PLATO AND CHE OLDER ACADEMY TRANSLATED WITH THE AUTHORS SANCTION FROM THE GERMAN OF DR. EDUARD ZELLE& ' \ \{ Y ' fflVEKSlTY o AIJFo/ SARAH FRANCES ALLEYNE AND ALFRED GOODWIN, M.A. Fellow and Lecturer of Balliol College, Oxford LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 1876 All rights rtserved 4 4 PBEFACE. THIS TRANSLATION of Dr. ZELLER'S ' Plato und die altere Akademie' Section 2, Part 2, Vol. II. of his < Philoso- phic der Grriechen ' has been made from the third and enlarged edition of that work, an earlier portion of which ('Sokrates und die Sokratiker') has already ap- peared in English in the translation of Dr. EEICHEL. The text has been translated by Miss ALLEYNE, who desires to express her grateful acknowledgments to Dr. ZELLER for his courteous approval of the undertaking. For the notes, and for the revision of the whole, Mr. G-OODWIN is responsible. The references in the notes require some explana- tion : Simple figures, with or without supra or infra, indicate the pages and notes of the English translation. Vol. I. means the first (German) volume of the ' Philo- sophic der Griechen,' and Part I. the Erste Abtheilung of the second volume. Of the value of Dr. ZELLER'S work in the original, it vi PREFACE. is unnecessary to speak. Professor JOWETT has recently borne ample and honourable testimony to it in the preface to the second edition of his Plato. It is hoped that the present translation may be of use to some students of Plato who are perhaps less familiar with German than Greek. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PLATO'S LIFE. PAGE Childhood and Youth 1 Relation to Socrates ........ Sojourn at Megara. Travels . , . . . . .14 Teaching in the Academy 25 Attitude to Politics. Second and third Sicilian journeys . . 29 Death 35 Character . 36 CHAPTER II. PLATO'S WRITINGS. General Enquiry into the State of our Collection ; its Completeness 45 Genuineness .......... 49 External Evidence 50 References of Aristotle 54 Review of these 64 Value of their Testimony 72 Criterion of Authenticity in Platonic Writings .... 77 Particular Dialogues 81 Plato's Writings the Records of his Philosophy .... 87 CHAPTER III. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WORKS. Scope and Design of the Enquiry 92 Early Attempts at an Arrangement of the Writings . . 97 viii CONTENTS. PAGE Schleiermacher 99 Hermann 102 Their Followers ' 104 Standard of Criticism 109 Its application to our Collection 117 Early Works 119 Gorgias, Meno, Theaetetus, Euthydemus, Phaedrus . . .125 Sophist, Politicus, Parmenides, Philebus, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Symposium, Phsedo 136 Republic, Timaeus, Critias, Laws 139 CHAPTER IV. CHARACTER, METHOD, AND DIVISION OF PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY 144 Character in relation to Socrates 144 To the pre-Socratics 147 Dialectic Method 150 Form of Plato's Writings. Philosophic Dialogue . . . 153 Connection with the Personality of Socrates . . . . 159 Myths 160 Division of the System 164 CHAPTER V. PROPAEDEUTIC GROUNDWORK OF PLATO'S DOCTRINE . 170 1. Ordinary Consciousness. Its Theoretic Side . . . 170 Its Practical Side 175 2. Sophistic Doctrine. Its Theory of Knowledge . . fl83 Its Ethics . 184 Sophistic as a Whole 189 Philosophy 190 The Philosophic Impulse, Eros 191 The Philosophic Method, Dialectic 196 Its Elements ; Formation of Concepts .... 199 Classification ......... 204 Logical Determinations . . . . . . 208 Language 210 Philosophy as a Whole ; Stages of Philosophic Develop- ment . 214 CONTENTS. CHAPTEK VI. PAGE DIALECTIC, OB THE DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. . 225 1. The Doctrine of Ideas founded upon that of Knowledge . 225 And of Being 228 Proofs as given by Aristotle 232 Historic Origin of the Doctrine 233 2. Concept of Ideas 237 Ideas as Universals or Genera 238 As Substances 240 As Concrete Unities " 248 Or Numbers . 254 As Living Powers 261 3. The World of Ideas . . 271 Extent . . . . . . . . 271 Subdivisions 276 The most Universal Categories 277 The Highest Idea, the Good, and God . . . . 276 CHAPTEK VII. PHYSICS. General Causes of the World of Phenomena .... 293 1. Matter. Its Derivation 293 Description of Matter 297 Not a Primeval, Corporeal Substance . . . . 300 Not the Product of Envisagement or Opinion . . 309 But of Space 312 Difficulties of this Theory 312 2. Kelation of Sensible Objects to the Idea . . . .315 Immanence of Things in Ideas 317 No derivation of the World of Sense . . . .319 Keasons against the Identification of Matter with the Un- limited in the Ideas 320 Lacuna in the System at this point .... 332 Participation of things in Ideas 335 Eeason and Necessity ; Physical and Final Causes . 337 CONTENTS. PAGE 3. The World-Soul 341 Connection of this Doctrine with Plato's whole System 343 Nature of the Soul 345 The Soul and the Mathematical Principle ... 351 The Soul as the Cause of Motion 356 And of Knowledge 356 CHAPTER VIII. PHYSICS (CONTINUED). The World-System and its Parts 361 How far these Discussions are valuable and important . . 361 1. The Origin of the World. Question of its beginning in Time 363 2. Formation of the Elements. Teleological Derivation. . 368 Physical Derivation . . . . . . . 371 Properties, Distribution, Admixture, Motion, Decomposi- tion 375 3. The World-System; the Heavenly Bodies; Time; the Cos- micalYear 379 The World as the Become (Gewordene) God . . .386 CHAPTER IX. PHYSICS (CONTINUED). Man 388 Nature of the Human Soul 389 Its Mythical History 390 Dogmatic Element in this mode of Representation . . . 396 Immortality 397 Pre-existence 404 Recollection, Transmigration, and Future Retribution . . . 406 Parts of the Soul 417 Freewill 419 Relation of the Soul to the Body 421 Physiological Theories 423 Plants and Animals 432 Difference of Sex 433 Diseases 433 CONTENTS. xi CHAPTER X. PAGE ETHICS 435 1. The Highest Good 436^ Withdrawal from the World of Sense .... 438 Relative Value ascribed to it 441 2. Virtue 444 Virtue and Happiness 445 Socratic and Platonic Doctrine of Virtue . . . 448 Natural Disposition 449 Customary and Philosophic Virtue 450 Plurality of Virtues; Primary Virtues . . . . 451 The Distinctive Peculiarities of Plato's Ethics . . 454 CHAPTER XI. ETHICS (CONTINUED). The State .461 End and Problem of the State ...'.-... 461 Philosophy as the Condition of the true State .... 466 The Constitution of the State 468 Importance of Public Institutions ; aristocratic character of the Platonic Constitution 469 Separation and Relation of Classes 471 This Constitution based upon Plato's whole System . . . 473 Social Regulations ; Parentage 477 Education 478 Citizens' Manner of Life ; Community of Goods,Wives, and Children 481 Significance of this Political Ideal from Plato's Point of View. Influences that led him to it . . '-***. .... 482 Its affinity with the Modern State 490 Defective States . . . 492 CHAPTER XII. PLATO'S VIEWS ON RELIGION AND ART . . 494 1. Religion. The Religion of the Philosopher ; Purification of the Popular Faith 495 Visible Gods 499 Popular Religion 500 General Result 503 Xll CONTENTS. PAGE 2. Art 505 The Beautiful . 506 Artistic Inspiration 508 Imitation 509 Supervision of Art 511 Particular Arts 513 Rhetoric 514 CHAPTEE XIII. THE LATER FORM OF PLATONIC DOCTRINE. THE LAWS . 517 The Platonic Doctrine according to Aristotle . . . . 517 The Laws. Point of View 522 Philosophy less prominent 523 Religious Character 525 Importance of Mathematics 527 Ethics 529 Particular Legislation 531 Politics 533 Constitution 533 Social Regulations 540 General Character of the Laws ; Divergences from Plato's original Point of View the Evil World-Soul 543 Authenticity 548 CHAPTER XIV. 4^Mfe THE OLDER ACADEMY. SPEUSIPPUS . . . 553 Platonic School. External History 553 Character of its Philosophy .... . 565 Speusippus' Theory of Knowledge .... . 566 First Principles ; the Good and the Soul ..... 568 Numbers 572 Magnitudes 575 Fragments of his Physics .... 576 Ethics . 578 CONTENTS. xiii CHAPTEE XV. PAGE THE OLDER ACADEMY CONTINUED. XENOCEATES . . 581 Divisions of Philosophy 582 Kinds and Stages of Knowledge 583 First Principles 584 Number and Ideas 586 Spatial Magnitudes 587 The Soul 589 Cosmology 591 Gods and Daemons 523 Elements. Formation of the World 595 Psychology . . . . 596 Ethics 597 CHAPTER XVI. OTHER PHILOSOPHERS OF THE ACADEMY . . 604 Metaphysical Inquiries 604 Heraclides 606 Eudoxus 611 The Epinomis 612 Polemo 617 Crates, Crantor 618 f, I H 1?. A It V 1 \' KUS IT V OK CALlFUliNIA. . PLATO AND THE OLDEK ACADEMY, CHAPTER I PLATO 8 LIFE. THERE is hardly another philosopher of antiquity with whose life we are so intimately acquainted as with Plato's ; yet even in his case, tradition is often uncer- tain and still more often incomplete. 1 Born some years 1 According to Simplicius, Phys. 268 a. m. Schol. 427 a. 15. De Ccelo, 8 b. 16 sq. 41 b. 1 sq. Karst. (Schol. 470 a. 27, where, instead of Karsten's reading /3^, should be read &lou, 474 a. 12.) Xenocrates had already written irepl rov HXd-wos jSi'ou. Whether this means a special work or merely an incidental notice in connection with some other dis- quisition must remain undecided. (Steinhart, Plato's Leben, 8. 260 sq. adopts the latter supposition on account of Diogenes' silence as to any such work.) Speusippus apud Diogenem, iv. 5. Apuleius de Dog- mate Platonis i. mentions an lyia- yuov FIAoTwi/os (which must be iden- tical with the TrepiSeiTrvov FIAorcoj/os ap. Diog. iii. 2, unless we suppose with Hermann and Steinhart, that the titles of the writings of Speu- sippus and Clearchus are confused: see respectively Plat. 97, 45, loc. cit. 7, 260). Finally we know of a treatise of Plato's scholar Hermo- dorus, which gave information both: about his life and his philosophy, and likewise of a work of Philippus of Opus irepl Hhdrwvos (see Diog. ii. 106, iii. 6. Dercyllides ap. Simpl. Phys. 54 b. 56 b. Vol. Hercul. Coll. Alt. i. 162 sqq. Col. 6 ; cf. my Diatribe de Hermodoro, Marb. 1859, p. 18 sq. and for the latter Suidas s. v. *i.\Jfro^os). But from these most ancient sources we have only a few notices preserved to us. Later writers, the greater part of whom are known to us only from Diogenes, are of very unequal value (a review of them is to be found in Steinhart, loc. cit. 13 sqq.); Diogenes himself is to be relied on only so far as he indicates his authorities ; and this is equally true of the Upo\fy6fMfva (in Hermann's edition of Plato, vi. 196 sqq.) and of the short bio- graphies of Olympiodorus and the anonymous winter who for the most part simply copies these. Of the Platonic letters the 7th is the PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. after the commencement of the Peloponnesian war, 5 most important for the history of Plato's life ; still, it cannot be ac- cepted as genuine, nor does it merit the unlimited confidence placed in it by Grote (Plato, i. 113 sqq.), who is actuated not so much by the interest of a true historian as by that of an advocate. The remaining Platonic letters are quite worthless as historical evidence. On the other hand, Plato's genuine writings give but very few points from which we can derive any knowledge of his life. The minor accredited accounts are false and not seldom self-contradictory. The more recent literature bearing on Plato's life is given by Ueberweg, Hist, of Phil. i. 39. Steinhart, loc. cit. 28 sq. 2 A tradition in Diogenes Laer- tius, iii. 3, says that he was born at ^Egina, in which island his father had received an allotment on its occupation by an Athenian colony, about 430 B.C. This state- ment, is doubtful in itself, and is rendered more so by the obvious falsity of the succeeding statement, that he only returned to Athens after the Spartan expulsion of the colonists. B.C. 404. The date of Plato's birth is uncertain. Apol- lodorus, according to Diog. iii. 2 sq., assigned it to the 88th Olympiad (i.e. Olympiad 88, i.), B.C. 427, on the 7th of Thargelion (May 21) (on the reduction to our months cf. Ueberweg, Exam, of the Platonic Writings Steinhart, loc. cit. 284); and this, according to Plutarch, Qusestiones Con vi vales 8, 1,1, 1, 2, 1, and Apuleius, De Dogm. Plat. 1, was really kept as his birthday. With this Hermodorus (ap. Diog. 6) agrees, when he says that Plato was 28 years old when he went to Megara, i.e. directly after Socrates' death, vide p. 14, 26, supra. On the other hand, Athen- seus, v. 217 a. says that he was born in the archonship of Apollodorus, 01. 87, 3 (B.C. 429), and with this we may connect Diogenes' state- ment, loc. cit., that the year of Plato's birth was that of Pericles' death, if (as Hermann, History and System of the Platonic Phi- losophy, i. 85, A 9, points out) we assume that Diogenes follows Eoman reckoning. Pericles died two and a half years after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, in the autumn of B.C. 429 (01. 87, 4), in the archonship of Epameinon. The statement in the pseudo-Plutarch (Vita Isocra- tis 2, p. 836), that Isocrates was seven years older than Plato, points to the same date. Isocrates was born 01. 86, 1 (436 B.C.); vide loc. cit. and Diog. iii. 2 ; Dionysius, Judicium de Isocrate, init. Di- ogenes himself, in assigning Plato's birth to the archonship of Epamei- non, and accordingly making him only six years younger than Iso- crates, is going on a false reckon- ing, exclusive of the year of Pericles' death. It may be ob- served that Diogenes, or our pre- sent text of him, has eV 'A^emov instead of eTr' 'Eira^eivcavos ; and in connection with this is the assertion of the Upo\fy6^eva TT)S n\dros (f)i\o(ro philo- sophic development and v&w of rae/typrld ; and' if, Jor this enquiry we are thrown upon conjectu/efe,v these are not entirely devoid of probability. On the orfe. tand, for example, we shall find no difficulty in understand- ing how his reverence for his departed teacher was immeasurably increased by the destiny which overtook him, and the magnanimity with which he yielded to it ; how the martyr of philosophy, faithful unto death, became idealized in his heart and memory as the very type of the true philosopher ; how principles tested by this fiery ordeal received in his eyes the consecration of a higher truth ; how at once his judgment on the men and circumstances concerned in the sacrifice of Socrates grew harder, 23 and his hope as to any political efficiency in those circumstances fainter ; 24 nay, how the general tendency was fostered in him to contemplate reality in a gloomy light, and to escape from the ills of the pre- sent life into a higher, supersensuous world. On the other hand, it may perhaps have been better for his scientific growth that his connection with Socrates ap. Diog. 2, 41, Proleg. 3, that later judgments, e.g. Politicus, Plato wished to undertake So- 298 A sq. ; Eepublic, vi. 488 A crates' defence himself, but was 497 A ; viii. 557 A sq. ; 562 A sq. prevented by the clamour of the 24 According to the 7th Platonic judges, like everything else about letter, 324 B sq., Plato had in- Socrates' trial, is disputed. Cf. tended to take an active part in p. 161 sq. ; and Herm. loc. cit. politics, first under the Thirty 23 Cf. specially the way in which Tyrants, and, after their expulsion, he speaks of the great Athenian under the democracy ; but was de- statesmen in the Gorgias, 515 C terred both times by the state of sq., and 521 C sq. ; Thesetetus, 173 affairs, and specially by the attack C sq., on the condition of his on Socrates. We cannot, of course, native city and the relation of the give much weight to this debate- philosopher to politics; besides able testimony. PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. lasted no longer than it did. During the years of their intercourse he had made his teacher's spirit his own, in completer fulness than was possible to any of his fellow students; it was now for him to perfect the Socratic science by the addition of new elements, and to fit himself by the utmost expansion in many directions for erecting it on an independent basis : his apprentice- ship (Lehrjahre) ^as over, his travelling 1 time (Wander- jahre) was coine. 25 After the death of Socrates, Plato, with others of his pupils, first betook himself to Megara, where a circle of congenial minds had gathered round Euclid. 26 25 I borrow this denomination from Schwegler, Hist, of Phil. 41. 86 Hermodor. ap. Diog. ii. 106, iii. 6. The migration took place according to this authority when Plato was twenty-eight ; doubtless immediately after the execution of Socrates. He indicates its motive in the words Sefo-twras t^v u^6- TTJTO. TUV Tvpavvuv. Formerly by these rvpavi'oi were understood the so-called Thirty Tyrants, and little weight was therefore attributed to the evidence of Hermodorus. But this explanation can no longer be entertained, now that we know from Simplic. Phys. 54 b. 56 b. (supra 1, 1), that the Hermo- dorus whose statement is preserved for us in Diogenes, is no other than the well-known Platonist. How can it be supposed that a personal pupil of Plato, like Her- modorus, could have been so ig- norant as to think that Socrates was executed under the tyranny of the Thirty? We need not understand the Tvpavvoi in this sense. Indeed, often as the Thirty are mentioned, the expression ' the Thirty Tyrants,' or simply ' the Tyrants' (without rpiaKovra), is not used as the. ordinary appella- tion for ' the Thirty ' in any writer of that period, or, in fact, in any writer preserved to us before the time of Cicero and Diodorus. The invariable title is ol tpiaKovra. A Tvpawos, according to the Greek view, is a single chief who rules without laws ; a rule like that of 'the Thirty' is not a tyranny, but, as it is often called, an oligarchy. The Thirty are only once called Tvpavvoi in oratorical exaggera- tions, e.g. by Poly crates in Arist. Rhet. ii. 24, 1401, a. 33 ; but we cannot conclude from this that it was the usual appellation for them, and that every one \vho spoke of the rvpavvoi must have meant the Thirty. Hermodorus' expression must be understood in a different way ; the rvpavvoi are the democrats who brought about the execution of Socrates, just as Xenophon, Hellen. iv. 4, 6, calls the democrats who held sway at PLATO'S LIFE. 15 He afterwards undertook 27 journeys which led him to Egypt, Gyrene, Magna Grsecia, and Sicily. 28 Owing to Corinth TOUS rvpavvevovras on ac- count of their reign of terror. Similarly the seventh Platonic letter, 325 B, calls the accusers of Socrates 5vvaffrei>ovres rives. (The distinction which Steinhart, PL L., 122 sq., draws between rvpavvoi and Tvpavvei>ovTs is, I think, too fine, and I see no reason why an adversary might not have applied the term rvpavvoi to violent de- mocrats just as much as to violent oligarchs. I will not, of course, dispute the possibility that this expression is not borrowed from Hermodorus himself. Stein (Sieben Biicher z. G-esch. d. Plat. ii. 66, 170 sq.), and after him Schaar- schmidt (Sammlung d. plat. Schr. 65 sq.), have been led into error through a false pre-supposition, in rejecting Hermodorus's date and his evidence for PJato's sojourn in Megara, on the ground that rvpav- voi can only mean ' the "rbpavvoi so-called KOT' Qoxhtt' those who ' have always been understood as the Tyrants at Athens,' viz. the Thirty only. Schaarschmidt has so far misconstrued the Tvpavvoi of Hermodorus as to identify, in a hasty reading of the seventh Pla- tonic letter, the Swaffrevovres who brought Socrates to trial with the ' Tvpawot' mentioned earlier (the quotation marks are Schaar- schmidt's) ; but in the Platonic letter there is not a word about ' rtipavvoi,' whereas the rpidKovra are twice mentioned (324 C, 325 B). (According to Schaarschmidt's theory Hermodorus could not of course have been the immediate pupil of Plato, in spite of Der- cyllides, who still possessed his work, and in spite of the other witnesses cited on p. 1, 1). Equally unjustifiable is the asser- tion of Stein against Hermodorus, with regard to some of the well- known Socratics, such as Xenophon, Antisthenes, ^Eschines, that it is highly improbable, if not quite impossible, that they were with Plato at Megara. Hermodorus does not state that all the Socratic students had gone there : Diog. merely says, iii. 6, e/retra .... i5?7i/ avv KCL\ &\\ois and if we compare ii. 106: nphs TOVTOV (Euclid) (pi)(rli/ & 'EpjjioSwpos aovs, the meaning is obviously not (as Steinhart, PL L. 121, un- derstands) all the philosophers who were at that time in Athens, but the rest known to the reader (i.e. the reader of Hermodorus, or of the writer whose statement is here made use of) who had left Athens with Plato. We might be more ready to doubt, with Steinhart (PL L. 121) whether danger threatening one of their number afforded Plato amd his friends any ground for apprehen- sion. It is quite possible that Hermodorus attributed this motive to them from his own conjecture, in which he was really mistaken. However, the state of affairs after the death of Socrates is so little known to us that we cannot de- cide whether there was not some occasion, though perhaps unwar- ranted, for apprehension. 27 On what follows cf. Herm. Plat. 51 sq.; 109 sq. 28 All testimony agrees that his travels extended at least thus far. 16 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the meagreness, and sometimes the contradictoriness, of the traditions, 29 it is impossible to ascertain with cer- For his travels in Egypt, we may quote his acquaintance with Egyp- tian institutions (vide page 358, note 2). The order of the journeys is variously given. According to Cicero, Republic, i. 10; De Fini- bus, v. 29, 87 ; Valerius Maximus, viii. 7, sxt. 3 ; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, viii. 4, he went first to Egypt, and then to Italy and Sicily. It should be re- marked, that Valerius, like the declamator he is, transfers the date of the travels to the period when Plato had become famous. On the other hand, Diogenes, iii. 6 (with whom is Quintilian, Insti- tutes, i. 12, 15), makes him visit Gyrene first, then the Pythagoreans in Italy, then Egypt (accompanied by Euripides, who had died some time before, however), and thence return to Athens. According to Apuleius, Dogm. Plat. i. 3 ; and the Prolegomena, c. 4, he went first to Italy to visit the Pythagoreans, then to Gyrene and Egypt, and thence back again to Italy and Sicily. The most credible of these statements is the first. We can scarcely suppose that Plato visited Italy twice running (the 7th Pla- tonic letter, 326 B, only knows of one Italo-Sicilian journey), while everything is in favour of Sicily's having been the end of his travels (vide subter). And the opposite account gives us an unhistoric motive in the assertion of Apuleius and the Prolegomena, that he visited Gyrene and Egypt to inves- tigate the sources of Pythagorean- ism. The conjecture of Stallbaum, Plat. Polit. 38 ; Plat, Opp. i. xix., that Apul. is following Speusippus, is quite indemonstrable. Accord- ing to Diog. 7, he had intended to visit the Magi (and according to Apul. loc. cit., the Indians too), but was prevented by the wars in Asia. Lactantius, Institut. 4, 2, actually makes him travel to the Magi and Persians ; Clemens, Co- hortationes 46, to the Babylonians, Assyrians, Hebrews, and Thra- cians. Cicero, Tusculans, 4, 1 9, 44, speaks of the ultimae terrae which he had explored; according to Olymp. 4, Prolegg. 4, he had been initiated in the doctrines of Zoro- aster by Persians in Phoenicia ; Pausanias, iv. 32, 4, repeats this, and says that he was also ac- quainted with Chaldean lore; and according to Pliny, Natural History 30, 2, 9, he acquired the Persian magic while on his travels. These, however, are doubtless the inven- tions of later times, analogous to the tales about Pythagoras, and perhaps to some extent modelled on them. A still more palpable fiction is the alleged acquaintance with Jews and Jewish scriptures, on which cf. Brucker, i. 635 sq. Her- mann, p. 114 A, 125; with the writers he quotes, and the 3rd part of the present work, 221, 300, 2nd edit. Lactantius, loc. cit. wonders that Plato and Pythagoras had not visited the Jews. 29 Diogenes 6 would lead us to suppose that he went from Megara straight to Gyrene, and from thence to Sicily. On the other hand, the 7th Platonic letter makes a long interval of active teaching elapse before his coming to Megara. Vide next note. PLATO'S LIFE. 17 tainty how long he continued in Megara, when he com- menced his travels, whether they immediately succeeded the Megaric sojourn, or a return to Athens intervened ; whether his stay in Athens was long or short ; and whether he had or had not become a teacher of philo- sophy before his departure. But if he really returned from Sicily only ten or twelve years after the death of Socrates, 30 there is great probability, and even some 80 The only source for this is, of course, the 7th Platonic letter, 324 A ; and that account becomes sus- picious, because it is connected with the assertion in 325 C sq. that even before his journeys Plato had acquired and expressed the conviction, K.a.K.G>v ov X^|6tv TO. av- opBws ye Kal iXo(Tofy-i))ip in page 144 D. Several other works (vide subter) seem to have preceded the Thesetetus, and probably most of them were com- posed at Athens : Plato could not have given the requisite pains and concentration while on his travels ; and to suppose them written at PLATO'S LIFE. 19 settled in Athens, 32 and there worked as 'teacher and author ; even granting that at this period his instruc- tions were confined to a select few, and that the open- ing of his school in the Academy took place later on. 33 What, in this case, we are to think about the journey to Egypt and Gyrene- whether the visit to Sicily was immediately connected with it, or whether 34 Plato first' returned to Athens from Egypt, and only undertook the Italian journey after an interval of some years, cannot be certainly determined, but there is a good deal in favour of the latter alternative. 35 Megara "would be to assume a longer residence there than our evidence warrants. (See following note.) Some trace of such a stay, beyond the notice in Hermodorus, would naturally have been pre- served. The sharp polemic of the Thesetetus, (which Hermann, 499, and Steinhart, Plat. Werk. iii. 81 , 556, appear to be wrong in ignor- ing), and the probably contem- poraneous Euthydemus against Antisthenes (vide supra, pp. 248, 1, 4; 252, 3; 254, 1 ; 255, 2; 256, 1 ;) might indeed warrant the conjecture, that at. the time when he wrote these dialogues, Plato had already had some per- sonal encounters with Euclid, and known him as his opponent in Athens. If at this period Plato had already passed some years of literary activity at Athens, we can hardly imagine that the philosopher who will only allow a written document as a reminder to oral delivery (Phsedrus 276 D sq.) should have refrained from enun- ciating his views in personal inter- course with others. 12 If fear for his personal safety was the reason of his retire- ment to Megara, he must soon have been enabled to return home without danger; and again, as the philosophic intercourse with Euclid, supposing this to be Plato's object, could just as well be enjoyed from the neighbouring Athens, it is impossible to see what could detain the philosopher a year at Megara. 83 Grote agrees with the above, Plato i. 121. He rightly considers it highly improbable that Plato should have spent the 13 (strictly speaking 10-12) years before his return from Sicily in voluntary banishment. 84 As Steinhart conjectures, PI. W. iii. 100, 213, 316, 473. 85 Most of our authorities take it for granted that he came straight from Egypt to Italy. But the varying accounts of the order of his travels, noticed above, show the utter want of exact informa- tion on the point. The 7th letter is silent about the journey to Egypt ; if we are to follow it, we must conclude that he went straight from home to Italy ; and 2 20 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. If, indeed, Plato had already attained to manhood when he visited the countries of the south and west ; had already, that is, before his personal acquaintance with the Italian Pythagoreans, found the scientific bases of his system, and laid them down in writings, 36 these journeys cannot have had the striking effect on his philosophical development which is often ascribed to them in ancient and modern days. Besides the general enlargement of his views and knowledge of human nature, his chief gain from them seems to have consisted in a closer acquaintance with the Pythago- rean school 37 (whose principal written book he appears to have purchased), 38 and in a deeper study of mathe- Plutarch's statement (Plut. de Ge- nio Socratis 7, p. 579) which makes Plato visit Delos on his return from Egypt, perhaps goes on the presupposition that he was not on a voyage to Italy, but to Athens. The main point, however, is that this theory gives the easiest ar- rangement of his works with reference -to his life. ThePoliticus shows traces of his acquaintance with Egypt (vide subter, p. 22, 41). But on these points conjecture is all that is possible. 36 We shall see presently that the Thesetetus and dialogues of the same date presuppose the doctrine of Ideas, and a certain acquaint- ance with Pythagorean tenets. 37 The details on this point seem to rest on mere conjecture. Cicero, loc. cit., names Archytas, Eche- crates, Timpeus. and Acrion, or Arion (Valerius Maximus adds Coetus), as Pythagoreans, whose acquaintance he had made at that time. Olympiodorus gives Archy- tas, (the name of Timaeus seems to have dropped out). Apuleius, loc. cit., Eurytus and Archytas ; Dio- genes, Eurytus and Philolaus (the latter can scarcely have been alive at the time). Cf. Bockh, Philol. 5 sq. ; and Pt. 1, p. 287, of the present work. 38 The first writer known to us who mentions the purchase of Philolaus' works by Plato is Timon the Sillographer, apud Gellium, iii. 17- He only says, however, that Plato bought a small book for a large price, and with its help wrote his Timseus. That the purchase was made on his travels, he does not say; nor does the price of the book as given by Gellius, 10,000 denarii = 100 Attic minse seem to come from him. On the other hand, Hermippus, ap. Diog. viii. 85 (about B.C. 230), says, on the authority of a writer not named, but doubtless an Alex- andrian, that Plato, on his visit to Sicily, bought Philolaus' work from his relations for 40 Alexan- drine minse, and copied his Timseus PLATO'S LIFE. 21 matics. To this study, Theodorus is said to have in- troduced him, 39 and we have at any rate no proof against the correctness of the statement. 40 He may have re- ceived further mathematical instruction from Archytas and other Pythagoreans, so that we can scarcely be wrong in connecting with this journey his predih for the science, 41 and his remarkable knowledge of it : 42 from it. Others (ibid.) say that the book was a present in acknow- ledgment of Plato's having ob- tained the freedom of one of Philolaus' scholars from Dionysius. Cicero, Kep. i. 10, says less de- finitely that Plato acquired it during his stay in Sicily. Accord- ing to Satyrus ap. Diog. iii. 9, viii. 15 (followed by lamblichus de vita Pythagorica, 199) it was not Plato himself, but Dion by his commission, who bought it for 100 minse. This sum, adds Diogenes* he could easily afford ; for he is said to have been well off, and, as Onetor tells, to have received from Dionysius more than eightytalents. (The latter statemenL is not merely exaggerated, but plainly fictitious ; cf. also Diog. ii. 81, and page 312, 2). Tzetzes, Chiliades x. 790 sq., 999 sq., xi. 37, makes Dion buy it for him from Philo- laus' heirs for 100 minse. We may probably agree with Bo'ckh, Phi- lologus 18 sq., Susemihl, Genet. Entwickl., 1, 2, sq., and Steinhart, PI. C. 149, sq., in saying that Plato certainly was acquainted with the work of Philolaus, per- haps actually possessed it ; but beyond this, when, where, and how he acquired it, cannot be deter- mined, owing to the contradictory, ambiguous, and partially improb- able nature of the accounts that have come down to us. A priori, it would be more likely that it came to him at Athens through the instrumentality of Simmias and Cebes. The Prolegomena, c. 5, transfer the myth of the world soul to the pseudo Timseus. 39 Diog. iii. 6 ; Apul. loc. cit. That Plato was acquainted with Theodorus seems probable from the Thesetetus, 143 D sqq., and the opening of the Sophist and Poli- ticus. The acquaintance had doubtless been made at Athens. Theodorus had visited Athens shortly before the death of So- crates. (Plato, loc. cit. ; and cf. Xen. Memor. iv. 2, 10.) 40 The possibility, of course, re- mains that the journey to Gyrene was a mere invention, in order to assign to Plato the mathematical teacher on whom he bestows the acknowledgment of mention. 41 We shall see later on what significance Plato attached to ma- theraaticaLrelations, and how much he valued a scientific knowledge of them. They are to him the pecu- liar connecting link between Idea and Phenomenon; and thus the knowledge of them is- the inter- mediate step, leading from sensuous envisagementto rational contempla- tion of the idea. Cf. Plut. Qusest. Conviv. viii. 2, init. ; Philop. de An. D, 6, o. David Schol. in Arist. 22 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. while, on the contrary, the stories about the mathema- tical lore, priestly mysteries, and political ideas which he is stated to have acquired in Egypt, 43 are in the 26, a, 10 ; Tzetz. Chil., viii. 972 sq. ascribe to him, without sufficient authority, the inscription over his lecture-room, jUTjSeis ayfu/jierp^Tos flffiru, which is generally stated to have been of Pythagorean origin. 42 Vide Cicerou. de Oratore, i. 50, 217 ; and Proclus in Euclidem, ii. 19, who notices him as one of the most important contributors to the advance of mathematical science. Phavorinus apud Diog. iii. 24, and ; Proclus, loc. cit. and p. 58, attribute the invention of analysis and the conic section to him. Both state- ments, however, are doubtful; Proclus himself, p. 31, gives Mensechmus as discoverer of the conic section. See, however, Ideler on Eudemus, Abh. d. Berl. Ak. 1828, Hist. Phil. Kl. S. 207, for Phavorinus' statement. The tale of his solving the Delian problem (how to double a cube), while at the same time he found fault with the usual mathematical processes, is widely spread. Plut. de Ei. 6, 386 ; De Genio Socratis 7, p. 519 ; Qusest. Conviv. viii. 2, 1, 7, p. 718 ; Marcellus, c. 14 ; Theo Smyrn. c. 1. Still, the accounts are very mythical : he reduced the problem to the finding two mean propor- tionals between two given lines. This may be correct. Cf. Euto- cius in Archim. de Sph. et Cyl. Archim. ed. Torelli. p. 135. Philop. in An. Post. p. 24, 117. (Schol. in Ar. 209 a, 36 b, 21 sq.) Ideler, loc. cit. He is also said to have in- vented a time-piece, Atheu. iv. 174 c. In the Theaetetus, 147 D sqq., he puts several new arithme- tical definitions in Thesetetus's mouth, doubtless his own dis- coveries; as the idea of stereometry, in Republic vii. 528 A sq., is re- presented to be, with special refer- ence to the a%; TO>J> KV&UIV. For mathematical passages in his writ- ings, the reader may be referred to Meno 82 A sq. 87 A ; Eep. viii. 546 B; Timseus, 35 A sqq., 31 C sqq., 53 C sqq. 43 According to Cicero de Fini- bus, y. 29, 87, he learned from the Priests numeros et ccelestia (so Val. Max. viii. 7, 3) ; according to Clemens, Cohort. 46 A (cf. Stro- mata, i. 303 C) he learned geo- metry from the Egyptians, astro- nomy from the Babylonians, magic from the Thracians (evidently a reminiscence of Charmides, 156 D), and the rest from the Assyrians and Jews. Strabo (xvii. 1, 29, p. 806) was actually shown the house in Heliopolis where Plato had stayed with Eudoxus for thirteen years ! (For thirteen, some MSS. of the Epitome read three, arbitrarily : vid. Strabo, ed. Kramer.) Against the whole statement, vid. Diog. viii. 86 sq. Ideler, loc. cit. 191 sq. Plato is said to have stayed at Heliopolis until he induced the priests to communicate some of their astronomical lore to him. At all events, they kept the greater part to themselves. Clemens (Strom, loc. cit. : cf. Diog. viii. 90) even knows the names of the priests who taught Plato and Eudoxus. He separates the two latter in time. Plut. Gren. Socr. c. 7, p. 518, gives him Simmias for a com- PLATO'S LIFE. 23 highest degree improbable. 44 In Sicily, Plato visited panion. Apuleius, Dogm. Plat. 3, and the Proleg. 4, make him learn sacred rites in Egypt, as well as geometry and astronomy. Vide Olymp.5 ; Lucan, Pharsalia x. 181. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1, 4, only speaks of geometry and as- tronomy, which Plutarch de Iside, c. 10, p. 354, also mentions. Quin- tilian, 1, 12, 15, speaks indefinitely of the secrets of the priests ; Dio- dorus, 1, 98, mentions the laws which Plato, like Solon and Lycurgus, had borrowed from Egypt. He is here following Manetho or some other Egyptian authority. 41 The external evidence has no authority per se. It belongs altogether to a time far removed from Plato's, and abounding in arbitrary fictions which derived all Greek wisdom from the East. Some of the oldest legends, as in Strabo and Diodorus, sound so in- credible and point so plainly to dim Egyptian sources, that we cannot attach the slightest weight to them. There is no historic probability that Plato borrowed anything of importance from the Egyptians (vide pt. 1, p. 31 sqq.). And if we seek traces of the alleged Egyptian influence in Plato's doc- trines and writings, we find pretty nearly the opposite of what, accord- ing to these later traditions, we might expect. He certainly shows some knowledge of Egypt (Polit. 