the
in

eye, and then

return

consequently, more visible to to the individual mind,

it

order

to

see

whether and how far

is is

the same

in the one as in the other.

And

this

plan
the

executed

exactly
as
is

in

the

same manner and

in

in

same order

projected of the work, while this second part describes the

here

the next

third

main division

Re

public

itself

with a view

to

that,

its
it

origin
for

and the
it.

way

in

which men
here
it is

are educated in

and
all,

And
of
are

remarkable,
originate
original
in

first

of

how

Socrates
the
basis
all

makes the
which
not

state
is

the necessities,

the

difference

of men,
for

since

every thing by and consequently cannot, by prac tice, be equally accustomed to every thing, without, however, hinting even by a single word how they who
equally adapted
requires,

nature

which

life

are thus
to
as

to

compensate
But,

their

mutual
he
looks

deficiencies,

are
state

be
the

found.

though

upon

work of
it

necessity,

his

opinion

certainly

was

must originate from a random search or not that accidental meeting of individuals, but the general Hel
lenic

hypothesis

is

the basis of his theory, that every

its

united body, however small

* Schleiermacher adds
ficiently

compass*, produces such

the city

and the German reader cannot be suf reminded that in Greek Stadt and Staat (urbs and eivitas) and the state political, are one and the same.

360
a perfective compensation of natures, and that necessity is only set up as representing the social nature of man,

local

converting proximity among men into a regular condition of mutal aid and support, in order thus to keep men

and the

business

of

the

state

consists

in

in a peculiar

manner united

in a fixed proportion.
is

And

even this on the other

side,

not

without a definite

reference to the mind, in

so far as not only here but

is

elsewhere also in Plato

it

represented as a compound,
it

and that of such a nature that

life

is

impossible

human

should exist

if

wanting.

We

feel

any one of the component parts be at once that more doubt attaches
to

to that hypothesis

which supposes that attention

war

and defence, with which the whole organisation of the Platonic state is most closely connected, arises only

from an endeavour

after

prosperity

an endeavour, of

which Socrates himself particularly disapproves, declar ing the only properly healthy society to be that most
simply constituted
union

which confines

itself

to

the

production of the most

indispensable according to this, so long as the state is in the enjoy ment of that health, no other species of legislation

necessaries.

But

could consistently appear in it, except just that which Socrates at the end of this part passes over as insig nificant, that, namely, regarding barter and affairs of
contract.

Now,

then,

if

we apply

this

organisation
itself,

of a

well-ordered

condition

theory to the in the mind

all

the virtues would thus rest

upon a morbid

state.

Perhaps, however, the praise bestowed upon an entirely undeveloped social state as being the only
is

one consistent with real health,

seriously
times.
as
it

not to be taken so

has been
at

echoed by
the

For,

although

many in modern urgent demand of the

others

Socrates

particularly

names sensual enjoyments,

361
luxuries and arts, which are in the sequel for the most

part rejected, as what

may

be according to his theory

admitted,
tion

yet of the original

still

there

are

wanting in that descrip

society,

simple

not

without

full

consideration, I

am tempted
it

to suspect, all the spiritual

is

elements without which

impossible to

live.

The
upon
it is

proper bearing of
the reference to
susceptible
tions,
in

this too

is

therefore, probably,

the

mind,

in

which not before

of sensual

of

great

multiplicity

attrac

and manifold

activity in itself, can virtue appear

a definite form, or the opposition between good and evil itself. the theoretical representation develope Only

of the state
sacrificed

itself

does

indeed seem

to
is

be too much
that,

to

that

relation,

when

it

intimated

because in the mind the separation of the functions is the ground upon which the whole doctrine of virtue
that follows
rests,

that,

therefore,

also

the operations

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

be said
is

of the leaders

of the

army

that

their

work

an

art, the performances of the

common

fighting men, on the contrary, whether we look at what they do or what they suffer, comprehending in them nothing, an aptitude for which might not be acquired

by means of a gymnastic education, combined with the practice of any other trade, while every citizen must
be able to give that security which a firm disposition
to

preserve

the

existing

order
z z

of things

supplies,

so

362
that

the
be,

Platonic

army,

however

sufficient

the

men

may
ease

must ever continue a disproportionate burden

classes.

upon the productive

with

But, notwithstanding the

which he
if

state of things,

vicious might have avoided this he had taken the common soldiers

from the working classes, and only made the leaders a he did not do so, because then the spi separate order, in the mind would have had no proper rited
principle*

and perfect representation

see

in

the state.

And

thus

we

how

subordinate an object the representation of the

state is in

and

for itself,

and how every thing

is

only

calculated for and regulated

only order thus to to be a magnified form of the mind, in

by

the idea, that

it is

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

must have, and

what

natural advantages they must enjoy, the state, under the easily admitted

who

are to defend

this pretext that the also will be useful for the investigation of justice,

mode
is

of their education
set

is

discussed.

And

thus,

what
all

here

up

as the

standard according to which

are to be judged, that they myths used in education do not inculcate a belief that the gods are the authors

of evil,

is

for the indivU manifestly of great importance

dual mind.
with
effect

For the
against

spirited principle,

if it

is

to fight

destructive inclinations,

will

be de
;

bilitated

by the

belief, that the

it

same

exist in

the gods

be able to press powerfully forward and the fact that to abstract truth, if it can be met by deceit to the gods metamorphose themselves and practice the constitution and But upon indulge their passions.
as little will

363
arrangement of the commonwealth such a fancy has no immediate influence, but only in so far as it corrupts
individual minds.

same may be argued of every thing in this part of the work connected with educa
tion,

The

that

it

refers

most

to

the

individual,

and that

in

a purely ethical relation, in order to effect in the mind a harmony of government and obedience, and that

every essential part in it and not encroach beyond

may perform
it.

its

own

office,

Only, that generally re

to

gard
state

is

paid from the cannot be better

it,

first

the principle,
the

that

the

than

bulk of individuals

composing

whence

its

tranquillity depends
its

upon

their

constancy of character, and

excellence

upon the

com
As

petency of each individual for his own business.

also
in

only of the state are to take part in the government of it, who are not in a condition to do anything except what may advance the good of the whole, we have that

the

maxim,

that

those

of the

defenders

principle already shadowed forth which is not brought out distinctly until towards the end of the work, namely, that reason alone can judge of what is wholesome for

the other parts

of the mind, and that the reasonable

estimate the

man
life

alone can
besides
his

value of other modes

of

own.

To

this

purely

ethical

bearing
in

upon the individual, we have indeed an exception

the discipline appointed for the champions,

which be

longs exclusively to the peculiar character of the Platonic

Republic.
superficially
this
;

But
and

for

this

described,
this
is

as

very reason it is here only not properly belonging to

is

place derstood from

subject

description
said
at

only
length
the
is

to

be

un

what

full

upon the
the
in

sometime
at

afterwards.

On
part

contrary,

law, which

the

end of

this

made good

364
opposition
in
;

to

Adimantus,
of
as
in

that

happiness
in

must
a

exist

the

whole
of
it,

the
well

state

and not

particular
riches

division

as

the

maxim
be

that

and
from

poverty
the
this

must

an

equal
are

degree
not

withheld

commonwealth, place, and are

be made

these

perfectly

intended
Republic.

appropriate to less for the indi

is

vidual mind than the

to

But what answer

though

when a well-meaning

somewhat

austere friend of truth asks, what, in a work constructed

upon a
fact,

basis so

that

purely ethical, is to be made of the Plato thinks to bring about that wholesome
a false pretence, or,
as they

stability

of character by

say,

by

a pious fraud, falsifying as far as

may be

the

truth

of childish recollection,

and jesting with divine

commands and prophetic

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

thing mythical.

For when Socrates

falsehood, but

previously explained mythical tradition generally upon

the principle, that most that
is

in to

it

is

some part truth, he means now

that the
this

good

is

convey the notion from the bad in chiefly distinguished

it

kind of tradition according as

is

the seat of truth

or fiction.

Now,
is

in
is

representation only

the present instance, the form of fiction, while the essence of the

true, and almost every single point subject-matter is otherwise brought forward in strict connection with

the

fundamental

views.

For

the

variety

of

natures

does indeed result,

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
still

further

unable to guide themselves, beyond developing what has thus come into existence, is fairly

referred in the end to the

same

principle.

And

it

results

accordingly on all sides as matter of divine ordinance, that a commonwealth must go to ruin in which un
suitable

men, and with no inward

;

call,

attain

to

the

government
can

so that

on

this

account our author

may

not indeed be without his justification.

it

Neither, again,

be

fairly

cautious

fear

in

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,

little

any time modern philosophers have ever who thought to found a new worship of the
at

Supreme God capriciously and extemporaneously, with

out historical foundation, should the less expect any of the kind from Plato, as he belongs to a period 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
proceed in a spirit entirely Hellenic. Plato in the books up to this point, And, although declares with sufficient spirit against all fabling, that has a tendency to degrade the idea of the Supreme
still

known, does

Being, he was at the same time too profound to assi milate himself to certain sophists in their rationaliz
ing annihilation of the gods, and not, on the contrary, to hold in honour the strange tissue of natural feel ing, and historical legend in the Hellenic theology, and
to

attempt

to

turn

it

to

good use

for

his

citizens.

366

Hence be

it

not interpreted amiss in him that he most

the ordination of sacred matters to

prefers committing

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.

far,

the third part

it

And

the

commencement of
Socrates
calling

is

marked

distinctly
to

enough
the

by
rest

upon

Adimantus
also

summon now

not only his brother, but

together.

Polemarchus and

This

part,

though comprehended within the remainder of the fourth

book, not only projects the idea of justice, but gives
explanations as
the
well

of

all

other virtues, and

exhibit

first

of
the

manner

in

which

they
it

themselves

in

state.

And
is
is

then,

after

has

been

shewn that

this

process

how

it

be applied to the individual mind, and to be so applied, the same virtues are also
to

exhibited as existing in that subject. Now it is here, first of all, remarkable, that

the

e four otherwise weH-fcnnyp ^Q^^O] are j^"^ repre sented as exhausting the idea of the good, and that

without any proof whatever being given, or any such been communicated in any other And having piece.
yet it is upon this hypothesis that the correctness of the whole proceeding rests for it is only by assuming that these four constitute the whole province of virtue,
;

that

it

can be said that when three of these constituent

still

parts have been demonstrated, the

must
even

necessarily be justice.

And moreover we
have
been

remaining part cannot

suppose
work.

that

proof to

known

from

oral discussions,
lost

For

or to have been communicated in any such a proof could not have been

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,
in

work before us would

and
the
first,

there would

be no reason

why

the

proof as well

as the explanations should not

have been

repeated in writing.
tified

upon

this

Plato, therefore, can only be jus point, if the structure, as it is here

itself,

erected,

contains itself in

and the whole process

all

by

which

the

explanations

of

these

virtues

are

obtained does

by immediate palpability claim the con viction of the reader in such a manner that he de
siderates

nothing

further
first

for

his

satisfaction.

Since

then the virtues are

investigated in

the Republic,

the completeness of this investigation rests entirely upon the proper relation of the three classes into which
Socrates divided the inhabitants
;

and

if

the ^four virtues

fall

cause by their means each one of these classes to

into proper
relation to the rest

and

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
itself

as

well

in

the

earlier

books of

this

work

as

in

the

preceding dialogues.
section
still

However
is is

also

every thing

referred

accurately then in this to the Republic,

the individual

mind

constantly and prospectively

in

Thus, kept in view in a manner not to be mistaken. the case of wisdom, the general law that it is not

by any particular knowledge of anything in the state, but by that of the state itself, and its manner of ex
istence,

that
its

the

state

is

wise,

is

set

up

especially on

account of

application to the mind.

In like manner

368
the observation,
if
its

somewhat

too

easily

conceded,

and

which,

truth

were disputed,

would perhaps be
that
this

found untenable as regards the

ledge

state,

know

can

citizens,

in a only very small number of the seems to have been produced more with re

exist

ference

to

the

mind.

For however
is

strange

it

may
the

sound that the reason

of the

the

smallest

component part
certain

mind,
of

it

is,

notwithstanding,

that
into

principle

desire,

spreading
is

as

it

does

such

manifold
the

ramifications,
principle,

the

largest,

and

therefore
consistent

simple
itself,

which

ever

continues

never other than the most internal, to be the smallest, Also in the case naturally appears j
is

with

and

of courage,

immediately that
the fact

that the explanation given is of civil courage, is to be referred to that the courage of individual minds not only

the remark,

comprises in itself what is developed from civil rela tions, but that to it every thing belongs which the reason can offer to set in opposition to pleasure and pain/ By such indications then the application ac
cordingly of the explanations given the individual mind, is still more
again,
cipitate
it

to

the

virtues

of

abridged.

Next,

that

all

must appear to the reader a somewhat pre method, and obscure from beginning to end, the other virtues are honoured with an in

while justice alone, notwithstanding that it is the precise object of the investigation, not only remains left to the last, but is not even
vestigation,

immediately

and directly found and described, which would certainly be the clearest method of proceeding, but only comes
to

light

indirectly,

as

that of the four

which remains

after

the discovery of the other three,

that
this

The
to

first

point
last,

then,

virtue

is

left

untouched

the

369

may

indeed be explained upon

less

the ground

that

there

would otherwise have been

others
also
to

occasion

to reduce

the
is

satisfactory

explanation;

but

this

not

the

only one;

on the contrary, the discovery of

justice last,

and the discovery of it by such a method, connected together, and the following may be given as the account of the matter. Virtue in general had been already explained above, and in the
are closely
cursorily

more extended

sense,
it

to
is

be that quality of a thing by

in

means of which

condition

to

perform

its

own proper
same
state

function.

