PLATO,

AND THE

OTHER COMPANIONS OF SOKRATES.

BY GEORGE GROTE

A NEW EDITION.

IN FOUR VOLUMES.

Vol. I.

CONTENTS

 

 

CONTENTS.

PRE-SOKRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

CHAPTER I.
Speculative Philosophy in Greece, before and in the time of Sokrates.
Change in the political condition of Greece during the life of Plato 1
Early Greek mind, satisfied with the belief in polytheistic personal agents, as the real producing causes of phenomena 2
Belief in such agency continued among the general public, even after the various sects of philosophy had arisen 3
Thales, the first Greek who propounded the hypothesis of physical agency in place of personal. Water, the primordial substance, or ἀρχή 4
Anaximander — laid down as ἀρχή the Infinite or Indeterminate — generation of the elements out of it, by evolution of latent, fundamental contraries — astronomical and geological doctrines ib.
Anaximenes — adopted Air as ἀρχή — rise of substances out of it, by condensation and rarefaction 7
Pythagoras — his life and career — Pythagorean brotherhood — great political influence which it acquired among the Greco-Italian cities — incurred great enmity, and was violently put down 8
The Pythagoreans continue as a recluse sect, without political power 9
Doctrine of the Pythagoreans — Number the Essence of Things ib.
The Monas — ἀρχή, or principle of Number — geometrical conception of number — symbolical attributes of the first ten numbers, especially of the Dekad 11
Pythagorean Kosmos and Astronomy — geometrical and harmonic laws guiding the movements of the cosmical bodies 12
Music of the Spheres 14
Pythagorean list of fundamental Contraries — Ten opposing pairs ib.
Eleatic philosophy — Xenophanes 16
His censures upon the received Theogony and religious rites ib.
His doctrine of Pankosmism; or Pantheism — the whole Kosmos is Ens Unum or God — Ἓν καὶ Πᾶν. Non-Ens inadmissible 17
Scepticism of Xenophanes — complaint of philosophy as unsatisfactory 18
His conjectures on physics and astronomy ib.
Parmenides continues the doctrine of Xenophanes — Ens Parmenideum, self-existent, eternal, unchangeable, extended — Non-Ens, an unmeaning phrase 19
He recognises a region of opinion, phenomenal and relative, apart from Ens 20
Parmenidean ontology — stands completely apart from phenomenology 21
Parmenidean phenomenology — relative and variable 23
Parmenides recognises no truth, but more or less of probability, in phenomenal explanations. — His physical and astronomical conjectures 24
Herakleitus — his obscure style, impressive metaphors, confident and contemptuous dogmatism 26
Doctrine of Herakleitus — perpetual process of generation and destruction — everything flows, nothing stands — transition of the elements into each other backwards and forwards 27
Variety of metaphors employed by Herakleitus, signifying the same general doctrine 28
Nothing permanent except the law of process and implication of contraries — the transmutative force. Fixity of particulars is an illusion for the most part: so far as it exists, it is a sin against the order of Nature 29
Illustrations by which Herakleitus symbolized his perpetual force, destroying and generating 30
Water — Intermediate between Fire (Air) and Earth 31
Sun and Stars — not solid bodies, but meteoric aggregations dissipated and renewed — Eclipses — ἐκπύρωσις, or destruction of the Kosmos by fire 32
His doctrines respecting the human soul and human knowledge. All wisdom resided in the Universal Reason — individual Reason is worthless 34
By Universal Reason, he did not mean the Reason of most men as it is, but as it ought to be 35
Herakleitus at the opposite pole from Parmenides 37
Empedokles — his doctrine of the four elements and two moving or restraining forces ib.
Construction of the Kosmos from these elements and forces — action and counteraction of love and enmity. The Kosmos alternately made and unmade 38
Empedoklean predestined cycle of things — complete empire of Love Sphærus — Empire of Enmity — disengagement or separation of the elements — astronomy and meteorology 39
Formation of the Earth, of Gods, men, animals, and plants 41
Physiology of Empedokles — Procreation — Respiration — movement of the blood 43
Doctrine of effluvia and pores — explanation of perceptions — intercommunication of the elements with the sentient subject — like acting upon like 44
Sense of vision 45
Senses of hearing, smell, taste 46
Empedokles declared that justice absolutely forbade the killing of anything that had life. His belief in the metempsychosis. Sufferings of life, are an expiation for wrong done during an antecedent life. Pretensions to magical power 46
Complaint of Empedokles on the impossibility of finding out truth 47
Theory of Anaxagoras denied — generation and destruction — recognised only mixture and severance of pre-existing kinds of matter 48
Homœomeries — small particles of diverse kinds of matter, all mixed together ib.
First condition of things all — the primordial varieties of matter were huddled together in confusion. Νοῦς or reason, distinct from all of them, supervened and acted upon this confused mass, setting the constituent particles in movement 49
Movement of rotation in the mass, originated by Νοῦς on a small scale, but gradually extending itself. Like particles congregate together — distinguishable aggregates are formed 50
Nothing (except Νοῦς) can be entirely pure or unmixed; but other things may be comparatively pure. Flesh, Bone, &c., are purer than Air or Earth 51
Theory of Anaxagoras, compared with that of Empedokles 52
Suggested partly by the phenomena of of animal nutrition 53
Chaos common to both Empedokles and Anaxagoras: moving agency, different in one from the other theory 54
Νοῦς, or mind, postulated by Anaxagoras — how understood by later writers — how intended by Anaxagoras himself ib.
Plato and Aristotle blame Anaxagoras for deserting his own theory 56
Astronomy and physics of Anaxagoras 57
His geology, meteorology, physiology 58
The doctrines of Anaxagoras were regarded as offensive and impious 59
Diogenes of Apollonia recognises one primordial element 60
Air was the primordial, universal element 61
Air possessed numerous and diverse properties; was eminently modifiable ib.
Physiology of Diogenes — his description of the veins in the human body 62
Kosmology and Meteorology 64
Leukippus and Demokritus — Atomic theory 65
Long life, varied travels, and numerous compositions, of Demokritus ib.
Relation between the theory of Demokritus and that of Parmenides 66
Demokritean theory — Atoms Plena and Vacua — Ens and Non-Ens 67
Primordial atoms differed only in magnitude, figure, position, and arrangement — they had no qualities, but their movements and combinations generated qualities 69
Combination of atoms — generating different qualities in the compound 70
All atoms essentially separate from each other 71
All properties of objects, except weight and hardness, were phenomenal and relative to the observer. Sensation could give no knowledge of the real and absolute ib.
Reason alone gave true and real knowledge, but very little of it was attainable 72
No separate force required to set the atoms in motion — they moved by an inherent force of their own. Like atoms naturally tend towards like. Rotatory motion, the capital fact of the Kosmos 72
Researches of Demokritus on zoology and animal generation 75
His account of mind — he identified it with heat or fire, diffused throughout animals, plants, and nature generally. Mental particles intermingled throughout all frame with corporeal particles ib.
Different mental aptitudes attached to different parts of the body 76
Explanation of different sensations and perceptions. Colours 77
Vision caused by the outflow of effluvia or images from objects. Hearing 78
Difference of tastes — how explained ib.
Thought or intelligence — was produced by influx of atoms from without 79
Sensation, obscure knowledge relative to the sentient: Thought, genuine knowledge — absolute, or object per se 80
Idola or images were thrown off from objects, which determined the tone of thoughts, feelings, dreams, divinations, &c. 81
Universality of Demokritus — his ethical views 82
 