264 C, Phoedr. 274 C) ; he makes use, perhaps, once of an Egyptian myth (Phaedr. loc. cit.) ; he derives another, really of his own inven- tion, from Egypt, while he enlarges on the great antiquity of Egyptian legends (Timae. 21 E sqq.) ; he praises particular institutions (Laws ii. 656 D ; vii. 799 ; the gravity and religious character of the music, ibid. vii. 819 A ; the re- gard paid to arithmetic in the popular education) ; while he blames others (loc. cit. ii. 657 A, aAA' eVepa (pav\' bv evpois avr66t. Specially, in xii. 953 E, if the remarkable words KaSarjep K.T.A.. are really Plato's, he censures the Egyptian cruelty towards strangers). On the whole, he is inclined to disparage the moral condition and mental capacity of the Egyptians, and ascribes to them not the scientific, but only the industrial character. (Rep. iv. 435 E; Laws, v. 747 C). This does not look as if he were sensible of any great philosophic debt to Egypt ; and there is really nothing in his system to point to Egyptian sources. Throughout, his philo- sophic attitude appears independent of any but Greek influences : the mathematical element in him is most nearly connected with Pytha- goreism ; (cf. p. 301, and Arist. Metaphysics, 1, 6, init.) ; his re- ligious references are confined to the Greek cultus ; his politics find their illustration only in Greek types and Greek 'circumstances. Even the separation of classes in the Republic, as will be shown in its place, is not to be explained as an imitation of the Egyptian caste- system. Indeed, the most marked feature in the Egyptian constitu- tion, the priestly rule, is altogether absent in Plato ; and in the Poli- ticus, 290 D sqq., with express re- ference to Egypt, he very decidedly disapproves of it. Cf. with the preceding Herm. p. 54 sqq., 112 sqq., where there are fuller quota- tions ; and my Part i. p. 25 sq. 24 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the court of Dionysius the elder. 45 But in spite of his close intimacy with Dion, 46 he gave great offence there by his plain speaking, 47 and the tyrant in wrath deli- vered up the troublesome moraliser to the Spartan ambassador Pollis, by whom he was exposed for sale in the slave-market of ^Egina. Ransomed by Anniceris, a Cyrenian, he thence returned to his native city. 48 45 Of this there can really be no doubt. All our authorities are unanimous on the point, and Plato himself, in drawing the picture of the tyrant (Eep. viii. fin. ix. init.) seems to be speaking from per- sonal experience of what he de- scribes. The circumstances of the visit are variously given. We find, in quite ancient times, a calumnious story to the effect that it was the Sicilian kitchen which attracted the philosopher to Syra- cuse. (Cf. Ep. Plat. vii. 326 B sq. ; Apul. Dogm. Plat. 4 ; The- mistius, Orationes, 23, 285 c. ; Aristides, Orationes 46 de qua- tuor viris, T. 301, Dind. ; Lucian, Parasite, 34 ; Olymp. 4 ; Diog. iii. 34 ; vi. 25, &c. We find a similar account in Philostr. v. Apoll.l, 35, inrfp ir\ovrov 2tKe \IKOV.) The usual account is that he went to see the volcano (Diog. iii. 18; Apul. 4; Olymp. 4 ; Proleg. 4 ; Hegesander ap. Athen. xi. 507 b ; the seventh Platonic letter is less definite, 326 D ; and Plut. Dion. 4, follows it, in saying that chance or some Divine guidance brought him to Sicily). According to Diog., Dionysius obliged Plato to visit him ; accord- ing to Plutarch, it was Dion who introduced Plato to his brother-in- law. Olymp. says that he sought out the tyrant uninvited, to induce him to lay down his power. Cor- nelius Nepos, x. 2 (with whom, in the main, Diodor. xv. 7 agrees), says that Dionysius invited Plato from Tarentum at Dion's request. 46 Vide the places quoted ; specially the 7th Platonic letter. This of course is as little trust- worthy as any of the other letters ; but it shows that Dion was gene- rally assumed to have stood in close relations with Plato. For his alleged services to him, cf. Nepos, Plutarch, Cic. de or. iii. 34, 139, and pp. 288 sq., 300, 3. 47 Thus much is probably correct. The more detailed accounts in Plut., Diog., Olymp., loc. cit., appear to be mere arbitrary colour- ings of the main fact. The anec- dotes about Plato's meeting with Aristippus (referred by many to this period) are equally uncertain. Vide supra, 291, 2, 312, 2, 48 Here too there is a great diver- sity in the accounts. According to Dioclorus xv. 7, Dionysius sold the philosopher in the Syracusan .slave market, for 20 minse ; his friends freed him, and sent him to a friendly country. Diogenes, 19 sq., on Phavorinus' authority, says that Dionysius was at first disposed to put Plato to death, but was dis- suaded by Dion and Aristomenes, and only delivered him to Pollis to sell. Pollis took him to JEgina ; and there, in accordance with a PLATO'S LIFE. 25 Plato seems now to have made his first formal appearance as a teacher. Following the example of Socrates, who had sought out intelligent youths in the Gymnasia and other public places, he, too, first chose as the scene of his labours a gymnasium, the Academy, whence, however, he subsequently withdrew into his own garden, which was adjacent. 49 Concerning his decree of the people, Plato would have been executed, as being an Athenian, but was allowed, as a favour, to be sold instead. Diogenes adds, that Dion or other friends wished to repay Anniceris his expenses, 20 or 30 minse ; this he refused to take, but bought with it, for Plato's use, the garden in the Academy, the price of which is given in Plutarch (de exilio 10 S. 603) as 3000 drachmae (30 minse). So Heraclitus, Alleg. Homer C. 74, S. 150. Plutarch himself (Dion 5, cf. de tranquillitate animi 12, 471), and an account in Olympiodorus in Gorg. 164, says that when Plato had incurred Dionysius' enmity, his friends hurried him away on board the ship with which Pollis sailed to Greece (this is scarcely credible, if Sparta and Athens were then at war). Diony- sius had given Pollis secret orders to kill Plato, or sell him ; and to effect this Pollis brought him to ^Egina. Tzetzes, Chil. x. 995 sq., has a wonderful version ; Plato was bought by Archytas from Pollis, and then instructed in the Pythagorean philosophy. Seneca (ep. 47, 12, and apud Lactant. Inst. iii. 25, 15 sq.), mentions the transaction, while he blames An- niceris for only having paid 8000 sestertii 20 minse for a Plato. Olympiodorus, 4, actually puts the whole occurrence in the second journey. Gottling, G-eschichtlichen Abhandlungen 1, 369, endeavours to free Dionysius from the guilt of the sale ; but his arguments, doubtful in themselves, are hardly in accord with Plutarch's state- ment. There is no real certainty in any of the various versions of the affair ; cf. Steinhart's critique (Plato's Leben, 151 sqq.). 49 Diog. iii. 5, 7. 41 ; cf. Herm. 121 sq., who makes the necessary remarks on the statements of Olymp. c. 6, and the Proleg. c. 4. According to .ZElian, iii. 19, it was after his third Sicilian journey that he withdrew for some months into his garden, being dislodged by Aris- totle ; which is manifestly false. ^Elian again, ix. 10, and Porphyry, De Abstinentia 1, 36, tell us that the Academy was reputed to be unhealthy, but that Plato refused to move from it for the sake of longer life. It could not, however, have been very bad; for Plato, Xeno- crates, and Polemo lived to a good age in it. Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 203, Mart., actually thinks that Plato betook himself to the un- healthy spot, ut cura et assiduitate morborum libidinis impetus fran- geretur ; judging the philosopher rather too much by his own ex- perience. So too ^Eneas of Gaza, Theophr. ed. Earth, p. 25. 26 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. manner of instruction tradition tells us nothing ; 50 but if we consider how decidedly he expresses himself against the rhetoricians who made long speeches, but knew neither how to ask questions nor how to answer them ; 51 and how low, on the same ground, was his esti- mation of written exposition, open to every misunder- standing and abuse, in comparison with the living personal agency of conversation, 52 if we mark the fact, that in his own works, the development of thought by dialogue is a law, from which in his long literary career he allowed himself not a single noteworthy de- parture, we can scarcely doubt that in his oral teach- ing he remained true to these main principles, On the other hand, however, we hear of a discourse on the (rood, published by Aristotle 53 and some of his fellow pupils, and belonging to Plato's later years. Aris- totle himself mentions discourses on Philosophy; 54 and that these were not conversations, but in their general character at any rate continuous discourses, is witnessed partly by express testimony, 55 partly by their inter-, nal evidence, which can be taken in no other way. 50 Olymp. 6 has not the value of statement of Aristoxenus (on Aris- a witness, and can lead us to no totle's authority), Harmonise Ele- conclusion of any moment. menta, ii. p. 30, and this work, 31 Prot. 328 E sqq., 334 C eqq. .; Part ii. b. 48. 2, 771, d. 2. Gorgias 449 B. 54 De Anima i. 2, 204 b. 18 ; on 52 Phsedr. 275 D sq. ; 276 E. the question whether the Aristote- 53 The references on this point, lian books (and consequently the from Simplicius, Physica 32 b, 104, Platonic discourses) on the Good 117 ; Alexander on the Metaphy- were identical with those on phi- sics 1, 6 (Schol. in Aristot. 551, b. losophy, or not, vide Brandis loc. 19) ; Philoponus De Anima C, 2, cit. 5 sq. ; Gr. E. Phil. ii. b. 1, 84 are given by Brandis, De perditis sq. Aristotelis libris de ideis et de S5 Aristot. loc. cit. calls them Bono, p. 3 sq., 23 sqq. To the a.Kp6curis, Simpl. \6yoi and ffvv- same treatise may be referred the ovcria.. xtid { PLATO'S LIFE. 27 Also, there are many portions of the Platonic system which from their nature could not well be imparted conversationally. It is most probable, therefore, that Plato, according to circumstances, made use of both forms ; while the supposition must be admitted that as in his writings, so in his verbal instruction, question d answer gave place to unbroken exposition, in pro- portion, partly to the diminished vivacity of increasing years, partly to the necessary advance in his teaching, from preparatory enquiries to the dogmatic statement of his doctrine in detail. That, side by side with the communications intended for the narrower circle of his friends, he should have given other discourses designed for the general public, is not likely. 56 It is more credible that he may have brought his writings into connection with his spoken instruction, and imparted them to his scholars by way of stimulus to their memories. 57 On this point, however, we are 5S Diog. iii. 37 (vide note 4) does matics, astronomy, and finally of not warrant such a conclusion ; the the One Good. Plato certainly reference there seems to be to a would not expound the most ideal prelection in the school. On the part of his system to a miscella- other hand Themist., or. xxi. 295 neous concourse of hearers, as D, tells us that Plato once de- Themistius imagines ; and, apart livered a discourse which a large from that, with his views as to the audience flocked to hear from conditions of any fruitful study of Athens and the country. When, philosophy, and his low estimate however, he came to the doctrine of mere popular display speeches, of the Good, the whole assembly, he is hardly likely to have troubled down to Plato's usual hearers, dis- himself with giving discourses to persed. No doubt this is only an people who had not fulfilled his arbitrary expansion of what Aris- requirements, tox. loc. cit. tells on Aristotle's 57 Cf. Phsedr. 276 D. Instead of authority, that the majority of other amusement, a man might Plato's disciples were greatly as- write books, 4aur re vTo/JLvfifj-ara tonished, in the discourse on the dvjrravpt&pevos, eis -rb \yQris yijpas Gocd, to hear, not of things usually (av tKyrai, /cat iravrl considered good, but of mathe- fx 28 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. entirely without information. 68 Plato doubtless combined with intellectual intercourse that friendly life-in-com- mon to which he himself had been accustomed in the Socratic circle and the Pythagorean Society. With a philosopher so little able to separate philosophic from moral endeavour, it might be expected that community of knowledge would naturally grow into community of life. In this way he appears to have joined his scho- lars at stated intervals in social repasts. 59 There can be no doubt, from what we know of his sentiments on the subject, 60 that his instructions were altogether gra- tuitous ; and if, on certain occasions, he accepted pre- sents from some of his rich friends, 61 there is no reason 58 The tale given by Diog. 37, from Phavorinus, that at the read- ing of the Phsedo all present, ex- cept Aristotle, gradually "withdrew, is highly improbable. Philosophic interest and respect for the master cannot have been so scanty, even in Plato's inferior scholars, as to allow of anything of the kind, least of all at the delivery of such a masterpiece. Besides, at the time when Aristotle was Plato's pupil, the Phsedo must have been long published. 39 Athenseus xii. 547, d. sqq., quoting Antigonus Carystius, tells with some censure of the extrava- gance introduced by Lycon the Peripatetic at certain meals held on the first day of each month, to which the scholars contributed. They were connected with sacrifices to the Muses. Athen. continues, ov yap f iva ffv^pvevres eirl rb avrb TTJS e'cos TOV opdpiov yevo/j-evTis rpaire&s a-rroXaiHrcoffiv. ?) x-P lv Qoi- fias tiroi7)ffavTO -ras (rvvodovs ravras ol irepl riAorcoi/o Kal 'Eirevcwrirov, aAA 5 'iva (paivwvraL Kal TO Qelov Ti/J-uvres Kal (pvcriKios aA.A7JA.ots ffv/i*.irepL(f>fp6- fjievoi Kal TO irX^lffTOv VKev avecrews Kal /CTTJ^ia, Kal TUV TTOAAoij' a> ixavus l$6vTes r^v paviav, Kal STI ouSels ouSej/ iiyies CDS CTTOS eliretv Tffpl TO. TUV ir6heuv irpdrTfi ovS* Ian |ijUjUaxos ue0* 8rou TIS luv M &v, &v6pcaTros OVT ^VVoMlKflV C0\COJ/ 0V- e titavbs &v eTs iraffiv aypiois avrf- .* lv i TTp'lV TL TTJV Tr6\lV f) (p'l\OVS poa,Tro\6/j.et>os dj/w^eA^s e Kal rois aXXots kv yevono, ciov ev Kovioprov Kal faATjs virb eponevov virb reixiov >v roiis &\\ovs Kara- s avo/jLias, ayaira, ef TTT) curbs Ka6apbs aSiKias re Kal avoffiwv Hpywv ^Ktxrerai. /c.r.A. 63 'AAAc rot, is the rejoinder, loc. cit., ou ra tXaxwra &v Siairpa- ^dfievos aTraAActTTOtTO : to which Socrates replies, ouSe ye TO. peyiara, yu.^ TVX&V iro\irelas Trpoaf]KOVffris' ev yap TrpoffTiKovffp avr6s re /j.a\\ov autfyfftrai Kal p.era. TWV iticav TO. Koiva ffdffei. Cf. ibid. v. 473 C sq. 30 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. certainly be credited with the aim of forming states- men ; 64 and if he repudiated political activity in cir- 6 * It has truly been said of a series of men who distinguished themselves by their political ac- tivity that they came out of the Platonic school. However, even in antiquity, the opinions as re- gards the political character of this school were very divided ; and if the admirers of Plato like Plutarch adv. Col. 32, 6, sqq. p. 1126, bring into connection with him as pupils as many as possible of the greatest statesmen of his time, not seldom exceeding the bounds of historical fact, it cannot be expected that adversaries like Athenseus xi. 508, d. sqq., and his predecessors, will be precise about their evidence for the statement that the majority of the Platonic pupils were rvpavviKoi rives Kai 8iaj8o\oi. According to Plutarch, loc. cit. Dion (concerning whom vide pp. 24, 46, 32 sq.) belonged to Plato's pupils, together with Aristonymus, Phormio (Plu- tarch Praecepta. Keip. ger. 10, 15) and Menedemus, who respectively gave laws to the Arcadians, Eleans, and Pyrrhaeans. (Menedemus is mentioned by the contemporary comedian Epicrates in Athenseus, 59, d. in connection with Plato and Speusippus, in Plutarch Sto. Eep. 20, 6, p. 1043 in connection with Xenocrates); further Delius of Ephesus (called in Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 1, 3, p. 485 through a slip of the pen Alas), who under Philip and Alexander was the active promoter of the expedition against Persia, together with Py- tho and Heraclides of JEnos, the murderers of the Thracian king Cotys (Arist. Polit. v. 10, 1311 b. 20, mentions as such the brothers Parrhon and Heraclides, with whom Pytho appears to have con- nected himself), the first of whom is known as the speaker and agent of King Philip (cf. Steinhart, Life of Plato 195, 322, 16); both are cited as Platonists by Diogenes iii. 46. It must be from a confusion with the above-mentioned Hera- clides, that Demetrius of Magnesia according to Diogenes v. 89 as- signed the murder of a tyrant to Heraclides Ponticus, who bore the same name. Besides these we have Ohio (the supposed writer of a letter in the Epist. Socrat.) and Leonides, who perished in the murder of the tyrant Clearchus of Heraclea (Justin xvi. 5, Suidas, KAeapxs> who adds to them as a third Antitheus ; opposed to this Memnon ap. Phot. Cod. 224, p. 225, a. 10 sqq., says that Lysimachus killed him and his brother, because they had murdered their mother) ; Euphraeus of Oreos (Suid. Euj crates (Plut. Photon, 4, adv. Cdl< 32, 6)^ wi^h regard to the latter, however, he/must have confined himself to being ptesent at isolated discourses. Though Chamseleon and Polemo in Diog. iii. 46 repre- sent the orators Hyperides and Lycurgus (of whom also the Pseudo- Plutarch vitae decem Orat. vii. p. 841 makes the same assertion) as pupils of Plato, their speeches (as Steinhart remarks, Plato's Life, 174 sqq.) show no proofs of the influence of Platonic thought and expression. Still less can we claim JEschines for a pupil of Plato (with the scholiast on 2Esch. de falsa legat. i., who appeals to Demetrius Phalereus, compare Apollon. Vit. ^Esch. p. 14) ; and though Demosthenes, his great adversary, is variously stated, sometimes with greater and some- times with less precision, to have been a pupil of Plato, still, how- ever, in his orations no influence of Platonic philosophy appears, significant as may have been Plato's influence on him as a stylist. (Plut. Demosth. 5, accord- ing to an anonymous writer in Hermippus, vitas X orat. viii. 3, p. 844. Mnesistratus in Diog. iii. 47. Cic. de Orat. i. 20, 89. Brut. 31, 121; Orat. iv. 15; Off. i. 4; Quintil. xii. 2, 22, 10, 24; Lucian, Encomium Demosthenis, 12, 47; Schol. in Demosth. contra Androt. 40; Olympiod. in Gorg. 166.) The 5th- letter attributed to him does not make Demosthenes to speak as a Platonist, but only to express his good opinion of the Platonic school, under which he Dionys. ep. ad. Arum. 1, 5. Suidas 'Epfiias. Part ii. b. 16 sqq. 2nd edit.) Besides these Diog. iii. 46, mentions Euaeon of Lampsacus and Timolaus of Cyzicus, both of whom according to Athenae. 508 sqq. (who calls the one Euagon and the other Timaeus) made unsuccessful at- tempts to usurp tyrannical power in their respective cities ; Athenaeus adds to them Charon of Pellene as one of the profligate tyrants who came out of the school of Plato and Xenocrates, with what justice we do not know. According to Athenseus loc. cit. Diog. iii. 46, Callippus, also, the murderer of Dion, was a scholar of Plato, which statement is opposed by the Plat, epist. vii. 333 C ; Plut. Dion, 34. The Clearchus mentioned above, according to Suidas KAe'apx , at- tended the Academy only a short time. It is very improbable that Chabrias was a student of the Academy (Plut. adv. Col. 32, 6, cf. Pseudo-Ammon, vita Arist. p. 10, West., who makes him out a rela- tion of Plato's). The account (\6yos in Diog. iii. 23 sq.) that Plato alone stood by him at his trial is worth little historically, as Arist. Rhetor, iii. 10, 1411, p. 6, mentions another defender of Cha- brias ; and the defence which in Diog. is put in the mouth of Plato obviously originated from the Apology, 28 E. Timotheus (^Elian, Varia Hist. ii. 10, supra 28, 59) it is true was proved to be a friend but by no means a pupil of Plato ; his relation to him cannot at all have been so intimate as Ps.-Ammon loc. cit. would have it. Phocion in his younger days may have 32 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. back from it, should there arise a favourable opportu- nity for the realization of his ideas. 66 Such an oppor- tunity seemed to offer after the death of the elder Dio- nysius, 67 when Dion, and, at his instigation, Dionysius the younger, invited him pressingly to Syracuse. 68 obviously does not include himself. Cf. Steinhart loc. cit. 175 sqq. Schafer, Demosth. 1, 280 sqq.; and besides the authorities mentioned above, particularly Hermann, Plat. 74 sq.. 119 sq. Steinhart, 171- 189. With regard to the relations of Isocrates with Plato we shall speak later on (p. 345, 2, 2nd edit.). No one represents him as his pupil, as he was eight or nine years older than Plato, and their friendship asserted in Diog. iii. 8, is estab- lished only for the earlier years of their lives by the writings of both. 65 According to Plutarch, Ad principem ineruditum, i. p. 779 ; Lucullus, C 2 ; ^Elian, V. H. xii. 30, the people of Cyrene (beside whom Diog. iii. 23 and Ml. V. H. ii. 42, give the Arcadians and Thebans at the founding of Mega- lopolis) asked him for a scheme of laws ; but he refused both, in the former case because Cyrene was too luxurious for him, in the latter because he perceived "iffov %x, fiv " 6\ovras, ov ireifffiv avrovs Tifj-av T^V Iffovopiav. The last statement is very improbable, for Plato would without doubt have given them a constitution just as little demo- cratic as they gave themselves ; and moreover it is incredible that Epaminondas, who after the vic- tory of Leuctra promoted the founding of Megalopolis for the protection of Arcadia against Sparta, should have invited an Athenian, and particularly so out- spoken a friend of Sparta as Plato undoubtedly was, to lay down the new constitution. The absurd 1 1th Platonic letter cannot come under consideration as historical evi- dence. 66 Plato himself lays it do\vn as a necessary condition, that phi- losophers should net withdraw from politics. The corresponding duty is an immediate consequence. And that this duty should only be binding with regard to one's own state, would hardly be a maxim with one so fully possessed by his political ideal as Plato. 67 This happened 01. 103, 1, at the beginning of the winter, and therefore 368 B.C. Diodor. xv. 73 sq. Plato's journey must be assigned to the following year. Cic. de Sen. 12, 41 (with which cf. Part i. p. 244, 3) dates it, or at all events, according to Fin. v. 29, 87, the first journey, 405 A.U.C., which needs no refutation. 68 Ep. Plat. vii. 327 B sqq. ; ii. 311 E; iii. 316 C sq. ; Plut. Dion, 10 sq. (cf. c. princ. Phil. 4, 6, p. 779), who adds that the Py- thagoreans in Italy joined their entreaties to Dion's. Cf. Corn. Nep., Dion, C 3, &c. The 7th Platonic letter is certainly not trustworthy, and all the following ones depend on it. What other sources of information Plutarch may have had we do not know. That Plato, however, did make a PLATO'S LIFE. 33 Could this potentate indeed be won over -to Philosophy and to Plato's political beliefs (and of this Plato, or at any rate Dion, appears certainly to have indulged a hope), 69 the most important results might be expected to follow, not only in his own kingdom, but in all Sicily and Magna Graecia, indeed throughout the Hel- lenic states. Meanwhile the event proved, only too soon, how insufficiently this.. hope was founded. When Plato arrived in Syracuse, the young Prince received him most politely, and at first showed lively interest in the philosopher and his endeavours ; 70 but he very shortly became weary of these serious conversations, and when his jealousy of Dion, which was not entirely groundless, had led to an open rupture with that states- man, and at length to the banishment of the latter, Plato must have been glad to escape from the painful position in which he found himself, by a second return home. 71 Nevertheless, after some years, at the renewed second and a third journey to accomplished on that particular Sicily cannot be doubted. The occasion. testimony is unanimous ; and if he 69 Diogenes' counter-statement, had not taken the journey, the iii. 21, that he asked Dionysius composer of the letter would have for land and people towards the had no reason for defending him realization of his state, is certainly on that score. That his motives false. Apul. dogm. PL 4 is a were actually those ascribed to misunderstanding, him is probable in itself, and 70 More detailed information, made more so by the whole politi- but of doubtful worth, may be cal situation; and this is borne found in Plut. Dion 13; De Adu- out by the passage in the Laws, latione 7, p. 52, 26, p. 67 ; Pliny, iv. 709 E sqq., in which Hermann, Natural History, vii. 30 ; JE1. V. p. 69, rightly recognises an expres- H. iv. 18; Nepos, loc. cit. The sion of the hopes which led Plato alleged meeting of Plato and to Syracuse. These hopes, he Aristippus at the Syracusan Court later on maintains, have not failed has been already discussed, Part i. in regard to their universal foun- pp. 291, 2; 312, 3. dation, even though they were not 71 Ep. Plat. iii. 220 B sqq., iii. 34 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. solicitations of the tyrant and entreaties of his friends, he resolved upon yet another voyage to Sicily. His immediate aim was doubtless to attempt a reconciliation between Dion and Dionysius ; 72 to this may have linked themselves more distantly, new political hopes : the undertaking, however, turned out so unfortunately that Plato was even in considerable danger from the mis- trust of the passionate prince, 73 and only evaded it by the intervention of the Pythagoreans, who were then at the head of the Tarentine state. Whether, after his return, 74 he approved of Dion's hostile aggression on Dionysius, we do not know; 75 but for his own part, from 318 C; Pint. Dion 14, 16; Diog. iii. 21 sq. The latter assigns to this journey what, according to better authorities, happened in the third; and he therefore puts an incident in the first, which Plu- tarch relates of the second. Cf. also Stobaeus, Florilegium, 13, 36, who, however, connects with it a circumstance generally told of Dionysius and Aristippus. 72 Dion, who appears in the two previous journeys as Plato's enthu- siastic admirer, had, according to Plutarch, Dion 17, become still more intimate with him during a long stay at Athens, in the course of which he also became a close friend of Speusippus. 73 Ep. Plat. iii. 316 D sqq. ; vii. 330 B ; 33 D ; 337 E sqq. ; and from these sources Plutarch, Dion 18-20 ; Maximus Tyrius, Dis- sertationes xxi. 9 ; Diog. 23. The particulars are uncertain ; the letter of Archytas ap. Diog. 22 is certainly spurious. According to Plut. c. 22 (cf. E P . Plat. ii. 314 D) Speusippus accompanied him to Syracuse; according to Diog., Xenocrates. He is said to have left the conduct of his school at Athens during his absence to Heraclides. (Suidas, voc. 'Hpo- K\ei5r)s.) The Epistolse Hera- clidis, quoted there by Ast, and even by Brandis the former in PI. Leben u. Schr. p. 30, the latter Gk.-E6m. Phil. ii. a. 145 do not exist. The quotation is due to a misunderstanding of Tennemann's words, Plat. Phil. i. 54 ; ' Suidas in Heraclides Epistol. (Platonic* sc.) ii. p. 73 ' (Bipont.). 74 According to Ep. vii. 350 B (cf. p. 345 D) this must be dated in the spring of 360 B.C., for he is said to have met Dion at the Olympic games (which can only be those of the year named) and in- formed him of events in Syracuse. His hither journey would then be 361. Cf. Herm. p. 66. 75 Plutarch, adv. Col. 32, 6, p. 1126. Cic.de Orat. iii. 34, 139, and JElian, V. H. iii. 17, represent the impulse as coming from Plato. But this is an exaggerated infer- PLATO'S LIFE. this time, having now attained his seventieth year, he seems to have renounced all active interference with politics. 76 The activity of his intellect, however, con- tinued amidst the reverence of countrymen and foreigners, 77 unabated till his death, 78 which, after a happy and peaceful old age, 79 is said to have overtaken him at a wedding feast. 80 ence from Ep. Plat. vii. 326 E. Cf. Ep. iv. Dion found warm sup- port from Speusippus and other Platonists, Plut. Dio 22, 17. His companion and subsequent enemy, Callippus, is noticed as a scholar of Plato's (vide p. 31). 76 Athenseus, xi. 506, indeed says that he was intimate with Archelaus of Macedonia, and later on, paved the way for Philip's supremacy : so that we might infer his sympathies to have been in general with the Macedonian party. As regards Archelaus, however, the statement is refuted by chrono- logy, and fey the Grorgias, 470 D sq. ; and the alleged support of Philip narrows itself down, even on Athenseus's own quotations, to the circumstance that Plato's scholar Euphrseus had obtained for Philip a certain territory from Perdiccas, and this Philip used for the fur- therance of greater designs. Any personal intercourse between Plato ;uid Philip there does not seem to have been. JE1. V. II. iv. 19, cer- tainly says that Philip paid honour to Plato, as to other learned men ; but. according to Speusippus ap. A then. loc. cit., and Diog. 40, he expressed himself unfavourably about him. 77 Cf. (besides what has been quoted, p. 32, 65, and about his relation to Dion and Dionysius), Diogenes, 25, and what will be presently remarked on the exten- sion of the Platonic school. 78 Of his literary works this is expressly witnessed (vid. supr. p. 3, and Diog, 37 ; Dionys. comp. verb.' p. 208 ; Quint, viii. 6, 64 ; on which however cf. Susemihl, Gen. Ent. 11, 90 sq.). And we may safely conclude that it was the same with his activity as teacher. The alleged interruption of his work by Aristotle will be dis- cussed later in the life of that philosopher. 79 Cicero, de Senect. 5, 13. 80 Hermippus ap. Diog. iii. 2. Augustine, C. D. viii. 2. Suid. voc. HActT. Cicero's scribens est mor- tuus, loc. cit., is not at variance with this latter, if we remember that it need not be taken literally. According to Diog. 40, a certain Philo had used the proverbial expression n^droavos QOe'ipes ; and Myronianus concluded from this that Plato died of 6eipiaffis, as it is said Pherecydes and others did. Of course this is false. Perhaps the expression comes originally from the place in the Sophist, 227 B ; or the passage may at least have given a handle to the story. As to Plato's biirial, monu- ment, and will, vide Diog. iii. 25, 41 sqq. Olymp. 6 ; Pausan. 1, 30, 3 ; Herm. p. 125, 197. D 2 36 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Even in antiquity, the character of Plato was the subject of many calumnies. 81 The jests of the comic poets which have come down to us 82 are indeed harm- less enough, and concern the philosopher more than the man ; but there are other reproaches, for the silencing of which Seneca's apology 83 that the life of a philosopher can never entirely correspond with his doctrine, is scarcely sufficient. On the one hand, he is accused of connections, which, if proved, would for ever throw a shadow on his memory; 84 on the other of unfriendly, and even of hostile behaviour towards several of his fellow disciples. 85 He has 81 One of these critics of Plato was Timceus the Locrian, Pint. Nic. 1 ; two others we shall meet with in Aristoxemis and Theopompus,- the pupils of Isocrates, who, in this way, retaliated for the attacks of Plato and the Platonists on Isocrates and Rhetoric : cf. Dion. Hal. ep. ad Pomp. p. 757 ; De prsee. Hist. 782 ; Athen. xi. 508 c. Epict. Diss. 11, 17, 5. 82 Ap. Diog. iii. 26 sq. ; Athen. ii. 59 c. sq. ; xi. 509 c. 83 Vita beata, 18, 1. 84 Vide Diog. 29 ; JElian. V. H. iv. 21 ; Athen. xiii. 589 c., and supra, p. 8, 8. Even Dion is here called his favourite ; and an epitaph is quoted, which Plato (at the age of seventy- three) is said to have composed on his friend, who must have been sixty at least. That Antisthenes alluded to some amours of Plato's by the title of his 2a0wi/ is a mere arbitrary con- jecture. The censure of Dicaear- chus ap. Cic. Tnsc. iv. 34, 71, is levelled not at his character, but his philosophy. On the other hand, Suidas, p. 3000, ed. Gaisford, affirms that he never entered into any sexual relations. But this, again, can only be a dogmatic invention, originating with the asceticism of later schools. 85 The only hostility that can be demonstrated, however, is between Antisthenes and Plato ; vide Part i. 255, and supra, p. 18, 31. Antisthe- nes is allowed on all hands to have been the aggressor, and always to have displayed the greater vehe- mence and passion. The assertion that Plato behaved ill to ^Eschines has been discussed, Part i. p. 167. 6 ; 204, 3 ; and his alleged neglect of him in Sicily (Diog. ii. 61) is con- tradicted by Pint, de Adul. c. 26, p. 67. He certainly passed censure on Aristippus, vide Part i. p. 242 ; but it was well merited, and we may well believe there was no love lost between them, even though the anecdotes of their meeting in Syracuse (vide Part i. p. 291, 2) do not tell us much, and the accounts of a certain He esauder ap. Athen. xi. 507 b. still less. At all events, PLATO'S LIFE. 37 also been charged with censoriousness and self-love ; 86 not to mention the seditious behaviour after the death of Socrates which scandal has laid to his account. 87 His relation with the Syracusan court was early 88 made the handle for divers accusations, such as love of pleasure, 89 avarice, 90 flattery of tyrants ; 91 and his political character what \ve do know cannot turn to Plato's disadvantage. We get re- peated assertions of an enmity existing between Plato and Xeno- phon (Diog. iii. 34; Gell. N. A. xiv. 3 ; Athen. xi. 504 e.). But Bockh has shown (de siinultate quae Platoni cum Xenophonte inter- cepisse fertur, Berlin, 1811) how little ground there is for such a belief in the writings of either; and the writings are the only real authority. Most likely the whole story is an invention. Cf. Stein- hart, PL L. 93 sq. 86 Dionysius ad Pompemm, p. 775 sq. ; Athen. xi. 506 a. tqq. ; Antisthenes and Diogenes ap. Diog. vi. 7, 26 ; Aristides de quatuorviris. The accusation is mainly grounded on Plato's writings, which cannot be said to justify it, however one-sided many of his judgments may be. The conscious superiority, to which he had a real right, may have been too prominent in particular cases ; even disadvantageously so, some- times, for others. Cf. the quota- tion from Aristotle, Part i. p. 289, 2. But this can hardly bear out such accusations as the above. Of the anecdotes given in Plutarch de adul. c. 32, p. 70 ; JEtt&n, V. H. xiv. 33 (Diog. vi. 40) ; the first is irrelevant, the second certainly untrue ; and what Hermippus ap. Athen. xi. 505 d., gives, looks un- historical too. Aristoxcnus apud Diog. ix. 40, taxes Plato with the childish design of buying up and destroying the writings of Demo- critus. But of this we may un- hesitatingly acquit him. Aris- toxenus is too untrustworthy a witness ; and we may at least credit Plato with the sense to see that a widely spread mode of thought could not be abolished by the burning of a few books. His*- own distaste for merely material science and his general disparage- , ment of such studies may perhaps account for his never mentioning the physicist of Abdera. 87 Hegesander ap. Athen. xi. 507 a. sq.; the falsehood of the statements need not be pointed out to any reader of the Phaedo or the Symposium. The dream of So- crates related ibid, is a malicious parody of that mentioned above, p. 9, 15. 88 The seventh Platonic letter is a refutation of such charges. According to Diog. iii. 34 ; vi. 25, the charges were openly made eten in Plato's lifetime. 89 Vide p. 23, 45. 80 Philostr. v. Apoll. 1, 35; Diog. iii. 9. The anonymous assertion in Arsen. Violet, ed. Katz, 508, and the Florilegium Mona- cense (Stob. Flor. ed. Meineke, T. iv. 285), No. 227, that in old age he became avaricious, is of the same kind. Seneca, v. 6, 27, 5, remarks that he was reproached 33 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. has especially suffered at the hands of those who were themselves unable to grasp his ideas. 92 Lastly, if we are to believe his accusers, he not only, as an author, allowed himself numerous false assertions 93 respecting his predecessors, but also such indiscriminate quotation from their works, that a considerable portion of his own writings can be nothing more than a robbery from them. 94 All these complaints, however, so far as we are for taking money. Others say (v. supr. Part i. p. 312, 3; and Diog. ii. 81) that he did not do so even at Syracuse. The seventh letter re- cognises no reason for defending him against the charge. 91 Diog. vi. 58. Against which it is unnecessary to refer to Plut. Dion 13, 19, and the quotations on p. 24, 47. 