Now

the four virtues are

in this state,

sup

posed to have been discovered

and

in the

we have had shewn

to us

the three classes

respect

or orders of citizens, of which two do indeed

ively

appropriate functions in the state, while the third, that of those who work for hire, comprises a multiplicity of functions, which are not

perform their own

properly functions in the state, each individual seeking only his own advantage by the performance of his own. In this manner, then, the four virtues into
separate

two

classes,

for
its

these

two orders have each of them,

peculiar function,
state
its

by reason of
peculiar
so
to

own

virtue
wise,

also
it

itself.

For be a
wisdom of

ever

so

is
it

only by ever so brave,

the
it

guardians,
the

and be

still

is

so

only by
its

the youth of that

to the

class,

namely,

courage champions, while

indeed true,

of

third class neither

wisdom nor courage are ever

even in any degree attributed.

that the state
is

Now

it

is

only wise by virtue of the wisdom of

this

the

wise,

when

wisdom can operate

in

legislation
it;
its

and guidance, that is, when obedience is rendered to and in like manner only brave by the courage of
champions, when
these, like

the governing parties, have

370
the

necessary

services

done for them

and

thus

with

these two virtues of the

state,

more honourable

division in the

since those
selection

who

love

wisdom must ever be but a

small

from the courageous, two other virtues

connected, obedience,

of the inferior order seem to be

And thus four virtues would be namely, and industry. distributed among proportionately and homogeneously
the four main divisions in the state;

and certainly, as

could very easily regards the Platonic Republic, nothing But obedience and be objected to such a construction. the par industry are not discretion and justice, and
ticular

virtue to

which
at

all
all,

that

is

said

refers,

would
nor,

thus not

be

found

neither

in

the

state,

by

this

method, in the mind, the application to which,

itself

however, manifests

as

well

here as elsewhere to

be the main problem. Going back, therefore, to the four virtues first assumed, and considering that dis cretion and justice are differently circumstanced from

wisdom and bravery, at least in so far as that these two latter can only be attributed to some, while the
two former can be neglected by none, it follows that discretion and justice are indeed to perform what obe dience and industry answer for, but that they must be not
exclusive virtues confined to one division, but universal

and
they

extending
exist refer
in

to

all.

But even

thus,

inasmuch

as

the

more honourable

division, they can

only

and

operation to the particular incapacity and as they deficiency of the less honourable, exist in the latter, only to the appropriate virtues
in

of the

former

hence,

therefore,

these

latter

virtues

must necessarily precede the others in the exposition. But in what manner discretion and justice are them
selves distinct

from

each

other,

and

why,

without

371
regarding the circumstance that justice most properly forms the conclusion, discretion must precede it in and for itself the absence of any explanation upon these
points

makes

this

the
in

and that not only

hibited
in

so

weakest part of the exposition, far as these virtues are ex

in

the

state,

but also

the mind.
is

For the

agreement of all divisions as to which and the conformable of each

activity

to

command,
to
is

in

reference

government and obedience, each of these positions far more difficult to explain than it is to
these

distinguish

two

virtues,

discretion

and

justice,

from

the
it

other two,

or

even

these

from one another,

and

therefore appears not inappropriate that after the three first virtues have been discovered, so many particular and laborious preparations are made, in order further
to find
it

justice

as

one separate from the others.

that

For
which

may

be said on the one hand,

first

that

to
is

justice

gives

its

appropriate
all

power,
as

not

so

much a compound
alone
this
;

of

three

virtues,

discretion
in

inasmuch as the agreement assumed to exist

action

by means of justice, and con sequently becomes operative; and then, again, on the other side, that in these two together the whole per
passes into
fection

of the
part

state

is

exhausted, for that

wisdom

is

only

that

of justice

which belongs to the

first,

and courage, that which belongs to the second division; inasmuch as it would be clearly unjust, if the lovers
of

wisdom

were not

to

develop

ideas

and

appoint
others,

laws, and if the courageous

would not stimulate

and repulse dangers themselves. And further on, in like manner, where the explanations given are
to

the individual mind,

applied and, in order to test that of

topics

justice,

the

familiar

common

are

brought

for-

372
ward*,
it

might be said that

all

even

the

discreet

man

would avoid

merely by a freedom from ex Meanwhile, let no travagant and unnatural passions. one take this to be a critical censure upon the matter
these

itself,

which

lies

so near the centre point of the whole

falls

work.

most upon the de which Plato, scription of these four connected virtues,

This censure

at

the

manifestly

enough, only took up in a true practical sense from regard for an existing theory, as they had already passed in a similar manner from common usage
of Socrates.

into the philosophy

But
at

instead of these
liberty,

four

virtues

Plato
set

was

perfectly
as

on
if

the

one hand, to
only
the

up wisdom
in

the only

virtue,

he

saw

in

the reasoning part

whole mind

state

of activity

the power of putting by means of

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

in all

the parts.

That

Plato,

sufficiently

clear
in

from the position

work,
an
preferred

which he as
the
last,
is,

signs

to

justice

this

with

reference

to

the

state,

agreeable

extenuation

of an otherwise almost intolerable aristocratism.

For,

if

wisdom

is

regarded as the only virtue, then the par

supply their vacancies from the collective mass of the people, have alone a
takers in the government,
also

who

share in the civil virtue, and even the next more distant

champions, no less than the great hireling multitude, are excluded from all participation in it, and reduced to a state of obedience so strict that
circle,

the

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

only

the

weakness

of

the

But since Plato defines justice as that vir governors. tue which does in fact include all others within itself,
all

the

essential
in

elements of the
the

state
it.

morality part view, therefore, the choice made must appear meritori
ous.

tionate

of

bear a propor In this point of

But with

reference

to

the

individual

mind,

we

should, according to our

mode of

thinking, unhesitatingly

wisdom to be prefer the opposite course, and, defining a height the sen the only virtue, however immoderate suous desires reach, we should rather look for
might
the

cause of guilt in the weakness of the reasoningto that subordinate faculty any principle, than attribute

And upon of the whole. peculiar share in the morality the same ground we should at once take an exception
the premised explanation of discretion, inasmuch as the expression of a free agreement among all the parts of the mind with reference to the government of it,
to
is

more

in

accordance with an aesthetic than a strictly

scientific

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
consists only in a

ground than temperance, which

com
all

manding

position

being

usurped by

reason

above

this view, presumptive claims of the inferior powers, avoid designating as heathenish in an which we cannot

especial

sense,

whole work, and

thing in
it

but too much the key of the most closely connected with every which most shocks us, nay, which appears
is

yet

is

374
to us utterly

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

members of

it

as also, that the

morality

of

the

individual

chiefly

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 theory equalization cannot
totally
fail

to
;

arise

destructive of the
see

most essential distinc

tions
state,

we

then

how

as the larger body,

process of making the the basis in the consideration

the

of virtue, however, ingeniously it is fenced round, and however artfully executed, is still not without danger, and we see how even the greatest in a scientific
genius,
construction,
simplicity.
ferior

may not But now

with impunity violate the law of

if so

much

is

conceded to the

in

powers of the mind, as that they have of themselves a share in virtue, still, when these three
the governing, the defending,
to

subdivisions,

be

pointed

out

and the preserving, are as existing in the mind, and as

separate from one another, it appears somewhat capri ciously assumed as a general rule, that

experimental

the courageous principle, though it is not always found in alliance with the reason, does never at all events con

nect

itself

with
is

the

passions.
in

corruption

found to exist

contrary, this the sense of honour as

false

On

the

well as that of shame,

when they follow a

passions

opinion

which

the rules of reason to the denomination of and prejudices;

praises

the

excited

and

degrades

375
even the very principle which Plato attacks with such in the introduction righteous zeal in the Gorgias, and
to this work, in opposition to

Thrasymachus, could not, without such a league, have spread so far and gained But criticism upon these subjects is such ground.
disarmed by the very important declaration, we must not overlook, that a really accurate

almost

which

and

thorough
of these

knowledge of the mind

three

is

not

to

be

gained by this process.

cation

Otherwise, however,
functions existing
in

the indi the mind,

particularly

by the application of the method of ex them in the gross in the prominent and cha hibiting racteristic traits of different nations, is very fine, and
shows enlarged views of the subject although many a noble Hellene may have been very ill pleased to
;

learn that

the

much

extolled spirit

is

still

only to be

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 use to the

whole of mankind, such

that

of the

Phoenicians

and

Egyptians was.

But

speaking, was, not only to idea of justice, but rather to decide between define the the just and the unjust mode of life, which of the
since the problem, properly

two

is

the

more

desirable,

after

the

investigation

of

justice,

injustice also is described as pragmaticism,

and

rebellion

of one part against

the

rest

and Socrates,

although obliged to grant to his interlocutor that the matter is already dispatched, and that it is unnecessary further to follow out the rest, announces notwithstand
ing that he
will,

for completeness

sake, likewise trace

life

in the gross the various vicious

modes of

throughout

376
their

ment.
fourth

whole career, under the corrupt forms of govern As then he announces this at the end of our

the beginning of our fifth book, he does execute his intention in the fifth main divi accordingly sion of the work as contained in the eighth and ninth

and

drawn away into other investigations by Polemarchus and Adimantus, backed also by Thrasymachus, and these, occupying the fifth,
at

books.

But

present

he

is

and seventh books, form the fourth main divi sion of the work but notwithstanding their important
sixth
;

compass and still more important subject-matter, they are yet, both here, and still more at the beginning
of the eighth book where the original thread is again taken up, most distinctly marked as an occasional and

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

upon the course

to the

prescribed, will

first

describe, with a view

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

more ac
to

curately

than

has

hitherto
;

been done with

regard

the connection of the sexes

this

and he does indeed request

as

with

thing of very great importance, not at all reference to the question of justice, but to the
;

right constitution of the state

so that every fine-drawn

any way main question respecting justice in the individual mind, and the relation between a just life
books
to

application in

of the matter discussed in these

that

and happiness,
against.

is

at

once by
first

Now,

the

expressly protested investigation with regard to

this

the state, refers almost exclusively to that original state

377
peculiar to Plato, while the second, which treats of the
cultivation of these
to that which they has naturally a far more themselves, general tendency, and is, considered as a continuation of what was said in the first book respecting the general

men and women

are

to

unite

in

means of education

for early youth, as

it

were a universal
synopsis for
all

Platonic encyclopaedia and methodical

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,
it
it,

it

does
intro
his

not appear to me that the way in which duced, Socrates reluctance to enter upon
*

is

and

wish to avoid the subject, refers to the circumstance that he was here about to introduce into the language

and

of the people a thing contrary to all current opinion, as yet unheard-of. I rather discover in this the

clearest traces of the fact that this doctrine

known, and the

as

was already be from the oral lectures naturally might communications of his pupils, and had ex
it
:

perienced some satirical treatment consequently, if we suppose this to be the case, the allusions of the comic
poets to the Platonic

community of women could prove

nothing for
before us.
tical

the period of the composition of the work

is so completely a matter of cri without the limits of argument, that feeling lying can do nothing but invite those readers who are

But

this

interested in such questions of historical criticism to an

attentive consideration of the passage.

then here made for Plato

state

The regulations with reference to the

connection of the sexes, are founded upon the doctrine

378
of the
similarity

of

both
the

sexes

where,
sex
that
is

though
the

it

is

certainly
this
is

allowed

that

female

weaker,

no powers are to that sex to qualify women for every kind wanting

done with the reservation

of

human

activity

in

this

respect,

doctrine stands in

decisive opposition

consequently, this to the predomi

nant views and practice of Plato^s time. Now though has upon the whole struck into the same Christianity
road,
in so far

as

it

has,

generally, brought

the con

dition of the female sex nearer to a similarity with the

male,

still it

can by no means be said that this doctrine

does in any way belong to or partake in those approxi mations to the Christian mode of thinking which will

be found in Plato.

On

which he
developes,

starts,

as

well as
that,

the contrary, the grounds upon the consequences which he

are

such

from the standing point of

to the identity

Christianity,

we must

enter the most lively protestations

against them.

For instead of going back

sexes,

of reason in the two

in

the

main developed
to

by

which must, therefore, be the same means in both,

and thus brought

possibility

supremacy, from which indeed no

in
in

of a correspondence
refers,
its

gymnastic exercises
order
to

would be deducible, he
position,
to brutes,

prove his

without

occurring to him,
penetrate
into

how
the

ever

profoundly

he

endeavours to
the

depths

of nature, that

organic opposition between

the two sexes becomes more widely strained correspond

ingly

with

the

gradations

in

organic

life,

and,

con

sequently, in the

human
as

race,
little

must be
to

at its

maximum.
arises

And he
from
the

seems
in

quite

reflect

what a wide

distinction,

reference
that

to

common

occupations,

fact
in

periodical

recipiency and pregnancy is not man, but free from all influence of the

379
/f)

seasons.

Meanwhile

this

treatment of the subject,

so

manifestly and pre-eminently physical, sufficiently shews that Plato took it not in a Socratic but a Pythagorean
point of view.