 
 
CHAPTER II.
General Remarks on the Earlier Philosophers — Growth of Dialectic — Zeno and Gorgias.
Variety of sects and theories — multiplicity of individual authorities is the characteristic of Greek philosophy 84
These early theorists are not known from their own writings, which have been lost. Importance of the information of Aristotle about them 85
Abundance of speculative genius and invention — a memorable fact in the Hellenic mind 86
Difficulties which a Grecian philosopher had to overcome — prevalent view of Nature, established, impressive, and misleading ib.
Views of the Ionic philosophers — compared with the more recent abstractions of Plato and Aristotle 87
Parmenides and Pythagoras — more nearly akin to Plato and Aristotle 89
Advantage derived from this variety of constructive imagination among the Greeks 90
All these theories were found in circulation by Sokrates, Zeno, Plato, and the dialecticians. Importance of the scrutiny of negative Dialectic 91
The early theorists were studied, along with Plato and Aristotle, in the third and second centuries B.C. 92
Negative attribute common to all the early theorists — little or no dialectic 93
Zeno of Elea — Melissus ib.
Zeno’s Dialectic — he refuted the opponents of Parmenides, by showing that their assumptions led to contradictions and absurdities 93
Consequences of their assumption of Entia Plura Discontinua. Reductiones ad absurdum 94
Each thing must exist in its own place — Grain of millet not sonorous 95
Zenonian arguments in regard to motion 97
General purpose and result of the Zenonian Dialectic. Nothing is knowable except the relative 98
Mistake of supposing Zeno’s reductiones ad absurdum of an opponent’s doctrine, to be contradictions of data generalized from experience 99
Zenonian Dialectic — Platonic Parmenides 100
Views of historians of philosophy, respecting Zeno 101
Absolute and relative — the first, unknowable ib.
Zeno did not deny motion, as a fact, phenomenal and relative 102
Gorgias the Leontine — did not admit the Absolute, even as conceived by Parmenides 103
His reasonings against the Absolute, either as Ens or Entia ib.
Ens, incogitable and unknowable 104
Ens, even if granted to be knowable, is still incommunicable to others ib.
Zeno and Gorgias — contrasted with the earlier Grecian philosophers 105
New character of Grecian philosophy — antithesis of affirmative and negative — proof and disproof ib.
 