92 The quotations given by Athenseus, xi. 506 e. sqq., 508 d. sqq., have but little importance. Some are plainly untrue (vide supra, p. 34, 76), or misrepresenta- tions ; and the rest, even if true, would not have much reference to Plato himself. On the other hand, we may see from the places quoted, pp. 29, 62 ; 32, 68, that Plato had occasion to explain his political inactivity and his relation to the younger Dipnysius. And we may expect to find that both were cast in his teeth, just as his political idealism and his preference for aristocratic government must neces- sarily have given offence. Of. also Eep. v. 472 A, 473 C, E. 93 Of. the list of offences in Athen. v. c. 55, 57-61 ; the correc- tion of which we may spare our- selves, together with the absurd complaints about the fictitious speeches which he puts in the mouth of Socrates and others : xi. 505 e. 507 c. ; Diog. 35. 94 So he is said to have borrowed from Philolaus' writings for his Tiniseus (v. supr. 20, 38), and from a work of Protagoras for the Re- public (Aristox. and Phav. ap. Diog. iii. 37, 57). According to Porphyry ap. Euseb. Praeparatio Evangelica, x. 3, 24, he is indebted to the same source for his objec- tions to the Eleaties. Alcimus ap. Diog. iii. 9 sq., reproached him with having taken the foundations of his system from Epicharmus: Theopompus, ap. Athen. xi. 508 c., said that he borrowed most of his dialogues from Aristippus, Antis- thenes, and Bryso. With regard to Epicharmus, the assertion is groundless, as has been shown in Vol. i. 428 sq. To the statements of Aristoxenus and Theopompus no one who knows the untrutt- worthiness of the writers will be inclined to give much weight. The statement of the former (whom his assertions about Socrates already sufficiently characterise, supra, 51 sq., 48, 54, 6, 59, 5) is im- probable on the face of it ; if true at all, it can only have reference to some unimportant points. And the same applies to Theopompus's story (cf. supra, 36, 81), apart from PLATO'S LIFE. 39 in a position to test them, appear so unfounded that scarcely a fraction of them will stand the process of investigation ; 95 and the rest are supported by such weak evidence, that they ought not to affect that reverence for the character of the philosopher which is certain to ensue from the perusal of his works. So far as a man may be judged by what he has written, only the very highest opinion can be formed of the personality of Plato. To appreciate him correctly, however, he must be measured by a standard that takes account of his natural disposition and historical place. Plato was a Greek, and he was proud of being one. He belonged to a rank and to a family, the prejudices as well as the advantages of which he was content to share. He lived at a time when Greece had touched the highest point of her national life, and was steadily declining from political greatness. His nature was ideal, adapted rather to artistic creation and scientific research than to practical action ; which tendency, nourished and confirmed by the whole course of his life, and the strong influence of the Socratic School, could not fail to be still further strengthened by his own political experiences. From such a temperament and such influences might be evolved all the virtues of the common Socratic element, which as to the limit and the illimitable Plato did not need to borrow of in the Philebus, we can find no anyone. Porphyry's assertion may fault with him for this in itself; possibly have some basis of truth ; and in both cases he has sufficiently but it can hardly redound to pointed out his sources in making Plato's discredit. Finally, if Plato a general reference to the Pytha- WMS indebted to Philolaus for the goreans, even if he has not named construction of the elements and Philolaus. other details of physical science in 94 Vide preceding note, the Timseus, and for the deductions 40 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. a man and a philosopher, but nought of the grandeur of a politician. Plato might desire the very best for his country, and be ready to sacrifice for her sake everything except his convictions : but that he should have thrown himself into the turmoil of political life, for which he was quite unfitted, that he should have lavished his soul's strength in propping up a constitu- tion, the foundations of which he thought rotten, 96 that he should have used means that he felt to be use- less to stem the torrent of opposing fate, that he, like Demosthenes, should have led the forlorn hope among the ruins of Grecian freedom, would be too much to expect. His province was to examine into State prob- lems and the conditions of their solution ; their prac- tical realization he abandoned to others. Thus inner disposition and outward circumstances alike designed him for philosophy rather than state-craft. But even his philosophy had to be pursued differently from that of Socrates, nor could his habits of life exactly resemble his master's. He desired to be true in the main to the Socratic pattern, and by no means to return to the mode of teaching adopted by the Sophists. 97 But aim- ing as he did at the formation and propagation of a comprehensive system, aphoristic conversation, condi- tioned by a hundred accidental circumstances, was not enough for him ; he wanted more extensive machinery, 98 Vide supra ; p. 29, 62 ; cf. p. 888 sq.), but he also censured Ritter ii. 171 sqq. the form in which the Sophistic 97 He not only took no fees for doctrine was enunciated (Protag. his teaching (Diog. iv. 2, and 328 E sqq. ; 334 C sq. ; Gorg. 449 Proleg. c. 5, cf. p. 314, 4), strongly JB. sq. ; Hipp. Min. 373 A. Cf. disapproving of the Sophists' con- supra, p. 26, 51). duct in this respect (vide Vol. i. PLATO'S LIFE. 41 skilled labour, intellectual quiet ; he wanted hearers who would follow his enquiries in their entire connec- tion, and devote to them their whole time ; his philoso- phy was forced to withdraw itself from street and mar- ket, within the precincts of a school. 98 Here already were many deviations from the Socratic way of life ; many more sprang from Plato's own habits and inclinations, which were generally opposed to it. Simplicity and temperance were indeed required by his principles," and are expressly ascribed to him ; 10 but the entire freedom from wants and posses- sions to which Socrates attained, would not have suited a man of his education and circumstances. Himself full of artistic taste, he could not deny all worth- to life's external adornments ; 101 extending his scientific research unreservedly to all reality, he could hardly, in ordi- nary life, be so indifferent to the outward, as they who, like Socrates, were satisfied with moral introspection. Socrates, in spite of his anti-democratic politics, was, by nature, a thorough man of the people : Plato's per- sonality, like his philosophy, bears a more aristocratic 98 Cf. Diog. 40 : ^errfmCe Se ol 101 Plato is indeed said not to curbs ret irXtiffTa., KaOa rives (pa reasonable inference from the fact that no reliable trace of the existence of any Platonic writing no longer in our possession has come down to us ; for the spuriousness of the lost dialogues of which we do hear 3 is beyond question, 4 and some other writings which might be sup- posed to be Platonic, the 'Divisions' (8iaipscrsis)f 3 Ap. Diog. iii. 62 : MtSwi/, 4>afa- Kfs, XeAiSwi/, 'EjSocfytTj, 'ETn/iiei/t'STjS, ap. Athen. xi. 506, d., Kifuav, ap. Doxopat. in Aphthon., Ehet. Grsec. ed. Walz. II. 130, cf. Simpl. in Categ. 4 C, as. e/tuarJ/cATjs (un- less this is after all merely another title for the Cimon, in which, ac- cordiftg to Athenseus, Themistocles was strongly criticised; we have no right with Hermann to conjec- ture 'Thesetetus' instead of Themis- tocles, or to assume in the Cimon of Athenseus a confusion with the Gor- gias). Other apocryphal writings are given by the Arabian in Casiri's Biblioth. Arab. i. 302, who pro- fesses to quote Theo. 4 Diog. loc. cit. introduces the list of the above mentioned and some other dialogues with the words foQevovTai 6u.o\oyovfj.fyo}s. If we consider how ready the scholars of the Alexandrine period were to accept as Platonic a series of writings, the spuriousness of which we can scarcely doubt, we cannot avoid concluding that those writings which they unanimously rejected must have had very dis- tinct signs of spuriousness, and must have appeared at a compara- tively late period. 5 Aristotle mentions repeatedly Platonic SicupeVeis, Gen. et Corr. ii. 3, 330, b. 15; those who presup- pose only two original elements, represent the rest as a mixture of these ; uaavTcas Se Kal ol Tpia Ae- ? yap TOVS fJikv /j-era rav SivjprjffBai TOVS 8' tv a\\u> yevei. The first of these passages can refer neither to Philebus, 16 E, nor to Timseus, 27 D, 48 E sq., or 31 B sq. 53 A sq. ; for neither is the denotation SmipeVets ap- propriate to any of these pas- sages, nor does any one of them contain the quotation here from the SiaipV avrois ffvyypafj.ij.a ovTi\oTifj.fi for it. 54 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. falsely attributed to Aristotle, in order that they might be bought by Ptolemy Philadelphus. 20 When we fur- ther consider the state of literary criticism in the post Aristotelian period, it seems unreasonable to credit the Alexandrians with having tested the authenticity of works bearing illustrious names, so carefully and accurately as Grote presupposes. The catalogues of Aristophanes and Thrasylus therefore merely prove that the writings they include were held to be Platonic at the time of these grammarians ; whether they really were so or not, can only be determined by a particular enquiry into each work, according to the general rules of criticism. The statements of Aristotle afford a much safer criterion ; 21 but even with regard to these, the case is by no means so simple as might be supposed. In the first place, it is sometimes doubtful whether the writing or the passage which refers to a saying of Plato's in truth emanates from Aristotle ; and this doubt has already destroyed or weakened the argumentative force of some quotations. 22 But even though the Aristotelian 20 Cf. Part ii. b. 87, 6, 2nd logue of them. To this reference edit. is to be made in case of dialogues, 21 A collection of all the re- the citations from which in what ferences in Aristotle to Plato's follows are not discussed in detail, writings was attempted by Trend- 22 As the citation of the Laws lenburg, Plat de id. et num. doctr. (iv. 715, E sq.) at the end of the 13 sq. ; then in my Platon. Stud, spurious work TT. K6cr/jLov, p. 401 ; 201 sq. Next Suckow (Form. d. of the Timseus (77 B), TT. Qvruv, plat. Schr. 49 sq.), Ueberweg 1, 815 a, 21 ; of the Euthydemus (Unters. plat. Schr. 131 sq.), and (279 D sq.), in the Eudemian Schaarschmidt (Samml. d. plat. Ethics (vide p. 50, 13). The cita- Schr. 90 sq.) thoroughly examined tion of the Sophist also (254 A) in these evidences. Still, Bonitz, in the xi. Bk. of the Metaphysics his Index Aristotelicus, 598 sq., c. 8, 1064, b. 29, might also be gives the most exhaustive cata- claimed, because not merely is the PLATO'S WRITINGS. 55 authorship of a passage apparently relating to Platonic writings be fully established, the reference is not second part of this book decidedly spurious, but the genuineness of the first is anything but firmly established (c. 1-8, 1065, a. 26). Still, after repeated examination, I think it is more probably an earlier abstract, perhaps a rough sketch noted down by Aristotle for the purposes of his lectures, rather than a later epitome of Bks. iii. iv. vi. The quotation of the Apology and of the Menexenus, in the 3rd Bk. of the Ehetoric, gives almost more ground for doubt. For though the contents of this book, as a whole, seem sufficiently Aristotelian in character, still the question arises whether, in the form in which we have it, it con- stituted an original part of Aris- totle's Ehetoric, or whether it was not added by a later writer to the first books, perhaps based on notes or a lecture of Aristotle's. In support of the latter supposition, besides other points, might be quoted the fact, that, according to Rhetor. 1, 1, especially p. 1054, b. 16 sq., it seems doubtful whether Aristotle would, on the whole, have treated in his Ehetoric the sub- jects discussed in the 3rd Bk. ; and again, the 3rd Bk. c. 17, re- turns to the question ot the irto-reiy, which the first two books had already thoroughly entered into. Especially might we be inclined to suspect a different hand in many of the examples which are accumulated in the 3rd Book and worked out with propor- tionate detail ; and in reference to this, it is worth noticing that quotations, which have already occurred in the first and second books, repeatedly appear in the third book in a more complete form. In i. 9, 1367, b. 8, a saying of the historical Socrates is briefly mentioned (Sxnrfp yap 6 ~2,caKp. HXeyev, ov xa\eirbi/ ' AO^valovs fv 'Adyvaiois eTrcuj/eTi' ;) in Bk. iii. 14, 1415, b. 30, this is more fully quoted from the Menexenus (235 L>, 236 A) : 070? \eyei 2V eiSui/ Metaph. v. 7) possibly not as a tyvaiv, Sxnrep 6 eV &ai8cwi Sco/cpciTTjs. part of this work, but at _any rate Bonitz ranges these cases in the as an independent Aristotelian first class, distinguished, however, treatise and there is no reason from those in which Plato is rnen- at all to suppose that we have it tioned by the addition merely in the form of a later PLATO'S WRITINGS. 57 here maintains this or that,' he always means by it that Plato in this dialogue has put the remark into the mouth of Socrates. For not only does he employ the same mode of expression as to writings which he else- where most emphatically attributes to Plato, 26 but he never quotes an opinion or a saying of Socrates from any writing that is not in our Platonic collection ; though he must certainly have been acquainted with the Socratic dialogues of Xenophon, ^Eschines, and Antisthenes. 27 Indeed the Socratic utterances are re- garded by him as so completely identical with Plato's works, that he even designates the Laws as Socratic, 28 although Socrates never appears in them, and is pro- bably not intended by the Athenian stranger ; and he quotes views which were entirely originated by Plato and put in the mouth of his master, simply as the views of Socrates, 29 without any discrimination of the 26 As in the criticism of the he may have borrowed from Xeno- Platonic Republic, Polit. ii. 1, c. 6, phon or some other source of tra- 1065, b. 1; Ibid. iv. 4, 1291, a. dition; but he never quotes in 11 (r)ffl yap 6 2o>KpoT7js). viii. the present tense ("2a>p. ty-nvl, &c.) 7, 1342, a. 33, b. 23, v. 12, and from a writing mentioned by 1316, a. 1 sqq. (&> 8e TTJ iro\iTetq name, anything Socratic which is \fyfrai /j.ev .... inrb rov 2o>/cpa- not to be found in our Platonic rovs, and the like) : Gen. et Corr. dialogues. In the historic tense 11, 9, vide previous note. Simi- there is only one undoubted refer- larly Polit. 11, 4, 1262, b. 11, ence to the Memorabilia of Xe- after it has been mentioned that nophon, (Mem. i. 2, 54) in Eu- Socrates (i.e. the Platonic Socrates demus (Eth. Eud. vii. 1. 1235, a. in the Republic) wished the State 37). to have the greatest possible unity, 28 Polit. ii. 6, 1265, a. 10 (with come the words, KaBdirep iv TO?S reference to the Laws) : rJ> fjiev ovv 4p(ariKo?s tafj.tv \fyovra rov 'Apicno- irepirrbv J-xovfft irdvrfs ol rov , where Plato's Symposium is 'Swupdrovs \6yoi K.r.\. In the meant. preceding passage, too, the gram- historic matical subect to ' ffijKev ' &c. is ^ 27 Arist. relates in the historic matical subject tense (2o>/cp. ^ero, ttfret, &c.) 2o>KpoTTjs. many things about Socrates which Cf. Polit. ii. 3, 1261, b. 19, 58 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Platonic from the historic Socrates. If, therefore, a dialogue in our collection is thus treated by Aristotle, we may be certain that he considers it a work of Plato. 30 The same holds good as to dialogues which are cited without the name either of Socrates or Plato. 31 This kind of quotation only presupposes that the writing in question is known to the reader, and will not be mis- taken for anything else ; we therefore find it employed 21 : rovro yap oterai 6 2co/cp. . . . fiovXerai Troteti/ 6 2o>/cp. c. 4. 1262, b. 6 : 8t' ^v airiav 6 2a>/cp. ovrtas oierai 6e?v rarrtiv, c. 5. 1263, b. 29 : atriov Se T< Sco/cpdVei TTJS TrapaKpovffews XPV vopifav rrjs VTTO- Becriv OVK otiffav opB^v. Polit. viii. 7. 1342, b. 23 : Stb /ca\a>s eVm,uai8o>j/i yeypafj./j.evov . . . aovvar6v ffri (I must retract the doubts of my Platon. Stud. 207, as regards the authenticity of this passage) ; the Phaedrus, Ehet. iii. 7, 1408, b. 20 : '6irep Topyias eiroiet KOI ra ev rep *; the Meno, Anal. post. 71, 29 : ei Se ^77, rb eV rip Mevuvt. /JL^aerai. Anal, prior, ii. 21, 67, a. 21 : fyouos 8e KCU b ev roKA.7Js, my opinion, in denying that the EvfjnrlSrjs. Even the funeral ora- Meno and the Lesser Hippias were tion of Lysias ( 60) is quoted attributed to Plato by Aristotle. Ehet. iii. 10, 1411, a. 31 (on which, 84 As Metaph. xii. 6; 1071, b. however, cf. p. 54, 22) merely with 32 (AevKiiriros nal UXdruv) ad elvai the words : otov v T< liriratyiy, a(n itivnffiv (which ace. to De and the Mfffo-riviaKbs of Alcidamas, Ccelo iii. 2, 300, b. 16, comes from which had been already cited, the Timaeus. 30, A.). Ibid. 37, Rhet. i. 13, 1373, b. 18, is referred a\\a wv ovSe nxdrwvl ye oUv rt to, II. 23, 1397, a. 11 equally with- \eyeiv V oterai tviore (Phaedi. 245, 60 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. of expression, it is a sure indication that he has in his mind those Socratic or Platonic discourses which are laid down in writings ; 35 and when we find these very discourses in a work that tradition assures us to be Platonic, it is hardly possible to doubt that this is the work to which the quotation relates. An appeal of this kind to Socratic or Platonic utterances, therefore, if these conditions fully obtain, has no less force than the literal mention of the particular writing, and the express acknowledgment of its Platonic origin. On the other hand, however, we must not conclude that Aristotle, whenever he makes use of the preterite in mentioning a doctrine of Socrates or Plato, refers only indirectly, or not at all, 36 to the writings that contain it. Several cases are here to be distinguished. In the first place, the perfect tense may properly be employed, and is very commonly employed by Aristotle, in quot- ing the sayings of Plato, or of the Platonic Socrates, from a writing. 37 It is somewhat different with the C sq. Laws x. 895, E sq.) ap%V 35 As a rule, where the writings elvai, rb avrb eaurb KIVOVV. vcrrepov are named, the reference is made yap not O.JJLO. T< ovpavcp rj i|/u%77 &s in the present tense : cf. the quo- ^TJO-IJ/ (Tim. 34, B sq.). Phys. tations in the Index Arist. denoted viii. 1, 251, b. 17 : IIACITWJ/ 8' avrbv by a. [rbv -)(s>6vQv\ yevva, IJLOVOS- 8,/j.a juej/ S6 As Ueberweg believes, Plat. yap avrbv T( ovpavcf ytyovevai . . . Schr. 140 sq. Cf. on the other K fcrrtv Ti$ovT] ra.ya.Q6v. . . . irepl rovruv ouSei/ Siccpi/ce^ 6 2. PLATO'S WRITINGS. 61 narrative forms the imperfect and aorist. These are only used in respect to Socrates when some theory is to be ascribed to the historic Socrates, supposing it to have become known to Aristotle through certain writ- ings. 38 For it might very well be said of the Platonic Socrates that he maintains something (in the present), or that something is in question as said by him (in the perfect), but not that he formerly has said something, because as this ideal person he exists for the reader of the Platonic writings, and for him only, in the present ; he has no existence independently of the reader and belonging to the past. If, however, Plato himself is mentioned as having said or thought something, this consideration has no longer any force. His utterances 1266, a. 1 : ev 5e rots v6/j.ots efyrjTc Tourots. c. 9. 1271, a. 41 : T av TIS, ttirep Kal HXdrcov tv TOIS v6/j.oLS firerertfiijKev. Top. vi. 3, 140, b. 3 : Kadaircp Tlxfawv &piKp. Cf. Meno 73, A sq. So, too, Eth. N. iii. 11, 1116, b. 3 the quotation from Socrates, which occurs in Protag. 349 E sq. 360, C sq. is denoted by the past tense T}0rj (in the parallel passage in Eth. Eud. iii. 1, 1229, a. 15 by e<^), Khet. iii. 18, 1419, a. 8 sq. the conversation between Socrates and Meletus, which Plato narrates Apol. 27, B sq., is denoted as his- torical by the past tenses efyTj/ccy, fjpero, e^Tj, &c., and Rhet. ii. 9, 1367, b. 8 the saying that it is easy enough to panegyrize the Athen- ians in Athens, is attributed to the historical Socrates by the in- troductory formula & yap 6 2o>/cpeiTT}s e\fyev ; Rhet. iii. 14, 1415, b. 30, where the same ex- pression is quoted from the Men- exenus, the words are quite in conformity with Aristotle's custom : 6 yaj \eyei ~2,ai5o>i/i ScDKparrjs) we must supply the present oferai as the finite verb to &irrwv elire 'Srpdr- yap Kal Ti\dru>v rjiropei rovro KO.\ ris. $jrei) need not be brought in 40 As Ueberweg, Plat. Schr. ] 53 here, because in this case (besides sq. in remarking on Metaph. vi. 2, Kepxiblic vi. 511, B) the refer- 1026, b. 14 and xi. 8, 1064, b. 29 ence seems rather to oral utter- (vide p. 399, 2) the past tenses ances. But the use of the past here used, eraej/ and efy>?j/ce $T}ffa.s, tense above remarked occurs de- ("which latter, except as a perfect, cidedly Gen. et Corr. ii. 5, 332, a. cannot be brought under consider- 29 : Sxrirep ev TO> Ti^aly Tl\drcov ation here, in accordance with the eypatyev. Phys. iv. 2, 209, b. 15 above remarks) refer to oral utter- (Plato, in Timseus 52, A sq.) rbv ances. roirov Kai rrjv xwpai/rb aurb airety-fi- 41 The formulae which Aristotle va.ro. Polit. ii. 7, 1266, b. 5 : makes use of here are all pretty U^drwv 8e rovs v6/j.ovs ypd(pcoi> . . . much to the same effect, Phys. iv. $ero. Also Gren. et Corr. i. 2, 7, 214, a. 13 : Qcuri rives elvat rb 315. a. 29, the words: TlXdrcov juej/ Kevbv TT]V TOV (fco^aros v\r)v (Tim. ovv fjiovov irepl yeveffeus eV/fetyaro 52, A sq.) ; De An. ii, 2, 413, b. K.T.X. refer to the Timseus, as we 27: TO Se \oura /j.6pia TT)S fyvxys . . . see from what follows (315, b. 30 ; OVK e ^"xV), &c. (Rep. iv. 436 sq.); Part. Anim. 11, 6 begin, eVri 8e 6 juueAbs . . . OVK &o~irep otovrai rives rrjs yovrjs fftrepfjiariK^ Mva^is (Tim. 86 0?); De Ccelo, iii. 1, 298 b. 33; elcrl Se rives, ol Kal TTO.V ffS*(j.a yevyrbv irotoG Kal els eirrn-eSa (Tim. 53 C sq.); De Ccelo, 'ii. 3, 286 b. 27 : en Se Kal ol Siaipovi/res els eiriireSa . . . /jLep.aprvpT)Kevai e * Se rb rayaObv alpertarepov yeveffdcu. What is here quoted from Plato, and more particularly, as the present avaipet shows, from a Platonic written treatise, stands line for line, even to the particular expressions, in the Philebus (20E-22A, 60 B-61 A). The supposition of Schaarschmidt (Samml. d. plat. Schr. 278 sq.) is entirely inadmissible (as Georgii Jahrb. f. Philol. 1868, vol. 97, 300 sq. clearly shows). He refers the quotation of Aristotle to Protag. 353 C-358 C, instead of the Phile- bus, and would account for the great conformity of it with the Philebus by supposing the writer of the Philebus to have made use of the passage of Aristotle. Not merely are the expressions different in the Protagoras there is no mention of v irpSrepov, in the rest indefinitely to views and assertions, the author of which indeed he does not name, but which he had already before him from various sources. How are these facts to be explained, if Aristotle either did not know the Sophist and Politicus, or did not acknowledge them as Platonic ? PLATO'S WHITINGS. 67 iibly prove that "both the Sophist 51 and the Politicus 62 production "worthy, considering that generally (cf. 57) he refers to no Socratic dialogues, except those which are contained in our collec- tion of Plato's works, and conse- quently, as -we must conclude, to such only as he recognised to be Platonic. 51 The following passages seem to refer to the Sophist: (1) Metaph. vi. 2, 1026, b. 14: Sib n\drwir rp6irov nva ov KO.KWS rr)V (ro^iffTiK^iv irepl rb /.IT] Si/ eVa|ej/. If Aristotle here alludes to a Platonic dialogue, this can only be the Sophist, in which 254, A stands the following : the Sophist, airoio'pdaK/]cras rbv (rotyKTrkv Trepl rb f.ir) "bv Siarpifieiv. Here the quotation of the Sophist is so perfectly obvious, that even Schaarschmidt allows it (Samml. d. plat. Schr. 101) ; and CA*en if this part of the Metaphysics does not come from Aristotle (on which vide p. 54, 22), still the passage has its importance as evi- dence for the reference, which the words in Metaph. vi. 2 had given before. .However, there is no need of this evidence; even of itself it is highly improbable that a judg- ment which occurs in & written treatise handed down as Platonic and here only, should be quoted by Aristotle as indeed Platonic, but not out of this treatise. (On the past tense ero|6 cf. p. 62, 39.) Still if this passage stood alone, we might have some doubt. But wo find in Aristotle still further ex- press references to the Sophist. (3) In Metaph. xiv. 2, 1088, b. 35, Aristotle remarks, in connec- tion with the question, whether the Ideas and Numbers are com- posed of certain (rroixeTo : iroAXa u.\v ovv TO. atria rrjs CTT! ravras ras ovfftas fKrpOTrrjs, paXyHna 8e rb aTropf/o-cu apx^'iifus. e5oe yap auro?s jraj/T 1 e " ov yap ^TTOTC roi/TO Says etvai p.?) fovra" aAA.' avayKK] eTvat rb ijst}*ov Se?|at oneo-riv. OVTCD yap c/c TOU OVTOS Kal a\hov rivbs TO. uvra eo~fffOai, el 7ro\Xa Iffriv. Cf. 1089, a. 19: iroiov ovv UVTOS Kal jifjj uvros iroXXa TO, GVTO, ; ^ou\erat JJL\V 8^ rb fyevoos Kal ravrrjv T)]V (pvcriv \4yeiv (Alex. Ae'yet) rb OVK uv. K.T.\. Now that in this passage Aristotle did not merely (as Schaarschmidt, Khefn. Mus. xviii. 7 ; Samml. d. Plat. Schr. 105 wishes to make out) in- tend us to understand Platonic scholars, but, primarily Plato himself, is at once clear from the beginning, in which his object is to display the grounds which gave rise originally to the suppo- sition of elements of the Ideas ; for this supposition was undoubted- ly first propounded by Plato, and Schaarschmidt loc. cit. is wrong in believing that the reference hero cannot be to Plato, inasmuch as the doctrine of Ideas in Aristotle's 2 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. were regarded by him as Platonic ; and as the Politicus is plainly referred to in the Laws. 53 it has the further support of all the evidence on the side of the latter. Metaph. xiii. 4. 1078, b. 12, 1, 6, 987, a. 29, is derived fromSocratic and Heraclitean doctrines, whereas the view of the evioi in our passage [together with another, it runs : TroAAci juev o%v ra ctf.na\ is derived from a reference to the Parmenides. There the question is concerned with the Ideas, here with the ele- ments, unity, and the great and small. Further, the reference of the passage before us to Plato follows from the singular /SouAerai and (according to Alexander's read- ing) Ae'7et; these same expressions, however (cf. p. 59 sq.), show that Arist. is referring to .a definite written treatise of Plato's, which can be no other than the Sophist, for in the Sophist only does what we have here occur. Again, though Aristotle, as usual, does not quote word for word, only formulating more precisely what Plato says, in conformity with his supposed meaning (jSouAercu), and further on (1089, a. 21) adding a remini- scence from lectures or oral disqui- sitions (See on this point Bonitz ad loc. ; IJeberweg. Plat. Schr. 157, f); still the allusion to pas- sages like Soph. 237 A, 241 D, 242 A, 258 D, E, cannot be mis- taken (as Pilger, in his Programm iib. d. Athetese des plat. Soph. Berl. 1869, p. 7, sq., thoroughly proves). (4) It must remain un- decided whether Metaph. vii. 4, 1030, a. 25; Ehet. 24, 1402, a. 4; Soph. El. 25, 180, a, 32, are to be referred specially to the remarks in the Sophist (258 E, 260 C) abo it the /uv; ov; in De Interpr. 1 1 , ' il , a. 32 (rb 5e /JL^JOV, *v 8oais re Kal Kara \6yovs, and conse- quently attributing the 'OP to the IJ.T) ov, parallel passages like Thesetet. ] 89, A. Eep. v., 476, E. 478, B. do not correspond so closely. (5) The reference of Top. vi. 7/146, a. 22 sq. to Soph. 247 D, is more certain : in the latter passage as an example of a dis- junctive definition, which is there- fore open to certain objections, is quoted, on rb ov rb Svvarbv jraQtiv $ TroiTjo-a: ; in the former also we read : \fjoa 8^ rb nal 67TOiaVOVVKK7T]fJl.fVOvSvVaiJLlV. 6iV 15 rb Troieiv eVepov OTIOVV 7TvKbs e/fr' fis -rb iraQeiv. . . . irav rovro OVTUS flvcu ; this is again repeated 248, c. and it is shown that this deter- mination is also applicable to su- persensuous existence. It is incredi- ble that so characteristic a defini- tion was propounded earlier by any other philosopher ; it seems rather as if it was first put forward by its author in connection with the in- quiry introduced in the Sophist, for the purpose of solving the questions there raised, and it is moreover actually brought in as something new and hitherto un- known to the opponents at p. 247 D. PLATO'S 69 I/ ^ j It is clear from the Rhetoric/ that the Apttfogy was acknowledged by Aristotle ; but som'e ido/iibt exis f r f V 52 The passage of the Politics -$, and{ Previously 2(/3/Aj)^ the where Arist. mentions the judg- comparison-' Ajfth* the physfciams. ment of one of his predecessors who do not bind tHejfyteJves strictly , on democracy has been already to the rules of thei ^rty when quoted, p. 62, 41. If we compare that art itself shows them, ^hat with it Polit. 303 A : Sib yiyove \rj under given circumstances a de- jraacav fjiev vofj.1- TOV Tr\Jidovs f.<.wriavTro\ piffrt], irapa.v6ij.cav parture therefrom is advisable. We must conclude that this was actually the comparison to which the complete harmony in Aristotle loc. cit. alludes, although thought ; and in words too, as far we do not know that the Politicus as can be expected in a quotation from memory; makes it almost un- imaginable that Aristotle had any was in his possession : for there can be no question as to an ac- cidental coincidence in such a cha- other passage in his mind. Not racteristic thought; and it is just less decided are the two passages as incredible that the author of Polit. iii. 15, 16, 1286, a. 7, 1287, the Politicus based his own theory, a. 33. The first proposes the ques- self-consistent as it is, and deduced tion: Tr6repov ffvfj.(pfpei /j.a\\ov vnb from Socratico-Platonic pre-sup- rov apia-Tov avSpbs apx^ffdai 3) uTri positions with such consummate apiffrcav v6fj.cav, and remarks\ accuracy and justness, merely on rois vofjLi^ovffi ffvpcpepeiv ] the passages in Aristotle, and still rb Ka66\ov u6vov oil more incredible! that he should v6p.oi \eyeiv, a\A' oi/' irpbs TO, have done this without attempting tier' fv . to remove the objections of Aristotle irpoa-rr'nnovra &TTOIOOVV T^X^ ^ Karra apx^v T]X(Qiov ; the second in criti- cising this view mentions particu- larly the latter point : rb Se TWJ/ at all. Now Aristotle actually met with the views which he com- bats : where else can he have found them except in the dialogue be- 8o/ce? Trapdtieiyfjia fore us ? For otherwise we must t^euSos, on rb Kara ypd^ara suppose before our Politicus ano- laTpfi>(rdai (pa.v\ov. The assertions ther treatise forming its counter- here combated are developed at part, Belonging likewise to the length in the Politicus ; p. 294 A. Platonic school, and corresponding sq.,it is shown: rb S'&piffrov ov TOVS with it, even in the particulars V&II.QVS effTlv lcrxveiv,'aA\' avSpa rbv of the thoughts and the exposition, /iera (ppov-fiffews /3au>v ' a.vvir6t}Tov re yap avrbv fli'ai (paffi /cat yvfj.v})V K.a\ OVK e^orra OTT\OV TTpbs TT)V foxflV. Cf. PrOt, PLAT&S WRITINGS. 71 historical authority. 58 He seems also to have been ac- quainted with the Lysis, Charmides, and Laches ; though this is not so certain as in the case of the Pro- tagoras. 59 It is still more doubtful whether or not two passages relate to the Cratylus 60 and the Greater Hip- pias. 61 The Euthydemus is indeed referred to by Eu- demus ; 62 but the fallacies which Aristotle quotes from the sophist of that name 63 are not to be found in the Platonic dialogue ; and though certainly on the suppo- 21 C (Protagoras's Myth.) : /cal 6pa TO. /.tej/ izAAa i2a e/^ueAws ir&vrtav e%ovTa, rbi/ 8e &v9p(>)Trov yvfjivov re Kal avvTrSSriTOis /cai aVrpcoroi' /cal &OTT\OV. 58 For instance Prot. 352 B sq. is the source of the account about Socrates Eth. N. vii. 3 ad init, and the notice of Protag. Ethic. N. x. 1, 1164, a. 24 refers to Prot. 328 B sq. Also Eth. N. iii. 9, 1115, a. 9 .approaches nearer Prot. 358 D than Lach. 198 B. 59 Cf. the references in Bonitz's Index Arist. 599 a. and the pre- ceding note. 30 De An. 1 , 2. 405, b. 27 : Stb /cal roTs ov6fj.ao-Lv aKr\uvOovffiv, oi ^kv TO BepfMov \fyovres (sc. TT]V tyvxrjv'), OTI Sia TOVTO /cal rb fjv wv6/j.a(j.a.Ti, a%Ti6v GffTi TOV Gyv avTif, T}]V TOV avmrveif ^vvajjuv irape^ov Kal avafyvxov. 61 Hipp. Maj. 298 A, Socrates puts forth the definition tentatively, and immediately shows it to be useless, OTI rb ica\6i/ eVrt ri 81' &Korjs re /cal ityecos ^Su. The same definition is also mentioned by Aristotle, Top. vi. 7, 146, a. 21 as an example of a faulty disjunctive definition (olov TO /caAbv rb Si* oi//es ^) rb 8t' O.KOTJS ^Su). He does not, however, say whence he got it, and there is nothing to pre- vent our supposing that, like the definition quoted in Top. v. 5, 135, a. 12, it was originally propounded by some writer of the Sophistic period (some Prodicus or Grorgias), or else by some one unknown to us, and was met with by Aristotle in- dependently of the Hippias ; or that it was current in the Academic school (based on Phileb. 51 B sq., or a corresponding oral discussion) and was therefore known to Aris- totle just as much as to the author of the Hippias, supposing him to have been other than Plato. The statement of it in Aristotle also varies considerably from that in the Hippias, and according to Metaph. v. 29 (vide p. 392, 3) Aristotle seems to have been ac- quainted with only one Hippias, viz. the Hippias Minor. 62 Cf. p. 50, 13. 63 Soph. El. 20, 177, b. 12sq.; Ehct. 11, 24, 1401, a. 26 ; cf. vol. i. 914, 4, 3rd edit. 72 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. sition of its genuineness, we should expect Aristotle to have used it in his examination of fallacies which often brought him in contact with it, 64 this relation of the two expositions is not sufficiently established to serve as proof for the authenticity of the Euthydemus. If, then, any dialogue in our collection is mentioned by Aristotle as Platonic, or used by him in a manner that presupposes it to be so, this circumstance is greatly in favour of its authenticity. For twenty years before the death of Plato, Aristotle was a member of the Platonic School at Athens ; after that event he quitted the city, but returned twelve or thirteen years later for the rest of his life. That during the lifetime of the master any writing should have been falsely regarded as his work, by scholars who were already well instructed on the subject, or had the opportunity at any moment of becoming so, is quite impossible. Even in the generation succeeding his death, while Speusip- pus and Xenocrates were at the head of the Academy, and Aristotle and other personal disciples of Plato lived in Athens, this could only have occurred under quite peculiar conditions, and to a very limited extent. It is indeed conceivable that some one of the less important dialogues might after the death of Plato have been admitted even by his immediate disciples without previous acquaintance with it, as an earlier work that had escaped their attention, or under certain circumstances as a posthumous bequest. Cases of this kind have occurred in our own times, though we are so much richer than the ancients in resources, and more 64 Cf. Part I. 910 sq. PLATO'S WRITINGS. 73 practised in literary criticism. It might still more easily happen that an imperfect sketch of Plato's, com- pleted by another after his death an unfinished writing, worked up by one of his dfcciples might be received as wholly genuine, without accurate discrimi- nation of the original from the later ingredients. But it is incredible that such things should frequently have repeated themselves in the first generation after the master's death ; or that reputed works of his, which, had they existed, must on account of their importance have been owned during his lifetime by the School, should afterwards have emerged, and have been univer- sally recognised. If the testimony of Aristotle to Platonic writings, so far as it is clear and undoubted, does not absolutely guarantee their authenticity, it is at all events so strong an argument in their favour, that only the weightiest internal evidence should be suffered to countervail it ; and if any criticism of the Platonic collection starts from presuppositions requiring the rejection of numerous works recognised by Aristotle, there is enough in this one circumstance to prove these presuppositions incorrect. But if the evidence of Aristotle has this import on the side of the writings from which he quotes, ca with certainty conclude that those about which 1 silent are spurious? No one would maintain this v out some qualification. Aristotle is not passing j ment on Plato's works as a literary historian wl bound to furnish a complete catalogue of them, ai tell all that he knows. Nor does he deal with them modern writer of the history of philosophy, whose ol . 