And

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

development of the Hellenic mind

and

we have a
to

clear proof of the incapacity of that

relations.

nature

form a satisfactory system of ethical

Even

Plato, to

whom

in

this

respect utterly false

honour has

been ignorantly awarded, is so confined within the merely sensuous view of the sexual relation, that he
to

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

produces;

that a spiritual element in sexual love remained utterly unknown to him. Now in the Platonic state a

pas

sionate
object,

inclination of this

kind cannot

itself

attain its

but

it

is

only a motive co-operating to assist

together.

those
they,

persons
in

who bring the couples order to make it yield the

And

greatest

possible

advantage for the commonwealth, and yet prevent any discord arising about much wished-for beauties, have
recourse to a fraud, not publicly indeed, but privately authorised, and consequently, with truth and honesty,

380
sacrifice

to

the public good the most

morality.

essential element

of

personal

But

from

the

same

sense

of

beauty inclinations also in men towards youths might and Plato by no means regarded even be developed of the plastic power of nature sufficiently the right
;

high to wish to overcome such a direction of passion by shame, but these inclinations were to be favoured
as

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

susceptibility

of being thus stimulated to forward the

the

common weal and

at

common good
is

is

numbered among
;

the characteristic traits of more noble natures

a thing

which our more moral austerity and dismayed.

with justice shocked

Nay, we
tioned

see not only

in
it

that sensual passion

is

sanc

even

the
is

noblest

natures

as

an

important
a system

motive,
of
life,

but

difficult to see

how,

in such

any

other

source

of

free

personal

inclination

remains.
if

On

the other hand

is

we must
that

certainly allow,

the

principle
to

once

granted

the

guards,
in

in
in

order

prevent
to

any

self-interest

arising

them
to

opposition

the
all

spirit of community,

are
it

be ex

cluded from

private property,

that

follows only

much

too easily

that they can have

state

no home and no
in

marriage,
creation

and then a

of

community
an

the pro
to

and education of
result.

their

offspring appears

be

the

most natural
is

When
to

extended

frater

nization

extolled
best
this

as

the most splendid fruit of this

regulation,
reply, that

calculated

cannot

prevent all discord, we extend further than the limits

its

of that

common

school-house, resembling in

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
also in

America

lately,

upon the very

similar principle

of

common

profits,

and a common education from the

has only been the establishment of a
it

tenderest period of childhood upwards,

found possible to bring about

small society.
stinies

of the

And in such subordinate forms the de human race cannot be fulfilled, but only
based throughout upon the system
as organic unity

by great
in its

civil unions,

of united families in separate homes,

most finished form.

The

sacrifices, therefore, that

are

made upon

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

with regard to relation of war, containing strong censure of Hel lenic immorality, although in this also Plato is not

theory

maxims of

national law,

especially

free
tion

from the contracted views arising from the opposi between Hellenes and barbarians.
This
first

section

of our fourth main division con

cludes with the concession, that the state as described

is

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

possible,

but that we must

be

satisfied

greatest
this

possible

with what can be attained by the And approximation to that model.

is

approximation

of those

who,
in

as possessed

projected by a strict separation of subordinate natures, are

material things,
as
their

only appointed to be conversant with

as

well

their

industry

and

employment

382
ocular pleasure, from those who, as possessing the more

honourable natures, are qualified for the cultivation of the faculty of pure knowledge, and can raise themselves
out of the confused multiplicity of material things to the contemplation of the pure unity of ideas, and, con
sequently, to that of which the Platonic Socrates in the earlier dialogues so often shows those to be incapa
ble,

who
are

are partly
affairs,

duct of public

themselves engaged with the con partly with the education of those

who

to

govern.
effect

But

this

requisition

is

intended

also to

have the
that

of excluding, in the actual

entirely

com

monwealth,
of
those

class

from

the

that the power of the state

may
also

be always

in the

government, hands

men

alone
is

who
to

philosophise.

Here an

be understood by philosophis ing, naturally comes under consideration, and this is given by Plato in a somewhat forced discussion, in
which,
referring back
to
his

elucidation of what

principles

as

far

as

he

could without directly quoting himself, he palpably pre sumes all that we know from those dialogues of which
the Sophist
is

to

be regarded as the germ.

close
to his

And now,

while

he

explains,
is

a nature which

keeping subject, that in a condition to follow this object,

all

must

also

possess

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
city,

with

deser

tion of the interests of his native

and even with

for

endeavouring

to

make

the

youths

distinguished
life.

natural qualifications disinclined for public

When

383
Socrates has enunciated that principle,
the
side

Adimantus takes

of the

opponents,

in confirmation of the fact, that they

who appeal to experience who employ them

useless
in

selves seriously
to

upon philosophy have ever been

while
Socrates,

the

state

order
the

to

defend his
that

position,

entrenches himself behind

assertion,

the subject cannot be judged of upon the utterly cor rupted state of things of that period, and expounds

how

in

natures sink from foul treatment,

viduals

such universal confusion the true philosophical and then base indi
of
the
hireling
class

possess

themselves in

plausible manner of philosophy.

These

descriptions, in

one of which
those

it

is

impossible to mistake Alcibiades and

resembling

him,

while

the

other

is

especially

pointed at the rhetorizing sophists, continually suggest to the mind the subjects of the earlier Platonic polemics,
in

order
also,

to

justify
to

his

conduct.

And

at

the

same

time,
ration,
in

conclude the subject

that until other principles can be

state,

by a tacit decla made current

the

and a more correct condition of morals

to the

and modes of living come

assistance of theory,

men

of this

description
thus,

will

forward.

And

this

always continue to come forms the transition to the

second section of this part, in which the education of those who are destined for the government is to be

more accurately described.

is

Here then the idea of the

be the highest object to which good of knowledge in man can apply itself. But the faculty it is to be regretted that not even that master-genius,
represented to
rarely to be met with in speculative demonstration, but

here displayed, is thought capable of coping with this subject; but the satisfactory discussion of it is referred
to
I

know

not

what place

still

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
while

here

the

good

is

ference

is

made

to

what

in the

Philebus
this

is

partly sketched

and partly
style

worked up
is

of execution
;

far

upon more

subject.

And
here

the

gratifying

than

there

nay, even the image that the idea of the good

stands in the same relation to the region of the intel

ligible,

as

the sun created

to

by the good
all

as

its

typical

emblem does
an
excellent

the region of the visible,

affords,

by

application

of

the

resulting

relations,

a clear and unimpeded survey of the whole subject, how that reason bears the same relation to the intelligible
as the eye does to

the

visible,

and that

as light

and

the eye

and here we may

recollect

what spontaneous

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
to

the

than anything else, so also human reason, requiring as it does such an effluence from the good in the exer
it

tion

of

its

power of knowing,
is

is

not

the

good
it.

itself,

but that which

it

most of

all

connected with
into

And

im glance subject, properly treated of in our author with much mystery, in what manner Plato conceived the identity of objec
affords

us

deep

not

tive being

and consciousness; that

it

is

namely the same

effluence of the

which imparts
terial

the spiritual light so to speak good truth to the intelligible essence of ma

to
ideas,,

things

and

and

to

reason

the

power

of knowing, which

And

this

means

is likewise the truth of their being. to say that the reason cannot know

anything otherwise than with reference to the idea of the good, and by means of it, and that to the whole

385
we might indeed say, the per no being whatever corresponds, and ceptible generally, that there would indeed be nothing but the eternally inconstant flux of the non-existent, if flux were not
visible, or

range of the

stayed by the living operative influence of the idea of the good, and thus something at length produced, which still although participating in the inconstant and rest
less,

may

yet

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 wanting. The sun, it is said, is only acquainted, a type of the essential absolute good the corporeal light bears a precisely similar relation to the spiritual, and
to

the other, with

when contemplated from

but darkness,
is

in

the spiritual region is nothing which every mind gropes about which

enchanted by the charm of the terrestrial sun, and, without endeavouring to rise higher, lingers among the

material things illuminated by it. And as the whole range of the visible world stands in the relation of a

type to the intelligible, so

again a similar distinction
;

is

there in each of the two

in
its

one thing real

kind

and the typical form of

it.

Now

here

it

may

surprise

us that the subjects of mathematical thought, number and figure, are described as types of the ideas ; mean
while

we should continue

to

be well

satisfied

that

this

branch of intellectual activity here attains a fixed posi-

3c

386
tion,

and we possess
use
of

at

the

same time a key to the

figure
in

Platonic

number and

the

in which philosophy, and to the relation in this respect. to the Pythagorean school Very remark

region of Plato stood

relation
lectic,

able also are the elucidations given with regard to the between the mathematical method and the dia

connection whatever although they stand in no with the former theory, unless by the introduction of

a middle term, here not even alluded to, in so far, that can be considered also is, as mathematical hypotheses
as

types of real

premises or

first
it

principles.

Thus,

at least,

upon these arguments

would be quite con

sistent in Plato to distinguish himself from those who think themselves able to define the essence of things

by means of number and

know,
in

and fancy that they the philosophical sense of the word, while
figure,

But if connections. they are only forming mathematical have been material things already at an earlier period
described as constituting the true in the sphere of the still mathe visible, and called also types of the ideas,
matical processes, as belonging to the province of the the precedence of them, and intelligible, have justly

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

midst of

these investigations into that cave, in

which the tenor

it

of

life

and condition of those who, because

is

im-

387
possible
to the
for

them

to

turn

themselves

with

their

eyes

spiritual sun, take

external appearance, and the

for reality

types,

that

is,

visible objects,

and being,

is

such vivid colours, that one scarcely sees, even though the illuminated were to give up their own
represented in

which they enjoy above, and to bestow it there, why it should be even worth while to lead such
happiness
a destitute
life,

in

which there
so that

is is

and nothing
also that

to

lose;
is

he

nothing to improve indeed no common

patriot who, as

here demanded, applies to this point magnanimous sentiment, that it is not an object

that any one part of the whole should be prosperous above the rest*. But if, notwithstanding all guidance, the great mass of the people ever continues what it

was before
existence

and Plato does not appear

society

to conceive the

of

upon any other

principle,

or

to

have an idea of a progressive improvement comprehend then even the most magnanimous selfing the people
devotion can only
as
it

receive any

compensation in so far
possible,
in

is

by

this

means alone

the case of

every rising generation, to discover the more honourable

natures,

and bring them

the further
s

to a better lot.

And
the

if to this

we add
in
is

consideration

that

population

Plato

state, to

not even

which we are now again introduced, to multiply itself, and that the relation

between the producers and the consumers must appear to him confined within very narrow limits, we may say
that the problem of the Platonic state,

and consequently

of collective

human

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
children

were

unavoidably

much

conversant

with

typical

matter in images, by reason of the mythical volved in them, and the world of real material things, and consequently of faith, is the scene of the whole

development of infantine
exercises of the

life,

so

also

the

preparatory

grown-up boys of distinguished powers

exclusively with

are conversant

the world of intuition,

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 of those sciences, according to his first is the delivery
notions

improperly

so

called,
all

each

for

itself,

though

always
ing,

setting aside
all

merely experimental proceed

to

and

practical

reference

material

things

number in the abstract, figure exclusively bearing upon in the abstract, and in like manner motions and rela
tions in

the

abstract.

The

next

is

the setting

up of

these sciences in their connection with, and their rela the nature of absolute existence; and those tion
to,

only

who can

follow

up

contemplation

of

this,

and join in the are recognised as dialectic and

to this point,

natures. consequently regal

But

it

is

not until a late

and

after

they

have been compelled to divide

389
time very unequally between that enviable scien even tific life and the joyless service in the cave, that to the pure contemplation of the idea these men attain
their

of the good, and to government; to which last, how ever, they have only to devote intermittingly the smaller
part of their time, dedicating the greater to contempla tion, until at length in due time, and extolled by all,

they close their mortal career. And with this, Socrates, after having

first

given a

cursory hint as to the manner in which, provided only first of all that true philosophers but once had the power in their hands, such a state might actually exist,

has fully

acquitted
set

himself of the

whole task

which

him, and returns back at the be ginning of the eighth book to the point at which this great digression was imposed upon him, and we now

Adimantus had

take our

leave

of

this

singular

Republic.

And
the

if

may
I

be allowed to say a few words upon

first

same,
little

would

call

attention

to

the

point,

how

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,

but even

contracted a population as we have to conceive his Republic capable of containing, he calcu

in

so

lates

upon finding that

in
sufficient

rare

union
to

of

qualities,

and
in

these
all

strength,

engage successfully
in

these exercises

and

trials,

so

many

individuals,

he will never want including even the female sex, that rulers, although no one attains to the highest power
before
his
fiftieth

year,

and

then

several

are

to

re

lieve one another

by

turns.

Perhaps even in our

own

390
populous
cation
states

we would not undertake

total

to effect

this,

though with the

it

difference in our

method of edu

can never be possible that the attempt should

be

made.

as to require

Meanwhile, however, we have gone so far from all those who would exercise great
society, a combination of scientific

influence

upon

accom

plishments with those requisite for war, and vice versa. And if we cannot desire that they who have to exercise
the highest power should possess the most dialectic ge nius, with us the supreme power does not comprehend
so

much

as

in

Plato;

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 supreme power. regulates Nay, even though temporary mischief might not always be
avoidable in so doing, we might pretty confidently leave to the emulous principle in our nature, in the de

it

velopment of which we are so far in advance of the ancients, to decide where self-seeking and counterfeit
sophistry
is

endeavouring to play the part of the philo

falsify

sopher, and

the description of the good.

Now

this

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
a nearer

object,

approximation is now made to what was to have been done at the end of the fourth book,
to

we mean,
of of
life is

the most desirable.

answering the question as to what mode And here the same method
were

proceeding is adopted as that by which we conducted to a definition of the idea of justice.