 
 
CHAPTER III.
Other Companions of Sokrates.
Influence exercised by Sokrates over his companions 110
Names of those companions 111
Æschines — Oration of Lysias against him 112
Written Sokratic Dialogues — their general character 114
Relations between the companions of Sokrates — Their proceedings after the death of Sokrates 116
No Sokratic school — each of the companions took a line of his own 117
Eukleides of Megara — he blended Parmenides with Sokrates 118
Doctrine of Eukleides about Bonum 119
The doctrine compared to that of Plato — changes in Plato ib.
Last doctrine of Plato nearly the same as Eukleides 120
Megaric succession of philosophers. Eleian or Eretrian succession 121
Doctrines of Antisthenes and Aristippus — Ethical, not transcendental 122
Preponderance of the negative vein in the Platonic age 123
Harsh manner in which historians of philosophy censure the negative vein ib.
Negative method in philosophy essential to the controul of the affirmative ib.
Sokrates — the most persevering and acute Eristic of his age 124
Platonic Parmenides — its extreme negative character 125
The Megarics shared the negative impulse with Sokrates and Plato 126
Eubulides — his logical problems or puzzles — difficulty of solving them — many solutions attempted 128
Real character of the Megaric sophisms, not calculated to deceive, but to guard against deception 129
If the process of theorising be admissible, it must include negative as well as affirmative 130
Logical position of the Megaric philosophers erroneously described by historians of philosophy. Necessity of a complete collection of difficulties 131
Sophisms propounded by Eubulides. 1. Mentiens. 2. The Veiled Man. 3. Sorites. 4. Cornutus 133
Causes of error constant — The Megarics were sentinels against them 135
Controversy of the Megarics with Aristotle about Power. Arguments of Aristotle ib.
These arguments not valid against the Megarici 136
His argument cited and criticised 137
Potential as distinguished from the Actual — What it is 139
Diodôrus Kronus — his doctrine about τὸ δυνατόν 140
Sophism of Diodôrus — Ὁ Κυριεύων 141
Question between Aristotle and Diodôrus, depends upon whether universal regularity of sequence be admitted or denied ib.
Conclusion of Diodôrus defended by Hobbes — Explanation given by Hobbes 143
Reasonings of Diodôrus — respecting Hypothetical Propositions — respecting Motion. His difficulties about the Now of time 145
Motion is always present, past, and future 146
Stilpon of Megara — His great celebrity 147
Menedêmus and the Eretriacs 148
Open speech and licence of censure assumed by Menedêmus 149
Antisthenes took up Ethics principally, but with negative Logic intermingled ib.
He copied the manner of life of Sokrates, in plainness and rigour 150
Doctrines of Antisthenes exclusively ethical and ascetic. He despised music, literature, and physics 151
Constant friendship of Antisthenes with Sokrates — Xenophontic Symposion 152
Diogenes, successor of Antisthenes — His Cynical perfection — striking effect which he produced ib.
Doctrines and smart sayings of Diogenes — Contempt of pleasure — training and labour required — indifference to literature and geometry 154
Admiration of Epiktêtus for Diogenes, especially for his consistency in acting out his own ethical creed 157
Admiration excited by the asceticism of the Cynics — Asceticism extreme in the East. Comparison of the Indian Gymnosophists with Diogenes ib.
The precepts and principles laid down by Sokrates were carried into fullest execution by the Cynics 160
Antithesis between Nature and Law or Convention insisted on by the Indian Gymnosophists 162
The Greek Cynics — an order of ascetic or mendicant friars 163
Logical views of Antisthenes and Diogenes — they opposed the Platonic Ideas ib.
First protest of Nominalism against Realism 164
Doctrine of Antisthenes about predication — He admits no other predication but identical 165
The same doctrine asserted by Stilpon, after the time of Aristotle 166
Nominalism of Stilpon. His reasons against accidental predication 167
Difficulty of understanding how the same predicate could belong to more than one subject 169
Analogous difficulties in the Platonic Parmenides ib.
Menedêmus disallowed all negative predications 170
Distinction ascribed to Antisthenes between simple and complex objects. Simple objects undefinable 171
Remarks of Plato on this doctrine 172
Remarks of Aristotle upon the same ib.
Later Grecian Cynics — Monimus — Krates — Hipparchia 173
Zeno of Kitium in Cyprus 174
Aristippus — life, character, and doctrine 175
Discourse of Sokrates with Aristippus ib.
Choice of Hêraklês 177
Illustration afforded of the views of Sokrates respecting Good and Evil ib.
Comparison of the Xenophontic Sokrates with the Platonic Sokrates 178
Xenophontic Sokrates talking to Aristippus — Kalliklês in Platonic Gorgias 179
Language held by Aristippus — his scheme of life 181
Diversified conversations of Sokrates, according to the character of the hearer 182
Conversation between Sokrates and Aristippus about the Good and Beautiful 184
Remarks on the conversation — Theory of Good 185
Good is relative to human beings and wants in the view of Sokrates ib.
Aristippus adhered to the doctrine of Sokrates 186
Life and dicta of Aristippus — His type of character ib.