74 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. it is to combine their whole philosophic content into a representation of the Platonic theory ; he only mentions them when occasion offers, in stating his own views, or criticising or opposing those of Plato and Socrates. We must not expect him, therefore, to name everything that is known to him as Platonic, but only such writings as it was necessary or desirable to mention for the purposes of any scientific discussion he might happen to be pur- suing. Even this canon, however, must be cautiously applied. Plato's works are for us the sole, or at any rate the principal, source of our knowledge concerning his system : we cannot speak of the Platonic philosophy without continually recurring to them. In the case of Aristotle it was otherwise. He owes his knowledge of the Platonic doctrines in the first place to verbal com- munication and personal intercourse ; in the second place only, to the writings of Plato. They were to him but subsidiary sources ; in the exposition of the doc- trines, he uses them sometimes for the confirmation of that which he already knows from Plato's oral dis- courses ; but he has no occasion to enter more deeply into their contents except on subjects which were not examined in those discourses. Of such subjects, the most important seem to be the application of philoso- phical principles to the explanation of nature and to political institutions : hence the numerous quotations from the Republic, the Timseus, and the Laws. The metaphysical bases of the system, on the other hand, ire indeed frequently and searchingly criticised by Aris- ootle, but in by far the greater number of cases on the ground of Plato's discourses : the propaedeutic enqui- PLATO'S WHITINGS. 7 ries into the conception of knowledge', true virtue, and the art of governing, love, the right scientific method, and its opposition to the Sophistic teaching, are seldom touched upon. Only one 65 of the many pas- sages from which we derive our knowledge of the theory of ideas is quoted by him ; he makes no allusion to what is said on this subject in the Eepublic, Timaeus, Symposium, Phsedrus, and Thesetetus ; nor to the ex- planations of the Sophist, Parmenides, and Philebus, though there was abundant opportunity for it. Even the well-known discussions of the Eepublic upon the Good are merely glanced at with an uncertain hint, GG despite the frequent occasions when they might have been aptly introduced. If we turn to those dialogues the authenticity of which has never been questioned, we find the Protagoras, as before remarked, 67 apparently made use of in some passages, but it is never named,, and nothing is quoted from it as Platonic. The These- tetus is twice mentioned, the Grorgias and the Sympo- sium once ; and none of these quotations relate ta the main content of the dialogues they are only incidental recollections of certain particulars in them, the notice of which seems entirely fortuitous. All this being con- sidered, we may well hesitate to conclude from Aris- totle's silence with regard to any Platonic writing, that he was unacquainted with it ; 68 and this so much the more, as we do not even possess the whole of Aristotle's 65 The Phsedo 100 B sq., quoted 6T p. 70. p. 56, 24 ; p. 64, 42. fi As is the case with the Par- 68 Eth. iv. 1, 2, 1095, a. 26 is a menidcs; Ueberweg. plat. Schr. reminiscence of Eep. yi. 507 A; 176 sq. ; Schaarschmidt, Samml. d.. vii. 517 C. pi. Schr. 164. 76 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. works, and some lost writing or fragment might very possibly contain citations from dialogues for which we have now no Aristotelian evidence. It is certainly surprising that Aristotle should assert that Plato never enquired wherein the participation of things in ideas consists ; 69 while in the Parmenides (130 E sqq.) the dif- ficulties with which this theory has to contend are clearly pointed out. But it is not more surprising than that he should assail the doctrine of ideas with the question : ' Who formed the things of sense after the pattern of the ideas ? ' 70 though it is distinctly stated in the Timseus (28 C sq.) that the Creator of the world did this in looking on the eternal archetypes. 71 Nor, again, that he should maintain, notwithstanding the well-known explanation in the Phaedo, 72 often al- luded to by himself notwithstanding the doctrine in the Republic, of the Gfood being the absolute end of the world that the final cause is not touched by the ideas. 73 We should have expected that in attacking n Metaph. 1, 987, b. 13: r^v Or if it should be maintained /ieWot ye /j.edf-tiv $) TTfiv fj-tp-^ffiv in the latter case, that the Demiur- %TIS &i/ eft] TU>V etSwj/, atyelffav (Plato gus is not a scientific explanation and the Pythagoreans) eV noivy and might therefore hare been left &)Telv. out of account by Aristotle, he Metaph. 1, 9, 991, a. 20: rb might just as well waive the diffi- 8e Xiyeiv 7rapaSeiy/j.aTa avra [sc. culties of the Parmenides because TO. e^Srj] etvai .... nevoXoysiv no positive determination is there hr. 394 sq., and Schaarschmidt 312 sq., doubted by Ueberweg in his Grundriss i. 123, 4th edit. 91 P. 72 E sq. Cebes here says that pre-existence and immortality follow also /car' e/ceTyoi/ rbj/ \6yov, .... t>v 0b (Socr.) euo0as 6a/j.a \4yeiv, that /ucUtyrrts is nothing but avd^vfiffis ; and he proves this not only in reference to former dis- courses (Ijfl /Jifv \6ytf> Ka\\i(rrtf} '6n, Scc.), but by the fact worked out at length in the Meno, viz. that by means of properly arranged ques- tions, we can elicit everything from a man, as is shown, for instance, in the case of geometrical figures. That there is a reference here to an earlier written treatise, which can only be the Meno, will be moro obvious from a comparison of this brief allusion to something already known to the reader, with tin- prolix development of a further reason on p. 73 B sq., which is un- doubtedly treated with such detail only because it has not occurred in any dialogue hitherto. 52 Cf. p. 50, 13. Schaarschmidt, p. 341, has asserted that on tlu contrary the author of the Enrhv- demus made use of Aristotle's So- phistical Fallacies. But he has not G 2 84 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. easily defended, if we bear in mind the proper design of this dialogue, 94 and sufficiently discriminate between what is seriously intended and what is satirical exag- geration or irony : 95 it would be hard to deny to Plato proved this, for the coincidence of many of the Sophisms which he quotes is by no means conclusive. It would rather, on this supposition, be very extraordinary that the very fallacy which Aristotle attributes to Euthydemus does not occur in the Platonic Euthydemus (vide p. 71, 63). Should we, however, adopt this supposition, and at the s^me time assert that the Euthy- demus was used in the Politicus (Schaarschmidt, 326), we cannot leave the question undecided as to whether Aristotle had the Politi- cus, or the author of the Politicus had the Aristotelian treatise, be- fore him. (This, however, Schaar- schmidt does, p. 237 f.) 93 Ast, 414, sq. Schaarschmidt, 326 sq. 9 * The object of the Euthyde- mus (on which Bonitz, Plat. Stud. 11, 28 sq., ought especially to be consulted) is to represent the op- position of Socratic and Sophistic views with regard to their value in the training and education of youth ; and this opposition is brought before us here, not by means of a scientific and detailed statement, but by the actual expo- sition of the two parties themselves, in the form of a (narrated) drama, or rather of a satyric comedy. In the exposition of this subject Plato had to do, not merely with the views of the elder Sophists and their later developments, but also (as was found probable, Pnrt i. p. 255, 2 ; 256, 1 ; cf, 248, 4 ; 253, 1 ; 254, 1 ) with Antisthenes, who seem- ed to him in true Sophistic fashion to destroy all possibility of cogni- tion, to confuse Socratic with Sophis- tic views, and thereby spoil them, and with those refiners of language of the stamp of Isocrates (for that he is intended p. 305 B sq. is put beyond doubt after the proofs of Spengel, Abh. d. philos. philol. Kl. of the Acad. of Baireuth, vii. 764 sq.), who did not know how to dis- tinguish between Socratic and So- phistic views, and hoped to get rid of the rivalry of the true philoso- phers if they brought the Sophists into discredit. In conformity with this object, the scientific refutation of the Sophistic views is not touched upon beyond a few allu- sions, while the Socratic philosophy is expounded only in its simplest practical form nothing new is propounded nor any speculative views enunciated, which might weaken the impression intended to be conveyed here, and in the eyes of an unphilosophical reader might wear the appearance of Sophistry. If Plato voluntarily exercised this self-restraint at a time when he was already firmly in possession of his doctrine of Ideas (Euthyd. 300 E sq.), he mus-t certainly have had some special inducement ; and the present theory will sufficiently ex- plain the fact. 95 Supporters as well as oppo- nents of the Euthydemus have not seldom failed to make this distinc- tion. E.g., Schaarschmidt, p. 339, amongst many other censures of the artificiality of this dialogue PLATO'S WRITINGS. on trivial grounds so charming a sketch, abounding in comic power and humour. The Apology, which was known to Aristotle, 96 is as little really doubtful 97 as the Crito : both are perfectly comprehensible if we regard the one as in the main a true statement of facts, 98 and the other as apparently a freer representation of the motives which deterred Socrates from flight. We may consider the Lysis, Charmides, and Laches, with all of which Aristotle seems to have been acquainted, to be youthful productions, written when Plato had not as yet essentially advanced beyond the Socratic stand- point ; the Lesser Hippias, which is supported by very (which are not clear to me), takes offence because Ctesippus, 303 A., when the buffoonery of Dionyso- dorus has reached its height, gives up further opposition, with the words ai(TTa/iiar a^<^o> T &i/8pf, where, however, the irony is palpable. Still more unintelligi- ble, at least in my opinion, is the assertion on p. 334 that the mention of Isocrates as the head of a school (Euthyd. 305 B) is such a flagrant violation of chronology that we cannot attribute it to Plato. If this is an un-Platonic anachronism, what must Schaar- schmidt think of the anachronisms in the Symposium, the Gorgias, the Protagoras, and the Laws (cf. my treatise on the Anachron- isms of the Plat. Dial., Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1873. Hist. -Phil. Kl. 70 sq.), which, however, he rightly accepts without scruple? But the Euthydemus not only does not mention Isocrates as the head of a school, but does not men- tion him at all ; it simply repre- sents Socrates as drawing a scien- tific character, in which the reader was to recognise Isocrates. This was just as possible and just as little an anachronism as Schaar- schmidt's supposed reference to Antisthenes in the Thesetetus. Grote (Plato, vol. i. 559), without doubting the genuineness of the Euthydemus, remarks that Euthy- demus is treated as the represen- tative of true philosophy and dia- lectic, though this is in glaring contradiction with all that pre- cedes. But Plato states nothing of the kind : he merely says certain people regard the Sophists (TOI/S ajjifyl EvQvS^/j.ov') as their rivals, and seek therefore (because they con- found the Sophists with the true philosophers) to disparage the phi- losophers. 96 Cf. p. 70, 54. 97 As Ast, 474 sq. 492 sq. de- cides with his usual confidence : on the other hand Schaarschmidt does not give any decided opinion. 98 Vide Part i. p. 163, 1, and Ueberweg, Plat. S;hr. 237 sq. PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. decisive Aristotelian evidence, as a first attempt ; and tbe Euthyphro as an occasional writing," of a slight and hasty character. On the other hand, there are so many weighty internal arguments against the Menexe- nus, that notwithstanding the passages in Aristotle's Rhetoric, 100 it is difficult to believe this work Platonic : if Aristotle really meant to attest it, we might suppose that in this one instance he was deceived by a forgery ventured upon soon after Plato's death. 101 The Ion is probably, and the Greater Hippias and First Alcibiades are still more probably, spurious. 102 The remainder of the dialogues in our collection, the Second Alcibiades, the Theages, the Anterasti, Hippar- 99 Following the precedent of Hermann, Branclis and Steinhart (differing from my Plat. Stud. 150 in reference to the Hippias Minor), I hare endeavoured to prove this in the Ztschr.f. Alterthumsw., 1851, p. 250 sq. The same view is em- braced by SnsemihlandMunkinthe works I have so frequently quoted, also by Stein, Gesch. d. Plat. i. 80 sq., 135 sq., and Ueberweg (Gesch. d. Phil. 4th edit. i. 121 sq.) : on the contrary, Kibbing, Genet. Darst. d. plat. Ideenl. ii. 129 sq., 103 sq., decides that the Euthyphro, Laches, Charmides, and Lysis, are genuine, while the Hippias Minor he considers to be spurious. Schaarschmidt (Samml. d. plat, Schr. 382 sq.) rejects the whole five dialogues. The latter is opposed by Bonitz in an exhaustive disquisition Zur. .Erkl. plat. Dialoge (Hermes v.), 429 sq., specially with regard to the Laches. On the evidence of Aristotle vide p. 58, 31, 70; on the Euthyphro, Part i. p. 161, 1. 100 On which cf. 54. 101 With this judgment as re- gards the Menexenus, which I have already put forward in my Platonic Stud. 144 sq., following Ast, most of those who have treated the question, besides Grote, have since declared themselves in agreement; the question is dis- cussed with particular thorough- ness by Steinhart (Plat. W.W. vi. 372 sq.). I will refrain from en- tering upon it here, especially as the Menexenus is in no way an independent source for Platonic philosophy; Plato's relation to Ehetoric can in no instance be determined from this dialogue, and, in fact, even if genuine, its scope can only be conceived according to the explanations we give of other dialogues. 102 Cf. Ztschr. f. Alterthumsw., 1851, p. 256 sq. Nor do I find any- thing in Munk to contradict this view. PLATO'S WRITINGS. 87 elms, Minos, Clitophon, and Epinomis, have been rightly abandoned almost unanimously by all modern critics with the exception of Grote. It is impossible for a moment to allow any genuineness to the Defini- tions ; and Karsten 103 and Steinhart, 104 following the example of Meiners, Hermann, and others, have con- clusively shown that the Letters, as has so often hap- pened, were foisted upon their reputed author at various dates. It has indeed been questioned whether even the un- doubted works of Plato present a true picture of his system. According to some, partly to increase his own importance, partly as a precautionary measure, Plato designedly concealed in his writings the real sense and connection of his doctrines, and only disclosed this in secret to his more confidential pupils. 105 This notion has been, however, since Schleiermacher 10G justly and almost universally abandoned. 107 It can be supported 108 Commentatio. Critica de Pla- 106 Plato's Werke, 1, 1, 11 sq. ; tonis quae feruntur epistplis. Utr. cf. Hitter, ii. 178 sq., and Socher, 1864. PI. Schr. 392 sq. 104 pi. Werke, viii. 279 sq. PL 107 One of its last supporters is L., 9 sq. A review of the earlier Weisse, in the notes to his trans- literature is given by the first of lation of Aristotle's Physics (pp. these passages, and by Karsten in 271 sq. ; 313, 329 sq. ; 403 sqq. ; the Introduction. 437 sq. ; 445 tq. ; 471 sq.), and de 104 This is the general opinion Anima, pp. 123-143. Hermann of earlier scholars. We may re- (Ueber Plato's Schrifstell Motive, fer once for all to Brucker, 1, 659 G-es. Abh. 281 sq.) comes rather sq., who gives a thorough and close to it when he asserts that sensible investigation of the we must not look for the nucleus reasons for this concealment and of Plato's doctrine in his writings, the artifices employed ; and Tenne- and that his literary activity never mann, System d. Plat. 1, 128 sq. aimed at establishing and develop- 264, 111, 126, 129. Ast, Plat, ing an organic system of philo- Leb. u. Schr. 511, gives further sophy. Hermann would hardly details. say that Plato ignored or gave up 88 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. neither on Platonic nor Aristotelian evidence : 108 the assertions of later writers who transferred their concep- all philosophic scope in his writings. But, according to his view, the writings only contain incidental hints of the real principles of Plato's system, the supra-sensuous doctrine of ideas. The application of the principles to questions and circumstances of the phenomenal world is given in the writings ; the enunciation of the principles them- selves was reserved for oral dis- course. If, however, the inquiries of the Thegetetus on the conception of knowledge, the discussions of the Sophist, Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phsedo, Republic, and Timseus on the nature of concep- tions, the intended exposition in the 'Philosopher,' and, in fact, all the passages from which we are now able to form so complete a representation of the doctrine of Ideas if these were not meant to expound and establish the prin- ciples of the system, it becomes difficult to account for them. They may sometimes exhibit a connection with alien questions ; but it would argue little acquaintance with Plato's artistic method to con- clude from this that they were introduced only incidentally. And Plato v. Phsedms, 274 B sqq. makes no division between the principles and their application. Indeed, it would have been rather preposterous to communicate the application of philosophic prin- ciples, by means of his writings, to all the world, even beyond the limits of his school, while he with- held the principles themselves, without which the application could not fail to be misunderstood. Ueberweg (Unters. plat. Schr. 65) brings forward in support of Her- mann the fact that the Timaeus and other writings give merely brief references to many points of essential importance. But he adds that it is the doctrine of the elements of the ideal world and of the soul that is dismissed with these passing notices, rather than the doctrine of ideas. And how do we know that at the time these treatises were written (there can be no question here, it must be remem- bered, of the Laws), the former doctrine had received its full de- velopment? Hermann eventually finds himself obliged to qualify considerably ; and, in fact, his for- mer assertions almost disappear, He allows, p. 298, that the Sophist and Parmenides, for instance, are concerned with philosophic prin- ciples; but he would account for this by referring them to an earlier eriod than the Phsedrus. This may disputed ; and, at any rate, is in itself no justification for saying that philosophic principles are only incidentally referred to in Plato's writings. On page 300 he makes a further concession : the writings of the Middle Period the Sophist, &c. ' are directly motived by scientific instruction, and seek to expound systematically the philo- sopher's fundamental opinions.' Finally, he contents himself with saying of the later writings, 'We cannot expect to find his highest principles enunciated here in broad unmistakable terms ' (no intelli* gent student would have any such expectations): 'such enunciations were reserved for his oral dis- courses' (which seems highly im- per be PLATO'S WRITINGS. tions of the Pythagorean mystical doctrine to Plato, 109 consequently prove nothing. It is besides utterly in- credible in itself that a philosopher like Plato should have spent a long life in literary labours, designed not probable). ' But,' continues Her- mann, ' these principles are so stamped upon the dialogues, that none with eyes to see can miss any point of real importance ; and the dialogues may be used as trust- worthy authorities for his philo- sophic system.' In these words we have everything we could wish for granted. 108 The Phsedrus, 274 B sqq., cannot be quoted in support. Plato is only showing there that the thing written is of no worth in itself, but only in so far as it helps recollection of the thing spoken. He does not say that the content of what is orally delivered should not be written down, but con- versely, that that only should be written which has passed in per- sonal intercourse. The Timseus, 28 C, is not more relevant ; for, granted the impossibility of dis- cussing anything except with per- sons of special knowledge, it does not follow that such discussion may not be in written works. Written works may be designed for specialists, and composed so that only they can understand them. In Ep. Plat. vii. 341 B sq. ; 11, 312 D sq., we find for the first time something of the alleged secretiveness, in the assertion that no true philosopher entrusts his real thoughts to writing. But this is only one more proof of the spuriousness of the letters, and there is a great deal required to prove that the seventh letter (with Herm. loc. cit.) is just as authentic as anything that Plato tells us about Socrates. As to Aristotle's frequent quotations from Plato's oral discourses (vide subter, and p. 46, 5), several questions pre- sent themselves. First : How far do his accounts vary from the contents of the Platonic writings ? Secondly : Are these variations to be ascribed to Plato himself, or to our informant ? And, thirdly : May they not be explained by sup- posing a real change in Plato's way of thought or teaching ? We shall discuss these points further on. 109 E.g., the Platonic letters just quoted, which betray themselves at once by their clumsy exaggerations. The second letter, by the way, says that the Platonic writings were the work of Socrates in his youth. Another instance is Numenius apud Eusebium, Pre- paratio Evangelica, xiv. 5, 7 (cf. xiii. 5), who says that Plato wrote in a purposely obscure style, as a measure of precaution ; Simpl. De Anim. 7? loc. cit. (of Plato and his pupils) ; V O7TO/5^TJTOJS JJ.OVOIS TOlS TTJV i\oiav avrv TTfeiKvvvTO vo^.a.T(av ; cf. Cicero De Universe, 2, who sup- poses Plato to say (in the Timaeus, 28 c.), that it is not safe to speak openly of the Deity ; and Josephus contra Apionem, 11, 31, cf. Krische Forschungen, 183 sq. 00 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. to impart his views, but to hide them ; a purpose far more effectually and simply carried out by silence. Further he himself assigns the same content to the written as to the spoken word, when he makes the aim of the one to be the reminding us of the other. 110 And Aristotle could not have been aware of any essential difference between Plato's oral and written teaching, otherwise he would not have based his own exposition and criticism equally on both, without ever drawing attention to the fact that the true sense of the writings could only be determined by the spoken comments of their author. Still less would he have taken the mythical or half mythical portions in a literal manner, only possible to one who had never conceived the idea of a secret doctrine pervading them. 111 Nor can this theory be brought into connection with Plato's habit of indirectly hinting at his opinion and gradually arriving at it, instead of distinctly stating it when formed ; with his occasional pursuit, in pure caprice as it might seem, of accidental digressions ; with the confessions of ignorance or the doubting questions that, instead of a fixed unequivocal decision, conclude many of the dialogues ; or with the method that in particular cases invests philosophic thoughts with the many- coloured veil of the mythus. All this, it is true, is found in Plato ; and the reasons for such a method will hereafter disclose themselves. Meanwhile the form of the dialogues will offer no insuperable hindrance to their comprehension by anyone who has penetrated 110 Phsedrus, 276 D ; cf. preceding m Cf. on this my Plat. Stud. p. note. 201 sq. PLATO'S WHITINGS. 01 their aim and plan, and learned to consider each in the light of the whole, and as explicable only in its relation to others ; nor again is there anything in this form to weaken the belief 112 that in the writings of Plato we have trustworthy records of his philosophy. If, lastly, we find in these writings, side by side with philosophic enquiry, a considerable space allotted to historical de- scription and dramatic imagery, it is yet easy in some cases to separate these elements, in others to recognise the philosophic kernel which they themselves contain. " : Cf. also Hegel, Gcseh. d. Phil. II. 157 sq , 161 sq. PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. ,1 Bit A li V CHAPTER III. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. OUR historical comprehension of the Platonic philoso- phy would be greatly facilitated did we possess more accurate knowledge of the dates of the several works, and the circumstances which influenced or gave rise to them. We should not only then understand much that now in particular dialogues either escapes our notice or remains a mystery, and be better informed as to their design and treatment, but we should also be in a position to judge with greater certainty of the mutual relations of the several works, and to follow step by step the development of Plato's system, so far as it is reflected in his writings. Unfortunately, how- ever, we have not the means of accomplishing all this. The scanty notices of ancient authors as to the date and purpose of certain works are sometimes so untrust- worthy that we cannot at all depend upon them, 1 and 1 This holds good of the assertion Plat. 3, that the Phaedrus was (Diog. iii. 35, brought in by q,aa\\ Plato's first written treatise (Cicero, that Socrates had heard the Lysis however, Orat. 13, 42 places it read, and Aristotle (ib. 37, ace. to later) ; of the statement of Athe- Phavorinus) had heard the Phsedo naeus (xi. 505 E), that Gorgias (presumably at its first publica- outlived the appearance of the tion) ; of the supposition in Diog. dialogue named after him of Gel- iii. 38 (cf. ibid. 62), Olympiod. v. lius (N. A. xiv. 3, 3) that Xeno- THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 95 sometimes tell us nothing more than we might our- selves have derived from the works. 2 The information to be obtained from these as to their interconnection, design, and time of composition is necessarily of a very limited character. For as they profess to be records of Socratic dialogues, we find indeed in many of them the date and occasion of the alleged conversa- tion either directly or indirectly given ; but as to the time when they themselves were composed they are silent, and we can only in a few cases discover from the setting of a dialogue or from one of those ana- chronisms which Plato allowed himself with so much poetic license, the earliest date to which it can be assigned, and with some probability that also of its composition. 3 It is likewise a consequence of their phon composed his Cyropsedia in opposition to the first two books of the Republic, and of Plutarch (Sol. 32), that Plato's death prevented the completion of the Critias. Cf. Ueberweg, Plat. Schr. 210 sq. 2 E.g. Arist. Polit. ii. 6, beginn. and 1265, a. b. remarks that the Laws -were composed later than the Republic, and that Plato wished to describe in them a state approach- ing nearer to actually existing states; but little by little it was ^brought round again to the ideal st^e of the Republic. s ^t appears from the beginning of the Theaetetus that this dialogue is not earlier than tho campaign against Corinth, in which Thesete- tus took part ; but what campaign this was we do not learn (vide p. 18, 31). The Meno (ace. to p. 90, A) and the Symposium (ace. to 193, B) cannot have been composed before B.C. 395 and 385 respec- tively (for it is very improbable that the passage of the Meno can refer, as Susemihl believes, Jahrb. f. Philol. Ixxvii. 854, not to the well-known event mentioned in Xen. Hell. iii. 5, but to some inci- dent which has remained unknown to us ; we cannot suppose that this incident, which clearly excited so much attention, could have been twice repeated in the course of a few years ; and, moreover, before the successful attack of Agesilaus, Persian politics had no occasion to make such sacrifices in order to gain the goodwill of a Theban party- leader ; both dialogues, however, seem to be not far distant from these dates. As to the date of tho Menexenus, if it is really Platonic, it must have been written after th Peace of Antalcidas, and cannot by any means be placed before that 94 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. dramatic form, that the conversation should often develope itself from apparently accidental circum- stances, without any definite theme being proposed ; and even where there is such a theme, we still cannot be sure that it is the sole, or even the ultimate, end of the dialogue the end by which we are to estimate its relations to other works ; for the reply to this main question is often interwoven with farther enquiries of such importance and scope that it is impossible to regard them as merely subsidiary to the solution of the more limited problem at first proposed. 4 The final result also seems not unfrequently to be purely nega- tive, consisting in the failure of all attempts to answer some query ; 5 and though we cannot with Grrote 6 conclude from this that Plato's design never extended beyond the refutation of every dogmatic assertion, and the exposition of that elenchtic method by which time; the Parmenides, 126, B sq., dialogue is earlier than Plato's pre-supposes that Plato's half- first Sicilian visit. It no more fol- brother Pyrilampes, and conse- lows from Bk. i. 336 A that the quently Plato himself, were no Ion- first book at least was written be- ger very young when this dialogue fore the execution of Ismenias, B.C. was -written. The Apology, Crito, 382 (Ueberweg, plat. Schr. 221), and Phsedo, from -what is implied in than that it was written before the their contents, cannot come before death of Perdiccas and Xerxes, the death of Socrates, nor the Eu- Cf. on the foregoing points Ueber- thyphro, Thesetetus, Meno (accord- weg, loc. cit. 217-265. ing to 94 E), Gorgias (521 C), and 4 E.g. (besides the Sophist, Poli- Politicus (299 B) before the accu- ticus, and Philebus), in the Eepub- sation of Socrates ; how much later lie, the working out of which goes they are (except in the case of the far beyond the problem propounded Meno) cannot be determined by Bk. ii. 367 E. any historical data contained in the 5 Cf. Prot. 361 A; Charm. 175 dialogues themselves. As regards A sq. ; Lach. 199 E ; Lys. 223 B ; the Republic, even if there were no Hipp. Min. 376 C ; Meno, 100 B ; other grounds for the supposition, Theset. 210 A sqq. ; Parm. 166 C. Bk. ix. 577, A sq. makes it to a 6 Plato i. 246, 269 sq.: 22, 515 : certain degree probable that this ii. 278, 387 sq. ; 500, 550 sq. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 95 Socrates confounded the fancied knowledge vf/his in- terlocutors ; and that his criticism 'UjlcL dialectics* neither rest on any positive conviction, nor-^yen in- directly lead to any; 7 yet the J)'ositi\4/element, s t/hat which is wanted to complete the critical discussions, is^ " not always so evident as to be unmistakable. Again,, if a dialogue relates to phenomena of the post-Socratic period, and perhaps is partly occasioned by them, Plato can only in the rarest instance 8 allow his Socrates plainly to speak of these phenomena ; he is therefore restricted to hints, which were probably sufficiently comprehensible to the majority of his first readers, but may easily be overlooked or misinterpreted by us. 9 The same holds good with regard to the mutual inter- 7 It is of itself scarcely credi- ble that a philosopher who has created such a perfect system as Plato should have composed a whole series of writings, criticising alien views, without at the same time wishing to do anything to- wards the establishment of his own ; Grote's assertion (i. 269, 292, ii. 563 sq.) that the affirmative and negative currents of his speculation are throughout independent of one another, each of them having its -own channel, and that in his posi- tiv^\theories he pays as little re- gard Vs Socrates to difficulties and contradictions, which he had de- velopejd in the details of polemical discussions, is the natural conse- quence of his presuppositions, but it is in contradiction to all psycho- logical probability. Consideration shows that many scruples thrown but in one dialogue receive in another the solution which Plato's point of view admits ; and if this does not always happen, if many objections which Plato main- tains against others might also be maintained against himself, this is simply a phenomenon which occurs in the case of Aristotle and many others as well, because it is gene- rally easier to criticise than to im- proveto expose difficulties than to solve them; it does not. how- ever, follow that Plato in his dialectical discussions aimed at no positive result. 8 Phaeclr. 278 E, about Isocrates, in the beginning of the Thesetetus about Thesetetus. 9 Part i. 214 sq. We found it probable that in the Sophist he re- ferred to the Megariaus, Part i. p. 248, 4, 252 sqq.; in the Thesetetus, Sophist, Euthydemus to Antis- thenes, Part i. 303, 1 ; in the Phi- lebus to Aristippus, p. 84, 94 ; in the Euthydemus to Isocrates. Many such allusions may occur in the Platonic writings without being remarked. 96 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. dependence of the dialogues. There cannot be a direct allusion in one dialogue to another, unless the same persons appear in both ; 10 where this is not the case, the only way in which the later dialogue can point to the earlier is by shortly summing up the results of the former discussions, with the remark that the matter has been already considered. 11 But here again it is easy to make mistakes to overlook the relation be- tween two dialogues, or to imagine one that does not exist ; and even when there is no doubt of such inter- dependence, the question may still sometimes arise which 'of the writings is the earlier and which the later. There are thus many difficulties, not only in the way of a decision respecting the motive, aim, and plan of the several dialogues, 12 but even of an enquiry into their order, date, and interdependence. Are they so related to each other as to form one, or perhaps more than one, connected series, or ought we to regard them merely as isolated productions, in which Plato, according as occasion or inclination prompted him, disclosed now one and now another fragment of his system, and brought his theories of life and of the world to bear on various subjects, sometimes even on those which had no direct reference to his philosophy ? 13 10 E.g. in the Theaetetus, Sophist Timseus (51 B sq.), and also in the and Politicus, the Republic, Ti- Symposium (202 A) to the Meno mseus and Critias. (97 sq.) and the Theaetetus (200 E 11 In this way in all probability sq.), in the Laws (v. 739 B sq. ; he refers in thePhaedo to the Meno also iv. 713 E ; cf. Repub. v. 473 (vide p. 83, 91), in the Philebus to C), to the Republic and (iv. 713 C the Parmenides (cf. 70, 56), in the sq.) to the Politicus (vide 70, 53). Republic, vi. 505 B, to the Phile- 12 A question on which I cannot bus, x. 611 A sq., to the Phaedo enter here. (vide p. 532, 2nd edit.), vi. 50, 6 C, 13 The latter is the view of to the Meno (97 A, D sq.), in the Socher, p. 43 sq., and, essentially THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 97 Supposing the former alternative to be the case, is the connection of the writings the result of calculation and design ? Or did it evolve itself naturally in the course of the author's life and mental development ? Or were all these causes simultaneously at work, so that the origin and sequence of the Platonic writings should be ascribed partly to the philosopher's mental growth, partly to literary and artistic design, and partly also to accidental occasions? What influence again had each of these moments generally and particularly ? And how, lastly, on either of the above presuppositions, are we to decide on the date and succession of the several works ? On all these points, as is well known, opinions differ widely. Many of the ancient gramma- rians and commentators divided the works of Plato into certain groups and classes, 14 according to the affinity of of Ast, p. 38 sqq., not to mention and peirastic; under that of ago- the older scholars, such as Tenne- nistic the endeictic and anatreptic mann, Plat. Phil. i. 137, 264. writings. Diogenes makes the 14 We -get a division according same primary division into didac- to form irivDiog. iii. 49 sq., and tic and zetetic dialogues, but pro- Proleg. 