For

391
imperfect characters also must exhibit themselves under

more express and better developed forms

perfect constitutions,

in

the

im

that deviate from that archetypal

model,
these,

and

it

is

desirable

with

this

view to describe

and to consider them

in a continually retrograde

process, until at last the

to light in the

most perfect injustice is brought most corrupted state. This Fifth grand division of the whole work, which now brings the ori
to

ginal question

a decision,

ninth books.
sort

The whole

comprises the eighth and process appears to stand in a

what Plato frequently and us to understand, I mean, that distinctly enough gives his Republic never has in reality existed, and that
of contradiction

with

there
exist.

is

not

even

any necessity that

is

it

ever

should

For
and

if this

the

case,

how can
among

he, notwith

standing, represent the forms of government which have

actually
historically

existed

the

Hellenes,

for scarcely

any mention of others is made, as a gra duated series of revolutions, which he developes, his What, therefore, torically, from that ideal conception ?
is

here historical

is,

undoubtedly, mere form, but which

not

lay very ready at hand, because, in fact, the different

constitutions
in the

have,
series,

rarely,

succeeded

one

another

and by this method only the various from perfection are to be made degrees and that only with a view to a better under manifest,
of distance

same

in

standing of this gradual degradation of moral worth individual minds ; and this retrograde career which the individual mind runs appears always as the prin cipal subject. Starting, therefore, from the perfect Re
public, which exhibits the
gross, Plato
arises
s

union of
is
it

all

virtues

in the

next problem
;

to

show how imperfection

less
difficult

from perfection

for

appears

to

392
see

how what

the initial
his

imperfect continually deteriorates after change has once taken place. Now, since
is

only exist for any length of time by means of the intermixture of the sexes being conducted by the philosophers upon correct principles,
perfect
is

state

can

it

tion

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
an important
in
this

department
is

is

not

observed.
this

If

deviation

ever

made from

there

immediately ensues a deficiency of properly tempered natures and then the consequence of that must be a
:

diminution of public spirit, and an excitement of selfinterest. This then tends to a dissolution of the mutual
relation hitherto

kept by the
as
also

men and youths

of their
general

destined
relation

for

the

government,

to the people,

and

in this is at

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.
ple
that

In the same manner,

is

upon the princi

at
all
it

the constitution of a state

times in
is

accordance

with

the

further below,

how

shown prevalent morality, individual minds, under certain con

state,

ditions of descent

from one
the

become such

as

to

carry

within

themselves

type of the next

worse,

and how they then by degrees summon into existence the constitution which is in conformity with them.
must be allowed that the images here given moral characters are not only drawn with of different striking truth, considered in and for themselves, but

Now,

it

also

with reference to the main principles of the

Pla

tonic

philosophy,

constitute

definite

gradations.

The

393
first

point

is

been
is

once

which after the small part has suppressed by virtue of which the mind
that
at

wise, the spirited principle (TO OvjuoetSes) then gets the upper hand, and is attended only by the principle of desire, whether under the form of love appearing

of money or love of Or, secondly, if the enjoyment. former principle sinks to the bottom, then the various
passions exist
the mind,
chy.

upon friendly terms with one another in or some single one usurps universal monar
on the other hand,
the

But,

manner

in

which
is
it

one of these characters arises out of the other,

quite intelligible
effected

not
is

by and for

itself,

but only as
civil

by the presence of those

different

consti

tutions;

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

the great
if

majority of individuals.

So that
if

looks as

the political representation,

which,

ac

curately considered is only here as an apparatus, obtains a prominent independence, and unconditional importance, This contrary as it were to the inclination of the writer.
is

particularly

shown

in in

the instance of the tyrannical

constitution

of mind,

which Eros indeed and Dio

nysus are intelligible as sole monarchs in the

without

mind and

any political relation, while the melancholic on the contrary, although it is self-evident that temper this might in like manner assume a despotic character,
is left

without the psychological foundation in this con nection, as indeed it did not usually appear in the case of private individuals in the same and to the

way

same degree with the Erotic and Bacchic excess; only

3

394
tyrants, properly so called, especially such as Plato

had

himself become
this

acquainted with, not rarely exhibiting

its

form
very

in

all

extravagance.

The

reader,

how
little

ever,

easily

passes

onward over

all

these

obstacles, since the striking description of the principal

features

carries

him away with

it.

Among them

mysterious psychological factor is especially prominent, at the opening of the ninth book, an idea which is
in

seldom quoted when the preindications of Christianity Plato are mentioned, but which to me appears to be the most profound sentiment he ever uttered in this
feeling.

It

is,

that

the
lie

germs
stir

even
in

of

the

most

perverted

extravagances

concealed
in

the

noblest

and purest minds, but only

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

mind.
It
is

its

supremacy

in

the

indeed undeniable generally, that the image mind is not only the most important part with reference to the whole tendency of this sec
of the tyrannical
tion,

inasmuch as

it

is

that

which
its

exhibits

injustice

in

perfection, but also in all most successful, and gives us

features in detail the

at

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.

Upon
now
that

this

description

of the

tyrannical

mind
inter

there

follows quite close,

threefold proof,

and without any

properly completing the whole work, of the proposition that the just life alone is the truly desirable, and the unjust the contrary.
mission,

multiplicity of proofs for one and the same proposi tion, if they are not merely different forms of one and

395
the same proof, and consequently the multiplicity only

apparent, do certainly excite our suspicion, because a want of confidence in each particular proof appears to lie at the bottom of that proof: and here it might be
further said in particular, that upon any reader

whom

the previous description of a well regulated supremacy of reason does not convince as well as charm, all fur
lost. And yet we should without an important and striking ex planation with regard to the relation of reason to the other two parts of the mind, if Plato had not subjoined these proofs. Now, even if it is not quite the case

ther proof must certainly be

have been

left

with these that, accurately taken, they are but one and the same, they are yet connected with one another in

The first, strictly understood, very natural gradation. concerns only that state of perfect For if injustice.
the desires become multiplied, and, forming the largest part of the mind, agree about a change of the govern

ment,

they cannot all be satisfied alike, it cannot then indeed be said that what the whole mind
wills

because

takes place,

nor

yet
this
itself.

what the greatest part of

largest

it

does
is

not
in

will,

but

part

remains

free

and

unity with
this

Hence

then, there follow

further

particular proof two general ones, each implying the tripartite division of the mind, and supposing that each of the three parts has its own par

upon

ticular pleasure,
rise to

a particular

and that the supremacy of each gives mode of life. Now if these modes
this

are to be compared together,

may

be done by a
since

more subjective method,

if,

says Plato,

there

is

no umpire to decide between them, there being nothing more existing in the mind, it is asked which of them can be qualified to pass a correct judgement upon the
others as
well
as

upon

itself.

396

And

then again

it

may be

sought, more objectively,

whether the solid content of pleasure which they afford cannot, purely as pleasure, be measured and estimated.

And
said

in

this

last

proof

much

is

presumed which was

in

upon the

distinctions

of pleasure

the

Phsedo,

but above
point,

all in

the Philebus, which, viewed from this

appears as the true and immediate introduction

Socrates crowns this perfect proof for the good cause of justice by a new image of the mind. I say new, because no true reader will be able
to avoid, on occasion to that description
its

to our work.

And

in

of the present image, recurring the Phaedrus of the chariot and

the two,

driver.

Now

if

we compare

we

shall find
art,
it
;

that that would

yield

an excellent work of

if

sculptor or painter executed as Plato designed

and

even

in

words
a

it

developes

much-admired, and we

admirable brilliancy of description That at present under and elegance of application. on the contrary, seems coarsely and almost consideration,

may

add,

truly

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

human

which the

evil principle dwells,

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

in

detail

the

different
all

relations

among them,
as
it

and

perhaps only not bear the pencil or

words.

is

the

more

effective

will

chisel,

in

But

if

we consider how,

but can only be expressed if otherwise our

397
arrangement
be of any value, Plato s entire doc trine of the mind, in so far as he treats of it in a
is
1

to

preponderantly ethical view, is confined as it were be tween these two images, we are then drawn deeper into the comparison. Neither of the two indeed repre
sents the
distinct
telligible

human mind
elements

as a perfect unity, or

makes the
in
it

which

from a

may be discovered common centre-point; but

must ever be

in

still

the

strangely-compounded monster living unity than that chariot.

the main the same,
are
as

more a
is

The
in

subdivision

in

but in the instance of which

we
here

now speaking
the

it

comes out
the

much
is

better relief,
is

complexity expressed, which in

of

principle

of desire
utterly

the other case

wanting.

And

thus

we come by degrees indulgently

abundance
in

to attribute

the luxurious

the earlier

picture,

which

has something of a coquettish character, partly to the rhetorical form of that work, and partly to the youthfulness of the composer, while in the one now before
vis

we

praise as meritorious the absence of all pretence

virtuosity,

to

imitative

which,

strong

contrast

with the

standing as it does in former, is at the same time

perfectly in character with the philosophy of the

itself.

work

pro image recapitulates perly ethical in the collective subject-matter of the work itself, it certainly appears to be a perfectly fit conclu
sion
to

And

as

this

all

that

is

the books
is

themselves.

For such
as

it

really

is;

the problem
the moral

solved,

inasmuch
;

the

superiority

of

life is

proved
is

nay, even the conditions under

which such a

And if possible are laid down. within the limits of the problem, questions, not falling
life

and referring only

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

is

again broken
this

away,
exists

Socrates

expressly

declares

that

republic
earth,

only

in

imagination, and nowhere

it

upon

and he leaves

standing only

as

a heavenly model,

according to which every man is to regulate himself, and can then perform the duties of this constitution
only, and of no other.

would go away

At the end, then, of the ninth book every reader satisfied, and miss nothing connected

with the subject. But it can in no way be intended to be only an exhibition of the Socratic gluttony in conversation, when, as if he were yet far from the end,
Socrates subjoins immediately something new, and that as if he were afraid that without even taking breath otherwise interlocutors and hearers would not let them
;

selves

be again brought
the contrary,

to the task.

On
sion,
real

we must be the more curious with

respect to the subject-matter of this sixth

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
not have done
follows.
so.
first

The

composition of this part is as section recurs once more to the sub

The

ject of poetry, a subject out of whose province some matter is discussed in the third book, and being renewed

be here dispatched. It is, what the pre vailing character should be in the descriptions given of men in order to be employed with advantage in the
in this,
is

to

education

of youth.

And,

as

was said also

in

that

book,

this

matter cannot be dispatched until the grand

399
question
is

decided
their

which

these

descriptions

always

involve in

ultimate

result,

whether

unjust

men

can be happy or just men miserable. This subject accordingly could not have been taken

up

earlier

that no one

than in this place, though it must be allowed would have felt the want of it, if it had
it

remained where
that

was.
to

For
all

it

is

now

clear

at once

Plato,
strict

according
poetical
in

appearance,
this

would have

had
fine

justice

in

department of the

arts

treated
that

the

rules

manner completely contrary to have become valid among us. Mean

a

while he does indeed profess himself satisfied provided one amid only the just man proves himself a happy
tortures

and

insults,

to

which
to

even

our

own

critics

would have no objection

make.

But instead of here

rally,

the general explaining this point, he again takes up accusation against the art of imitative composition gene which had already made its appearance in the

third

book

the guards

only as he had themselves should

there

shown more that

mimic

not practise the

arts, he here enlarges more upon the disadvantage which must ensue only from hearing and seeing mimic ex

hibitions.

Now

there

may indeed

be

truth

in

what

Plato says, that poets would be bad poets if they were is not it only to represent perfectly just men, but on that account necessary that men of contrary cha

should be so represented and extolled, as to And quite as seduce others to follow their example. little can it be overlooked that Plato proceeds upon a very narrow hypothesis, when he thinks that every
racters

one

is

inclined,

at

least,

in

solitude

to

effeminate

restrain, as well as

emotions which in company when he wagers his head with even

indulge those he attempts to

400
they would always relax some thing of their strictness towards themselves in relation
that
to what, if publicly exhibited,

the best of men,

praised and admired.

not only overlooked but So that the censure cannot pro

is

perly

apply to

the

dramatic

and dramatising

art

of

poetry in
inferior

and

for itself, but only relatively to a certain

order of moral cultivation,

art
in

to

the

and moreover, not general, but only to the Hellenic form

it,

and method of

in

which, however,
in

Plato

does not
its

seem to have regarded even

historical value.

the slightest degree

all

And

it

must surprise us
to

the more,

that Socrates maintains with perfect confidence that this

art
will

never

be able

defend
it,

itself,
it

and that the

feud between philosophy and

very earliest times,
life
is

as
to

existed from the

likewise

endure for ever for

There does not however appear, utterly unworthy indeed as such an ingredient would have been
a

and death.

of such
this in a

work,

the

slightest

trace

that

Plato

wrote

humour

excited

by the comic
his

poets,

notwith

standing the very great probability there exists of their

having already
before
this

satirized

Republic
put

from

hearsay,
it

work was publicly

art is

forth.