Aristippus acted conformably to the advice of Sokrates 187
Self mastery and independence — the great aspiration of Aristippus 188
Aristippus compared with Antisthenes and Diogenes — Points of agreement and disagreement between them 190
Attachment of Aristippus to ethics and philosophy — contempt for other studies 192
Aristippus taught as a Sophist. His reputation thus acquired procured for him the attentions of Dionysius and others 193
Ethical theory of Aristippus and the Kyrenaic philosophers 195
Prudence — good, by reason of the pleasure which it ensured, and of the pains which it was necessary to avoid. Just and honourable, by law or custom — not by nature 197
Their logical theory — nothing knowable except the phenomenal, our own sensations and feelings — no knowledge of the absolute 197
Doctrines of Antisthenes and Aristippus passed to the Stoics and Epikureans 198
Ethical theory of Aristippus is identical with that of the Platonic Sokrates in the Protagoras 199
Difference in the manner of stating the theory by the two 200
Distinction to be made between a general theory — and the particular application of it made by the theorist to his own tastes and circumstances 201
Kyrenaic theorists after Aristippus 202
Theodôrus — Annikeris — Hegesias ib.
Hegesias — Low estimation of life — renunciation of pleasure — coincidence with the Cynics 203
Doctrine of Relativity affirmed by the Kyrenaics, as well as by Protagoras 204
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV.
Xenophon.
Xenophon — his character — essentially a man of action and not a theorist — the Sokratic element is in him an accessory 206
Date of Xenophon — probable year of his birth 207
His personal history — He consults Sokrates — takes the opinion of the Delphian oracle 208
His service and command with the Ten Thousand Greeks, afterwards under Agesilaus and the Spartans. — He is banished from Athens 209
His residence at Skillus near Olympia 210
Family of Xenophon — his son Gryllus killed at Mantineia ib.
Death of Xenophon at Corinth — Story of the Eleian Exegetæ 211
Xenophon different from Plato and the other Sokratic brethren 212
His various works — Memorabilia, Œkonomikus, &c. 213
Ischomachus, hero of the Œkonomikus — ideal of an active citizen, cultivator, husband, house-master, &c. 214
Text upon which Xenophon insists — capital difference between command over subordinates willing and subordinates unwilling 215
Probable circumstances generating these reflections in Xenophon’s mind 215
This text affords subjects for the Hieron and Cyropædia — Name of Sokrates not suitable 216
Hieron — Persons of the dialogue — Simonides and Hieron ib.
Questions put to Hieron, view taken by Simonides. Answer of Hieron 217
Misery of governing unwilling subjects declared by Hieron 218
Advice to Hieron by Simonides — that he should govern well, and thus make himself beloved by his subjects 219
Probable experience had by Xenophon of the feelings at Olympia against Dionysius 220
Xenophon could not have chosen a Grecian despot to illustrate his theory of the happiness of governing willing subjects 222
Cyropædia — blending of Spartan and Persian customs — Xenophon’s experience of Cyrus the Younger ib.
Portrait of Cyrus the Great — his education — Preface to the Cyropædia 223
Xenophon does not solve his own problem — The governing aptitude and popularity of Cyrus come from nature, not from education 225
Views of Xenophon about public and official training of all citizens 226
Details of (so called) Persian education — Severe discipline — Distribution of four ages 227
Evidence of the good effect of this discipline — Hard and dry condition of the body 228
Exemplary obedience of Cyrus to the public discipline — He had learnt justice well — His award about the two coats — Lesson inculcated upon him by the Justice-Master 229
Xenophon’s conception of the Sokratic problems — He does not recognise the Sokratic order of solution of those problems 230
Definition given by Sokrates of Justice — Insufficient to satisfy the exigencies of the Sokratic Elenchus 231
Biography of Cyrus — constant military success earned by suitable qualities — Variety of characters and situations 232
Generous and amiable qualities of Cyrus. Abradates and Pantheia 233
Scheme of government devised by Cyrus when his conquests are completed — Oriental despotism, wisely arranged 234
Persian present reality — is described by Xenophon as thoroughly depraved, in striking contrast to the establishment of Cyrus 236
Xenophon has good experience of military and equestrian proceedings — No experience of finance and commerce 236
Discourse of Xenophon on Athenian finance and the condition of Athens. His admiration of active commerce and variety of pursuits ib.
Recognised poverty among the citizens. Plan for improvement 238
Advantage of a large number of Metics. How these may be encouraged ib.
Proposal to raise by voluntary contributions a large sum to be employed as capital by the city. Distribution of three oboli per head per day to all the citizens ib.
Purpose and principle of this distribution 240
Visionary anticipations of Xenophon, financial and commercial 241
Xenophon exhorts his countrymen to maintain peace 243
Difference of the latest compositions of Xenophon and Plato, from their point of view in the earlier 244
 