17 : \he divisions are into ceeds to a triple subdivision, of the dramatic, narrative, and mixed zetetic into physical, ethical (in- dialogues. J)iog. himself, loc. cit., eluding political), and logical (ac- approves of p. division according to cording to the scheme of SiSao Ka\la, matter ; we have one like this given irpa^s, air6$iis), and of the didac- by Albinus, Isagoge in Plat. dial, tic into gymnastic (peirastic and c. 3, 6. Albinus divides the didac- maieutic), elenchtic, and agonistic tic from the zetetic dialogues (v$t)- (anatreptic). Aristophanes too m yt)TiKo\ from frrrjTiKol), and sub- his determination of the trilogies, divides the didactic into theoretic into which he divided a part of the and practical; the zetetic into Platonic dialogues (vide p. 51, II), gymnastic and agonistic. These in correspondence with the con- again have further 'subdivisions ; nection which Plato himself has the theoretic dialogues into physi- made between certain of them cal and logical, the practical dia- (Aristophanes' first trilogy is that logues into ethical and political, of the Republic, and this seems to Under the head of gymnastic dia- have been the standard which logues come the so-called maieutic occasioned his whole arrangement), 98 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. their form or contents; and by this they apparently meant that they were following, at any rate partially, the order observed by Plato himself. 15 Their assump- tions are, however, so arbitrary; Platonic doctrines are grouped from such un-Platonic points of view - -the spirit and deeper reference of individual works are so little understood the spurious is so greatly in- termingled with the genuine, that this first attempt to determine the order of the writings was rather deter- seems to have been directed partly by the relation of the contents of the dialogues, partly by referring to the supposed time of publication. The former, on the other hand, is the only starting point for Thra- eyllus' arrangement. This gram- marian (particulars about whom are given Part iii. a. 542, 3, 2nd edit., and in the authorities quoted there) divides the dialogues (ace. to Diog. iii. 56 sqq., Albin. Isag. 4) in one respect just as Diogenes, into physical, logical, ethical, poli- tical, maieutic, peirastic, endeictic, anatreptic. This division, and also the d ouble ti ties of certain dialogues, taken from their contents (4>a8cuj/ 3) irepi tyvxys and so forth), he either borrowed from some one else or was the first to introduce ; but he further divides the whole of the Platonic writings into the nine fol- lowing tetralogies: (1) Euthy- phro, Apology, Crito, Phsedo; (2) Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Poli- ticus ; (3) Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phsedrus ; (4) the two Alcibiades,Hipparchus, Anterastse ; (5) Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis ; (6)Euthydemus,Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno; (7) the two Hip- piae, Ion, Menexenus; (8) Clito- phon, Eepublic, Timaeus, Critias; (9) Minos, Laws, Epinomis, Let- ters. The standard in this com- bination is unmistakably the con- tents of the writings ; only in the first tetralogy the philosophical aims are not so much considered as the reference to the fate of Socrates personally. The existence of a series of different arrangements of the Platonic writings is proved (as Nietzsche remarks, Beitr. z. Quellenkunde d. Diog. Laert., Basel, 1870, 13 sq.) by the fact that Diog. iii. 62 mentions no less than nine dialogues, which were placed by different writers at the beginning of their catalogues, among them the Republic and Euthyphro, with which Aristo- phanes and Thrasyllus had com- menced their lists respectively. 15 According to Diogenes, Thra- syllus maintained that Plato him- self published the dialogues in tetralogies. The much-debated question as to the order in which they should be read is of itself, strictly speaking, a presumption that they were arranged on a defi- nite plan. Cf. Diog. 62, Albin, C 4 sqq. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 99 rent than encouraging ; 16 and the same judgment must be passed on those modern attempts which followed in the track of Thrasylus and Albinus. 17 Even Tenne- mann's enquiries into the chronological order of the Platonic works, 18 useful as they were in their time, are generally superficial in their neglect of any fixed and decisive point of view. TJie notion of an arrangement based upon the internal connection of the dialogues was first fully and satisfactorily carried out in Schleier- macher's brilliant work. According to this author, 19 Plato, as he certainly considered written instruction inferior to spoken, 20 and yet continued writing to such an extent even in old age, must have manifestly sought to make his writings resemble conversation as much as possible. Now the weak point of written teaching, as he himself intimates, is this : that it must always re- main uncertain whether the reader has really appre- hended the\ thought of the writer; and that there is no opportunity for defence against objections, or for the removal of misunderstandings. In order, as far as might be, to remedy these defects, Plato in his writings must have made it a rule so to conduct and plan every enquiry that the reader should be driven either to the origination of the required thought, or to the distinct consciousness of having missed it ; and as the plan of 16 Against recent defenders of 24 sq. ; Ast, 49 sq. ; Hermann, 562. the Thrasyllic tetralogies, cf. Herm. 18 Syst. d. plat, Phil. 1, 115 sqq. de Thrasyllo, Ind. lect. Grott, He and his followers up to Ilcr- 1805. 13 sq. mann are mentioned by Ueberweg, 17 E.g. Serranus, Petit, Syden- Unters. d. plat. Schr. 7-111. liani, Eberhard, and Geddes. With l9 Loc. cit. p. 17 sqq. regard to these, it will suffice to re- 20 Phsedr. 274 B sqq. Cf. Pro- fer to Schleiermacher, PL W. 1, 1, tagoras, 32J A. H 2 100 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. each separate dialogue clearly shows this design, there arises a natural sequence and a necessary mutual refe- rence in the dialogues collectively. Plato could make no advance in any dialogue unless he presumed a cer- tain effect to have been produced by its predecessor ; consequently that which formed the conclusion of one must be presupposed as the basis and commencement of another. And as he regarded the various philoso- phical sciences, not as many and separate, but as es- sentially united and indivisible, there would result from this not many parallel independent orders of Pla- tonic dialogues, but one all-embracing order. In this order, Schleiermacher proceeds to distinguish three divi- sions : 21 the elementary, the indirectly enquiring, and the expository or constructive dialogues. He does not maintain that the chronological succession of the works must necessarily and minutely correspond with this internal relation, nor that occasionally from some acci- dental reason that which came earlier in order of thought may not have appeared later in order of time. He claims only that his order should coincide in the main with the chronological order. 22 He allows that secondary works of comparatively less importance are intermingled with the principal dialogues, and he would also make room for those occasional writings which do not lie at all within the sphere of philo- sophy. 23 These concessions, however, do not affect his general canon. 24 81 Loc. cit. p. 44 sqq. first class of Plato's writings, the 22 Loc. cit. p. 27 f-q. Pheedrus, Protagoras, and Parm.-- 23 38 sq. nides as chief works ; the Ly.-is, 24 Schleiermacher reckons, in the Laches, Cliarmides, and Euthjphro THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 101 Ast agrees with Schleiermacher in 'distinguishing three classes of dialogues ; 25 but differs from him con- siderably in his principle of classification, in his dis- tribution of particular dialogues among the three classes, and in his judgment of their authenticity. Schleiermacher is still more decidedly opposed by Socher 26 and Stallbaum 27 in their attempt at a chro- nological order, 28 but neither of these writers fully as secondary works ; the Apology and Crito as occasional pieces of essentially historical import, and other minor dialogues as probably spurious. In the second class he puts the Gorgias and Thesetetus, with the Meno as an appanage, and at a further interval the Euthyde- mus and Cratylus ; then come the Sophist, Politicus, Symposium, Phaedo, and Philebus. Some few dialogues are/ passed over as spu- rious, or a/ least doubtful. His third class contains the Eepublic, Timaeus, and Critias ; and the Laws, again as an appanage. 25 Socratic, in which the poetic and dramatic element predomi- nates ; e.g. the Protagoras, Phae- drus, Gorgias, and Phaedo ; dialec- tic or Megarian, in which the poetic element is in the background (Theaetetus, Sophist, Politicus, Par- menides, Cratylus) ; purely scien- tific, or Socratic-Platonic, in which the poetic and dialectic elements interpenetrate reciprocally (Phile- bus, Symposium, Republic, Timaeus, Critias). All the rest he regards as spurious. Cf. the criticisms of Brandis, 1, a. 163. 26 Loc. cit. p. 41 sqq., &c. 17 De Platonis vita, ingenio et scriptis (Dialogi selecti, 1827, Tom. i. 2 A ; Opera, 1833, Tom. i.) developed, and in some points modified, in the Introductions to single dialogues, and in numerous Dissertations. 28 Socher assumes four periods in his writings. 1. Up to Socrates' accusation and death : comprising the Theages, Laches, Hippias Mi- nor, 1st Alcibiades, De Virtute, Meno, Cratylus, Euthyphro, Apo- logia, Crito, Phsedo. 2. Up to the establishment of the school in the Academy: comprising the Ion, Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Pro- tagoras, Theaetetus, Gorgias, Phi- lebus. 3. From that time to about the 55th or 60th year of Plato's life, to which belong the Phsedrus, Menexenus, Symposium, Republic, and Timaeus. 4. The period of old age, comprising the Laws. Stallbaum makes three periods : one, up to the time just after Socrates' death, including the Lysis, two Hippiae, Charm ides, Laches, Euthydemus, Cratylus, 1st Alcibiades, Meno, Protagoras, Euthyphro, Ion, Apology, Crito, Gorgias. Of these he dates the Charmides about B.C. 405, and the Laches soon after (Plat. Opp. T. i. 1834, p. 86, vi. 2, 1836, p. 142); the Euthydemus 403 (loc. cit. vi. 1, 63, sqq). 01. 94, 1 ; Cratylus. Olympiad 94, 2 (loc. 102 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. established this order, or reduced it to a fixed prin- ciple. Hermann was the first to controvert the conclu- sions of Schleiermacher by a new theory, founded on a definite view of the origin of the Platonic writings ; 29 for his predecessor Herbart, while seeking to prove the gradual transformation of the doctrine of ideas by the help of the dialogues, 30 had not applied this point of view to our collection as a whole. X- Like Schleierma- cher, Hermann is convinced that the Platonic writings, collectively, represent a living, organic development ; but he seeks the cause of this phenomenon, not in any design or calculation on the part of their author, but in the growth of his mind. They are not, in his opinion, a mere exposition of philosophic development for others, but a direct consequence of Plato's indivi- dual development. Plato, he thinks, ripened only cit. v. 2, 26); Alcibiades, at Theset. 12 sqq., and Parm. 290 the time when Anytus began his sq., Stallbaum had dated them two proceedings against Socrates (loc. years later) ; soon after these the cit. vi. 1, 187); Meno, Olympiad Phsedrus, followed by the Sym- 94, 3 (loc. cit. vi. 2, 20) ; Prota- posium, a little later than B.C. goras, Olympiad 94, 3 or 4 (Dial. 385 (Dial. Sel. iv. 1, xx. sqq.) ; Sel. 11, 2, 16; Opp. vi. 2, 142); then the Phaxlo, Philebus, and Euthyphro, Olympiad 95, I=B.C. Eepublic, Olympiads 99-100: 399, at the beginning of the prose- (Dial. Sel. iii. 1, Ixii. sq.). The cution (loc. cit.) ; Ion same period third period is between the second (loc. cit. iv. 2, 289), and the Sicilian journey and Plato's death, remaining three, Olympiad 95, 1, including the Laws and the Cri- soon after Socrates' death (Dial, tias ; the latter begun before the Sel. 11, 1, 24). His second period Laws, but finished after. (Of. ranges between the first and second Opp. vii. 377.) Sicilian journey, and comprises 29 Loc. cit. : cf. especially 346 sq., the Thesetetus, Sophist, Politieus, 384 sq., 489 sqq. Parmeuides, all four written 30 In the treatise De Plat. Sys- between B.C. 399 and 388, and tematis fundamento, 1808 (Wks published immediately afterwards xii. 61 sqq.), but especially in the (cf. Eep. pp. 28-45; previously, appendix (ibid. 88 sq. : cf. Ueber- in his treatise De Arg. et Art. weg, loc. cit. 38 sq.) THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 103 gradually, and under the influences of his time ; the stadia along his course are marked by the different classes of his writings. The two events of greatest consequence in his mental history are, according to Hermann, the death of Socrates, with its immediate result, Plato's withdrawal to Megara ; and his own first journey, which acquainted him with the Pythagorean doctrine. 31 While these indicate the chief periods of his intellectual life and literary activity, they also fur- nish us with three classes of dialogues the Socratic or elementary ; the dialectic or mediatising ; the ex- pository or constructive. The dialogues of the first class, written in part before the death of Socrates, in part immediately after, have a fragmentary, more ex- clusively elenchtic and protreptic character, confine themselves /almost entirely to the* Socratic manner, and as yet go no deeper into the fundamental ques- tions of philosophy. The second class is distinguished by greater dryness, less liveliness, less carefulness of form, and by that searching criticism (sometimes ap- proving, sometimes polemical) of the Megaro-Eleatic philosophy, which occupied the time of Plato's sojourn in Megara. In the third period, there is on the one hand, as to style, a return to the freshness and fulness of the first ; 32 while on the other, Plato's horizon has S1 Hermann himself says, p. philosophic development. 384, ' the return to his native city s2 Hermann accounts for this, and the beginning of his career p. 397, as follows : ' It was not as teacher in the Academy.' But till his return to his native city in what follows he really assigns that the reminiscences of his youth Plato's acquaintance with Pytha- could once more rise before his troivanism, acquired on his travels, soul.' This would certainly be a as the deciding motive in his remarkable effect of external oir- 104 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. been enlarged by the enquiries of the Megarian period, by residence in foreign countries, and especially by the knowledge he there acquired of the Pythagorean philo- sophy ; and from the fusion of all these elements we get the most perfect expositions of his system, in which the Socratic form receives the deepest content, and thus attains its highest ideaL 33 The views of modern writers on this question fluctuate for the most part between Schleiermacher and Hermann. For ex- ample, Kitter 34 and Brandis, 35 and more recently Rib- cum stances on a character like Plato's ; but scarcely more remark- able, perhaps, than the influence which Hermann ibid, suspects, of the separation a separation of a few miles from the metropolis of Greek classicality, in producing the crudities of the 'Megarian dialogues. 33 Hermann gives a full discus- sion of the Lysis, as the type of the first class, which includes the Lesser Hippias, Ion, 1st Alci- biades, Charmides, Laches, and in completion the Protagoras and Euthydemus. The Apology, Crito, and Gorgias are a transition to the second class, and the Euthy- phro, Meno, and Hippias Major come still nearer to it ; but its proper representatives are the Theaetetus, Sophist, Politicus, and Parmenides. The third class is headed by the Phsedrus, as an inaugural lecture at the opening of the Academy. Socher, 307 sq., and Stallbaum, Introd. Phsed. iv. 1, xx. sq., had already conceived this to be the position of the Phsedrus. The Monexenus is an appendage to this, and the Symposium, Phsedo, and Philebus are riper productions of the same period, which is com- pleted by the Republic, Timseus. and Critias. The Laws come last, suggested by the experiences of the latter Sicilian journeys. 34 Bitter, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 186, attaches only a secondary impor- tance to the enquiry into the order of the Platonic writings, as he impugns the existence of any im- portant difference of doctrine in them, and does not allow a purely Socratic period in Plato's literary activity to the extent to which its recognition is justified. He gives up all certainty of results before- hand, but is inclined to think agreeing with Schleiermacher's three literary periods that the Phsedrus was written before the Protagoras (an inference from p. 275 sqq., compared with Prot. 329, A., which does not seem decisive to me), and before and after these the Lesser Hippias, Lysis, Laches, Charmides; then the Apology, Crito, Euthyphro; next theGorgias, Parmenides, Thesetetus, Sophist, Politicus ; perhaps about the same time the Euthydemus, Meno, and Cratylus ; later on, the Phsedo, Philebus, and Symposium; and THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 105 bing, 36 follow Schleiermacher in the main ; Schweg- ler 37 and Steinhart ally themselves with Hermann ; 38 last the Republic, Timseus (Crit.) and Laws. 85 Brandis, ii. 152 sqq., defends Schleiermacher's view with much force and acuteness against the attacks of Hermann, without main- taining the former's arrangement in all its details. He would assign the Parmenides to the second lite- rary period, and not place the Meno, Euthydemus, and Cratylus betweeathjeThesetetus and Sophist. He sets the Phaedrus, however, in the front rank, with Schleier- macher, and next to it the Lysis, Protagoras, Charmides, Laches, Euthyphro ; and assents generally to the leading ideas of Schleier- macher's arrangement. 86 Eibbing, in his ' Genet. Dar- stellungderplat.Ideenlehre'(Leipz. 1863), the second part of which is devoted to an examination into the genuineness and arrangement of the writings, puts forward the hypothesis that the scientific con- tents and the scientific form of the Platonic writings must be the standard for their arrangement, and that the order arrived at from this point of view must coincide with their proper chronological order. In accordance with this supposition he marks out, in agreement with Schleiermacher, three classes, among which he divides the particular dialogues in the following way: (1) Socratic Dialogues, i.e. such as particularly keep to the Socratic method of phi- losophizing, and are connected with the Platonic system propsedeuti- cally : Phaedrus, Protagoras, Char- mides (ace. to p. 131 sq. also Lysis), Laches, Euthyphro, Apolo- gy, Crito, and as a transition to the second class, Gorgias. (2) Dia- lectico-theoretic dialogues : Theae- tetus, Meno, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Sophist, Politicus, Parmenides'. (3) Synthetic and progressive dialogu es : Symposium, Phaedo, Philebus, Re- public, with which (p. 117 sq.) the Timeeus, together with the Critias and the doubtful Hermocrates,must be connected, though not inti- mately, on account of their expo- sition of peculiar views. The re- maining writings, and amongst these the Laws, Ribbing considers spurious. 37 Hist, of Phil., 3rd edit. p. 43 sq. 88 Steinhart arranges the dia- logues as follows: 1st, Purely So- cratic : Ion, Hippias Major and Mi- nor, 1st Alcibiades (before Alci- biades' second banishment, B.C. 406), Lysis, Charmides (at the beginning of the rule of the Thirty, B.C. 404), Laches, Protagoras. Socratic, transitional to thedoctrine of Ideas: Euthydemus, B.C. 402 ; Meno, 399 ; Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, same year; Gorgias, soon after the be- ginning of the sojourn at Megara; Cratylus, somewhat later. 2nd, Dia- lectical : Theaetetus, B.C. 393, com- posed perhaps at Gyrene ; Parmen- ides, probably between the Egyptian and Sicilian journey ; Sophist and Politicus, same time or perhaps during the Italian journey. 3rd, Works belonging to Plato's matu- rity, after his travels in Italy and more exact acquaintance with Py- thagorean philosophy : the Phaedrus, B.C. 388 ; Symposium, 385 ; Phse lo, Philebus, * Republic, about 367 ; Tiraaeus,Laws. In his Life ot Plato, however (301, 2, 232 sq.), the Meno 106 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Susemihl tries to reconcile both, 39 and similarly Ueber- weg, 40 holding that the view of Plato's works, as evinc- ing a gradual development of his philosophy, has no less historical justification than the other view of a methodical design determining the order of the works, demands that the two principles should be to some extent the limit, and to some extent the complement, one of the other. He ultimately inclines very much to the side of Schleiermacher, placing, however, the commencement of Plato's literary career much later than Schleiermacher does, and differing considerably from all his predecessors with regard to the order of the several writings. 41 The theories of Munk and is placed in the time after So- crates' death : and the PhileLus, with Ueberweg in Plato's last period, between the Timseus and the Laws. 39 He agrees with Hermann in saying that at the beginning of his literary career Plato had not his whole system already mapped out. But he does not agree with Hermann's further theory, viz., that Plato was unacquainted with earlier philosophies in Socrates' lifetime, and that therefore the acquaintance shown with Eleatic and Pythagorean doctrines is a decisive criterion of the date of any work. His arrangement, ac- cordingly, is slightly different from his predecessor's; the first series comprises Socratic or propaedeutic ethical dialogues, Hippias Minor, Lysis, Charmides, Laches, Prota- goras, Meno (399 B.C.), Apology, Orito, G-orgias (soon after Socrates' death), Euthyphro (rather later). The 2nd series, dialectic dialogues of indirect teaching : Euthydemus, Cratylus (both perhaps written at Megara), Theaetetus (after 394 and the visit to Gyrene), Phsedrus (389-8), Sophist, Politicus, Par- menides, Symposium (383-4), Phsedo. Third series, constructive dialogues : Philebus, Eepublic (between 380 and 370), Timeeus, Critias, Laws. 49 Enquiry into the Platonic writings, 89-111, 74 pq., 81. 41 In the above-mentioned work (p. 100 sq. 293) with regard to the Protagoras, Lesser Hippias, Lysis, Charmides, and Laches, Ueberweg considers it probable that they were composed in Socrates' life- time, while the Apology and Crito (p. 246 sq.) were composed imme- diately after his death. To the same period he thinks the Gorgias must belong (p. 249); the Phtedrus on the contrary (252 sq., 101) to the years 377-6 B.C. ; that the Sym- posium must have been written 385-4 (219 sq.), not long after the THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 107 Weisse stand almost alone. While most commentators since Schleiermacher have based their enquiry into the order of the Platonic books chiefly on the contents, these two writers pay much more attention to the form ; Munk taking his criterion of earlier or later author- ship from the date to which each dialogue is internally assigned, 42 and Weisse from the distinction of direct and narrated, dialogues. 43 A few other authors, who Phsedrus; the Euthydemus (258, 265), between the Phsedrus and the Phsedo, the Republic and the Timseus, and still/earlier before the Phsedo the Meno (281 sq.). The Thesetetus Ueberweg (227 sq.) places in the year 368, or there- abouts ; the Sophist, Politicus, and Philebus (p. 204 sq., 275, 171, 290 sq.), as also the Laws, in Plato's last years (p. 221, 171). The Parmenides he considers spurious (supra. 82, 86). These views are modified in the treatise ' Ueber den Gegensatz zwischen Methodikern und Genetikern,' Ztschr. f. Philos. N. F. cvii. 1870, p. 55 sq. : cf. Grundr. i. 121, 4th edit, (besides the statements about the Sophist, Politicus, and Meno, quoted pp.82, 86 ; 83, 90). Ueberweg now thinks it likely that Plato's writings as a whole belong to the period after the founding of the school in the Academy ; and further, as a neces- sary censequence of this supposi- tion, he deduces the sequence of all the writings without exception from a deliberate and systematic plan; and, finally : in harmony with this, he places the Protagoras and the kindred dialogues between the Symposium and the Republic. 42 In his treatise: ' The Natural Arrangement of the Platonic Writings' (cf. especially p. 25 sq.) Muck goes on the supposition that Plato wished to give in the main body of his writings ' in the Socratic cycle' not so much an exposition of his own system, as a complete, detailed, and idealised picture of the life of the true philosopher, Socrates ; and as that presupposes a plan in accordance with which he determined the ex- ternal investiture of the dialogues, so the times of publication show the order in which Plato intended them to be read, and on the whole also that in which they were com- posed. In particular Munk makes the dialogues of the Socratic cycle follow one another thus, in three divisions: (1) Parmenides, Prota- goras, Charmides, Laches, Gorgias, Ion, Hippias Major, Cratylus, Euthydemus, Symposium ; ( 2 ) Phsedrus, Philebus, Republic, Timseus, Critias ; (3) Meno, The- setetus, Sophist, Politicus, Euthy- phro, Apology, Crito, Phsedo. Outside the cycle come the dia- logues which were composed be- fore Socrates' death, or on special occasions, such as on the one hand Alcibiades I., Lysis, and Hippias II., on the other the Laws and the Meuexenus. 48 Schone (on Plato's Protagoras, 108 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. have never sought definitely to establish their theories, 44 can only be shortly mentioned in this place. 1862, p. 8 sq.) wishes to make this distinction the ground of an en- quiry into the chronological order of Plato's writings. He appeals to the passage in the "Republic, iii. 392 C sq., where Plato banishes the drama from his state, and to- gether with lyric poetry allows only narrative poetry, and that too under fixed and limited conditions. With him he combines as standards for judgment, the aesthetic and stylistic points of view, because the style of the particular writings is a more universal and trustworthy criterion of their genuineness and date than their subject matter, and the affinity of style will be very closely connected with the time of production. According to this point of view, as he remarks, the Pla- tonic works will arrange them- selves somewhat as follows: (1) Laws, Cratylus, Theaetetus, So- phist, Politicus, Philebus, Timseus, Critias, Meno, Phaedrus: (2) Meh- exenus, Apology, Crito, Gorgias, Laches, Charmides, Protagoras, Symposium, Parmenides, Republic, Phaedo : the direct dialogues are Gorgias, Cratylus, Critias, Crito, Laches, Meno, Laws, Phaedrus, Philebus, Politicus, Sophist, The- setetus, Timseus ; the indirect are Gharmides, Parmenides, Phsedo, Protagoras, Republic, Symposium. The Apology is related to the direct, the Menexenus to the in- direct dialogues. The writings not mentioned here Schone apparently does not allow to be Plato's. He says, however, in his preface that he is indebted to a lecture of Weisse for his fundamental concep- tions as to the Platonic question, and also for many details in his treatise. 44 Suckow, Form d. Plat. Schrift. 508 sq., supposes with Schleier- macher ' an arrangement and sequence of the Platonic dialogues according to deliberate and special aims.' His arrangement, however, widely deviating from Schleier- maeher is as follows :(l)Parmenides, Protagoras, Symposium, Phsedrus ; (2) Republic and Timseus ; (3) Phile- bus, Thesetetus, Sophist, Apology, Phsedo. ^ (The Politicus and the Laws he considers spurious : as re- gards the remaining dialogues he expresses no opinion.) Stein (Sieb. Biicher z. Gesch. d. Plat. i. 80 sq.) separates the Platonic dialogues into three groups : (1) introductory (Lysis, Phsedrus, Symposium) ; (2) such as work out the system in its particular elements, Ethics (Meno, Protagoras, Charmides, Laches, Euthyphro, Euthydemus), Science (Thesetetus), the theory of the. Good (Gorgias and Philebus), the theory of Ideas (Parmenides, So- phist, and Politicus), Psychology (Phsedo) ; (3) the dialogues which construct the State and the sys- tem of Nature (Republic, Timseus, Critias, Laws). He regards as supplementary the Apology, Crito, Menexenus, the two Hippiae, Ion, Alcibiades I., and Cratylus. The relation of this division to the time of the composition of the dialogues he has not yet explained. Rose, De Arist. libr. ord. 25, proposes the following arrange- ment : Apology, Crito, Alcibiades I., Euthyphro, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, two Hippiae, Ion, Menexenus, Protagoras, Euthyde- THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 109 V"fe If we would gain a sure standard for 'this enquiry* the ostensible date of the dialogues and 'tnqf -historical | position which Socrates occupies ija tnetn must 4o|b be taken" into account; for we have no prool" jfball tn&t'j. the order which would thus result is the order in whichr-they were composed, or that Plato ever' iky tended to portray his master in a continuous, bio- graphical mannfer. Indeed, this assumption is refuted, not only by the indications given in several of the works as to the time when they were written, 45 but also by %he circumstance that the Socrates of Plato discourses of philosophy 46 in exactly the same manner, in age and in youth ; and during the last years of his life pursues enquiries which formed the elementary groundwork of dialogues purporting to be earlier. 47 The fact that Plato in the Thesetetus explicitly makes choice of the direct dramatic form of conversation to avoid the inconveniences of second-hand repetition, 48 mus, Gorgias, Meno, Thesetetus, resembles that in the Protagoras, Sophist, Cratylus, Parmenides, where he is a young man ; and in Politicus, Phsedrus, Symposium, the Euthyphro, a short time before Phsedo, Republic, Timseus, Critias, his death, it resembles that in the PhileV>us, Laws, Epinomis, and as Charmides (B. c. 432) and the Plato's last work a letter composed Laches (420 B.C.) : cf. Grote, i. 191. of our 7th and 8tli Platonic letters, 47 Cf. e.g. the relation of the written Olymp. 107, 1. Alcibiacles Theastetus to the Parmenides, of II. and Theages, if they are the Republic to the Timseus, of the genuine, precede the Protagoras. Politicus, Gorgias, Meno, and 4i According to this the Meno, Euthyphro to the Republic, of the and probably also the Thesetetus, Phsedrus to the Symposium. Muuk must be earlier than the Symposium perverts these relations in a very and the Timseus: vide supra 93, 3; unsatisfactory way. Cf. alsoSuse- 96, 11. According to Munk they mihTs thorough criticism otMunk's were later. work. Jahrb. fur Philol. Ixxvii. 46 For instance in the Euthyde- 829 sq. mus, where he is ^877 TrpeovSirrepos 4 " Page 143 B. sq., a passage (272 15), his philosophic method which can only be explained on 110 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. and that he elsewhere more than once connects, either expressly or by an unmistakeable reference, a direct dialogue with an indirect one preceding it, 49 would of itself suffice to rebut the theory of Weisse ; for the suppositions that are necessary to countervail this evidence 50 go much farther than is permissible to pure conjecture. Nor have we any right to suppose that Plato gave unconditional preference to the re- peated dialogue, except in cases where it was important for the attainment of the required end to describe with some minuteness the persons, motives, and acct>mpany- ing circumstances of the conversation ; 51 he doubtless, during his whole literary career, employed both forms indifferently, as occasion offered. There are other and more important clues by which we can to some extent determine the chronological orde r of the writings, and the supposition that the Thesetetus didactic. Here the question is not was preceded by other narrated about the imitation of different dialogues (as the Lysis, Charmides, characters, but about the exposition and Protagoras). of philosophic views. Should, how- 49 The Timseus and the Laws to ever, that inference be drawn, we the Republic, the Philebus (supra, fail to see what advantage the 70, 56) to the Parmenides. narrated dialogues had in this 30 That the introduction of the respect over the direct, inasmuch Thesetetus is not genuine, that the as the expressions of the Sophists Republic in an earlier recension and like persons, at the representa- had the form of a direct dialogue, tion of whom offence might have that the Laws (in spite of the been taken, in the one just as much evidences and proois mentioned as in the other were related in supra, pp. 93, 2; 96, 11) were direct speech, consequently 8s and not a.iT\f) Sn^o-ei were only acknowledged after (Rep. 392 D). The most'unworthy Plato's death ; Schone, p. 6 sq. traits which Plato represents, such 51 legin by enquiring to what extent and under what conditions the relative dates of the dialogues may be inferred from differences in their contents ; and what are the characteristics which show whether an exposi- tion really belongs to an earlier stage of its author's development or was purposely carried less far. Plato's own statements give us no information on this point. In a much criticised passage of the Phsedrus (274 C sqq.) he objects to written expositions on the ground that they are not restricted to persons who are capable of understanding them, but come into the hands of every one alike, and are therefore liable to all kinds of application to the order of compo- works, if, as in the case of Plato, sition. Even in the case of poets we had preserved to us only the and artists, the supposition that works themselves, and not any their more complete works are trustworthy accounts about the always their latest would lead to time of their origin as well. This mistakes without end ; and though difficulty is still greater in dealing in many of them of course the with a writer to whom the mere epochs of their development are artistic form of his works is not an shown by marked stylistic peculiar- independent and separate object, ities, still it would be exceedingly but only the means to other aims, difficult for us in most cases to de- which themselves limit the con- termine these epochs precisely, and ditions and direction of its appli- to assign to them their proper cation. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 113 misconception and unfounded abuse; he would have them regarded in the light of a mere pastime, useful indeed for reminding those already instructed of what in after years they may have forgotten, but far. less valuable than personal influence, by which others are scientifically educated and led to right moral con- victions. Hbwever important this passage may be in another connection, it affords us no help in de- termining tjie order, date, and interdependence of the Platonic writings. We cannot conclude from it, as Schleiermacher does, that Plato in each of the dialogues must have assumed the result of ^n earlier one unless it be previously shown that there existed among the dialogues a single inter-connected order ; for particular dialogues could serve very well for a reminder of oral discourse, and the thoughts engendered by it, even were there no such connection among them. Nor can we presuppose, with Socher 54 and his followers, that Plato could only have expressed himself in this manner at the time when he had commenced, or was about to commence, his school in the Academy ; for, in the first place, there was nothing to hinder his exercising that intellectual influence on others the planting of words in souls fitted for them of which he here speaks, even before the establishment of regular teaching in the Academy ; and, secondly, it is quite possible that in this passage he is not contrasting his literary activity with that kind of instruction which, as a matter of 54 Plato's Schriften, 307. Like- 286 ; and further references), Ue- wise Stallbaum, Hermann, Stein- berweg (Plat. Schr. 252, 128). hart, Susemihl (Genet. Entwick. i. 114 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. fact, he employed, but with the kind he desired, and, according to the Socratic precedent, kept before him as his ideal. 55 Still less can the quotation from the Phsedrus lend support to the theory that the com- pilation of all the dialogues was bound up with Plato's instructions in the Academy ; 56 for, understand it as we will, it only expresses the opinion of the author at that particular time, and we do not know how early it was adopted nor how long retained. That in his more comprehensive works at least, he entered upon subjects which in his oral teaching he either passed over, or dealt with more slightly, is in itself likely, and is con- firmed by the citations of Aristotle. 57 If, however, it is impossible, even from this passage, to discover either the principles followed by Plato in the arrangement of his writings, or the time when these were composed, the scientific contents themselves contain evidences by which we can distinguish, with more or less certainty, the earlier from the later works. It cannot, indeed, be expected that Plato should expound his whole system in each individual work : it is, on the contrary, sufficiently clear that he often starts in a preliminary and tentative manner from presuppositions of which he is himself certain. But in all the strictly philo- sophic writings, the state of his own scientific conviction is sure to be somehow betrayed : he either directly enunciates it, if only by isolated hints, when he is designedly confining an enquiry to a subordinate and 55 In the Protagoras also (347 E, ence. Cf. too the Phaedrus. 