But

is

because

the dramatic

only

conversant with

the

mind

in its present scarcely

state,

understood, though multi

fariously deformed

from truth,
thing
true,
state of
in the

affects

and although so far removed nevertheless to be considered as some

is

this

it

which,
it

to

Plato,

represents

the

more

if unintermitting. of the third book he seeks corresponding passage to expose himself to the censure than in

antagonism with

as

And

any
a

degree to excuse himself from

the perfect writer
case
is

it,

because, as he says,

as little as possible,

and only

in

of

the

most extreme necessity, to

make use of

401

mimic representation, a rule which he himself trans gressed so far, he now seems on the one hand to
wish entirely to renounce this method for the future, and on the other tacitly to justify himself upon the

ground, that,
sophists,

rhetoricians,

though he may indeed have introduced and statesmen speaking in cha

still,

racters

the

reverse of praiseworthy,

so

far

from

bestowing upon them any commendation calculated to seduce others to imitate them, his only object was to
expose their real worth and to exhibit them as warning And as Plato spoke at last of his Republic examples.
only as a model to which approximations are to be made, so he comes in the present instance also to a very
mitigated conclusion, implying that
if this

art is not to

be entirely banished, yet

their
if

still

men must be always on

and hear them as
for

guard against they heard them

its

seductions,

not.

As then

Virtue

sake,

and from

interest in her this matter

is

wise ordered, the second section

may now subjoined

not be other
to this,

embracing a subject which must indeed form a match less conclusion, as it returns to the rewards of Virtue,

and thus
it

refers

us

rather

to

the

second

book.

For,

is

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

commencement
in

of the work, the discussion

is

to

be about rewards

the present and future life, the immortality of the soul is first of all treated of, a doctrine which, independently of
all

other
s

considerations,

every

reader

acquainted

with

Plato
to

method and
out
of

art
this

would have been almost

work,

pained

miss

And

nearly

as

402
surprising does
it

appear that this important subject

in

is

above a couple of pages.

as

occupying space So that one might almost think that Socrates would rather have referred to it
quite
cursorily

dispatched

not

already

made out
it

elsewhere,

and

have made

his

friends

concede

as a

deed more to do

And he has in thing known. with the subsequent description of

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

in

the

Phaedo.

Now

here given is such that if it is which in the two earlier dialogues is always assumed, and in the Phagdo is to a certain degree illustrated

proof which is an hypothesis granted

the

by the refutation of the

but organic disposition
as

position that the soul that the soul

is

to

is nothing be conceived

self-existent

being, only
it,

united to the body but

fact perfectly
sufficient,
all

quite distinct

from

it

is

in

and therefore we are not here referred

earlier

at

to

the
that

proofs.

Moreover,

since in the description

follows,

the immortality is to appear most strictly in the form of the transmigration of souls ; after the proof

of immortality is general, it is further proved that the number of souls always remains the same. In the Phaedo also this doctrine has been already indirectly
laid

between

down, as a circular career is so placed intervening life and death, that no other way remains in

a point which in the Phaedrus

at all in the

which animation by the introduction of souls can arise ; is not brought forward
to

relatively

same way, and consequently that dialogue, more remote from the this subject, is
In this
in
last

work before us than the Phaedo.

argument from
which
that

too the

constancy

the

number

403
of souls
in
is

proved, was already

the

sketched.
is

But when
demonstrated

the

Phaedo

immortality

also
is

upon

the assumption that only what

compound can

not compound, it might be objected that in these very books Plato com On this account, there poses it of three essential parts. fore, Socrates now takes up the same point conversely,
is

be dissolved,

and that the soul

and proves that what

in it

much

that

is

immortal cannot easily have dissimilar and different, and lets it

is

is far from appearing here but comes partly encumbered with originally is, was foreign additions, partly also deprived of much that

be understood that the soul

as
it

originally in

it.

What

else

then can be here meant, but

that that
is

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 here immersed in a dim abyss, various forms under which the prin are to represent the of desire appears, so that only the reason, either

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
for us, according to our

is

but

little

suited for the pere

through heavenly spaces.

Only

it

is

difficult

mode of

thinking, to unite with

this the hypothesis that the souls of brutes are in

kind

so perfectly the

can also
is

same with those of men, that the latter become brutes, and the former men; and it

moreover, hard to conceive

this

how
to his

Plato should have

adopted

only

in

compliance with the Pythagorean

it

tradition without assimilating

own

theory.

The

souls of brutes

must

therefore, according to him, have

ideas,

originally contemplated the

that,

only that they, and

in

as

we are taught

in

the Timaeus,

consequence

404

human life, banished as they are to such an can attain to no recollection whatever. organism, They
of their
first

are accordingly those souls which appear deprived for the most part of their original nature. But against this it

may be

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 ground for ing placing the two in comparison with one another. This theory also agrees, therefore,
with
that,

which

in

the

right
in the

conduct of the plastic

powers of nature contained

the

human
all

race, discovers
efforts to

only true principle

to in like

upon which
justice

form

mankind

wisdom and
manner
of the
it

are

to

be

founded.
psedagogic

And

may be

said that the

regulations

Platonic

state

receive

new

light

from what
sent
life

is

here said about the influence of the pre

future.

in that passage above which places the choice of a new life between unavoid able destiny and free-will ingeniously combined, every thing depends upon the soul being in a proper con dition to choose, and not too the strongly possessed

upon the

For

by

may have encountered in its former earthly existence, to be able to seize that which is in conformity with its inward essence, and calculated
impressions
it

of

what

to as

promote
if

its

improvement.

Only

it

does indeed seem

that art of

superintending the connection of the

into

sexes

might

come
this

some

difficulty,

if,

notwith

method a soul quite foreign and standing, upon unsuitable, in no way connected with this state, can insinuate itself into it and it is not very easy to see,
;

under what particular divine protection this circumstance must be placed, that such a misfortune may not occur

405
before
itself;
it

is

significantly
it

felt

in

the

exercise of the art

this
is

unless

is

to

be said that

a far more

worthy and important object, than

cerns of an individual
life,

all

those trifling con

for that beautiful feeling of

confidence which suggests that for him

who

is

dear to

the
this

Godhead every thing must work

description,
finally,

for the best.

In
the

that

interchange between

happy wandering through heavenly space and

to

the return

the

region
to

of imperfect
the

existence
to

bears a
the

manifest
lives

similarity

interchange

which

of

the

the longer

guardians of the state are to be subject, between period which they are to devote to philo

sophical contemplation, thus surrendering its right to the wish of the philosopher for death, or rather for

being dead, and the return for one day only to the burden some employment of government in the cave. So that

even in
the

this

point of view

Plato

will

not be denied

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

in every

way

to

pains

upon

the

subject

of

justice, and never to consider anything as more profit Such is the tenor of its commencement, such of able.
its

conclusion

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

tive poetry,

grand object the aversion expressed to the art of imita and especially towards Homer, whose heroes quite pointedly furnish most examples of souls that make

406
a bad choice
wise

Odysseus only, the passionless, was made

for

by him by setting him up as a model a life withdrawn from public affairs.

the experiences of his travel, and Plato honours

the choice of

And now
at

that

we have arrived with our

work,
is

analysis

the

end of
if

the

question
results

very

naturally

arises,

the

case

as

our
the

to

us

while

we

pursued
that

dissection

have represented in the most

originally
life

accurate

manner,

the

question

raised

regarding the advantage of a just

in

and moral

does

fact predominate throughout, so that every thing not relating to this is only to be regarded as digres sion the question, I say, arises, whence the work comes to bear the title of the Republic, in comparison with

which the other, of the Just, has

in

no way been able

it

make good its claim work, we may indeed say

to

How
it

happens

that

the

since

has been in existence,

has

always been quoted under this name, and under no other, so that it at least goes back to the imme
diate
disciples

of Plato was,

Nay, can we not say that

Plato
it,

mediately at least, the author of since in the opening of the Timaeus Socrates him
himself

appears to be speaking of these dialogues when he says that they have discussed the main ques tion of the constitution of the state ? And so far is this
self manifestly

from being an incidental or subordinate notice, that on the contrary, the whole idea of the Timaeus and Critias,
which Hermocrates was to adduce, is Must not, there immediately developed from this. most confidence be placed in this Platonic Socrates fore,
as well as of

that

himself? and would he not smile at the analysis of the Avhole here given, the upshot of which is that justice
is

the

grand subject

Is not

an argument

in

favour

407
of the supposition that he did
struct
his

by no means here con

scaffolding,

Republic

as a

mere

afforded
in
it

by
are

the

elaborate

execution
will

with

which matters

discussed,
justice
sition
it
?

which

bear no immediate application to

is

And

if

there

some ground for the suppo

satirical

that this ideal state, even before Plato described

in the

books we have, had been a subject of

as sketched
in

allusion

his oral instruction,

are

we

to so

believe that those oral sketches

similar
to

were

in all respects

the written

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
believe that in the
its

he has only played with proper subject, and that he begins all at once in
itself

work

the

Timasus,

and not
?

before,

to

take

serious

view

of the question

But
to

to attend to this latter dialogue

at
it

exclusively would be
to

least

quite

as partial as

not
to

pay any regard

whatever.
that

But

if

we are

start

upon
is

the

supposition

the representation of

the proper grand object, it would be hardly possible to conceive why the appearance of the contrary

the state

And even if it could be ex pointedly produced. plained why Plato combined the investigation concerning justice with this grand object, still the form and the
is

manner

in

which

this is

unmeaning and absurd.

It

done would then be perfectly would have been much more

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
in

and then the application

ethical

to the

mind,
this
;

and the
point
of

view,

would

problems, have

still

un

resulted

most naturally consequently, a perfectly converse rela tion between these two grand objects and the essential
parts

of the

work referring
if,

to

them must then have

it

obtained.

And

indeed,

upon

this supposition

would

be more easily conceivable that the regulations about the commerce of the sexes should be treated of with
copiousness which now appears, then too, on the other hand, all that is in connection with the rewards
the

of virtue would have to

fall
it

much
is

farther back as

mere

subordinate matter; and

ject could be so prominent as

impossible that this sub it is here made, partly

by the
the
fact

style

and method of the execution, partly by

the exposition, constituting as it does a return of the end to the beginning, very properly con cludes the whole. Other discussions, such as that upon the nature of dialectics, upon the conditions of this in
tellectual like

that

activity

and

its

relation to the others,

and

in

manner those upon the

art of imitative poetry bear,

indeed, a similar relation to both suppositions, and the question how they are necessarily connected with the

grand
swer.

both cases equally difficult to an Accordingly it does not appear that by the method actually pursued even the slightest step is gained
is

Thema

in

for affording a

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 disproporis

whole work

tionality

remains,
matter,

and

an excess
the

of

unnecessary

and

subordinate

which

explain the connection

has in

preceding attempt to no way endeavoured to

409
conceal.

What
Socrates

remains then but to confess that the

is

Platonic

here

double-faced

Janus?

In

the work itself the backwards looking face speaks, and to that we have until now listened; in the Timseus
the front one lets itself be heard.
position

And
the

with the sup

the

fact

agrees,

that

in

work

itself

so

many problems previously set so many previously isolated

and that
this

are again taken up,

and

particulars

investigations combined, whole tissue into which are worked many which are as keys and talismans to what
affords extreme
satisfaction;

has gone before,

the

while in

Timaeus the same work appears as a new

mem
So

ber of a

new

series of theoretical

expositions, in which
to

Timaeus,
crates;
to
all

Critias,
this

and Hermocrates are

follow

and
that

may

two-fold relation seems to be the key yet have continued obscure in the

connection of the work.

The
in

idea of virtue in general,

is

and of the four virtues

in
this

particular,
to
all

defined,
earlier

and

we have the key-stone

the

and

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
good,

which

in

Plato
and,

view
on
the

is

the

dialectic

science,

other

grand object of side, would not

come under
in

discussion at all unless there was an interest

the

right

regulation

of
it

life,

first,

that this interest, as

getic

ground

of

morality,

equally natural, here appears as an apolo should also conduct and

it

is

predominate through the whole

the elements of dialectics in
it,

work,
as

and then that

as

well

of ethics,

should be again taken up, combined with one another,

410
and
as
it

were fixed by a key-stone.

Now, we observe

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
is

so connected

with that state of conditional

is

here plunged, that a com bination of the elements of the soul may arise in which
existence
in

which man

the existence of a
is

weak principle of virtue

is

is

all

that

possible,

and that there

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

attains

high

natural

that
at

this

degree of importance, and it is theory in particular should be ex

as well as that the process of the species from which, it

pounded
is

the

same time,

in it of the continuation

argued, the various tempers in different minds arise, should be placed under the dominion of common reason,

and quite as natural that the theory of dialectics, and with it at the same time, the polemics against that imi
tative

poetry

which,

according
the

to

Plato^s

conviction,

most

effectively

crushes

endeavour

after

truth

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.

Every

step

is

professedly

to a

declaration

that

the

state

cannot

exist

in

actual

practice, but only with a reality such that the further an actual state is removed from this standard the less

virtue can

appear in
attains a

it.

And

thus,

the

Republic in

more important prominency than at our work first appears, but yet never such as to become the proper

411
and main subject.

The

relation,

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

arrived at

a more advanced stage

development of the philosophy of this series. In the dialogues that succeed, no one but Socrates of

the

the whole

company
;

to

whom we

are

here introduced

bears any part

else

Glaucon and Adimantus, and whoever

appropriated those Socratic arguments,
satisfied,

may have

all go away perfectly work according to its

a sure

sign

that

the

original

plan

is

only
It

the

key

stone

to

all

that

has

hitherto

appeared.

does not

become the commencement of a new series until its re This is indeed a repetition which we now petition.
possess,

but as a clear confirmation * of what has been

just said,
repeats
it,

we do not here
but we see

learn to

whom
the

Socrates again

opening of the Timaeus that the hearers were the aforenamed, and a fourth besides who is not named. These persons then, as is clear from the we there meet with had expressions
first

from

wished especially to hear Socrates arguments about the and although he was in consequence state, obliged to repeat the whole discussion, the Republic was to

them the main

stance that the
Aristotle

subject.
title,

It is therefore to this
all

circum

and

who quote

the work from

it

ever
first

all

downwards, particularly refer; the more necessary to establish

relation

seemed how
of
all

first

the

and original

of the work.