 
 
CHAPTER V.
Life of Plato.
Scanty information about Plato’s life 246
His birth, parentage, and early education 247
Early relations of Plato with Sokrates 248
Plato’s youth — service as a citizen and soldier 249
Period of political ambition 251
He becomes disgusted with politics 252
He retires from Athens after the death of Sokrates — his travels 253
His permanent establishment at Athens — 386 B.C. ib.
He commences his teaching at the Academy 254
Plato as a teacher — pupils numerous and wealthy, from different cities 255
Visit of Plato to the younger Dionysius at Syracuse, 367 B.C. Second visit to the same — mortifying failure 258
Expedition of Dion against Dionysius — sympathies of Plato and the Academy 259
Success, misconduct, and death of Dion ib.
Death of Plato, aged 80, 347 B.C. 260
Scholars of Plato — Aristotle ib.
Little known about Plato’s personal history 262
 
 
 
CHAPTER VI.
Platonic Canon, as Recognised by Thrasyllus.
Platonic Canon — Ancient and modern discussions 264
Canon established by Thrasyllus. Presumption in its favour 265
Fixed residence and school at Athens — founded by Plato and transmitted to successors ib.
Importance of this foundation. Preservation of Plato’s manuscripts. School library 266
Security provided by the school for distinguishing what were Plato’s genuine writings 267
Unfinished fragments and preparatory sketches, preserved and published after Plato’s death 268
Peripatetic school at the Lykeum — its composition and arrangement 269
Peripatetic school library, its removal from Athens to Skêpsis — its ultimate restitution in a damaged state to Athens, then to Rome 270
Inconvenience to the Peripatetic school from the loss of its library ib.
Advantage to the Platonic school from having preserved its MSS. 272
Conditions favourable, for preserving the genuine works of Plato ib.
Historical facts as to their preservation ib.
Arrangement of them into Trilogies, by Aristophanes 273
Aristophanes, librarian at the Alexandrine library ib.
Plato’s works in the Alexandrine library, before the time of Aristophanes 274
Kallimachus — predecessor of Aristophanes — his published Tables of authors whose works were in the library 275
Large and rapid accumulation of the Alexandrine Library ib.
Plato’s works — in the library at the time of Kallimachus 276
First formation of the library — intended as a copy of the Platonic and Aristotelian Μουσεῖα at Athens 277
Favour of Ptolemy Soter towards the philosophers at Athens 279
Demetrius Phalereus — his history and character ib.
He was chief agent in the first establishment of the Alexandrine Library 280
Proceedings of Demetrius in beginning to collect the library 282
Certainty that the works of Plato and Aristotle were among the earliest acquisitions made by him for the library 283
Large expenses incurred by the Ptolemies for procuring good MSS. 285
Catalogue of Platonic works, prepared by Aristophanes, is trustworthy ib.
No canonical or exclusive order of the Platonic dialogues, when arranged by Aristophanes 286
Other libraries and literary centres, besides Alexandria, in which spurious Platonic works might get footing ib.
Other critics, besides Aristophanes, proposed different arrangements of the Platonic dialogues 287
Panætius, the Stoic — considered the Phædon to be spurious — earliest known example of a Platonic dialogue disallowed upon internal grounds 288
Classification of Platonic works by the rhetor Thrasyllus — dramatic — philosophical 289
Dramatic principle — Tetralogies ib.
Philosophical principle — Dialogues of Search — Dialogues of Exposition 291
Incongruity and repugnance of the two classifications 294
Dramatic principle of classification — was inherited by Thrasyllus from Aristophanes 295
Authority of the Alexandrine library — editions of Plato published, with the Alexandrine critical marks ib.
Thrasyllus followed the Alexandrine library and Aristophanes, as to genuine Platonic works 296
Ten spurious dialogues, rejected by all other critics as well as by Thrasyllus — evidence that these critics followed the common authority of the Alexandrine library 297
Thrasyllus did not follow an internal sentiment of his own in rejecting dialogues as spurious 298
Results as to the trustworthiness of the Thrasyllean Canon 299
 
 
 