329 A), which most critics rightly 56 Ueberweg, Ztschr. f. Philos. place far earlier (387 B.C.), he con- Ivii. 64. trasts the songs of poets, and books 57 Cf. page 74. generally, with personal confer- THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 115 merely preparatory stage ; or he allows it to be in- directly perceived in ordering the whole course of the argument toward a higher aim, and foreshadows in the statement of problems their solution in the spirit of his system^ If, therefore, out of a number of works, otherwise related to one another, we find some that are wanting in certain fundamental determinations of Platonisrn, and/ do nat even indirectly require them ; while in othe/rs these very determinations unmistake- ably appear -we must conclude that at the time when the former were written, these points were not clearly established in Plato's own mind, or at any rate not so clearly as when he wrote the latter. If, again, two writings essentially presuppose the same scientific stand-point, but in one of them it is more definitely stated and more fully evolved ; if that which in the one case is only prepared for indirectly, or generally established, in the other is distinctly maintained and carried out into particulars, it is probable that the preparatory and less advanced exposition was purposely ineant to precede the more perfect and more systemati- cally developed. The same holds good of Plato's re- ferences to the pre-Socratic doctrines. He may indeed have been acquainted with these doctrines to a greater or less extent, without expressly touching on them ; but as we find him in the majority of his works either openly concerned with the most important, or at any rate unmistakeably pointing to them, while in others he silently passes them by it is at least highly probable that the latter, generally speaking, date from a time when he did not bestow much attention on those i -2 116 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. doctrines, or was much less influenced by them than he afterwards became. Even if we suppose that he purposely abstained from mentioning them, we must still, in the absence of any internal proof to the con- trary, consider those writings as the earlier in which such mention does not occur ; for in that case the most probable assumption would be that his silence proceeded from a desire to ground his readers thoroughly on a Socratic foundation, before introducing them to the pre-Socratic science. Lastly, great weight must be allowed to the allusions of one dialogue to another. These allusions indeed, as before remarked, 58 can very seldom take the form of direct citation ; yet there are often clear indi- cations that the author intended to bring one of his works into close connection with some other. If in a particular dialogue an enquiry is taken up at a point where in another it is broken off; if thoughts which in the one case are stated problematically or vaguely suggested, in the other are definitely announced and scientifically established ; or if, conversely, conceptions and theories are in one place attained only after long search, and are elsewhere treated as acknowledged truths, everything favours the supposition that the one dialogue must be later in date than the other, and in- tended as the application of its results. The author may either, in the composition of the earlier dialogue, have had the later one in view, or he may himself only have attained to the more advanced stand-point in the interval of time between them. In certain cases it 58 Pp. 95, 96. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 117 may still be doubtful whether a discussion is related to another as preparatory groundwork or complementary superstructure : in general, however, further enquiry will decide. Tn^hen^we attempt to apply these principles to the questionXbefore us, we shall find, as might be expected, that) none of the theories we have been considering c^n be rigidly carried out; that the order of the/Platonic writings cannot depend wholly either on design and calculation to the exclusion of all the influences arising from external circumstances and Plato's own development ; or on the gradual growth of Plato's mind, to the exclusion of any ulterior plan; or, still less, on particular moods, occasions, and impulses. We shall not press the assumptions of Schleiermacher to the extent of supposing that Plato's whole system of philosophy and the writings in which it is contained stood from the first moment of his literary activity complete before his mind, and that during the fifty years or more over which that activity extended he was merely executing the design thus formed in his youth. Even Schleiermacher did not go so far as this; and though he con- stantly refers the order of the Platonic works too ex- clusively to conscious design, we shall not very greatly diverge from his real opinion if we suppose that when Plato began to write, he was indeed clear about the fundamental points of his system, and had traced out the general plan by which he meant to unfold it in his writings ; that this plan, however, was not at once completed in its details, but that the grand outlines which alone in the commencement floated before him 118 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. were afterwards gradually filled in perhaps, also, sometimes in compliance with special circumstances altered and enlarged, according to the growth of his knowledge and the recognition of more definite scien- tific necessities. 59 On the other hand Hermann's point of view does not involve the conclusion, though he himself seems to arrive at it that Plato put together his system from outside, mechanically joining piece to piece, and expounding it in writings farther and farther, according as he became acquainted with this or that older school. The same principle of interpretation applies equally on the supposition that he developed the Socratic doctrine from within ; and that, instead of his acquaintance with another system of philosophy being the cause of his advance to another stage of his philosophic development, the progress of his own philo- sophic conviction was in fact the cause of increased attention to his predecessors. Lastly, if, in explaining the origin and sequence of the Platonic writings, we chiefly rely on external circumstances and personal moods, 60 even then we need not, with Grote, 61 pro- nounce the whole question hopeless, we can still enquire whether the contents of the works do not prove a gradual change in their author's stand-point, or the relation of one dialogue to another. This whole matter, however, is not to be decided on a 59 So Brandis, i. a. 160, defin- clear and precise from the first, ing more precisely Hermann's ob- their innate strength attained a jections(p. 351) to Schleiermacher's gradual and regular development.' view: 'Plato's creative genius early 60 Cf. p. 96. evolved from the Socratic, doctrines 61 Plato, i. 186 sq. the outlines of his future system : THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 119 priori grounds, but only by careful consideration of the Platonic writings themselves. Among these writings, then, there are certainly several which not only make passing allusion to pheno- mena of the time, but are only comprehensible in relation to definite historical events. The chief purpose of the Apology is to give the speech of Socrates in his own defence ; that of the Crito, to explain the reasons by which he was deterred from flight out of prison ; 62 the Euthyphro seems to have been occasioned by the in- dictment of Socrates, in conjunction with anotker con- current incident ; 63 the Euthydemus by the appearance of Antisthenes together with that of Isocrates, and the charges brought by both against Plato. 64 But even in such works as these, which, strictly speaking, are to be considered as occasional, the stand-point of the author is so clearly manifest that we can without difficulty assign them to a particular period of his life. The main purpose, however, of the great majority of the dialogues, be their outer motive what it may, is the representation and establishment of the Platonic phi- losophy : it is therefore all the more to be expected that we should in some measure be able to trace in them how far Plato at the time of their composition had either himself advanced in the formation of his system, or to what point he then desired to conduct the reader ; and on what grounds he assumes that his system might be known to the reader from earlier 62 And at the same time in the " Part i. 161, 1. defence of his frienas against the ' Cf. p. 84, 91. rumours intimated 44 B. 120 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. writings. Now we can discover in one part of these writings, nothing that carries us essentially beyond the Socratic stand-point. In the Lesser Hippias, Lysis, Charmides, Laches, Protagoras, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, there is as yet not a hint of that doctrine which marks the fundamental distinction between the Platonic and Socratic conceptional Philosophy : the doctrine of the independent existence of ideas, above and beside that of phenomena. 65 Neither do they contain any discussions on Natural Science or Anthropology ; 66 the belief m immortality is but doubtfully touched on in the Apology ; 67 and the Crito (54 B) only presupposes the popular notions about Hades, without a reference to the more philosophic belief, or to the Pythagorean myths, which later on are hardly ever left unnoticed in passages treating of future retribution. In none of these dialogues does Socrates occupy himself with any- thing beyond those ethical enquiries, in which, accord- 65 Socrates' desire in the Euthy- after all means merely method or phro, 5 D, 6 D, to hear, not merely form. Plato in fact is standing on of some particular oaiov, a\\* e6ii/o the threshold of the Socratic doc- avrb rb elSos, $ TTOLVTO. TO. oatd eVri, trine of ideas, but has not yet and his explanation /uia iSect TCI re stepped beyond it. Still less can avoffia. itvoffia. elVcu Kai TO. '6lAi/t0y, which is identified with the good, means merely the same as the ev CT)I> of the Protagoras (351 B), viz. yStws &i)vai continued to the end of life? Surely the discussion with Polus, 474 C sq., refutes this supposition ; for although it shows that the right is, indeed, not more agreeable, but more profitable than the wrong, yet it seeks this profit exclusively in the health of the soul (477 A sqq.). Further on, 495 A, the position that ^Su and ayaObv are the same, and that all pleasure as such is good, and therefore the very supposition acted upon by Socrates in his whole argument Protag. 351 C, is fundamentally contested. I cannot believe, that after making Socrates refute a principle so decidedly in this passage, in the Republic, in the Philebus, and elsewhere, Plato should, in a later dialogue, make him repeat the same principle without the slightest modification and the same must, I 'think, hold good in a still greater degree of the Philebus, which Schone, following Weisse's theory (supra, p. 107, 43), likewise considers later than the Protagoras. 71 The above holds good also, if we suppose that the object of the Protagoras and the kindred dia- logues was rot so much the ex- position of philosophic theories as the painting of the character of Socrates. For as in this case (leaving out of the question the Apology and the Crito) the ques- tion is still not about, historical accuracy, but about an ideal pic- ture of Socrates, we must ask why the same man, as regards his philo- sophical convictions, should be here depicted in so many respects diffe- rently from the representations of, e.g. the Symposium and Phaedo ; and it would be very difficult to bring forward afiy sufficient reason for this, if Plato himself as a philoso- pher took just the same stand-point there as he does here. The truth is, the two sides, the depicting of the THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 123 must doubtless have been the case while he remained under the personal influence of Socrates, and we might therefore be inclined to place all these dialogues in the period before or immediately after the death of Socrates. 72 But there are many to which this theory could not be extended without ascribing to the youthful Plato an improbable amount of creative skill in the use of the philosophic dialogue, an artistic form which he had himself introduced ; and even if we restrict it to the works already named, it may still be asked 73 whether Plato, while his master was still alive, and everyone might listen to his discourses, would have as- cribed to him other discourses of his own invention. This, however, does not make it impossible that Plato may have attempted to compose Socratic dialogues, even in the lifetime of Socrates, and may perhaps have written them down, without allowing them to go beyond the circle of his intimate friends ; 74 but it is very unlikely that he should at that time have pro- duced so elaborate a work as the Protagoras, which, by its whole plan and design, was evidently meant for the public. This may more properly perhaps be assigned with the Apology and Crito 75 to the interval between genuine philosopher and the ex- 7S Cf. Scho'ne, PI. Protag. 72 ; position of a philosophic system, Grote, Plato, i. 196 sq. (who brings cannot be divided in Plato: he forward my view with less authori- draws Socrates for us in such tative grounds) ; with him, Ueber- a way, that he at the same weg agrees in what follows, supra, time leaves to him the develop- p. 106, 41. ment which to his mind was the 74 The Hippias may be such Socratic, that is, the true philoso- an earlier literary experiment : cf. phy. pp. 85, 86. 72 So Hermann, Steinhart, Suse- 7S It is probable that the Apolo- mihl ; earlier also Ueberweg, supra, gy was published immediately after pp. 105, 106. Socrates' death, perhaps written 124 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the death of Socrates and the commencement of the Egyptian journey; 76 and in conjunction with the down even before, inasmuch as a faithful report of the speech which Socrates delivered before the tribu- nal must have been the more easy to Plato, the fresher it was in his remembrance. And indeed it -was then that he had the most pressing summons to set right the ideas of his fellow-citizens about his teacher by a narrative of the facts. The latter reason, however, would lead us to place the Crito not much later, the more so because here the interest intimated in the Crito itself is added, namely, to defend the friends of Socrates against the appearance of having done nothing at all to save him. It might cer- tainly appear that Plato could not have spoken of the preparations for Socrates' escape, immediately after his death, without endanger- ing the safety of the parties in- volved therein. But it is question- able whether, on the whole, the discovery of apian which remained unaccomplished could have led to prosecutions, and whether the plan was not already known even be- fore the appearance of the Crito ; again, we do not know how long Crito out-lived Socrates, and whether Plato does not wish to de- fend the dead against unfavourable judgments; moreover, if Crito was no longer living, he had greater freedom in referring to him ; yet besides Crito, he mentions by name none of the persons implicated (p. 45 B), such as the Thebans Sim- mias and Cebes, who without doubt had already returned home. 76 A more precise arrangement is impossible from the fact that the particulars of this period of Plato's life are not known. If his stay at Megara could have lasted longer, he might have composed the dialogues ill question thf-re. But it has been already remarked, p. 17 sq., that we have no right to make this supposition, and it is a wide departure from authen- ticated tradition to speak, as Her- mann does, of a Megaric period and Megaric dialogues. Ueberweg (Zeitschr. f. Phil. Ivii.. 1870, p. 76 sq. supra, 106, 41) wishes to put back the Protagoras and the kindred dialogues to 387 B.C., and he believes that for this chronology he finds a strong exter- nal support in the fact that Iso- crates (Bus. 5), six years after Socrates' death, reproaches the rhetorician Polycrates : 'AA.KijSiaSTji/ eSco/cas avrcj) (Socr.) /xaflTjrV, %v for 1 fKttvov peis ouSeh 77 v &v 77 xp6vov Kal bv 'av /AT] r) avBpuTros, it must always be in possession of knowledge. I will not undertake to defend the validity of this con- clusion. I would rather ask where is the valid conclusion, by which pre - existence is proved, and whether, for example, the method of proof in the Phaedo, 70 C sq., has in this respect any advantage over that of the Meno? In point of fact, our 'fallacy' is ex- pressly mentioned in the Phaedo, 72 E, as a well-known Socratic evidence for the immortality of the soul. 83 Plato himself gives his opinions on this connection in 128 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. logues occupy themselves quite disproportionately with elementary enquiries into the most universal moral principles, concerning the oneness and teachableness of virtue, the conception of knowledge, and the like ; the reason cannot be that Plato had not himself advanced essentially beyond the Socratic stand-point and the earliest beginnings of his own system, it must lie in methodical calculation. The author here intentionally confines himself to what is elementary, because he wants first to establish this on all sides, to secure the founda- tion of his building, before raising it higher. His method in the Cratylus, Sophist, Politicus, and Par- menides must be criticised from a similar point of view. These dialogues decidedly presuppose the doctrine of ideas : 84 in the Politicus Plato, besides laying down his theory of government, also gives ex- pression to several important determinations of his natural philosophy, 85 betraying Pythagorean influence the Phsedo, 76 D sq. If there is, the external appearance, which, he says, a beautiful, a good, &c., with Plato, is closely connected and generally if there are ideas, with the theory of the absolute the soul must have already been reality of the Ideas ; the soul in in existence before birth ; if we its higher parts lives upon the deny the former position, we can- intuition of the Ideas (247 D, not grant the latter. He says this 248 B.) in reference to the avd^v^a-is, 84 It will be shown later on how which is indeed really a recol- the Sophist and Parmenides estab- lection of the ideas. The same, lish and carry out this doctrine, however, holds good of the later For the Cratylus, cf. 439 C sq. proofs for the immortality of the (where the expression oveipcaTTfiv soul's nature (Phaedo, 100 B sq.); can at most only mean that the doc- as throughout he goes upon the trine is new to the readers, not that relation in which the soul stands it has occurred to Plato only then to the idea of life ; and the con- for the first time), 386 D, 389 B, D, ception of the soul in the Phaedrus 390 E, 423 E ; and the Politicus, as apx^J K'^o-ews (245 C sq.), all 285 E sq., 269 D. along presupposes the separation " Polit. 269 D sq., we find of the eternal and essential from the opposition of the immutable THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 129 not only in these, but in other more distinct references to that school of his predecessors. 86 Consequently it cannot be supposed that at the date of these dialogues he had not yet perfected his philosophic principle, nor occupied himself with the Pythagoreans ; and though, as to contents and method, he is here most nearly allied with the Eleatic-Megarian philosophy, this merely proves that he desired to lead his readers onward from that starting point, not that he himself had not already passed it. As little are we compelled, on account of the definite prominence in the Phsedrus of the doctrine of ideas, and the changing existences of the soul, to consider that dialogue as later than the Sophist, Statesman, and Parmenides, 87 or even than the Grorgias, Meno, Euthy- demus, Cratylus, and Theaetetus. 88 It is quite as pos- divine existence and the mutable a reference to Pythagereism. The corporeal world, and, as a con- Sophist, 252 B, gives us the sequence, the assumption of perio- Pythagorean opposition of the Li- dical changes in mundane affairs, mited and Unlimited, which meet And in 272 D sq., 271 B sq., we us again in the Parmenides, 137 D, get, in connection with this, the 143 D sq., 144 E, 158 B sqq., with doctrine that each soul in each the addition of a contrast be- mundane pericd has to run through tween Odd and Even, One and a fixed number of earthly bodies, Many; and, ibid. 143 D sq., the unless previously transferred to a derivation of numbers isareminis- higher destiny. In 273 B, D, the cence of the Pythagoreans. In the doctrine of the Timseus on matter is Politicus, we have the Pythagorean clearly anticipated. tenets of the Mean, 284 E sq., and 80 In the Cratylus, 400 B sq., the doctrine of the Unlimited, we find Philolaus' comparison of 273 D. 0-wjiia and O-TJ/XO, which occurred 87 So Hermann and Steinhart : before in the Gorgias. We are vide supra, pp. 103, 104,; 105,38. farther told that this life is a state 88 As Susemihl: vide supra, of purification. In 405 D, we Deuschle (The Platonic Politicus, have the Pythagorean World Har- p. 4) puts the Phsedrus rather mony; in 403 E, the Platonic earlier, between the Euthydemus doctrine of immortality, which is and Cratylus. 130 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. sible that Plato here mythically foretells convictions which were already in his mind during the writing of those dialogues, but which, for the sake of the sys- tematic evolution of his doctrines, he had for the present set aside : that the Phsedrus may thus be the introduc- tion to a longer series of writings, designed from its position to afford the reader a preliminary view of the goal, hereafter to be frequently hidden from his eyes, as he presses towards it by the long and tortuous road of methodical enquiry. This possibility rises into probability if we take into consideration all those traces of youthfulness which others have observed; 89 if we remark that some important points of doctrine are in this work, as in the glow of a first discovery, still wanting in the closer limitation which Plato was afterwards obliged to give them ; 90 if we note how, in 89 In Diog. iii. 38, Olympiodorus fited with ostentatious complete- 3 (vide p. 92, 1), it is declared to ness ; and at every pause the by- be Plato's first written treatise, by play breaks out in renewed luxuri- reference to the /u.eipa;a>8es of its ance, or an uncalled-for solemnity subject the dithyrambic character is imparted to the tone. Such are of the exposition. Schleiermacher, some of the points noticed by PL W. 1 a. 69 sq., gives a more Schleiermacher; and to these we thorough exposition of the youth- may add that even the famous ful character recognisable 'in the myth of the Phsedrus lacks the whole texture and colour' of the intuitive faculty which marks Phsedrus. He calls attention to Platonic myths as a rule. The the tendency to writing for dis- dithyrambic tone of the whole play, and the exhibition of the work has none of the repose about author's own superiority, which is it with which, in other dialogues, discernible throughout; to the Plato treats the most exalted proud lavishness of material seen themes ; it is indeed so signally in the second and third refutation different from the matured lucidity of the dialectic adversary, each of of the Symposium, that we can which outdoes its predecessor, only scarcely suppose there are only a to result in the declaration that few years between them, his whole literary production, and 90 Courage and Desire, which, these speeches with it, are merely according to the Timseus, 42 A, play. The Khetors are discom- 69 C sq. (cf. Polit. 309 C; Eep. x. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 131 the second part, the elements of the scientific method are as if for the first time laid down, and the name and conception of Dialectic, already familiar to us in the Euthydemus, 91 are introduced as something new ; 9a if, in fine, we compare the remarks on rhetoric in the Phsedrus with those in the Grorgias : 93 andthejudg- 611 B sqq.), compose the mortal soul which only comes into being at the union with the body, are here, 246 A sq., transferred to the pre-existent state, and in 249 D sq. we find the Love which is the main theme of the Phseirus con- ceived only in general terms as the striving after the Ideal, awakened by the action of beauty. Not till wo come to the Symposium do we find the addition, that Love is concerned with production in the sphere of beauty. 91 P. 290 C ; also Cratylus, 390 C ; Soph. 253 D sq. ; Polit. 285 D, 287 A. 92 P. 265 C sqq. Dialectic is here described on its formal logical side only ; and I cannot agree with Steinhart (PL W. iii. 459) in re- garding the representation given of it as more mature than that in the Sophist, where, loc. cit., the logical problem of Dialectic is based on the doctrine of the community ot concepts. Stallbaum's attempt (De Art. Dial, in Phsedro doctr. Lpz. 1853, p. 13) to reconcile the elementary description of Dialectic in the Phsedrus with the later enunciation does not satisfy me. He says that the Phsedrus only wants to represent Dialectic as the true art of Ldve. Even if this were so, it would not follow that it should be treated as something new, the very name of which has to be enquired. But there is uo justification in the dialogue itself for thus narrowing down the scope of its second part. 83 The Phaedrus, 260 E sqq., shows that Ehetoric is not an art at all, but only a rptjSrj ^rex^os, and we find the same in the Gorgias, 463 A sqq. But the former not only takes' no exception to the general description of Ehetoric as having only persuasion for its object (how- ever little this may have been Plato's own view), but makes this description the basis of its argu- ment. The latter contradicts this flatly, 458 E, 504 D sqq., and gives theEhetor the higher aim of amend- ing and teaching his audience; and because Ehetoric does not satisfy these requirements, it is, in the The- aetetus, 201 A, Politicus, 304 C, al- lowed only a subordinate value, compared with Philosophy ; though the Phserlrus does not clearly divide the respective methods of the two. In face of these facts (which Ueberweg's remarks, Plat. Schr. 294, fail to display in any other light) I cannot allow much im- portance either to the criticism of the Phsedrus on single Ehetors and their theories (Steinhart, iv. 43), nor to the circumstance which Hermann alone (Plat. 517) regards as decisive, viz. that the Phaedrus 270 A passes a judgment on Pericles so much more favourable than the Gorgias 515 C sq. 519 A. The former praises him as a 2 132 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. ment on Isocrates with that of the Eutliydemus. 94 The opinion therefore seems justifiable that Plato up to the death of Socrates remained generally true to the Socratic manner of philosophy, and therefore in the writings of this period did not essentially advance beyond his teacher ; but that in the years immediately speaker of genius and scientific culture ; the latter blames him as a statesman. Both this praise and blame are quite compatible (as Krische has already remarked, Plat. Phsedr. 114 sq.), at any rate just as much as e.g. the praise of Homer and other po?ts, Symp. 209 D, is compatible with expressions such as Gorg. 502 B sq. ; Rep. ii. 377 C sq. ; x. 598 D sq. ; and even supposing it were otherwise, the question still remains whether the unfavourable judgment is the earlier or the later one : the judg- ment of the Gorgias is repeated in the Politicus, 303 B sq. ; and as Plato always considered democracy to be bad, we cannot see how he ever could have arrived at a dif- ferent view as regards the states- man who most decidedly had paved the way for it. 84 In the Euthydemus, without mentioning Isocrates, yet. with dis- tinct reference to him, his depreci- atory judgments as regards the Philosophers (or as lie calls them the Eristics, the Sophists) are de- cidedly rebutted, and the middle position which he himself aimed at between a philosopher and a statesman is shown to be unten- able. The Phsedrus, on the con- trary, 278 E sq., represents Socrates as expressing a hope that Isocrates by virtue of the philosophic ten- dency of his mind will not merely leave all other orators far behind, but perhaps himself also turn to philosophy. Spengel (Isocrates u. Platon. Abh. d. Miinchner Akad. philos.-philol. Kl. vii. 1855, p. 729-769 ; cf. espec. 762 sq.) is cer- tainly right in believing that the Phsedrus must have been written before the character of Isocrates had developed in that particular direction which Plato's defence in theEuthydemuschallenges before the hope of still winning him over to the side of philosophy had vanished and before he had pub- lished that series of attacks on the philosophers of his time (including Plato, thoxigh neither he nor any other is named) which we have in the speeches against the Sophists, Hel. i-7, Panath. 26-32, TT. avTi86ar. 195, 258 sq. Philipp. 12. As Isocrates was born B.C. 436, supposing the Phaedrus to have been composed 381 B.C., he had already, at the time of its composition, attained an age to which this condition clearly no longer applied. The remark of Steinhart, Plat. Leben, 181 sq., in- tended to meet this conclusion, fails to carry conviction with it, as he finally supports his position with the mere assumption that neither was Plato in the Euthy- demus thinking of Isocrates, nor Isocrates of Plato in the speech against the Sophists. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 133 ,V succeeding that event, be discovered in the doctrine of ideas and belief in the soul's immortality the central point of his system, and thenceforward began, accord- ing to the announcement in the Phsedrus, to develope Ms convictions in methodical progression. That these convictions became in course of time more clearly defined and more distinctly apprehended that the horizon of the philosopher gradually enlarged, and his method and form of expression to some extent altered tjiat his relation to the older schools was not throughout the same that it was long before his political, and far longer before his cosmical theories were completed as to detail ; all this we shall probably find, even if the traces of such a development should be less marked in his writings than it was in fact ; but the essential stand-point and general outlines of his doctrine must have been certain to him from the date indicated by the Phsedrus, Grorgias, Meno, and Theaetetus. It can hardly be doubted that the Symposium and Phsedo are later than the Phaedrus, and belong to a time when the philosophy of Plato, and also his ar- tistic power, had reached full maturity ; 95 the Philebus, too, can scarcely be assigned to an earlier period. But the difficulty of determining the order of these dia- logues with regard to one another, and the exact date of each, is so great that we cannot be surprised if the views of critics differ widely on these questions. Between those dialogues which definitely bring forward 95 Ast and Socher would place this supposition, however, has been the Phsedo immediately after So- sufficiently refuted, supra, crates' death (supra, 101, 25, 28): 134 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the doctrine of ideas and the eternal life of the soul, and those from which it is absent, there must be a considerable interval ; and if the former were for the most part not written till after the death of Socrates, we cannot venture to place either of the latter in the period closely succeeding tha,t event. We may reasonably suppose that the dialogues primarily concerned with the delineation of Socrates and the Socratic philosophy, as Plato then apprehended it, may have been written partly in Megara, partly after his return thence to Athens ; that he then went to Egypt and Gyrene ; that during this journey or immediately after it he formed the views which led him decidedly beyond the Socratic stand-point, at any rate then first resolved to proclaim them by his mas- ter's mouth ; and thus this second epoch of his literary activity might commence about four or five years after Socrates' death. But all this is mere conjecture, and cannot be substantiated. Among the writings of this time the Phsedrus seems to be the earliest. 96 The Gforgias and Meno may have fol- lowed ; their subject and treatment allying them, more than any dialogues of this class, to the Protagoras. 97 From the well-known anachronism in the Meno, 98 it would appear that this work was published not much later than<395 B.C." The Thesetetus is connected with the 96 My own arguments in favour expressly called 6 vvv j/eoxn-r tl\T)- of this supposition are given p. 1 30 us ra TloXvKpdrovs ^p-n/j.ara, which sq. : cf. 112 sq. in this case can only be said from 87 The Euthydemus is omitted, the stand-point of the axithor, not for the reasons given on p. 84. of Socrates ; on the other hand, if 98 Cf. p. 93, 3. the incident was still recent, and 89 On the one hand Ismenias is Plato's indignation at it still fresh, THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 135 Meno by its subject-matter; the Meno (89 C sq. 96 D sqq.) reduces the question of the teachableness of virtue to the preliminary question, ' Is virtue knowledge ? ' but at the same time recognises that virtuous conduct can also spring from right opinion ; the Thesetetus enquires into the conception of knowledge, and its relation to right opinion. In point of date also, the Thesetetus seems to approximate to the Meno. For if it was not written at the time of the Corinthian war, we cannot place it much earlier than 368 B.C. 100 It is, however, very unlikely that Plato should at so late a period have thought so elementary an enquiry to be necessary, for we find him in other dialogues 101 treating the distinc- tion of knowledge and opinion as a thing universally acknowledged, and of which it was sufficient merely to remind his readers. Yet if, on the other hand, we place the Thesetetus later than 368 B.C., the greater number of Plato's most comprehensive and important works must be crowded into the two last decades of his life : this is in itself not probable, and it becomes still less so when we remember that in these twenty years occurred the two Sicilian journeys, and the alteration in the Platonic philosophy spoken of by Aristotle ; which latter is so entirely untraceable in x the writings of Plato that we are forced to assign it to aNiater date. 102 It is therefore almost certain that the It can easily be imagined how he gether with ^HO-T^TJ, 8<$a and camel to allow this remarkable afod-nffis appear, plainly the two anachronism. concepts, the separation of which 1UB Cf. p. 18, 31. from Knowledge is the subject of 101 Tim. 51 D sq. ; Kep. v. 477 enquiry in the Thesetetus. : A, E; vii. 533 E; Symp. 202 A; 10; the Laws form an exception also Parmen. 155 D, where, to- considering their general attitude 136 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Thesetetus must have been written a short time after the Meno ; most likely between 392 and 390 B.C. 103 The Sophist is connected with the Theaetetus in a manner which seems to show that Plato not only meant in the former to refer his readers expressly to the latter, but also to prepare the way, in the conclusion of the Thesetetus, for a further enquiry of a like nature. 104 The Politicus, too, is immediately connected with the Sophist; 105 and there is in both dialogues the announcement of a third discussion on the conception of a philosopher; a promise which Plato, for some reason unknown to us, never fulfilled. If this is not sufficient to prove that all these dialogues were com- posed in direct sequence, without the interruption of we cannot expect them to touch upon the metaphysics of Plato's later doctrines. 103 The point which Ueberweg, Plat. Schrift. 227 sqq., lays stress upon in support of his own and Munk's supposition that the These- tetus was written before 368, seems to me much too uncertain to prove anything. On the contrary, it harmonizes very well with the common view, that Euclid and Theodoras play a part in the Thesetetus ; and with them, not long before the time assigned for the composition of the dialogue, Plaro had had friendly intercourse. Of. p. 18, 31. 104 In the Thesetetus, after it has been shown that of the different definitions of Knowledge, fTrun^fi-n, as ctf BedoSwpf, Ssvpo ifdXiv a,Trai'TWfj.v. In reference to this, the Sophist opens with the words of Theo- dorusi^KiTct T^V x* s o/jLoXoyiav, S> 2^/cpares, T^KOfjLfv. It is true, the concluding words of the Theae- tetus would not certainly esta- blish any design of a continua- tion in further dialogues (Bonitz, Plat. Stud. II., 41 in reference to the end of the Laches and Prota- goras) ; but if Plato has connected them with such a continuation, we may in this case certainly sup- pose that he refers to them in it ; and, again, the beginning of the Sophist would have been unin- telligible to his readers if it was separated from the Theaetetus by a very great interval and by a series of other dialogues. 