Socrates on the following day requests as a repayment from those who desire him to repeat his arguments, that as masters in the province they,

Now, when

of practical
self,

life,

will

show him, better than he can him

in

his

own Republic

living motion

with reference

412
to internal as

well as external circumstances, this

wish

does

in

no

way
this

contradict

the

confession

previously

Republic exists only in imagination. For, although as near an approximation to it as is pos sible is the highest point at which all others are to
aim,
in
still

made, that

a standard for every thing that can take place

the

life

of a

state
;

living representation

be given by such a and this must be the best means

can

only

of exposing in their nakedness all immoral, and there fore corrupt, politics. Socrates had already this return
in

mind when he repeated the work, and had

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
as

he had anticipated
the
subject
to

mitted
also

the

but having once for all com hands of others, he must

be content with what they resolved. Now, they he must have patience to listen to the resolve that
romantic history of his
that the subject
is

state.

For Timaeus,

in

order

may commence with the

have

true beginning,

first

of

all to

treat in a historical form,

which nearly

all

physiologists and formation of the world, origin

more ancient

adopted, of the down to the begin

is

nings of the

human

race

and then Critias

to exhibit

that state according to its internal and external history, not indeed as Socrates appears to have intended, now
for

the

ancient

time existing and localized, but as the Athens, of which he has received information
first

from foreign legendary lore. Thus, accordingly, our work, under new authority, comes into a still more com
prehensive
series

than

that

which

Socrates,

according

413
to

the

although annexation of that philosophy which concerns the his theory of Nature to this work appears to overreach
expressions,
plans,
still

his

own

had

in

view.

But,

original

not

only

is

the

necessity

for

it

declared in his

own words, but even

the

first

outlines

drawn according to which they are to set this subject. For the principle already
the

to

work upon

laid

down

in

Phasdo,

that

nature must be
is

conceived from

the

idea of the good,

in the virtually repeated

Philebus

as well as in these books,

to
it

pronounced be absolutely the highest: and further, we here find stated pretty early as a principle to be generally
that the Deity
is

where that idea

is

established,

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 is wanted can be nothing hitherto pursued. Now, what but a knowledge of the relation between the mind

nency

is

and objective existence collectively, and of the place which the mind is to occupy in the system accordingly.

And
itself

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

The same principle also is expressed under sophy. another form in the last fable about the migration of in which at the same time For this the souls.
myth,
the system of the world brought forward in the Timaeus is meant also to declare it as a is graphically prefigured,

414
Socratic view, that every soul, in the intervals between
its

is happy in the contemplation espe of these general mundine relations, and strengthens cially and recruits itself anew ; whence it follows that during

appearance on earth

life

also that

renewed
is

recollection,

which

is

likewise his
is

leading principle,

most awakened when the mind

employed
fully in this

in speculations

upon nature, and most power

to

enlivened

by them, and on that account adepts

apply the all-per
relations.
all

science are best qualified

vading idea of the good to

clear, accordingly,

human
in

It is

from the way

which, as we have
series is

shewn, the subject-matter of the

former
in

inter
also

woven with that of the new, that

the ethical

the

latter

element has the preponderance, as natural philosophy is itself ethicised by the idea of the good which is placed at the summit of it ; and therefore the
formation of the world,
as

mode

of

acting,

furnishes

an expression of the divine the model which, notwith

standing

that

creation,

deliberation,

and

constitute the proper business of every

government mind, can yet

be followed but indistinctly in so contracted a sphere.

The
state

establishment, however, and conservation of general

prescriptive regulations, such as the constitution of every

must include,
imitation
to

is

in the first degree a plenary

and un

distinct

of the Deity.
as

But what

Critias

dertook

say,

well

as

what

Hermocrates would

have said, was undoubtedly to have been ethical, only certainly, if Socrates wish was to have been complied
1

with in so doing, directed to a comparative application And from this point of view not only to political life.

might the whole of the subject-matter contained in this work be intelligible, but it would also be an easy task
for every one to

make

it

clear

to himself,

how

all

pre-

415
vious works determine to this, and
all

the threads laid

early

out

in

them centre
designed
the

in

it.

But

at

how
great

a period
splendid

Plato

plan

of this

and

structure,

of his

and whether or not out of many, especially juvenile works, several points were at a later

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.

P. 73.

We

are not

to

look

for

too

much.

Ast, in his commentary, has construed this passage very It is, however, too profound for my apprehension how the poetic life above is indeed removed from all real
literally.

when below it and thus appears co ordinate with the poetical and gymnastic life. Again, I know not in what sense a higher conception of the true and beautiful can be said to belong to the ^/o7/xaT/o-TtKo? than
representation of the true and forms the fourth kind of real
beautiful,
life,

to the yewpytKos. this philosophy.

And

thus

leave

it

to

others to

enjoy

LYSIS.
P. 78-

To have had

the Lysis in

his mind.

Whoever

reads,

with a view to comparing the passages

c. 1.

with this dialogue, Eth. Nicom. vin.

2.

10.

(p.

59.

A.D. p. 63. B.) Magn. Mor. n. c. 11. (p. and Eudem. vn. 2. 5. (p. 162. B. C. p.
* But see the extract from Boeckh
s

111. E.

and 112. C.)

165. B. Ed. Casaub.

Philolaus, p. 104. at the end of this

volume.

(Tr.)

3d

418

NOTES.

totle

1590.) will scarcely continue to doubt of this, although Aris neither names Plato nor the dialogue, and one might
is

feel some suprise, if he really had it in view, that this not done more frequently and thoroughly.

PROTAGORAS.
P. 82.
I

Perished.

learnt this

from an investigation regularly instituted

into this family

by Heindorf out of the fourth speech of

Deipnosophist. v. p.
218,

Andocides.

Athenoeus,

does not

but only concludes from the comedy of Eupolis, brought forward Ol. 89. 3, and in which the extravagance of Callias is exposed, that Hipponicus must have

adduce

tnis authority,

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.

Absent abroad.

When
does not
at

it is

make much

said that Protagoras lodges with Callias, this against the supposition, as Callias was

more

an age to superintend his father s house. There is perhaps difficulty in that subsequent passage which says that Hipponicus had formerly used the chamber as a store-room; which is intended certainly to give us to understand that
Callias

had introduced more

this

liberal

manners than

his father,

But, perhaps

too might be
at

somewhat long absence, which,

always Athenian armies in the
P. 85.

explained by supposing a a time when there were

not inconceivable.

field, is

Banished from Athens.

ix. 54.

This

is

clear
is

from Diog. Laert.

where

his accuser

Pythodorus

called

one of the four hundred, with

whom

NOTES.
Menagius over-hastily
while there
is

419

asserts that he is unacquainted. Mean a possibility that this accusation may have taken place at a later period, and Pythodorus may only be designated from his participation in this revolution a pos
sibility

however which can scarcely be supported by any

fact.

probable

P. 97-

Imitated after Protagoras.

This has been already remarked,, intelligently enough, or

copied,

by

Philostratus,
:

who
3e

Soph. 494, says

"

71/01)9

in the life of Protagoras, Vit. TOV YlpwTayopav 6 Il/\ceTO)/ cre/ji/eo?

/xt e Trj (refjivoTqTt KCU irov K.ai epfj.t]vevovTa, vTrTid^ovra /xaKjOO\oy(arepov TOU (ru^^erpov, rtju e ai/ avrov fAvdai /JiciKput e-^apaKTtj^ Plato, knowing that Protagoras expressed himself with pia-ev.
t

was notwithstanding careless withal, and more diffuse than neat, imitated his style by a long speech. Only it is inconceivable how Olearius came to refer this to the
dignity,

but

Theaetetus,

when

it

manifestly

relates

to

the

myth

in

our

present dialogue.

Another poem.

See Brunckii Anal.

I.

122. X.

CHARMIDES.
P. 108.

In

his

challenges.
p.

See Plato

Letters,

Ep. vu.

324. D.

Notorious attempt.

Xenophon
P. 109.

tells

this

Mem.

Soc.

i.

2,

33.

As Xenophon

represents

it.

Mem. Socr. in. 7. dialogue which should be com pared generally with this, that the reader may convince himself that there is here no such imitation or connection as to render our dialogue liable to
suspicion,

420

NOTES.

PARMENIDES.
P. 122.

From

a passage in the Charmides.

ia

See Charmid.

p. 169-

McyoAow S/ TWOS,

(pi\, dvcpos

3e?,

c.

P. 129.

Another of that name far younger.

father

The

supposing them to be true, that Lysias Athens, and that his father had already died before Lysias set out to travel to Thurii. Dionysius agrees with the first account, while the last is only supported by the composer of the Lives of the Ten Orators ; an author

Lysias the two accounts,

to

greatest difficulty in understanding the be the person here meant would be

at

of

found in

was born

despised by all sound investigators. By it the made in the Republic would be completely de stroyed, for Plato s brothers could in that case never have been in conversation with Cephalus. By the first account, Cephalus immigration would be placed so early that the
sufficiently

supposition

dialogue between Socrates and Parmenides could not then have taken place. But this would indeed be a subordinate circumstance, which Plato might easily have overlooked. He
represents Cephalus as a person

and even

who often came to Athens, presence at this time does not look like an immigration, but a visit or a journey on business whereby the impossibility of this dialogue having taken place, if Cepha
his
still

lus did really settle altogether at

becomes

greater.

Athens before Ol. LXXX. Meanwhile it is difficult to decide

2,

in

such matters about Dionysius, how much is accredited in formation, or when he only follows an opinion generally I may take this opportunity of advising the reader adopted.

where the question turned upon the chronology of the life of Lysias, that the accounts of Dionysius, and not those in the Lives of the Ten Orators, are
that in the Phaedrus likewise,

universally followed.

And upon

this point a

few words now

said, only for the reason that F. C. Wolf, in his translation of the Republic, has taken the opposite course.

remain to be

Both agree
at the

in the date of Lysias

first

return to Athens, fixing

Callias,
i.

it

time of the

archonship of

e.

Ol. xcn.

1.

Dionysius adds, that Lysias was

old,

at that
falls

time forty-seven years

in Ol,

according to which his birth

LXXX.

2.

On

NOTES.
the contrary, the
"Lives"

421
in Ol. LXXXII. 2.

place

it

Accord

ing to both accounts he goes at the age of fifteen years to Thurii; which, according to that of Dionysius, falls in quite correctly with Ol. LXXXIV. 1, when the colony was actually

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.

Plutarch and Proclus.

See Plutarch de

frat.

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

and Antiphon cannot have been held

concludes very rightly that the dialogue between Cephalus until after the death of
Socrates, without, however, expressly declaring that he con siders this Cephalus to be a different person from the father

of Lvsias.

422

NOTES.
P. 131.

If any

one.

As Ast has notwithstanding

on Plato
s

lately

done
I

see his

Essay
that
I

life

and

writings,,

p.

250.

may

add,

should not envy those readers their opinion to whom Ast has satisfactorily proved that the Parmenides was written
at the
earliest
is

after the

Theaetetus,

since in

the latter the

once so decidedly commenced of those problems which in the Parmenides are but slightly indicated. For,
solution
at

Ast has by no means distinctly shown in what respect the Parmenides completes the Theaetetus, and even the Sophist and Statesman. Nor even if we allow that Socrates here, in the pains he takes and the problems he enunciates, shows himself to have arrived at the summit of dialectics, will, therefore, the investigations which Parmenides conducts and in which Socrates is perfectly passive, constitute the completion of those in the above-mentioned dialogues. The notion that from that perfection in the enunciation of the problems, and the success of Socrates endeavours, Parme nides may be intended to represent the erring philosopher, must appear to all persons accurately acquainted with Plato I agree, too ridiculous for anything to be said about it.
however, with Ast, that in
of virtuosity in investigation
dialogue the representation the principal point, and it is the circumstance that it contains
this
is

upon

this,

as well as

upon

only germs, that the arguments rest for the position which I have assigned to it, so that I find it unnecessary to enter more accurately into what Ast alleges in favour of his own
opinion.

APOLOGY.
P. 134.

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

be persuaded by Ast

in
is

tricate criticism,

that the Socrates here

upon

the stage

NOTES.

423

to the

conceited sophist, and that the whole of this defence belongs common and counterfeit art of rhetoric.
P.

136. Which Diogenes. See Diog. Laert. Lib. 11. s. 41. We are there told that Plato wished to defend Socrates from the rostrum, but that
at the
first

Attic wit.

word the judges put him down by a But this tale is too little accredited and
itself for

sally

of

too

im

probable in
vaToi, TMI;

dvafltlvat eVl

anything to be built upon it. (UXar^a TO ft^a, K a\ ezVelV NewVaro? wV, J avtipes *A6tieVl r6 fir^a dvaftcivTW rou\ gi^cco-ras K/3o^<rai KaraKaT(t/3r)6t.)

TOVTfO-Tl,

P. 138.

Much
in

to

change.
s

These
sufficient

imperfections are,

Ast

opinion,

among

the

grounds for excommunicating the piece; but an imitating sophist, and one who proceeded according to the rules of rhetoric, must have been far worse than the one here
otherwise is, to commit such faults. But Socrates may com mit them, because on every occasion he is hurried onwards by his higher objects, and the whole defence in particular looks like an occasion, such as common life
for following his calling.

might present,

Of

the actual defence.