CHAPTER VII.
Platonic Canon, as Appreciated and Modified by Modern Critics.
The Canon of Thrasyllus continued to be generally acknowledged, by the Neo-Platonists, as well as by Ficinus and the succeeding critics after the revival of learning 301
Serranus — his six Syzygies — left the aggregate Canon unchanged, Tennemann — importance assigned to the Phædrus 302
Schleiermacher — new theory about the purposes of Plato. One philosophical scheme, conceived by Plato from the beginning — essential order and interdependence of the dialogues, as contributing to the full execution of this scheme. Some dialogues not constituent items in the series, but lying alongside of it. Order of arrangement 303
Theory of Ast — he denies the reality of any preconceived scheme — considers the dialogues as distinct philosophical dramas 304
His order of arrangement. He admits only fourteen dialogues as genuine, rejecting all the rest 305
Socher agrees with Ast in denying preconceived scheme — his arrangement of the dialogues, differing from both Ast and Schleiermacher — he rejects as spurious Parmenidês, Sophistês, Politikus, Kritias, with many others 306
Schleiermacher and Ast both consider Phædrus and Protagoras as early compositions — Socher puts Protagoras into the second period, Phædrus into the third 307
K. F. Hermann — Stallbaum — both of them consider the Phædrus as a late dialogue — both of them deny preconceived order and system — their arrangements of the dialogues — they admit new and varying philosophical points of view ib.
They reject several dialogues 309
Steinhart — agrees in rejecting Schleiermacher’s fundamental postulate — his arrangement of the dialogues — considers the Phædrus as late in order — rejects several ib.
Susemihl — coincides to a great degree with K. F. Hermann — his order of arrangement 310
Edward Munk — adopts a different principle of arrangement, founded upon the different period which each dialogue exhibits of the life, philosophical growth, and old age, of Sokrates — his arrangement, founded on this principle. He distinguishes the chronological order of composition from the place allotted to each dialogue in the systematic plan 311
Views of Ueberweg — attempt to reconcile Schleiermacher and Hermann — admits the preconceived purpose for the later dialogues, composed after the foundation of the school, but not for the earlier 313
His opinions as to authenticity and chronology of the dialogues, He rejects Hippias Major, Erastæ, Theagês, Kleitophon, Parmenidês: he is inclined to reject Euthyphron and Menexenus 314
Other Platonic critics — great dissensions about scheme and order of the dialogues 316
Contrast of different points of view instructive — but no solution has been obtained ib.
The problem incapable of solution. Extent and novelty of the theory propounded by Schleiermacher — slenderness of his proofs 317
Schleiermacher’s hypothesis includes a preconceived scheme, and a peremptory order of interdependence among the dialogues 318
Assumptions of Schleiermacher respecting the Phædrus inadmissible 319
Neither Schleiermacher, nor any other critic, has as yet produced any tolerable proof for an internal theory of the Platonic dialogues ib.
Munk’s theory is the most ambitious, and the most gratuitous, next to Schleiermacher’s 320
The age assigned to Sokrates in any dialogue is a circumstance of little moment ib.
No intentional sequence or interdependence of the dialogues can be made out 322
Principle of arrangement adopted by Hermann is reasonable — successive changes in Plato’s point of view: but we cannot explain either the order or the causes of these changes ib.
Hermann’s view more tenable than Schleiermacher’s 323
Small number of certainties, or even reasonable presumptions, as to date or order of the dialogues 324
Trilogies indicated by Plato himself 325
Positive dates of all the dialogues — unknown 326
When did Plato begin to compose? Not till after the death of Sokrates ib.
Reasons for this opinion. Labour of the composition — does not consist with youth of the author 327
Reasons founded on the personality of Sokrates, and his relations with Plato 328
Reasons, founded on the early life, character, and position of Plato 330
Plato’s early life — active by necessity, and to some extent ambitious 331
Plato did not retire from political life until after the restoration of the democracy, nor devote himself to philosophy until after the death of Sokrates 333
All Plato’s dialogues were composed during the fifty-one years after the death of Sokrates 334
The Thrasyllean Canon is more worthy of trust than the modern critical theories by which it has been condemned 335
Unsafe grounds upon which those theories proceed 336
Opinions of Schleiermacher, tending to show this 337
Any true theory of Plato must recognise all his varieties, and must be based upon all the works in the Canon, not upon some to the exclusion of the rest 339
 
 
 