105 Politicus, iuit. ; Sophist, 216 C sq. THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 13; other works, it is at any rate clear that Plato when he undertook the Sophist had already planned the Politi- cus, and he probably allowed himself no great delay in the execution of his design. We cannot be so certain about the Thesetetus ; but it is unlikely that many years can have intervened between this dialogue and , the Sophist ; and thus there is some ground for believ- ing that the Sophist and Politicus also were composed before the first Sicilian journey, or about that time. 106 ' Ueberweg, Plat, Schrift. 275 sq., following Munk's example, places the Theaetetns trilogy far later. His chief evidence lies in the observation that the move- ment in the Ideas maintained by the Sophist (vide on this point, supra, note 42) must belong to a later form of the doctrine than the view of their abso- lute immutability which is im- pugned therein. Still, however, the question remains whether the view attacked here is that known to us as Plato's from writings like the Phaedo, the Timaeus, &c. (cf. p. 215 sq.), and whether the view of the Ideas as moving and animated, sinks into the background in the remaining dia- logues besides the Sophist (that it is not quite wanting was shown loc. cit.), because he had not yet found it out, or because it lay too far out of the dominant tendency of his thoughts, and the difficulty of bringing it into harmony with other more important designs was too great to allow him to follow it out further; or whether we have iu the Sophist really a, later form of the doctrine of Ideas, and not rather an attempt (subsequently abandoned) to include motion in the concept of the Ideas. The last supposition, besides the other reasons alleged for the priority of the Sophist to the Parmenides and of the Politicus to the Kepublic, at once falls to the ground when wo consider that in the account of the theory of Ideas known to us from Aristotle the characteristic of motion is wanting throughout, and moreover this deficiency is expressly made an objection to the doctrine (cf. Part ii. b. 220, 2nd edit.) ; so that the Sophist cannot be considered as an exposition of the Ideas in their latest form, but merely as the transition to it. Ueberweg further (p. 290 sq.) thinks that he discerns in the Politicus, as well as in the Phaedo, anthropological views which must be later than those of the Timaeus. The incorrectness of this remark will be proved later on (in chap- ter viii.). Finallv Schaarschmidt (Samml. d. plat. Schrift. 239 sq.) endeavours to point out in the same dialogue a whole series of imitations of the Laws, but I cannot enter upon the theory hero in detail ; I have, however, not found one out of all the passMjri 1 ? which he quotes, which contradicts the supposition that the Politicus 138 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. The Parmenides refers to the Sophist, 107 the Philebus to the Parmenides ; 108 and both the Philebus and the Politicus 109 are presupposed by the Eepublic. 110 These dialogues must therefore have succeeded one another in the above order. 111 The precise date of each, and where the Euthydemus and Cratylus came in among them, cannot be ascertained ; the Symposium was pro- is one of Plato's works which pre- ceded the Laws. 107 I have endeavoured to show the probability of this (in Plat. Stud. 186 sq. 192 sq.) by a com- parison of Farm. 128 E sq. with Soph. 253 D, 251 A; Parm. 143 A B, 145 A with Soph. 244 B sq., 254 D sq. ; Parm. 133 C with Soph. 255 C. 108 Supra, 70, 56. 109 with regar d to the latter I shall content myself with referring to Susomihl, Genet. Entw. ii. 303 sq. and chapter viii. of this volume, and with the remark that there seems to me to be no occasion for the conjecture that we have it not in its original shape, but in a second elaboration (Alberti, Jahrb. f. Philol. Suppl. N. F. 1, 166 sq.) 110 When it is said, Kep. vi. 505 B : aAXa /JLTJV r<$5e ye o?(r6a, on ToTs /J.ev TroAAoTs ySovTj So/ceT elvai rb ayaObv, TO?S 5e Ko\l/OTfpois p6i/riiAos. c. 2 -i) that Philippus of to write the' Cyropsedia ; Gellius, Opus published the Laws from a however, openly presupposes our rough draft of Plato's. division of the books, already 123 Its only authority is in the familiar to Thrasyllus (Diog. iii. assertion quoted p. 92, 1, in Gel- 57). Compare on these questions lius, that Xenophon composed the Susemihl, Genet. Entw. ii. 88 Cyropsedia in opposition to the sq., whose judgment is more cor- Platonic State, lectis ex eo duobus rect than Ueberweg's, Plat. Sclir. fere libris qui primi in volgus 212. exierant. But this anonymous THE ORDER OF THE PLATONIC WRITINGS. 143 Nor is there any proof or likelihood that he recast the dialogue a second time. 124 Modern critics have en- deavoured to separate the first and last book from the rest of the work, but neither tradition nor valid inter- .nal evidence favours the supposition; while on the other hand the artistic and essential unity which appears throughout is an unanswerable argument to the contrary. 125 121 According to Diog. iii. 37 Euphorio and Pansetius reported : TroAAa/cjs effTpa/ijU.ei/Tjz' evpriarOcu T^J/ apxV TTJS 7ro\iT6ias. Dionys. De Comp. verb. p. 208 f. R; and Quintil. viii. 6, 64, says more pre- cisely : the first four (or according to Dion the first eight) words of the Republic were written in many different arrangements, on a tablet found after Plato's death. But from that we cannot with Dionysius, loc. cit., go so far as to conclude that Plato was engaged in polishing his writings up to the time of his death ; we plainly have here to do rather with an experiment before publication to see how the opening words would look in different posi- tions. Still less must we magnify these corrections of style into a separate revision of the whole work. 125 It was, as is well known, Her- mann, Plat. i. 537 sq., who put forward the assertion that the first book was originally a separate and independent work of Plato's first "orNSocratic period, and was after- wards prepared as an introduction to the Republic, and that the tenth book was only added after a longer period. Also that the 5th, 6th, and 7th books were inserted be- tween the 4th and the 8th book by way of a supplement. However, he has not shown much care in sub- stantiating this sweeping assertion. I will not here enter into particu- lars, because Hermann's assump- tion has already been tested, with especial reference to the first book, by Steinhart, PL W. v. 67 sq., 675 sq., and Susemihl, Genet. Entw. ii, 65 sqq. I would only point out that the end (x. 608 C sq.) is already prepared for in the introduction (i. 330 D). The discussion on Justice, to which the whole of Ethics and Politics is subordinated, starts from the re- mark, that only the just man awaits the life in the world to come with tranquillity ; and at the end it returns, after settling all the intermediate questions, to the starting point, to find its sublime conclusion in the contemplation of reward in the world to come. This framework at once proves that we have to deal with a single self- consistent work, which with all its freedom in working out the details and additions during the process of elaboration, is still designed in accordance with a definite plan. 144 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. CHAPTEK IV. OF THE CHARACTER, METHOD, AND DIVISION OF THE PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY. THE Platonic philosophy is on the one side the com- Ipletion of the Socratic ; but on the other, an extension Jand an advance upon it. As Socrates in his philosophic enquiries concerned himself with the moral quite as much as with the intellectual life as ^with him rigrlt - action was inseparably united with right cognition, philosophy with morality and religion, being indeed one and the same thing so is~it in Plato ; and as the aim of the one philosopher was to ground intelligence and conduct on conceptual knowledge, so to the other the standard of all action and of all convictions is the contemplation of universal ideas. Plato's views con- cerning the problem and principle of philosophy thus rest entirely on a Socratic basis. But that which had been with Socrates only a universal axiom became with Plato a system ; that which the former had laid down as the principle of knowledge was announced by the latter as the principle of metaphysics. Socrates had sought that conceptual knowledge for which he claimed existence, but he had only reduced to their primary concept particular activities and phenomena CHARACTER OF PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY. 145 in connection with the given case. He had never attempted to gain a whole from scientifically combined concepts, and thus to explain the totality of the Real. ^ He confined himself on principle to ethical enquiries, and even these he pursued, not systematically, but in a merely inductory' manner. It was Plato who first expanded the Socratic philosophy into a system, com- j$ bined its ethics with the earlier natural philosophy, and founded both in dialectics, or the pure science of ideas. But the necessity immediately became apparent of a principle not only to guide thought in the scien- tific method, but also to interpret material things in their essence and existence. Plato, in transcending the Socratic ethics, transcends also the Socratic accep- tation of conceptual knowledge. The cognition of ideas, Socrates had said, is the condition of all true knowledge and right action. Therefore, concludes Plato, logical thought is alone true knowledge. All other ways of knowing presentation, envisagement afford no scientific certainty of conviction. But if the knowledge of the idea is alone real knowledge, this can only be, according to Plato, because that alone is a knowledge of the Real ; because true Being be- longs exclusively to the essence of things presented in the idea, and to all else, in proportion only as it participates in the idea. Thus the idealizing of the concept, which with Socrates had been a logical postu- late involving a certain scientific dexterity, dialectical impulse, and dialectical art, was now raised to the objective contemplation of the world, and perfected into a system. *L 146 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. This, however, was impossible without introducing a sharper discrimination between intellectual and moral activity. Their direct and unconditional unity, which Socrates had demanded, can only be maintained so long as no advance is made beyond his general view of the two-sided problems. The moment we proceed to particulars either, on the one hand, examining the con- ditions of scientific thought, and directing that thought to subjects of no immediate moral import ; or, on the other, fixing the attention more steadily on that which is peculiar to moral activities and their various mani- festations we can no longer conceal from ourselves that there is a difference, as well as a connection, be- tween knowledge and action. It will be shown here- after that this difference forced itself upon Plato too : herein, however, as in his whole conception of philo- sophy, he is far less widely separated than Aristotle from his master. He distinguishes more sharply than the one between the moral direction of the will and scientific cognition, but does not therefore, like the other, make philosophy an exclusively theoretical ac- 1 tivity. He completes the Socratic ethics not only with dialectical but with physical investigations : the latter, however, never prosper in his hands ; and what- ever may be the obligations of this branch of en- quiry to Plato, it is certain that his genius and zeal for natural science were far inferior to those of Aristotle, and that his achievements in this department bear no comparison with those of his scholar, either in extent of knowledge, acuteness of observation, exact- ness of interpretation, or fruit fulness of result. He CHARACTER Ol< PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY. 147 gives to concepts, as separate substances, the reality of Ideas ; but in holding Ideas to be the only reality, and material things, as such, to be devoid of essence, and non-existent, he makes impossible to himself the explanation of the phenomenal world. He perfects the conceptual philosophy into a system, but is not im- pelled, like his successor, to enter deeply into par- ticulars : to him the idea only is the true object of thought ; the individual phenomenon possesses no in- terest. He can indeed make use of it to bring to light the idea in which it participates, but that thorough completeness with which Aristotle works his way through ^ empirical data is not his concern. The study of par- ticulars seems to him scarcely more than an intellectual pastime, and if he has for awhile occupied himself with it, he always returns, as if wearied out, to the contem- plation of pure ideas. In this respect, also, he stands v* midway between Socrates and Aristotle ; between the philosopher who first taught the development of the concept from presentation or envisagement, and him who more completely than any other Greek thinker has carried it into all the spheres of actual existence. In the same proportion, however, that" Plato advanced beyond Socrates, it was inevitable that he should go back to the pre-Socratic doctrines, and regard as his co-disciples those who were then seeking to apply those theories to the perfecting of the Socratic doctrine. To what an extent he did both is well known. Plato is the first of the Greek philosophers who not merely knew and made use of his predecessors, but consciously completed their principles by means of each other, and L 2 148 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. bound them all together in one higher principle. What- Socrates had taught with regard to the concept of knowledge ; Parmenides and Heraclitus, the Megarians and Cynics, on the difference between knowledge and opinion ; Heraclitus, Zeno, and the Sophists, on the subjectivity of sense perception all this he built up into a developed theory of knowledge. The Eleatic principle of Being, and the Heraclitean of Becoming, the doctrine of the unity and that of the multiplicity of tilings, he has, in his doctrine of Ideas, quite as much blended as opposed ; while at the same time he has perfected both by means of the Anaxagorean conception of Spirit, the Megaro-Socratic conception of the (rood,, and the idealised Pythagorean numbers. These latter, properly understood, appear in the theory of the World- soul, and the Mathematical laws, as the mediating ele- ment between the idea and the world of sense. Their one element, the concept of the Unlimited, held absolutely and combined with the Heraclitean view of the sensible world, gives the Platonic definition - of Matter. The cosmological part of the Pythagorean system is repeated in Plato's conception of the uni- verse : while in his theory of the elements and of physics proper, Empedocles and Anaxagoras, and more distantly the Atomistic and older Ionic natural philo- sophies, find their echoes. His psychology is deeply coloured with the teaching of Anaxagoras on the immaterial nature of mind, and with that of Pytha- goras on immortality. In his ethics, the Socratic basis can as little be mistaken as, in his politics, his sym- pathy with the Pythagorean aristocracy. Yet Plato CHARACTER OF PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY. 149 is neither the envious imitator that calumny has called him, nor the irresolute eclectic, who only owed it to favouring circumstances that what was scattered about in earlier systems united in him to form a harmonious whole. We may say more truly that this blending of the rays of hitherto isolated genius into one focus is the work of his originality and the fruit of his philosophic principle. The Socratic conceptual philosophy is from the outset directed to the contemplation of things in *all their aspects, the dialectic combination of those various definitions of which now one, and now another, is mistaken by a one-sided apprehension for the whole to the reduction of the multiplicity of experience to its permanent base. 1 Plato applies this method uni- versally, seeking not merely the essential nature of moral activities, but the essential nature of the Real. He is thus inevitably directed towards the assumptions of his predecessors, which had all started from some true perception ; but while these assumptions had re- lated entirely and exclusively to one another, Plato's scientific principles required that he should fuse them all into a higher and more comprehensive theory cf the world. As therefore Plato's knowledge of the earlier doctrines gave him the most decided impulse in the development of the Socratic teaching, it was -conversely that development which alone enabled him to use the combined achievements of the other philosophers for his own system. The Socratic con- ceptual philosophy was transplanted by him into the fruitful and well-tilled soil of the previous natural 1 Cf. Part i. page 93, 95 sqq. 150 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. philosophy, thence to appropriate to itself all kindred; matter ; and in thus permeating the older speculation with the spirit of Socrates, purifying and reforming it by dialectic, which was itself extended to metaphysical speculation, in thus perfecting ethics by natural phi- losophy, and natural philosophy by ethics Plato has accomplished one of the greatest intellectual creations ever known. Philosophy could not indeed permanently remain in the form then given to it. Aristotle soon made very essential alterations in the theories of his master ; the older Academy itself could not maintain them in their purity, and the later systems that thought to reproduce the system of Plato were self-deceived. But this is precisely Plato's greatness, that he was able to give the progress of Philosophy an impulse so powerful, so far transcending the limits of his own system, and to proclaim the deepest principle of all right speculation the Idealism of thought with such energy, such freshness of youthful enthusiasm, that to him, despite all his scientific deficiencies, belongs the honour of for ever conferring philosophic consecration on those in whom that principle lives. In Plato's scientific method, also, we recognise the deepening, the purification and the progress of the So- cratic philosophy. From the principle of conceptual knowledge arises, as its immediate consequence, that dia- lectic of which Socrates must be considered the author. 2 But while Socrates contented himself with developing 2 The dialectic of Zcno and the dialectic as a real agent in defining, Sophists differs in being concerned the concept. with refutation only : Socrates uses JUS SCIENTIFIC METHOD. 151 / the concept out of mere envisagement, Plato' father de- manded that conceptual science should be jlrawn 6nt by methodical classification into a system; while' /Derates,// in forming concepts, starts from the contingencies^ of the given case, and never goes beyond the particular, Plali) f requires that thought shall rise, by continued aVaJjpsjs, from conditioned to unconditioned, from the phenome-/ non to the idea, from particular ideas to the highest and most universal. The Socratic dialectic only set itself to gain the art of right thinking for the immediate use of individuals, to purify their crude presentations into concepts : the practice of dialectic was therefore at the same time education; intellectual and moral activity coincided, as much for the work of the philosopher in itself as for its effect on others. The Platonic dialectic, on the other hand, was subservient to the formation of a system : it has, therefore, as compared with the Socratic, larger outlines and a more fixed form. What in the one was a matter of personal discipline, in the other becomes conscious method reduced to general rules ; whereas the former aimed at educating individuals by true con- cepts, the latter seeks out the nature and connection of concepts in themselves : it enquires not merely into moral problems and activities, but into the essential nature of the Real, proposing as its end a scientific representation of the universe. But Plato does not go so far in this direction as Aristotle ; the technicalities of logic were not formed by him, as by his pupil, into an exact, minutely particularising theory ; neither for the derivation nor for the systematic application of concepts does he summon to his aid such a mass of 152 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. experimental material. He cares far less for that equal spread of scientific knowledge into all departments J which Aristotle desired, than for the contemplation of the idea as such. He regards the Empirical partly as a mere help to the attainment of the Idea a ladder to be left behind if we would gain the heights of thought ; partly as a type of the nature and inherent force of the ideas a world of shadows, to which the Philo- sopher only temporarily descends, forthwith to return into the region of light and of pure being. 3 Whereas, therefore, Socrates in the main confines himself to a search for concepts, the cognition of which is for him moral education ; whereas Aristotle extends induction and demonstration, purely in the interests of science, over all the Actual, the special peculiarity of Pl.-ito is that moral education, intellectual teaching, and, in science itself, the formation of concepts and their development, in spite of partial separation, are yet, with him, internally held together and united by their common aim, both leading to that contempla- tion of the idea, which is at the same time life in the idea. 4 This position is not indeed invariable. We see, in the dialogues, Socratic induction at first de- cidedly predominating over the constructive element, then both intermingling, and, lastly, inductive prepara- tion receding before systematic deduction ; correspond- ing to which there is also a gradual change from the form of conversation to that of continued exposition. But the fundamental character of the method is never 3 Vide especially Rep. vi. 511 4 Cf. my Plat. Stud. p. 23 sq. A sq. ; vii. 514 A sqq. DIALOGUE. 15S effaced ; and however deeply Plato may sometimes go into particulars, his ultimate design is only to exhibit with all possible clearness and directness the Idea shining through the phenomenon; to point out its reflection in the finite ; to fill with its light not only the intellect, but the whole man. This speciality in the philosophy of Plato explains the form which he selected for its communication. An artistic nature was indispensable for the produc- tion of such a philosophy ; conversely, this philo- sophy would infallibly demand to be informed artis- tically. The phenomenon, placed in such direct rela- tion to the idea, becomes a beautiful phenomenon ; the perception of the idea in the phenomenon an aesthetic perception. 5 Where science and life so com- pletely interpenetrate one another, as with Plato, science can only impart itself in lively description ; and as the communicating medium is ideal, this de- scription will necessarily be poetical. At the same time, however, the exposition must be dialectical, if it is to correspond with the subject matter of conceptual philosophy. Plato satisfies both these re- quirements in the philosophic dialogue, by means of which he occupies a middle position between the per- sonal converse of Socrates and the purely scientific con- tinuous exposition of Aristotle. 6 The Socratic conver- sation is here idealised, the contingency of its motives 6 It is thus (says Plato him- 6 Aristotle chose the dialogue self in the Phsedrus, 250 B, D; form only for popular writings, and Symp. 206 D), that the philo- apparently only in his Platonic sophic idea first dawns upon the period, consciousness. 154 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. and conduct is corrected by a stricter method the defects of personalities are covered by artistic treat- ment. Yet the speciality of verbal intercourse, the reciprocal kindling of thought, is still retained. Phi- losophy is set forth, not merely as a doctrine, but as a living power, in the person of the true philo- sopher, and a moral and artistic effect is thus pro- duced, of a kind that would have been impossible to bare scientific enquiry. Unbroken discourse is doubt- less better suited to the latter ; and Plato himself shows this, for in proportion as his scientific discussions gain in depth and scope, they lose in freedom of, conversa- tional movement. In the earlier works, this freedom not unfrequently disturbs the clearness of the logic, while in the dialectical dialogues of the middle order it is more and more subordinated to the logical deve- lopment of thought. In the later writings, dialogue is indeed employed with the accustomed skill for intro- ductory discussions or personal delineations ; 7 but so far as the exposition of the system is concerned it sinks into a mere form, and in the Timagus is discarded at the very commencement. 8 We need not, with Her- mann, 9 conclude from this that the form of dialogue had for Plato a merely external value ; that, in fact, it was like some favourite and traditional fashion of dress 7 E. g. in the Sj-mposium, Phsedo, adapted for dialogic exposition, and first two books of the Ke- This does not really contradict public. what has been observed above. 8 Of., on Plato's oral instruction, Even where dialogue is employed pp. 25-2, and Hermann, Plat. 352. throughout, there are many parts Steinhart (Plat. "W. vi. 44) explains open to the same objection. the withdrawal of the dialogue form 9 Loc. cit. 352, 354 sq. (res- in the Timseus and Critias by say- Abhdl. 285 sqq. ing that their siibject was not DIALOGUE. 155- inherited from his predecessors, adopted in his first attempts as a Socratic pupil, and then adhered to out of piety and loyal attachment, in opposition to general usage. He certainly had an external motive for the choice of this form in the conversations of his master,, and a pattern for its artistic treatment in dramatic poetry, especially such as dealt with reflections, morals, and manners, like that of Epicharmus, 10 Sophron, 11 and Euripides ; but it cannot be proved 12 that before his time dialogue was already much in vogue for philoso- phic exposition ; and even if it could, we might still be sure that Plato, independent and creative as he was, and endowed with rare artistic feeling, would 10 Vide vol. i. page 362 sqq. 11 Cf. page 8, note 11. 12 Zeno, Sophron, and Alexa- menus of Teos are named as pre- decessors of Plato. It is hardly probable, however, that Zeno used the dialogue form (vide vol. i. page 494); the Prolegomena, c. 5, end, name Parmenides with him : an addition no doubt due to the Pla- tonic Parmenides. Of Sophron, whom Diogenes (iii. 18) says he copied, Aristotle remarks (Poetics, c. 1, 1447, b. 9):ov8fvyapavex oi t JL * J/ ovop-affai Koivbv rovs "2,'jixppovos Kal e.evdpxov /j.tfjiovs Kal TOVS Sw/r/jcm- KOVS \6yovs. These mimes may indeed have been written in prose (Arist. ap. Athen. xi. 505 C), but are no proof of the existence of philosophic dialogues. Finally, Alexamenus may have written ' Socratic conversations ; ' but they must have been very unlike the Platonic dialogues, as Aristotle (ap. Athen. loc. cit.) classes them with Sophron's mimes as prose tales, \6yoi Kal (jLi/jL-fifffis (cf. on the passage Suckow's Form. d. Plat. Schr. p. 50 sq.). And this solitary instance of dialogue being used before Plato by a writer so little known and so unimportant cannot go far to prove that the dialogic treatment of philosophic material was ' established and popular/ Indeed, it only became so through the Socratic school, in which the dialogue form was common enough. Vide Part i. pp. 198, 1 ; 204, 3 ; 205, 8; 206, 1; 207, 2; 242, 7; not to speak of the Memorabilia (with regard to the Diatribes of Aristippus, we do not know whe- ther they were composed in dia- logue form ; and we are equally ignorant whether his twenty-five dialogues were genuine: v. p. 298). It is plain that the prevalence of dialogue in the Socratic school was due to its master. Perhaps, how- ever, when Plato wrote his first pieces, there were not, as yet, many Socratic dialogues extant. Xon. Mem. iv. 3, 2, cannot be alleged to prove the opposite. 156 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. never on such purely external grounds have held to a form all his life long, even when it was most irksome to him; that mere antiquity would not have deter- mined him in its choice, nor custom in its persistent employment, unless there had been the closest internal connection between that form and his whole concep- tion of philosophy. What this connection was Plato himself points oiit, 13 when in the Phsedrus (275 D) he censures writing, as compared with speech, with its inability to defend itself, and its openness to all attacks and misconceptions ; for if this censure holds ; good of written exposition in general, Plato must have been conscious that even his dialogues could not en- tirely escape it. Yet, on the other hand, his convic- tion of the advantages of speech presupposes the de- sign of appropriating as far as possible those advantages to his writing, that ' image of the living and animated word ; ' 14 and if those advantages, in Plato's opinion, depend upon the art of scientific dialogue, 15 we may 13 Cf. Schleiermaclier, Plat. W. Cratylus, 390 C), from the etymo- i. a. 17 sqq. ; Brandis, Gr.-rom. logy given in Philebus, 57 E ; Rep. Phil. vi. a. 15-4, 158 sqq. vii. 532 A; vi. 511 B (against 14 Phaedrus, 276 A. \vhicli the derivation ap. Xen. 15 Phsedrus, 276 E: TTO\V 8' oT/icu, Mem. iv. 5, 12, proves nothing), KaAAutfv aTrouSr? irep} aura yiyverai, and from the opposition between OTO.V ris rrj SiateKTiKrj Te'xffl XP^~ dialectic and rhetoric, in the Htvos Aa/So)^ J/uxV Trpo(j-}]Kovx &

v fj.fv dyadcav &\X &TTa Sf? ^reTi' TO. atria, (by which primarily, though not exclu- sively, the human will is to be un- derstood). Polit. 273 D: (r^iKpa jue/ rdyaQa, TTO\\))V 5e r}]v rwv ev- avriw Kpacnv irfyKepavi>vfj.evos (5 KOff/jLos). Theset. 176 A (infra, chap. x. note 6). 121 Cf. Phileb. 28 C sq., 30 A sqq., 64 C sqq. ; Phsedn, loc. cit., Tim. 29 E sq. In other passages the reference to the interests of mankind comes forward more strongly ; particularly in the last part of the Timseus, the contents of which naturally lead us to ex- pect this. REASON AND NECESSITY. 341 consequences external to themselves : m hence there was a special necessity that Plato should here use not only personification, but mythical language, with regard to efficient causes. Aristotle was the first to conceive the notion of inner activity working to an end ; and even he leaves much to be desired in his scientific view of this activity, and still more in its application. Although, however, Plato did not succeed in over- coming the dualism of the idea and the phenomenon, he yet attempts, while presupposing this dualism, to point out the middle terms by means of which the Idea and the phenomenon are combined. And this he per- ceives in mathematical proportions, or the World- soul. III. The World-soul. As God desired that the world should be framed in the best possible manner, says the Timseus, 124 He considered that nothing unin- telligent, taken as a whole, could ever be better than the intelligent ; and that intelligence (vov?) could not exist in anything which was devoid of soul. For this reason He put the intelligence of the world into a soul, 122 Cf. on this the quotations in 365 sq. 396; Trendl. Plat, de id. note 116, particularly Phsedo, 98 et num. doctr. 52, 95; Bonitz, Dis- B sqq. putatt. Plat. 47 sqq. ; Martin 123 Bockh, On the formation of Etudes, i. 346 sqq. ; Ueberweg, the World-soul in the Timaeus ; Ueber die plat. Weltseele, Ehein. Daub and Creuzer's Studien, iii. Mus. f. Phil. ix. 37 sqq.; Steinhart, 34 sqq. (nowKl. Schr.iii. 109 sqq.) ; PI. WW. vi. 94-104; Susemihl, Enquiry into Plato's Cosmic Sys- Genet. Entw. ii. 352 sq. ; Philolo- tem (1852), p. 18 sq.; Brandis, De gus,ii. Supplementbl. (1863), p. 219 perd. Arist. libr. 64, Ehein. Mus. sqq. ; Wohlstein, Mat. und Welt- ii. 1828, p. 579; Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. seele, Marb. 1863; Wohlrab, Quid a. 361 sqq. ; Stallbaum, Scholacrit. PI. de An. mundi elementis docue- et hist. sup. loco Tim. 1837 ; rit, Dresd. 1872. Plat. Tim. p. 134 sqq. ; Eitter ii. m 30 B; cf. supra, p. 228, 171. 342 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. and the soul in the world as into a body. He prepared the soul as follows. Before He had formed the corporeal elements, He compounded out of the indivisible and self-identical substance and also out of the divisible and corporeal, a third nature intermediate between them. Having mingled in this substance the Same and the Other, he divided the whole according to the cardinal numbers of the harmonic and astronomical systems, 125 125 35 A : TTJS OjUepitTTOu Kal afl Kara raura exova"r)s ovffias Kal rrjs ad TTpl -ra crcafMara yijvo/j.evr}s pepi- vve- KepacraTO outrtas eI5os TTJS re TUVTOV (pixrtws au [irepi] Kal TTJS flarepou, Kal Kara ravra \vvtffTyfftv ei/ neffy TOV re d/xepoOs avTWv Kal TOV Kara ra ffdcfj-ara /J-fpLffTOv . Kalrpiatafiwv avra ovra owe/cepacraTO eis p.iav TTO.V- Ta IdeaV) T?)V BaTepov tyvffiv rov ouffav ets Tavrbv j8ta ' /Ai-yvvs 8e fj.era Trjs ovffias Kal e/c Tpi&v TrotTjcra/uei'OS ev, ira\iv o\ov TOVTO poipas offas irpoffTJice Stevei/xej', tKa(Tri]v Se eK re raiirov Kal Qartpov Kal TT)S ovffias ^ffj-iy^v^v^ &c. In the interpretation suggested in the text, I have gone on the lately universal supposition that the un- meaning Te'jot, nere enclosed in brackets, is to be struck out. On the other hand, I believe that we must retain the al before it, which Stallbaum ad loc. changes into *ov, and Bonitz, Hermann (in his edi- tion \ and Susemihl agree in wish- ing to remove, not merely because this is the easiest explanation of the insertion of Wpj (from the pre- ceding a3 TTfpl), but because the separation of the ravr^v and 0ore- pov from the ap-epiffrov and the pfpio-rbv, thus expressed is really Platonic. Although the ravrbv is connected with the Divided, and the Bdrfpov with the Undivided, they in no way coincide ; both pairs of concepts have a separate import, and in their combination give two classifications which cross each other. The raurbi/ and 0are- pov both occur in the Indivisible and the Divisible, in the Idea and the Corporeal, and are found in intellectual as well as sensible knowledge (Tim. 37 A sq. ; Soph. 255 C sqq., vide pp. 250, 278). The soul is indebted to the a/- piffrov for its power of knowing the Ideal, to the fj-fpiffrbv for its power of knowing the sensible, to the ravrbv for its ability to conceive (in sensible and Ideal alike) the relation of identity, to the Qdrepov for its ability (equally in both) to conceive the relation of difference (see on this point Tim. loc. cit. to- gether with the elucidation of the passage later on in this chapter. Sensible perception is here repre- sented as proceeding from the KVK- \os Qarepov, thought from the KVK- A.OS rai)Tov ; but this does not prove that the Qarepov is identical with the aiff6t]Tbv, and the Tavrov with the vof\r6v; the circle of the ravrbv is, according to p. 36 C, that in which the fixed stars move, the circle of the QaTepov, with its seven- THE WORLD-SOUL. 343 and formed from the entire compound, by a longitu- dinal bisection, the circle of the heaven of fixed stars, and that of the planets. 126 In this representation the mythical and imaginative element is at once apparent. The division and spread- ing out of the World-soul in space, prior to the forma- tion of the corporeal ; its origin from a chemical admixture, the entirely material treatment even of the Immaterial, can never have been seriously intended by Plato ; otherwise he would deserve all the censure, fold divisions, that in which the planets move. Each of these cir- cles, however, according to 35 B, cf. note 137, is composed in all its parts out of the ravr^v, the Bdrepoi/, and oixria). In order to express this different import of the two pairs, Plato keeps them apart in his exposition. Ueberweg cor- rectly points out, p. 41 sq., that the substance of the World-soul is formed by a kind of chemical mix- ture out of the a^epiffrov and the p.epif Soul ^" has reference to the combination of uniformity and change in the motion of the heavenly bodies ; 137 of comparision and difference in knowledge. 138 In the revolution of the heaven of fixed stars, and in the rational cognition, the element of the Same predomi- nates ; in the movement of the planets and in the sensuous notion that of the other. We must not, how- ever, restrict any of these phenomena to either of these two elements, nor must we in this half allegorical delineation seek a complete and developed system, or be too anxious and precise about its connection with other theoretic determinations. 139 The division of the 137 36 C, the motion of the heaven of the fixed stars is as- signed (^7reT?