For Socrates must have defended himself, and I should have wished Ast to have hint as to given us some
how, in
slight his opinion, Socrates dispensed with this task.

HIPPARCHUS.
P. 157.

Two

great Masters.

Valckenaer on Herod,

p. 398.

and Wolf.

Prol. p. 154.

Striking out.

Even
chus
is

jElian mentions his

really a
little

work of Plato

doubts whether the Hipparbut this, in itself, would be

but of

importance.

424
P. 159.

NOTES.
For even
the

Menon.

the

Other points of resemblance between our dialogue and Menon are mentioned by Boeckh. (in Minoem, p. 40.)

MINOS.
P. 163.

Minos was

never.

For an account
at the

in

Diodorus that an Athenian conqueror

Olympic games was called so has been already cor rected by Boeckh. (See Pref. in Minoem.)

GORGIAS.
P. 175.

In

the Protagoras. in

Compare the conversation

p.

the

Protagoras

beginning

358. P. 180.
It

From

the

Lysis.

the reader to decide, whether he can more easily conceive this to have been the case, or, on the contrary, that these hints afforded matter for his composition

must be

left for

composer of the Lysis. Only, in that case, the com entitled to be considered a more still remain poser than Ast will allow him to have been. ingenious person
to the will

P. 185.

No

trace appears.

None,
otherwise,

at least, according to

my notions. Ast indeed thinks and would conclude hence that Plato composed
Socratic process,

the Gorgias during the

when

think

it

must be allowed he could for a work so extremely

allow upon the whole,
so

scarcely have been in the

artificial,

humour
refrain
in

and, as

even Ast will

extremely deep.

But

from saying more upon this point, and leave the case the hands of every skilful reader. In
the Ecclesiazusce of Aristophanes.
different
to

See the commentators upon comedy, and more at length as

passages of this the whole of it, Mor-

NOTES.
genslern,
it

425

Commentat. de Platonis.Republ. p. 7678. Should be objected that this comedy did not perhaps contain so
allusions to Plato as
is

many
clear

generally believed,

it

is

still

and especially Socraticians, enough are comprehended under its satire, and among them Plato was more effectively hit, inasmuch as he was distinguished above the rest by reputation and rank.
that philosophers,

P. 187-

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.

impossible.

The passage runs

as follows

"

In the Gorgias

he censures not only the person from whom the dialogue takes its title, but also Archelaus, the king of Macedonia, both as a man of low descent, and as one who had killed his lord and king. And this is the same Plato of whom that by means of his close friendship with Speusippus says, Archelaus he was the cause of Philip s coming to the govern ment." Then, after bringing forward the passage of Speu But sippus referring to this point, Athenaeus continues whether or not this was actually the case, God knows." In
"

truth

God knows how

says,

it

what Speusippus
inferred.
Plato,

but what,
the

could be the case not, that is, in Athenaeus, is thence

confidential relation

by means of a
died in

with
is

Archelaus,
to

who

same year with Socrates,

have been the cause that ten years later Philip supposed came to the government. And how? Listen. Carystias of Pergamus, says Athenaeus, writes as follows in his Memora
bilia.

he wrote

Speusippus learnt that Philip spoke ill of Plato, "As if it were not known that Philip owes even his kingdom to Plato. For Plato sent Euphraeus to Perdiccas, who was influenced by him to assign some province to Philip. And as Philip maintained there an armed force, he had, when Perdiccas died, the means in readi ness, and could put himself in possession of the kingdom."
in

When

a letter as follows:

Now

is

there here a single

word about Archelaus,

or

any

relation with him.

of accusing

him

the sophist the injustice of a monstrous falsification, he has confused,

Unless

we do

426
in the strangest

NOT ES.

and most ignorant manner, the Alcetas whom Archelaus slew, and the Perdiccas whom he succeeded, and
the far later Perdiccas

who

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

not to confound names and times.

wise says must be true,

What Speusippus other he really did say it, and may serve for the correction and completion of other accounts, which make Philip remain in Thebes till the death of
if

Perdiccas.

THEJETETUS.
P. 192.

contradiction.
(p. 100)

See the Preface to the Laches

108), and the what is there said.
(p.

and Charmides
referring
to

passages

in

each

dialogue

P. 203.

So Proclus.
his

In the second book of book of Euclid.

commentary upon the

first

MENON.
P. 219.

son of Anthemion.

story about the love of Anytus for Alcibiades, at one time speaking of Anytus the accuser of But Socrates, at another of Anytus the son of Anthemion.

Plutarch

tells

little

it

for

might not be well to build too much upon this story; it seems to be almost at variance with what is said in

the defence of Socrates

at the time of that accusation

by Xenophon, that the son of Anytus was still a growing boy, and

with the conclusion which

this passage

we

cannot

in connection with the

help drawing from Menon, that the father

of Anytus
trade ;

first
it

attained to riches gradually

-could hardly occur to his son in his to fall in love with Alcibiades. years

hence

by an extensive younger

NOTES.

427

The same of whom Xenophon. But when Gedike thinks that he can be the same as occurs in the first book of Thucydides, and that this Menon, who in the campaign of Cyrus owed his office of commander
his youthful beauty, also led an army at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, he may, if he can, come to an agreement with dates as to this point.

to

EUTHYDEMUS.
P.
220.

Though no

one.

Even Ast
this

rejection,

ground, but only sophists occasionally, he does not think that he could have
dedicated a particular dialogue to this purpose. As if Plato did not treat of many things in this dialogue occasionally, and expressly in the others; and as if his dialogues of this nature had not always a variety of objects, and not one
merely.
to look for
as to Ast s discovery,, that it is but lost labour any other bearing or object in this dialogue, and his accurate method of ^d examining explaining it in con sequence, both are now before the world, together with my introduction, and every reader may try and choose. But any one inclined for a jest might say that he should not be

since published, does not take up because Plato so often exposes the

And

sorry if another author besides Plato were to be whom such a dialogue as this could be ascribed.

found to

P. 223. Xenophon. In the third book of the Memorab. of Socrates, chap. P. 224.

i.

In the Cratylus.

Just at the beginning.

Aristotle also.

Ed. Bip. in. p. 599, with which com Soph. pare Rhet. ii. cap. xxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. iv. p. 292.
El. cap. xx.

De

Another passage.

De

Soph.

El.
if

Tennemann,

cap. xxxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. in. I mistake not, has already

p.

639.

expressed

the

428
supposition that
tisthenes
is

NOTES.
when
Plato mentions these
see
o\^</xa0es,

Anrefer

meant.

We

how

this

does,

indeed,
still

immediately to his Euthydemus;

other grounds for the supposition.

but there are

some

PH^EDON.
P. 291.

In

the speech

of Diotima.

See Symp.
Phsedr. p.

p. 205,
24-6.

206.

P. 294.

To

interest itself.

P. 301.

Here
P. 304.

in the

Phcedon.

See

p. 72, e. 73, a.

The Protagoras.

P. 68, 69.

P. 305.

As

it

is said.

Politic, p. 269.

THEAGES.
P. 321.

In the Apology.

P. 33, e.

Two
The
other
is

notices.

in the Republic,

B. vi. p. 496,
to

where

it

is

said that his health compelled

him

keep

to philosophy

by

withholding him from

.

politics.

parenthetic digression.
.

P. 150, 151.

In

the Apology.

P. 31, d.

P. 324.

The expressions of Xenophon.

i.

Particularly in the Memorabilia,

1,

24.
c.

19*

In the Euthyphron.

P. 3, b.

ERAST^E.
P. 326.

The

other professedly.
in to

There

is

Laert. ix. 37,

passage quoted from Thrasyllus which most persons have understood

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.
P. 337.

Which Thucydides.
in
his
life

But how does

Pericles, does not

it

happen that Plutarch,

this oration?

of

thus tacitly giving us to understand that Thucydides only ascribed it supposititiously to Pericles, while on the other hand he celebrates

mention

another oration of the great statesman delivered at an earlier Dionysius also says that in period, during the Samian war. But may not his opinion Plato here imitated Thucydides.
Plato,

when he makes
that

Socrates

say that Aspasia supplied

much

was omitted

have had in his mind

in the speech she made for Pericles, that earlier and more genuine one?

P. 340.

When

Socrates.

If Menexenus, as

we must

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<ai,

the passage, that

it is

easy to praise Athenians

before 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
sciences.

Thebes, might be early known in that mart of arts and But even supposing that he wrote nothing during
still it

scarcely conceivable, with philosophizing, which Anaxagoras, So crates and the Sophists had excited at Athens, that none of the ideas of the neighbouring philosopher should have pene
is

his residence in Thebes,

the lively

zeal

for

trated to

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,

Is

cession of the gods?

not,

dwelling of the gods as

in the Phsedrus the earth

we
is

find in the Phaedrus; but that not the dwelling of the gods and
is

the earth of the world he

clear at once

from

this,

that

those souls which cannot follow the gods in that procession, fall down upon the earth, which must therefore, certainly, be
this conception also

something different from the dwelling of the gods ; and that may be explained without obscurity, and
r

without confusion, out of the Philolaic system of the w orld, I have shown in the treatise de Platonico systemate ccelestium globorum et de verd indole astronomic? Philolaicce, (p. 27 32). Then
little

again the assumption of a super-celestial region is quite as Platonic; for as Aristotle remarks, (Phys. in. 4.) the developed Platonic doctrine places nothing without the heavens,

not even the ideas, which are not indeed in space at all ; some foreign matter, therefore, predominates in the Phaedrus, of

which Plato availed himself

composition
;

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,
pure essence of things which, according
to the Phsedrus, the

4*32

NOTES.

But enough of this. Moreover, it from what has been said, that in the Timaeus no appears coincidence with the Philolaic doctrine is to be found; and the only point they have in common is, that in the Timaeus the soul of the world proceeds from the centre, and the whole universe is again enveloped in it, and Philolaus
souls contemplate there.
also regards the central fire as the chief seat of the soul, or the divine principle, and represents the All as surrounded with the soul. It is not therefore my opinion that Philolaus, as,

according to some authors quoted in Simplicius, was the case with certain Pythagoreans, considered the central fire as the formative power, situate in the centre of the earth, and nou as rishing it from thence, and the counter-earth (aVrfyflwi/)
the

which, when applied to Philolaus is perfectly un suitable: but it can scarcely be overlooked, that the central fire has the same relation to the soul of the world, which,

moon

according to some physical conceptions, the brain, according to others, the heart, has to the human soul."

Select List No.

I.

Works

published by John

W.

Parker,

West Strand, London.

,,

Gospel-Narrative according to the Authorized Text of the without Repetition or Omission. With a Continuous Exposition, Marginal Proofs in full, and Notes, briefly collected from the best Critics and CommenEvangelists,

HE

[tators.

By

Dedicated, by special permission, to Her Majesty the Queen. the Rev. JOHN FORSTER, M.A., Her Majesty s Chaplain of the Savoy. Third Edition, Royal Octavo, 125. ; large paper copies, 165.

The Psalms
fcical
|

Commentary.

Cambridge.

Two Volumes,

in Hebrew; with a Critical, Exegetical, and PhiloloBy GEORGE PHILLIPS, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Queens College,
Octavo, 32s.

heretofore the Practice of Hop o Down and

Religio Quotidiana: Daily Prayer, the Law of God s Church, and Churchmen. By the Rt. Rev. RICHARD MANX, D.D., Lord
Connor, and Droinore.
Foolscap Octavo, cloth,
gilt edges, 4s. 6d.

m
i

Joint new
fidited

Twysden s of Schism, as

Nornsian Professor of Divinity.

Historical Vindication of the Church of England in stands separated from the Roman, and as reformed 1 Elizabeth Edition collated and revised, with the M.S. Additions left by the Author for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by G. E. CORRIE B D
it

Octavo, 7s. Qd.

Christ to the Conversion of Constantino. Prof. Oxon. Small Octavo, Qs, Qd.

History of the Christian Church, from the Ascension of Jesus By the late EDWARD BURTON, D D. Reg-

A
i i i

(Establishment in the Roman Empire. Dublin. Foolscap Octavo, Qs. Gd.

History of Christianity; from

its

By W.

Promulgation to its Legal C. TAYLOR, LL.D., Trinity College,

w Primitive

Connor, and Dromore.

Primitive Christianity; Exemplified and Illustrated by the Acts Christians. By the Rt. Rev. R. MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and
Octavo, 125.

jB.D.,

On the Early Fathers ; an Introductory Lecture, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. 2s.

by

J. J.

BLUNT,

2
The Early
Sufferings.

Select List,

No.

I.,

of

Works
Customs,
Trials,

By

the Rev.

Christians; their W. PRIDDEN, M.A.

its

Manners,
4s.

andi

The Anglo-Saxon Church;

Character.

History, Revenues,

and General
105. 6d.

By

the Rev.

H. SOAMES, M.A.

Third Edition, with Additions,

The Book of the Fathers of the Christian Church, and the

of their Writings.
9s. Qd.

Spiril

A
Rev. J.

Manual of Christian Antiquities

tution, Ministers,

Worship, Discipline, and Customs of the Early Church. E. RIDDLE, M.A. Second Edition, 185.

an Account of the Consti By thi

College Lectures on Christian Antiquities,

English Church.

and the Ritual of

th(,

Ecclesiastical History. College Lectures on

By

the Rev.

W.

BATES, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer of Christ

Sets of Cambridge, Dublin,
9s.

College, Cambridge.