CHAPTER VIII.
Platonic Compositions Generally.
Variety and abundance visible in Plato’s writings 342
Plato both sceptical and dogmatical ib.
Poetical vein predominant in some compositions, but not in all 343
Form of dialogue — universal to this extent, that Plato never speaks in his own name 344
No one common characteristic pervading all Plato’s works ib.
The real Plato was not merely a writer of dialogues, but also lecturer and president of a school. In this last important function he is scarcely at all known to us. Notes of his lectures taken by Aristotle 346
Plato’s lectures De Bono obscure and transcendental. Effect which they produced on the auditors 347
They were delivered to miscellaneous auditors. They coincide mainly with what Aristotle states about the Platonic Ideas 348
The lectures De Bono may perhaps have been more transcendental than Plato’s other lectures 349
Plato’s Epistles — in them only he speaks in his own person ib.
Intentional obscurity of his Epistles in reference to philosophical doctrine 350
Letters of Plato to Dionysius II. about philosophy. His anxiety to confine philosophy to discussion among select and prepared minds 351
He refuses to furnish any written, authoritative exposition of his own philosophical doctrine 352
He illustrates his doctrine by the successive stages of geometrical teaching. Difficulty to avoid the creeping in of error at each of these stages 353
No written exposition can keep clear of these chances of error 355
Relations of Plato with Dionysius II. and the friends of the deceased Dion. Pretensions of Dionysius to understand and expound Plato’s doctrines ib.
Impossibility of teaching by written exposition assumed by Plato; the assumption intelligible in his day 357
Standard by which Plato tested the efficacy of the expository process — Power of sustaining a Sokratic cross-examination 358
Plato never published any of the lectures which he delivered at the Academy ib.
Plato would never publish his philosophical opinions in his own name; but he may have published them in the dialogues under the name of others 360
Groups into which the dialogues admit of being thrown 361
Distribution made by Thrasyllus defective, but still useful — Dialogues of Search, Dialogues of Exposition ib.
Dialogues of Exposition — present affirmative result. Dialogues of Search are wanting in that attribute 362
The distribution coincides mainly with that of Aristotle — Dialectic, Demonstrative 363
Classification of Thrasyllus in its details. He applies his own principles erroneously 364
The classification, as it would stand, if his principles were applied correctly 365
Preponderance of the searching and testing dialogues over the expository and dogmatical 366
Dialogues of Search — sub-classes among them recognised by Thrasyllus — Gymnastic and Agonistic, &c. ib.
Philosophy, as now understood, includes authoritative teaching, positive results, direct proofs ib.
The Platonic Dialogues of Search disclaim authority and teaching — assume truth to be unknown to all alike — follow a process devious as well as fruitless 367
The questioner has no predetermined course, but follows the lead given by the respondent in his answers ib.
Relation of teacher and learner. Appeal to authority is suppressed 368
In the modern world the search for truth is put out of sight. Every writer or talker professes to have already found it, and to proclaim it to others 369
The search for truth by various interlocutors was a recognised process in the Sokratic age. Acute negative Dialectic of Sokrates 370
Negative procedure supposed to be represented by the Sophists and the Megarici; discouraged and censured by historians of philosophy 371
Vocation of Sokrates and Plato for the negative procedure: absolute necessity of it as a condition of reasoned truth. Parmenidês of Plato 372
Sokrates considered the negative procedure to be valuable by itself, and separately. His theory of the natural state of the human mind; not ignorance, but false persuasion of knowledge 373
Declaration of Sokrates in the Apology; his constant mission to make war against the false persuasion of knowledge 374
Opposition of feeling between Sokrates and the Dikasts 375
The Dialogues of Search present an end in themselves. Mistake of supposing that Plato had in his mind an ulterior affirmative end, not declared ib.
False persuasion of knowledge — had reference to topics social, political, ethical 376
To those topics, on which each community possesses established dogmas, laws, customs, sentiments, consecrated and traditional, peculiar to itself. The local creed, which is never formally proclaimed or taught, but is enforced unconsciously by every one upon every one else. Omnipotence of King Nomos 377
Small minority of exceptional individual minds, who do not yield to the established orthodoxy, but insist on exercising their own judgment 382
Early appearance of a few free-judging individuals, or free-thinkers in Greece 384
Rise of Dialectic — Effect of the Drama and the Dikastery 386
Application of Negative scrutiny to ethical and social topics by Sokrates ib.
Emphatic assertion by Sokrates of the right of satisfaction for his own individual reason 386
Aversion of the Athenian public to the negative procedure of Sokrates. Mistake of supposing that that negative procedure belongs peculiarly to the Sophists and the Megarici 387
The same charges which the historians of philosophy bring against the Sophists were brought by contemporary Athenians against Sokrates. They represent the standing dislike of free inquiry, usual with an orthodox public 388
Aversion towards Sokrates aggravated by his extreme publicity of speech. His declaration, that false persuasion of knowledge is universal; must be understood as a basis in appreciating Plato’s Dialogues of Search 393
Result called Knowledge, which Plato aspires to. Power of going through a Sokratic cross-examination; not attainable except through the Platonic process and method 396
Platonic process adapted to Platonic topics — man and society 397
Plato does not provide solutions for the difficulties which he has raised. The affirmative and negative veins are in him completely distinct. His dogmas are enunciations à priori of some impressive sentiment 399
Hypothesis — that Plato had solved all his own difficulties for himself; but that he communicated the solution only to a few select auditors in oral lectures — Untenable 401
Characteristic of the oral lectures — that they were delivered in Plato’s own name. In what other respects they departed from the dialogues, we cannot say 402
Apart from any result, Plato has an interest in the process of search and debate per se. Protracted enquiry is a valuable privilege, not a tiresome obligation 403
Plato has done more than any one else to make the process of enquiry interesting to others, as it was to himself 405
Process of generalisation always kept in view and illustrated throughout the Platonic Dialogues of Search — general terms and propositions made subjects of conscious analysis 406
The Dialogues must be reviewed as distinct compositions by the same author, illustrating each other, but without assignable inter-dependence 407
Order of the Dialogues, chosen for bringing them under separate review. Apology will come first; Timæus, Kritias, Leges, Epinomis last ib.
Kriton and Euthyphron come immediately after Apology. The intermediate dialogues present no convincing grounds for any determinate order 408
 
 
 
CHAPTER IX.
Apology of Sokrates.
The Apology is the real defence delivered by Sokrates before the Dikasts, reported by Plato, without intentional transformation 410
Even if it be Plato’s own composition, it comes naturally first in the review of his dialogues 411
General character of the Apology — Sentiments entertained towards Sokrates at Athens 412
Declaration from the Delphian oracle respecting the wisdom of Sokrates, interpreted by him as a mission to cross-examine the citizens generally — The oracle is proved to be true 413
False persuasion of wisdom is universal — the God alone is wise 414
Emphatic assertion by Sokrates of the cross-examining mission imposed upon him by the God ib.
He had devoted his life to the execution of this mission, and he intended to persevere in spite of obloquy or danger 416
He disclaims the function of a teacher — he cannot teach, for he is not wiser than others. He differs from others by being conscious of his own ignorance ib.
He does not know where competent teachers can be found. He is perpetually seeking for them, but in vain 417
Impression made by the Platonic Apology on Zeno the Stoic 418
Extent of efficacious influence claimed by Sokrates for himself — exemplified by Plato throughout the Dialogues of Search — Xenophon and Plato enlarge it ib.
Assumption by modern critics, that Sokrates is a positive teacher, employing indirect methods for the inculcation of theories of his own 419
Incorrectness of such assumption — the Sokratic Elenchus does not furnish a solution, but works upon the mind of the respondent, stimulating him to seek for a solution of his own 420
Value and importance of this process — stimulating active individual minds to theorise each for itself 421
View taken by Sokrates about death. Other men profess to know what it is, and think it a great misfortune: he does not know 422
Reliance of Sokrates on his own individual reason, whether agreeing or disagreeing with others 423
Formidable efficacy of established public beliefs, generated without any ostensible author 424
 