Each with complete

tion Papers.

and Durham, University Examina

Post Octavo,

of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Translation of the Bible, and the Book of Lord Bishop of St. Asaph. Prayer. By the Rt. Rev. T. VOWLER SHORT, D.D.,

Historic! History of the Church of England; embracing Copious Commoi

165.

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

History of the Church of Ireland.

From

the Reformation

t(

The Church of St. Patrick ; an Historical Inquiry into the Inde pendence of the Ancient Church of Ireland. By the Rev. W. G. TODD, A.B., Trinity College, Dublin. 4*.
__

History of the English Reformation.

M.A., Rector of South Ormsby.

A New Edition,

By F. 0. MASSINGBERD Revised and Enlarged. In the Press.

the Rev. H. SOAMES, M.A.

Elizabethan Religious History.

Chancellor of St. Paul
s.

By
its

Octavo, 165.

A
Legends.

History of Popery, and of

Octavo,
9s.
6<7.

Influence on Society.

Witl

Accounts of the Inquisition, and State of Popery in Ireland, and Specimens of Romisl

The Civil History of the Jews ; from Joshua to Hadrian. Rev. 0. COCKAYNE, M.A., King s College, London. Second Edition. 4s. Qd.

By

the

published by John
Bible
\R.G.S.

W.

Parker;

Maps a
;

femoirs, and a copious

75. Gd.

Series of new and accurate Maps, with Explanatory Index of Scriptural and Modern Names. By W. HUGHES,

An
y

Illustration of the

Method

the Early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ. By W. WILSON, B.D. idited by the Rt. Rev. T. TURTON, D.D., Lord Bishop of New Edition, revised, Qs. Ely.

of Explaining the

New

Testament

Jhurch to the

Rituale Anglo-Catholicmn Book of Common Prayer,

and Rituals.

or,

The Testimony

of the Catholic

Councils, Liturgies,

By

from Ancient Fathers, the Rev. HENRY BAILEY, M.A., Fellow of St.
as exhibited in Quotations

olm

College, Cambridge.

Octavo, 155.

Archbishop Usher s Answer to a

*opery.
135. Gd.

Jesuit, with other Tracts

on

James s Treatise on the Corruptions of

Bathers,
f

by the Prelates,

Pastors, and Pillars of the

Popery.

Revised and Corrected by the Rev. J.

Scripture, Councils, and Church of Rome, for the Maintenance E. Cox, M.A. Octavo, 125.

The Book of Psalms, newly Translated from the Hebrew, with and Philological Notes. By W. FRENCH, D.D., Master of Jesus College, New Edition, 12s. Cambridge, and Rev. G. SKINNER, M.A.
Critical

Ordo Saeclorum; a
icriptures,

Treatise

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.

)ctavo, 205.

Lectures in Divinity, delivered in the University of Cambridge,

Dr. HEY, as Norrisian Professor.

A New

Edition,

Two

Volumes, Octavo.

80s.

Notes on the
3H,

Parables. By the Rev. RICHAKD CHENEVIX M. A., Professor of Divinity in King s College, London, and Examining Chaplain Lord Bishop of Oxford. Third Edition, Revised and Improved. Octavo, 12s.

Notes on the Miracles.

By the

Rev. R. 0. TJBENCH.

Octavo, 12s.

What
St.

is

Christianity

By

T. V. SHOKT, D.D.,

Lord Bishop of

Asaph.

25. Gd.

Exposition

of

the

Sermon on the Mount, drawn from the

by Rev.

Writings of St. Augustine, with Observations

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

of

Christ the Desire of all Nations ; or, The Unconscious Prophecies Heathendom. The Hulsean Lectures for 1846. By the Rev. R. CHENEVIX TRENCH, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Oxford, and Professor of Divinity in King s College, London. Octavo, 55.

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.

ianity.

in

Lectures on the Prophecies, proving the Divine Origin of Christ Warburtonian Lectures. By ALEXANDER McCAUL, D.D., Professor of Divinity King s College, London, and Prebendary of St. Paul s. Octavo, 7s. Gd.

Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews: with a Review o] Mr. Newman s Theory of Development. The Warburtonian Lectures for 1846. By the Rev. F. D. MAURICE, M.A., Professor of Divinity in King s College, London, and Chap
lain of Lincoln s Inn.

Octavo, 7s. Gd.

Two

the City of God.

Series of Discourses. I. On Christian Humiliation. By C. H. TERROT, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh ; late Fellow
Octavo,
7s. Gd.

II.

On

of Trinity

College, Cambridge.

The Liturgy
By H. HOWARTH, B.D.,

as

it is, illustrated in a Series of Practical Sermons Rector of St. George s, Hanover Square. Second Edition. 45. 6d.

Practical Sermons,

United Church of England and Ireland printed verbatim from the Authors Complete in Three Volumes, Octavo, 7s., or Eighteen Parts, Is. each.
:

by Dignitaries and other Clergymen of

the

MSS

The

Scriptural Character of the English Church considered, in a

and Illustrations. and Prebendary of

Series of Sermons, with copious Notes M.A., Principal of St. Mark s College,

By
St.

Rev. DERWENT COLERIDGE. Paul s. Octavo, 125. 6d.

Parish Sermons.

By Archdeacon HARE.

Octavo, 125.

Christmas Day, and other Sermons.

Octavo, 105. Gd.

By Rev.

F. D.

MAURICE,

M.A

The Churchman s Guide

M.A., Her Majesty
s

Works, by Eminent Divines, arranged according

Chaplain of the Savoy.

an Index of Sermons, and othei to their subjects. By Rev. J. FORSTEB,

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.

published by John

W.

Parker.

The Literature of the Church of England, exhibited in Specimens Writings of Eminent Divines, with Memoirs of their Lives, and Historical Sketches the Times in which they lived. the Rev. RICHARD CATTERMOLE, B.D. Two By
tie
|>lumes,

Octavo, 25s.

ted

The Ritual of the United Church of England and Ireland with

occasional Reference to the Objections of Dissenters.

Illus-

ENSLEY IYRRELL, A.M., Secretary of the

mv

Down
the
JL

By

the Rev.

GERALD
"

]2mo.I

and Connor Church Education Society J

fi.<?.

jjj
"llr

Garrick

Jhgland. D

s Mode A New Edition,

of Reading

RICHARD CULL, Tutor

with J.IVL\^OJ MU.VI Cb J. CXI 111 111 a Notes, and a Preliminary Discourse on Public Reading
Octavo. KB. fi/7 Octavo, 5s. 6d.

Liturgy

of

the

Church of

in Elocution.

ing an Enquiry into the Liturgical System of the Cathedral and Collegiate Foundations the Anglican Communion. By the Rev. JOHN JEBB, M.A., Rector of Peterstow | Herefordshire. Octavo, 16s.

Choral Service of the United Church of England and Ireland

The Book of Common Prayer

WILLIAM KEATING CLAY,
fy.

-ious Modifications, the date of its several parts,

Demy 12mo.,

to show its and the Authority on which they rest of Jesus College, Cambridge, and Minor Canon of B.D.,

lUustrated, so as

7*. 6d.

copious Marginal References.

Explanatory Notes on the Prayer Book Version of the Psalms, By the same Author. 7s. 6d.

Comments, Explanatory and

Practical,

hndays, Fasts, and Holydays throughout the Year. fear of Tiiiey. Demy 12mo., 6s.

upon the Epistles, for the By the Rev. J. F. HONE M A

Parochialia;
George
aph.
45.
s,

consisting

Bloomsbury.

By the

Rt.

of Papers printed for the use of Rev T. V. SHORT, D.D., Lord Bishop of St

The Ministration of Public Baptism of

siving Children vice. Is. 6d.

who have been privately

Infants,
s

and the Form of

Flock, arranged as one

baptized into Christ

by the

Office for the Visitation of the Sick; late Archdeacon COXE. Is. 6d.

with Notes and Explana-

Horse Ecclesiasticse ; the Position of the Church with regard to

lish Error.

Horse Liturgicse
fcrmony.

I.

Tom ore.
I

the Rt. Rev. R. MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Printed uniformly, Foolscap Octavo, 85. 6d. each.

By

Liturgical Discrepancy.

II.

Down

Liturgical and Connor, and

Modern Hagiology
of
I
^,j3ncy

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.

Select List, No. L, of

Works
By
the Rev.

The Churchman s Theological Dictionary.

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

31. 3s.

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,

Edited by HENRY BOWMAN, Architect. Illustrated by Views, Plans, Elevations, Sections and Details. Royal Quarto, 21. 5s. ; or, in Twelve Parts, at 3s. Gd. each.

Specimens

of

Ecclesiastical

Architecture

in

Great

Britain

Sacra Domestica;
large type,

with provision

for additions in

a Course of Family Prayers. MS. Octavo, 3s.

Printed

ii

Among the Prayers for family use that are already extant, there are many which, though not exceptiot able in any point of doctrine, are not well adapted for the use of the younger, and the less educated portions some families; either from the language not being sufficiently simple, or from the too great number an variety of topics introduced into each Prayer; the result of which is, that either the whole Prayer become too tedious in length, or else each expression is too concise, or too general, to suit the apprehensions, or to kee up the attention, of some part of the domestic congregation.

The Book of Private Prayer.

Prebendary of Cork, and Chaplain
to the

By

the Rev. J. A. BOLSTER,

Fifth Edition,
2s., gilt.

M.A

Lord Bishop.

of Morning and Evening Devotion. With Collects for the Feasts and Fasts. Rev. A. HORSFALL. Second Edition, 2s.

Manual of Family Prayer; comprising Three Weekly Course By th

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
s

College, London.

The
Voices.

Psalter, or Psalms

of David in Metre,

with appropriat

Tunes; in Score, with or without Accompaniments, and in separate Volumes for the Fon A Descriptive Catalogue of the different Editions may be had of the Publisher.

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,)
3*.

The Whole Book of Psalms, with the

Canticles

and Hymns

the Church, for Morning and Evening Service, set to appropriate Chants, every Syllafo being placed under its proper Note. Octavo, 15$.

published by John
Sacred Minstrelsy
;

W.

Parker.

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
companiments.

Small Quarto,

4s.

wessors.

atherme

Bishop Jeremy Taylor; his Predecessors, Contemporaries, and A Biography. By the Rev. R. A. WILLMOTT, M.A., Incumbent of St.
s,

Bear Wood.

5s.

Bishop Heber and Indian Missions.

f.A., 25. Qd.

By

the Rev. J. CHAMBEES,

Lives of English Sacred Poets.

1.

A.

Two Volumes,

with Portraits,

By

the Rev. R. A. WILLMOTT,

45. Qd. each.

fear Qd. each.

1

of Hales
First

Lives of Eminent Christians. By the Rev. R. B. HONE, M.A., Owen, and Honorary Canon of Worcester. Four Volumes, with Portraits
Volume

contains the Lives of Archbishop Usher, Dr. Hammond, Evelyn, and Bishop Wilson .Second, Bernard Gilpin, Philip de Mornay, Bishop Bedell, and A. Horneck; the Third, Bishop Ridley Hall, and Robert Boyle; the Fourth, John Bradford, .shop Archbishop Grindal,and Judge Hale.

The

Life of Archbishop Sancroft.

By the

late Dr.

D OYLY.

Octavo, 9s.

Bishop T. BARTLETT, M.A., Rector of King-stone. Octavo, 12*., with a Portrait. Dedicated, permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Butler,

.Memoirs of the

Life, Character,

and Writings of

Luther and

German Reformation.

his Times, or, History of the Rise and Progress of By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A. Foolscap Octavo, 5*.

Indications of the Creator. Theological Extracts from the Hisand the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. By the Rev. Dr. WHEVVELL. Second 6s. Qd. lition, with additional Preface.

Creation by the
*
*

pJTtOctev/

NatUral Hlst ry

Agency of God; being a Refutation of the Work f Creation B y THOMAS MONCK MASON,

Cudworth on Freewill; now

dioD rf rhfi n hop of Lichfield,

y he

first Edited from the Original MS J H * A LE N M A Examinin Chaplain to the Lord ^ T n of Her One ^tl Majesty s Inspectors of Schools; 3s.
-

fne Articles.

Examination Questions and Answers upon Burnet on the ThirtvJ New Edition, Is. Qd.

Select

Works

published by John

W.

Parker.

Paley s Evidences Epitomized, with the view of exhibiting hi? Argument in as small a compass as possible, without omitting or weakening any of Second Edition, with Examination Ques component parts. By J. W. SMITH, B.C.L.
ifc

tions.

3s.

An

Index to Butler

Prof, of Divinity at Oxford, corrected by Bishop Butler, and the Oxford Editions. By the Rev. T. BARTLETT, Bishop Butler. 2s. Qd.

Analogy, prepared by Dr. Bentham, and now adapted to the

M.A., Author of the Life
oj

Columns on the same Page.

The Cambridge Greek and New Edition,

By H.

English

Testament,

in

Parallel

with marginal References.

85. Qd.

The Greek Text of the Acts of the Apostles, with Notes,

and
Selected.

Original

ROBINSON, D.D.

8s.

The Morning Service for the Sundays and other Holidays throughout the Year ; arranged from the Book of Common Prayer, and Administrator the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland ; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches. In one Volume. The Evening Service
throughout the Year.

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
;

may be

had, bound, or in boards,

at tht

THE MORNING AND EVENING SERVICES.

COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES.

JAN 11

1974

PLEASE

DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS

CARDS OR

SLIPS

POCKET

UNIVERSITY

OF TORONTO

LIBRARY

395

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher s Introductions to the Dialogues of Plato