 
 
CHAPTER X.
Kriton.
General purpose of the Kriton 425
Subject of the dialogue — interlocutors ib.
Answer of Sokrates to the appeal made by Kriton 426
He declares that the judgment of the general public is not worthy of trust: he appeals to the judgment of the one Expert, who is wise on the matter in debate ib.
Principles laid down by Sokrates for determining the question with Kriton. Is the proceeding recommended just or unjust? Never in any case to act unjustly 427
Sokrates admits that few will agree with him, and that most persons hold the opposite opinion: but he affirms that the point is cardinal ib.
Pleading supposed to be addressed by the Laws of Athens to Sokrates, demanding from him implicit obedience 428
Purpose of Plato in this pleading — to present the dispositions of Sokrates in a light different from that which the Apology had presented — unqualified submission instead of defiance ib.
Harangue of Sokrates delivered in the name of the Laws, would have been applauded by all the democratical patriots of Athens 430
The harangue insists upon topics common to Sokrates with other citizens, overlooking the specialties of his character 431
Still Sokrates is represented as adopting the resolution to obey, from his own conviction; by a reason which weighs with him, but which would not weigh with others ib.
The harangue is not a corollary from this Sokratic reason, but represents feelings common among Athenian citizens 432
Emphatic declaration of the authority of individual reason and conscience, for the individual himself ib.
The Kriton is rhetorical, not dialectical. Difference between Rhetoric and Dialectic 433
The Kriton makes powerful appeal to the emotions, but overlooks the ratiocinative difficulties, or supposes them to be solved ib.
Incompetence of the general public or ἰδιῶται — appeal to the professional Expert 435
Procedure of Sokrates after this comparison has been declared — he does not name who the trustworthy Expert is ib.
Sokrates acts as the Expert himself: he finds authority in his own reason and conscience 436
 
 
 
CHAPTER XI.
Euthyphron.
Situation supposed in the dialogue — interlocutors 437
Indictment by Melêtus against Sokrates — Antipathy of the Athenians towards those who spread heretical opinions 437
Euthyphron recounts that he is prosecuting an indictment for murder against his own father — Displeasure of his friends at the proceeding 438
Euthyphron expresses full confidence that this step of his is both required and warranted by piety or holiness. Sokrates asks him — What is Holiness? 439
Euthyphron alludes to the punishment of Uranus by his son Kronus and of Kronus by his son Zeus 440
Sokrates intimates his own hesitation in believing these stories of discord among the Gods. Euthyphron declares his full belief in them, as well as in many similar narratives, not in so much circulation ib.
Bearing of this dialogue on the relative position of Sokrates and the Athenian public 441
Dramatic moral set forth by Aristophanes against Sokrates and the freethinkers, is here retorted by Plato against the orthodox champion 442
Sequel of the dialogue — Euthyphron gives a particular example as the reply to a general question 444
Such mistake frequent in dialectic discussion ib.
First general answer given by Euthyphron — that which is pleasing to the Gods is holy. Comments of Sokrates thereon 445
To be loved by the Gods is not the essence of the Holy — they love it because it is holy. In what then does its essence consist? Perplexity of Euthyphron 446
Sokrates suggests a new answer. The Holy is one branch or variety of the Just. It is that branch which concerns ministration by men to the Gods 447
Ministration to the Gods? How? To what purpose? ib.
Holiness — rectitude in sacrifice and prayer — right traffic between men and the Gods 448
This will not stand — the Gods gain nothing — they receive from men marks of honour and gratitude — they are pleased therewith — the Holy, therefore, must be that which is pleasing to the Gods 448
This is the same explanation which was before declared insufficient. A fresh explanation is required from Euthyphron. He breaks off the dialogue ib.
Sokratic spirit of the dialogue — confessed ignorance applying the Elenchus to false persuasion of knowledge 449
The questions always difficult, often impossible to answer. Sokrates is unable to answer them, though he exposes the bad answers of others ib.
Objections of Theopompus to the Platonic procedure 450
Objective view of Ethics, distinguished by Sokrates from the subjective 451
Subjective unanimity coincident with objective dissent ib.
Cross-examination brought to bear upon this mental condition by Sokrates — position of Sokrates and Plato in regard to it 452
The Holy — it has an essential characteristic — what is this? — not the fact that it is loved by the Gods — this is true, but is not its constituent essence 454
Views of the Xenophontic Sokrates respecting the Holy — different from those of the Platonic Sokrates — he disallows any common absolute general type of the Holy — he recognises an indefinite variety of types, discordant and relative ib.
The Holy a branch of the Just — not tenable as a definition, but useful as bringing to view the subordination of logical terms 455
The Euthyphron represents Plato’s way of replying to the charge of impiety, preferred by Melêtus against Sokrates — comparison with Xenophon’s way of replying ib.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[END OF CONTENTS]

Return to Homepage