/xirrei>) to the ravrbv, that of the planets to the Qdrepov. Plato, however, cannot mean that in the former there is no mutabi- lity, and in the latter no fixedness. Without mutability no motion at all, without fixedness no regulated motion is imaginable ; but (Soph. 2.V> 15), both these qualities areat- trilmtedto motion, and the Politi- cus, 269 D indicates the element of mutability in the motion of the universe; while (Tim. 35 B), in the division of the World-soul it is ex- ly remarked that each of its is composed out of ova la, rav~ riv, and Gdrepov'; and (37 A sq.), the knowledge both of Identity and Difference is ascribed to the circle of the raurbv and that of the ddrcpov alike. The meaning is that in the sphere of the fixed stars the ravrov, in that of the planets the ddrtpov, is predominant, as Plut. 24, 6 says. 138 37 A sqq. 139 Ancient and modern commen- tators have combined the ravrov and Qdrepov of the Timseus in dif- ferent ways with the other well- known -principles of the Platonic system. Modern interpreters usu- ally presuppose the identity of the ravrbv with the a^fpicnov, and of the ddrepov with the pcpiffrbir. Eitter, especially (ii. 366, 396), un- derstands the Ideal by the TOUTOJ/, and the Material by the Bdrepov ; so too, Stallbaum (Plat. Tim. 136 sq.) who compares the former with the Finite, the latter with the Infinite and most of the com- mentators. Tennemann (Plat. Phil, iii. 66) understands Unity and Plurality or Mutability; Bockh 348 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. soul as to its whole substance, according to the relations of the harmonic and astronomical systems, 140 implies (loc. cit. 34 sqq. ; cf. Cosmic system of PI. p. 19), Unity and the inde- finite duad, which is more Platon- ic, instead of the duad ; Trendelen- burg (Plat, de id. et num. doctr. 95), Ueberweg (54 sq.), and appa- rently Brandis (Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. a. 366), would say the Infinite or the Great and Small. I cannot agree unconditionally" with the lat- ter explanations of the fj-fpiffrbv and the a.p.4pi(rrov. The mixture of these two elementary principles must clearly represent the soul as something midway between the Ideas and sensible things. But this is not favoured either by the theory that it is composed out of Unity and Duality, or the theory that it is composed out of the Unit and the Infinite. Unity and Duality are merely the elements of number (according to the later form of the doctrine, of ideal, as well as mathe- matical number) ; the Unit and the Infinite, conversely, must exist in everything, Sensible and Ideal alike. Ueberweg's expedient, of supposing a threefold Unit, and a threefold Infinite (of which only the second the mathematical unit and the mathematical or, more accurately, the spatial infinite are to be taken as elements of the world-soul), has been already refuted, p. 327 sq. My own view is that the ajuepitrroi/ denotes the Ideal, the /j-epiarbv the Corporeal. To say that these two are in all things (as Plut. c. 3, 3 ; and Martin, i. 379, object) is only correct if we include the soul, by means of which the Sensible parti- cipates in the Idea, in our reckon- ing. It has been already proved, p. 343, that the ravrbi/ and Bdrepov do not coincide with the afj-epiarov and the jueptorbj'. And the Greek interpreters as a rule (Procl. Tim. jj 187 C, says not all), distinguish the two, e.g. Xenocrates and Crantor ap. Plut. c. 1-3; Proclus 181 CJ sqq., 187 A sqq. ; Simpl. de an. 6 j b. u. ; Philop. De an. C 2, D 7 ; ; Tim. Locr. 95 E (the details of; these explanations are to be found 1 in the passages themselves and in Martin, i. 371 sqq.: Steinhart vi.| 243). Plutarch too, c. 25, 3,J agrees in distinguishing them ; byl the /jLcpurrbv, however, he under- j stands (c. 6) as does Martin, i. 355 sq., not matter, but the ordered! soul, which even before the forma- tion of the world, moved the Ma-i terial, and became the World-soul through its association with Reason (the ajj.epiffTov : cf. note 1 1 5). Ti- mseus of Locri (96 A) makes two motive powers out of the rav-rbv and flarepoj/ by an arbitrary limita- tion of their meaning. The sup- positions of Brandis in the two older treatises, that the Great- a nd- Small is meant by the juepio-r and d/j-fpia-Tov, or the To.vr'bv and OaTepov, and the kindred theory of Stallbaum, sup. loco Tim. p. 6 sqq., who would understand the indefi- nite duad or (sic) ' the Ideal and the corporeally Infinite,' have been j refuted by Bonitz, p. 53 ; thosj : of Herbart (Ernil. in die Phil.^ W. i. 251), and Bonitz (p. 68 sqc. j and cf. Martin, i. 358 sqq.), viz. that the soul is composed out of thai Ideas of Identity, Difference, anlj Being, by Ueberweg, pp. 46-5<-.,j Even Plutarch, c. 23, shows thgt; the soul is not an Idea. 140 Tim. 35 B-36 B ; Bockh lo :. ; THE WORLD-SOUL. 349 hat the soul comprehends all proportion and measure )rimarily in itself: it is wholly number and harmony, it. pp. 43-81 (cf. metr. Find. 203 qq.), following Grantor, Eudoxus nd Plutarch, gives an exhaustive lucidation of this passage, and a atalogue of the ancient interpreters a far as they are known to us. All he moderns follow his example, e.g. Itallbaum ad loc. ; Brandis, i. 457 qq. ; ii. a. 363 sq. ; Martin, i. 383 qq. ; ii. 35 sq. ; Miiller, in his re- iew, p. 263 sqq. ; Steinhart, vi. '9 sqq. ; Susemihl, Genet. Entw. ii. 157 sqq., and others, though not all rith equal understanding. Briefly, J lato represents the collective Vorld-soul as divided into seven >arts, which stand to one another ,s 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27, that is to say he two and three follow unity, and hen the squares and cubes of two ,nd three. Both these series of lumbers, that progressing in the >roportion of 1 : 2, and that in the >roportion of 1 : 3 (the $iir\droportion of the tone according to he number of its vibrations. Then f the v7rctT7) were put down at 486, ve should have for the TrapuirarTj >I2 ; for the Xtxarbs 576 ; for the ica-T? 648 ; for the irapajue'o-rj 729 ; 'or the rpir-n 768 ; for the irapa.vt)Tt} $64 ; for the vi]-n] 972. But clearly his is not Plato's way of reckon- ng, and Martin, i. 395 is mistaken n believing that Plato intended to issign the larger numbers particu- arly to the higher tones, because, ice.' to Tim. 67 B ; 80 A sq., with iristotle and others he considers ;hem to be quicker than the lower #nes. As Martin himself remarks, jven those old musicians who knew Jiat the higher tones consist of nore parts than the lower or pro- luce more vibrations in the air, do lot invariably do this, because they jalculate the proportion of the tone According to the length of the strings. Others, of course, e.g. A.rist. ap. Pint. Mus. 23, 5 ; Arist. Problem, xvii. 23 ; Plut. an. procr. 18, 4 sq., 19, 1, assign the larger Dumber to the higher tone. Fur- ther details on this point are to be found in Martin, loc. cit.) The fundamental proportions of the above scale, as the Pythagoreans had already taught (see vol. i. 305 -i. 345 sq.), are the octave (Stct ircurwj/"), or the proportion 1 : 2 (\6yos Snr\dffiosl the fifth (8iA ireVre), in Philolaus (St' o|eij/), or 2 : 3 (fiiJ.i6\iov}, the fourth (Sta rcrr- a-apuv, in Philol. ffv\\a^}, or 3 : 4 (eTTiTpiTov), the tone, or 8 : 9, and the lesser semi-tone, or 243 : 256 (this lesser half of a tone is called in Philolaus SiWts, later AeT^a, the greater =256 : 273| is called O.TTO- TO/j.'fi'). From the vf)rr) to the irapa- /igtnj, and from the jueVrj to the WTTCITTJ is a fourth, from the HJTTJ to the jueVTj, and from the Trapa^teVrj to the v-rrdrri is a fifth ; the distance of the particular strings amounts partly to a tone, partly to a Ae?^a. It is obvious that these are the same proportions which form the basis of the series of numbers. All the derivative tones (e.g. the Sio -jraatav Kal Sta irei/re = 1:3, and the Sts 8to TrcuTcav =1:4) can easily be shown in it (cf. Plat. an. procr. 14, 2) ; and it contains in itself a system of four octaves, a fifth and a tone ; the sequence of the tones likewise comes quite right, if with Bockh and the pseudo-Timseus (who can only on this supposition give the sum of the numbers in question as 114,695) we interpolate the number 6144 between the numbers 5832 and 6561. This number is distant a Ael^a from 5832, and an airorofj.^ from 6561. Then there remains only the unimportant ano- maly that two tones (2048 : 2304 and 6144 : 6912) are resolved into a semi-tone, and that in the fourth octave (3072 : 6144) the fifth pre- ceding the fourth. 141 Cf. Rep. vii. 527 D sq. ; 529 C sqq. ; 530 D ; Tim. 47 A sqq. ; and vol. i. 374. 352 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. therefore, the World-soul has the same import and comprehension as that which Plato, in the Philebus, calls the Limit, and Aristotle represents him as calling the Mathematical principle. For of the Limit it is said 142 that the whole sphere of number and measure I belongs to it ; and Aristotle assigns to the Mathematical I principle the same place that is occupied in the Timseus 1 by the World-soul : it stands midway between material j objects and the Ideas. 143 It is quite in harmony with I this, that Plato should make the Mathematical sciences, \ and these alone, form the transition from the sensible ' perception to the contemplation of the Idea ; 144 for in conformity with his principles, this pre-supposes ! that as these sciences themselves lie in the midst be- I tween the sensible notion and pure thought, 145 so must j their object lie between the phenomenon and the Idea. I The two concepts, however, are certainly distinct in - their points of departure and in their apprehension. The notion of the World-soul, starting from the con- 1 templation of Life and motion, represents primarily the efficient powers in the universe, conceived in the man- i ner of the human soul : the Mathematical principle represents the formal determination of things, accord- 1 142 25 A ; vide p. 264. b. 6.) The expression a/ctVrjTa is, 143 Metaph. i. 6, 987 a. 14 : en however, inaccurate ; in Plate 8e irapa ret. alffdrjra Kal TO eflty TO neither the World-soul nor, ace. to fj.aO-r]iJ.arLKa ru>i/ irpay/jidTaw elval Eep. vii. 529 C sq. (supra, p. 221 (pr](rt ju.eTau, Siatyfpovra rwv ^\v 158), the mathematical principle is alffO-r)rSv rf a'iSia Kal a/aj/rjTO etvai, absolutely unmoved ; they are only TOJI/ 8' ei5o>j/ rq3 TO. /xei/ WAA' OTTO free from Becoming and the change '6fj.oia eTn/oi T& Se elSos aurb ev ability of Becoming. e/cao-Tov pbvov. (Similarly in the U4 Vide p. 215. shorter allusions 1, 9, 991 a. 4, 145 Cf. p. 225. vii.; 2, 1028 b. 18, xi. ; 1, 1059 THE WORLD-SOUL. 363 ing to number and measure. 146 But as in the Platonic Ideas, the highest efficient ' and the highest formal causes coincide, and are divided only temporarily and in inexact description, so it is here. The World-soul comprehends in itself all mathematical proportions in unity ; and occupies the position, which according to the Philebus and to Aristotle, is exclusively filled by the Mathematical principle. Though we should not be justified in assuming that Plato has expressly iden- tified them, and must indeed acknowledge that the problem of finding a middle term between Idea and phenomenon is apprehended in the two doctrines from different sides (this middle term being regarded in the concept of the soul from the point of view of living force, as cause of motion and of opinion, while in the concept of the mathematical principle it appears as a specific form of Being) ; yet both have ultimately the same signification, and take the same place in, the Platonic system. 147 They show us the Idea in reference to the world of sense ; and the world of sense embraced 146 On this depends Plutarch's gether with the irepas (by which objection, De an. procr. 23, 1, to I understand the mathematical the theory that the soul is either a standard of determination), goes number or a space : ^ Te TO?* neither against my explanation of irtpaffi /dire TOIS aptdfji.o'is neGeis the trepas, nor against the correct- tx vos tvvTrdpxfiv tKtivi]? TT}? Swd- ness of the connection given above. /Ufa??, ?7 rb aiffQrjTbv TJ iJ^X^ *^ww I do not, of course, suppose that Kpivftv neither thought nor con- Plato expressly identified the ma- ception nor sensation can be de- thematical principle and the World- rived from units, lines, or super- HOU! ; so I am not concerned with ficies, v. note 154. Kettig's citation (p. 20, Alrla in 147 So Siebeck, Unters. z. Phil, the Philebus) of this passage as d. Gr. 101 sq. The fact that in against the assumption ' that irfpas the Phileb. 30 A, C, the World- means the World-soul.' soul is especially mentioned to- A A 354 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. by firmly limited relations. In mathematical forms, the unity of the Idea does indeed separate into plurality ; but these forms are not subject to the vicissitude of sensible things. 148 The Soul enters into the corporeal and its motion, but the soul itself is not corporeal. 149 While all that is corporeal is moved by another, the soul is the self-moved, and moves everything else, 150 and though distinct from the Idea, the soul is of all things most closely related to it. 151 Strictly speaking, we should go a step further, and declare both the World-soul and mathematical forms to be the Idea itself, as the formal determination and motive principle of the material world. For as Matter as such is the Non-existent, the Real in the soul can only be the Idea,. But the same reasons which obliged Plato to separate the Idea from the phenomenon, necessitated also the distinction of the soul from the Idea : the soul is derived, the Idea original ; the soul is generated, the Idea eternal ; the Soul is a particular, the Idea a universal ; 152 the Idea is absolute reality, the soul only participates in reality. 153 As the Ideas are placed side by side with one another, although, properly speaking, the lower must be contained in the higher, and all in the highest ; as the world of sense is set beside the Ideas, although, in so far as it possesses reality, it is imma- nent in them, so the Soul appears as a Third between 79 A 148 V. note 143. this must hold good even more of 149 Soph. 246 E sqq. ; Phaedo, the World-soul. Rep. x. 611 E. ) A sq. ; Tim. 36 E et alibi. 152 So, too, mathematical things supra, p. 345. in relation to the Idea ; ride pas- 151 Phsedo, 79 A sq. D (where sages quoted, note 143, from Aris- totle. 153 See p. 346 sq., p. 239, 39. the subject of discussion is the human soul), but ace. to Tim. 41 D, THE WORLD-SOrL. 350 :he Idea and the phenomenon, instead of merely repre- senting that side of the Idea, which is turned to the phenomenon ; and we find that the mathematical forms >till retain a place beside the soul, while at the same :ime mathematical proportions are within it. 154 154 The old Platonists reckoned lie soul for the most part among nathematical things; only they irere not agreed as to whether its lature was arithmetical or geome- xical, a number or a magnitude. Dhe former was the view of Xeno- irates, who, as we shall see later >n, defined it as a self-moving lumber. So (ace. to Proclus in Dim. 187 13) did Aristander, Nu- nenius, and many others ; and to iis view belongs the statement Diog. iii. 67) that Plato attributed the soul an opx'? apidfjurriKT], o the body an apx?) yfufJifrpiKr], rhich. however, hardly agrees with rhat immediately follows, where ihe soul is defined as idea rov Tarrr) Siaffrarov irvtvpaTOS. The >ther view belongs not only to Severus, as mentioned by Proclus loc. cit., but to Speusippus and Posidonius. The former of these imagined its Being as in space 'lv iSe'o rov iravrri Suurrarov, Stob. Ekl. i. 862); the latter defined it nore precisely as ifie'o rov vdvTij luunarov Kaff apiBfjibv ffvvtaruffa ipuoviav irfpix.ovra (Plut. an. procr. 22, 1, who, however, wrongly understands the t5eo r. ir. SUMTT. is an Idea, whereas it must rather mean a formation of that which is in space fashioned according to ic numbers). In the first , the elements of the soul, aptpurrov and p.epiffr'bv, would referred to the Unit and the ite duad; in the second, to the Point and the intermediate Space (Procl. loc. cit., whose state- ment with regard to Xenocrat-s will receive further confirmation). Posidonius, however, refers them to the vaiyrbv and spatial magnitude (TTJI/ ran/ -xtpartav oixriav irepl ra , the receives a more natural colouring, reading of one of Bekker's MSS., In the above, therefore, I follow is to be adopted in stead of at crQr)Tbv this conjecture. The expressions (as is shown by the opposition of irepl TO alffd-r^rbv yiyi>*ff6ai. nepl rb \oyiffTtKbv}, and it is to this that \oyi(TTiKbi/ eTi/cu are generally re- the avrov TT?J/ ^u%V of our text ferred to the objects of the \6yos refers. The alffd^TiKbv must sig- (cf. Stallbaum in loc.) ; but this uify, not the faculty of perception, tends to embarrassment with the but the subject capable of percep- XoyurTinbv, which ought to be tion, which, however, can, at the vo^rbf to meet this view, same time, be one admitting of 16 On these stages of cognition thought, a \oyi(rriK6v. It is, how- cf. p. 279 sq. ever, more convenient to read avrbv lel V. pp. 325 sqq. ; 288, 172; [sc. riv \6yov] ; then the tuV077- 266,112. riKbv may be the faculty of per- la - What can we understand by ception, and the whole passage a personality which comprises THE WORLD-SOUL. 359 dantly shows that he himself conceives it as analogous to the human soul. The question which to us would immediately occur, how far the World-soul possesses self- consciousness and will, he has scarcely even raised. 163 It sounds to us strange that the intellectual activity of this soul should coincide with the revolution in space of the heavens ; that reason and science should be as- signed to the sphere of fixed stars, and opinion to that of the planets. Even Plato probably did not intend this exposition to be taken literally ; I64 yet he has cer- tainly brought knowledge and the movement of the soul into a connection which must have made any accurate definition almost as difficult to him as to our- selves. He regards knowledge as a motion returning into itself, and ascribes to the World-soul a knowledge of all that is in itself and in the world, just because there belongs to it this perfect motion in and around itself. Other philosophers had similarly combined knowledge and motion, 165 and Plato elsewhere compares them in a way that shows us that he conceived them to be governed by analogous laws. 166 The same holds good numberless other existences, and however, can be got out of this, those too possessed of life and whether we understand Thought soul ? How could the soul be a and Opinion to be the Thought World-soul, unless it were in re- and Opinion of the human soul, or lation with all parts of the world, of the World-soul. We can hardly just as the human soul is with the suppose that Plato would have parts of the body ? attributed to the World-soul, be- us Cf. p. 266. sides Thought, mere Opinion, even 164 If we take the passage jiist though it were Eight Opinion, quoted from Tim. 37 B as it stands, '" E.g. Anaxagoras and Dio- the result would be that Right genes ; vide vol. i. 804 sq., 220 ; Opinion is brought about by the cf. Arist. Do An. i. 2, 405 a. 13,21. motion of the planetary circle, 166 In Tim. 34 Bis mentioned the Thought and Knowledge by that circular motion TU>V ewra. [wiia-fwv] of the fixed stars. No clear idea, T^V tnpl vovv ical p6in]ffiv ndXicrra, 360 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. of the mathematical partition of the Soul. As Plato expressed the differences of knowledge by means of numbers, 167 he might also place knowledge generally, in combination with number. The infinite Many, as Philolaus had already taught, 168 becomes cognisable by being reduced through number and measure to definite proportions. Plato derives the knowledge of the World-soul from its harmonious distribution of parts, as well as from its composition and motion, 169 and this is in the main his real opinion. The Soul could not know material things did it not bear within it- self, in harmonic proportions, the principle of all de- termination and order. As its motion is regulated by number, so is its knowledge ; and as in the one case it effects the transition of the Idea to the phenomenon and brings the unlimited plurality of material things into subjection to the Idea, so in the other it com- bines Unity and Multiplicity, the cognition of Reason and the perception of Sense. ovo~av, similarly 39 C, 40 A. Laws, x. 898 A : eivcd re avr^v rrj rov vov Trepi68cp ir&vrcas us Svvarbv olKeiordrriv re Kal bp.olav .... Kara ravra STJTTOU Kal wcravrus Kal ev T<>? auraJ Kal irepl ra aura Kal irpbs ra aura Kal era \6yov Kal ra^iv fj.tav a/JL(p is that which is like a thing, but is not the thing itself. That which is merely like the truth merely probable includes not only scientific suppositions, but also (as Susemihl Genet., Entw. ii. 321 points out) mythical expositions. Plato himself clearly gives us to understand this in the passages already quoted, p. 485, 1 ; he says, however, in the Phaedo, 114 D, at the end of his eschatological myth : it would in truth be foolish TOUTO fieVroi if) TOUT' fffrlv TI TOIO.VT' &TTO. . . . rovTOKalirpfirfiv u.oiSoKf'i, K.T.\. This myth, then, cannot indeed lay claim to complete truth, but to a certain probability ; and the same result is derived from Gorg. 527 A. Cf. 523 A. 2 Tim. 59 C : raAXa Se TUV TOIOVTWV ouStv iroiKi\ov (TI Sia- \o-yiffcur0cu, TTJV TUV e/'/c^Toii/ /iv0o>v /j.era8iuKoi>Ta tSeav, T?V OTO.V TU avaTraiWcos eVeca, TOVS -rrepl TUV OVTOJV ael KaTaQt^evos \6yovs, TOVS 7ej/eVfws irepl Stadewpfvos aueTajueATjTOj/ r/5ovV KTUTCII, &v tv T$ fiiu iraiSiaj/ Kal Troiolro. 3 TraiSio, at least in the passage just quoted, recalls the corresponc - ing and clearly exaggerated exprei - sion of Phaedr. 265 C, 276 D, and tl e whole depreciatory treatment of physical science is in harmony wil h. the solemn tone of the Timseus. PHYSICS. 363 they contain Ideas and observations, which' are some- times ingenious and sometimes puerile, interesting no doubt for the history of natural science, but for that of philosophy in great measure valueless, because of their slight connection with Plato's philosophic principles. Much appears to be borrowed from others, especially from Philolaus, and probably Democritus. Three main points have, however, a more universal import- ance : these are, the Origin of the World, the deriva- tion of the Elements, and the concept of the World- System. I. The Origin of the World. This is described in the Timaeus as a mechanical construction. The uni- versal Architect resolves to make the totality of the visible as perfect as possible, by forming a created nature after the eternal archetype of the living essen- tial nature. For this purpose, He first mingles the World-soul, and divides it in its circles. Then He binds the chaotic, fluent matter into the primary forms of the four elements. From these He prepares the system of the universe building matter into the scaf- folding of the World-soul. In its various parts He places the stars, to be the dividers of Time. Lastly, that nothing might be wanting to the perfection of the world, He forms living beings. 4 Now the mythical character of this description ge- nerally cannot be doubted, but it is not easy to deter- mine how far the mythus extends. We have already in reference to this subject spoken of the Creator, of the Soul, and of Matter : we are now more immediately concerned with the question whether, and to what Sec x. 27 E o7B. 3G4 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. extent, Plato seriously maintains the beginning of the world in time, and its gradual formation. 5 On the one hand, not only does this seem to be required by the whole tone of the Timseus, but it appears to result still more definitely from the explanation (28 B), that the world as corporeal, must have become ; for all sensible and corporeal things are subject to Becoming. On the other hand, however, this assumption involves us in a series of glaring contradictions. For if all that is cor- poreal must have become, or been created, this must 5 The views of the first Platonic scholars were divided on this point Aristotle (De ccelo, i. 10, 280 a. 28 ; iv. 2, 300 b. 16 ; Phys. viii. 1, 251 b. 17; Metaph. xii. 3, 1071 b. 31, 37 ; De An. i. 3, 406 b. 25 sqq.) in his criticism of the Pla- tonic cosmogony takes the Timseus literally throughout and considers the temporal origin of the world, the World-soul, and time, to be Plato's real meaning. Still even he says (Gen. et corr. ii. 1, 329 a. 13) that Plato did not clearly ex- plain whether matter can exist otherwise than in the form of the four elements ; and that if this question be answered in the nega- tive, the beginning of the world must also be denied. Another view (ace. to Arist. De ccelo, i. 10, 279 b. 32) was, that Plato represented the formation of the world as a temporal act merely for the sake of clearness. We learn from Simpl. adloc. Schol. in Arist. 488 b. 15 (whose statement is repeated by others, 489 a. 6, 9) ; Pseudo-Alex, ad Metaph. 1091 a. 27 ; Plut. procr. an. 3, 1, that Xenocrates availed himself of this expedient ; and was followed by Grantor and Eudorus (Plut. loc. cit. and c. 4, 1), Taurus ap. Philop. De aetern. mundi, vi. 21, and most of the Platonists who inclined to Pytha- gorean views the Neo-Platonists without exception. On the other hand, Theophrastus (Fragm. 28 sq. ; Wimm. ap. Philop. loc. cit. vi. 8, 31, 27) rejects this supposition though not so decidedly as Aris- totleand with him Alexander ap. Philop. vi. 27, and apparently the whole Peripatetic school agree. Among the Platonists, Plutarch, loc. cit. and Atticus (on whom see vol. iii. a. 722, 2nd edit.) en- deavour to prove that the theory of the world being without a beginning is foreign to Plato. Among the moderns Bockh (On the World-soul, p. 23 sq.) has repeated the view of Xenocrates; and is followed by Brandis (ii. a. 356 sq.. 365), Steinhart (Plat. WW. vi. 6S sqq., 94 sq.), Susemihl (Genet Entw. ii. 326 sqq.), and others, to- gether with my Plat. St. 208 sqq. and the Isted. of the present work Martin, Etudes i. 355, 370 sq. 377; ii. 179 sqq.; Ueberweg Ehein. Mus. ix. 76, 79 ; Plat. Schr. 287 sq. ; Stumpf, Verh. d. plat. Gott. z. Idee d. Gut. 36 sqq. de- clare in favour of Plutarch's view ORIGIN OF THE WORLD. 365 also hold good of Matter ; yet Matter is supposed to pre- cede the creation of the world, and (30 A) is repre- sented in this its ante-mundane condition as something already visible. But if we are to include the notion of an eternal matter in the mythical portion of the dialogue, where is our warranty that the creation of the world is not part of the same, and that the proper meaning of the latter theory may not be the meta- physical dependence of the finite on the Eternal? The dogmatic form in which it is proved argues little ; for the point is primarily to show, not a chronolo- gical beginning, but an Author of the world. 6 And we constantly find Plato adopting this dogmatic tone 7 6 Cf. Tim. 28 B: cKe-KTfov 8' o?iv irepl avrov -rrpurov . . . Trorfpov p.iav, $1 yeyoi'ev, air' ap^s TWOS apdfj.(vos . yeyovev . . . Ti&s eV /teVy a/j.Qo'ij/ frvaycayos ; the most beautiful 8e- (Tjiibs is the proportion (avaXoyia) found where, out of three apifytoi, fry/cot, or SiWjiiets (here, as in Theaet. 147 D sqq., not 'powers,' but ' roots '), the second stands to the third as the first to the second, and to the first as the third to the second. Et per olv tiriireSov fj.ev, fiddos 8e fjnr)$fv e^of eSe* ylyveffQai rb TOU iravrbs (TaJ/uo, (J.la Q-rjpitei rd re pel? lavrrjs K.a.1 lawTTJi/. vvv Se . . yap avrbv irpoffriKfv eli/ai, TO. Se epea /j.ia /JLCV ouSeVore, 8vo 8e iel /j.(ff6Tr)Ts %yvapp.6rrovffiv, and there tore God has put water and air between fire and earth, and assigned to them the relations toil above. This passage gives rse to considerable difficulties, even apart from the erroneous ar- tificiality of the whole deduction. It is true (as Bockh shows, De ri;it. corp. mund. fabrica, reprinted with valuable additions in his Klein. Schr. iii. 229-265) that, under certain determinations which we must suppose Plato assumed, between any two firtireSa there is one mean proportional, and between any two solids two proportionals, whether the expressions eiriTreSov and (rrepebv be understood in a geometrical or in an arithmetical sense. In the former case it is clear that not only between any two squares but also between any two plane rectilineal figures similar to one another there is one mean proportional, between any two ciubes and any two parallelepipeds similar to one another there are two mean proportionals. In the latter, not only between any two square numbers, but also between any two plane numbers (i.e. num- bers with two factors) there is one rational proportional, and not only between any two cubic numbers but also between any two solid numbers generally (i.e. formed out of three factors) there are two rational proportionals, provided that the factors of the one number stand to one another in the same relation as those of the second B B 370 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. four elements, which among them form one propor- tion ; so that fire is related to air, as air to water ; and air to water, as water to earth. number. (E.g. between the square numbers 2x2 = 4 and 3x3=9 there is the proportional number 2x3=6:4:6 = 6:9; between the plane non-square numbers : 2 x 3 = 6 and 4x6 = 24 the propor- tional number 2x6 or 3x4, be- cause 6 : 12 = 12 : 24. Between the cubic numbers 2x2x2 = 8 and 3x3x3 = 27 occur the two numbers 2x2x3 = 12 and 2x3x3=18, because 8 : 12 = 12 : 18= 18 : 27 ; between the non-cubic solid numbers 4 x 6 x 8 = 192 and 6 x 9 x 12 = 648 occur the two numbers 4x6x12 or 4x9x8 or 6 x 6 x 8 = 288 and 4x9xl2or6x9x8 or 6x6x12 = 432, because 192 : 288 = 288 : 432 = 432 : 648 ; the same holds good in the analogous cases in planes and solids.) But Plato asserts, not merely that there is one mean proportional between any two planes and two between any two solids, but that the latter are by no means bound by one pea-orris. Such a generality, how- ever, is not correct; as between two similar planes or plane num- bers under certain circumstances there occur two further mean pro- portionals besides the one mean (e.g. between 2 2 = 4 and 16 2 = 256 there come, not only 2x16 = 32, but also 4- = 1 6 and 8 2 = 64, because both 4 : 32 = 32 : 256 and 4 I 16 = 16 : 64 = 64 : 256), so between two similar solids and two analo- gously formed solid numbers, to- gether with the two proportionals which always lie between them, there occurs one besides in certain cases. If two solid numbers are at the same time analogously formed plane numbers, there result between them, not only two mean propor- tionals, but one besides (e.g. be- tween 2 s = 8 and 8 3 = 512 there are the two proportionals 32 and 128, and also the one mean 64, because 8 = 1x8 and 512 = 8 x 64 ; between these comes 8x8, or what is the same thing 1 x 64) ; and if the ] roots of two cubic numbers have a mean proportional which can be expressed in whole numbers, the cube of the latter is the mean proportional between the former. (This is the case, e.g. between 4 3 = 64 and 9 3 = 729; their mean propor- tionals are not only 4x4x9 = 1 44 ; and 4x9x9 = 324, but also 6 3 , for as 4 : 6 = 6 : 9, 4 3 : 6 3 = 6 3 I 9 3 , i.e. 64 : 216 = 216 : 729. So again, between 5 3 =125 and 20 3 = 8000 there are the two proportionals 500 and 2000. and also the one propor- .; tional 1000, for as 5 : 10= 10 : 20, 5 3 : 10 3 =10 3 : 20 3 , i.e. 125 : 1000 = 1000 : 8000.) We cannot sup- pose that this was unknown to J Plato. How then are we to ex-'l plain his assertion that the ffrepea never have a ^ueo^TTj? between I them? The simplest explanation! would be to translate his words : 1 ' Solids are never connected by an>M fj.e* mediate terms must be insertei between fire and earth, his object is to show, not merely that b THE ELEMENTS. 371 This, though Plato may have seriously intended it, is in reality but a flight of fancy. 16 The four ele- least two terms, but that neither more nor less than two terms occur between two solids ; and as the two proportionals between cer- tain ^TriVeSa belong to a different series from that to which the one occurring in all of them belongs, and the one proportional between certain 8e/{(T/cvTOi ffcpaipat, to which the earth is compared, Phsedo, 100 B) approach, like the universe, the form of the dodecahedron. It seems more natural to refer the 8taw- 7pae??/ (which is not necessarily colour-painting) to the plan or design of the world which preceded its formation. The world and the stars too are spherical in form, and while the earth (Tim. 33 B, 40 A) is a perfect sphere, the dode- cahedron is of all regular solids that which nearest approaches to the sphere, that on which a sphere can be most easily described, anc j that therefore which could be most, I readily laid down as the plan o:*I the world. The dodecahedron of I the present passage used to b<) taken as the plan of the aether ; Philolaus seems to have been of| this opinion (cf. vol. i. 350 sq.) THE ELEMENTS. 373 bodies themselves, not out of corporeal atoms, but out of planes of a certain kind, 22 by again resolving and with him the Platonic Epino- mis, 981 C, and Xenocrates, who, ap. Simpl. Phys. 205 b. Schol. in Arist. 427 a. 15, attributes this view to Plato. Although the later interpreters follow him in this view (see Martin, iii. 140 sq.), we cannot agree with him as to the form of the doctrine contained in the Pla- tonic writings. In the Phsedo, 109 B sq., Ill A sq. (cf. Crat. 109 B), Plato understands by aether, in ac- cordance with ordinary usage, the purer air lying next to our atmo- sphere, and still more definitely he Says, Tim. 58 D : aepos rb eVcryc- and will not allow of any empty space ibpt ween them. 32 Consequently the smaller bodies are crowded into the interstices of the greater, and there results a continual mixture of the different kinds of matter. 33 The per- petual motion and decomposition of the elements is a consequence of this admixture. As long as an ele- mental body is among its kindred, it remains un- changed ; for among bodies which are similar and uni- form none can change, or be changed by, another. If, on the contrary, smaller proportions of one element are everything moves downward by nature, and upward only as a conse- quence of some compulsion. In the universe, there is no up and down, only an inner and an outer; nor does he imagine any general striving towards the mean, cer- tainly not a universal attraction of all matter. He simply says that every element has its natural place, out of which it can be re- moved only by force ; to this force it offers greater opposition the greater its mass. The natural place of all bodies is the Kara. Towards this they strive; and the in its striving to unite itself with what is congenial (or to prevent its separation from it). Hitter, ii. 400, wrongly infers from Tim. 61 C, that the elements have sensation together with this striving ; the words atfaBiiffiv virAp-^fiv 8eT sig- nify (asStallbatun rightly explains) that they must be an object of sensation. 81 Cf. vol. i. 374, 2; 637 (Emped. v. 133). 82 58 A sqq., 60 C. Empedocles and Anaxagoras, following the Eleatics (see vol. i. 472, 2 ; 516; 620, 2; 803, 1), had denied Void. Hence a double difficulty to Plato. First, his four elemen- tary bodies never fill up any space so completely that no intermediate space is left (Arist. de Ccelo, iii. 8, beginn.), to say nothing of the fact that no sphere can be entirely filled out by rectilineal figures. And the resolution of an elemen- tary body into its component tri- angles must produce a void each time, as there was nothing be- tween them (Martin, ii. 255 sq.). Plato must either have disregarded these difficulties (which, in the case of the first, would have been strange for a mathematician to do), or else he does not mean to deny void absolutely, but merely to as- sert that no space remains void which can at all be taken posses- sion of by a body. 88 58 A sq. 378 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. contained in greater proportions of another, in conse- quence of the universal pressure they are crushed or cut up ; 34 and their constituent parts must either pass over into the form of the stronger element, or make their escape to their kindred element in their natural place. Thus there is a perpetual ebb and flow of the elements : the diversity of Matter is the cause of its constant motion. 35 The sum of the four elements con- stitutes the universe. (Tim. 32 C sqq.) 34 Further details on this reso- lution of the elements, 60 E sqq. ^ 85 56 ^C-58, C (with 57 E: K.ivt]v Sia iravrbs Tera/j.fvov iroXov, &air -p THE WORLD-SYSTEM. 381 around the axis of the universe, in the directi6n of the equator, from east to west; and the circles compre- hended in it are likewise carried round with the same motion. They themselves, however, move in various periods of revolution (increasing according to their distance) around the earth, in the plane of the Ecliptic, from west to east. Their courses are therefore, pro- perly speaking, not circles, but spirals ; and as those which have the shortest periods move the quickest in a direction opposed to the motion of the whole, it appears as if they remained the furthest behind this motion. The swiftest look like the slowest : those iv TUI Tipaicp yfypatrrai, and Kivtiff- 0cu (as Prantl shows in his edition, p. 311) cannot be removed from the text (with two MSS. and Bek- ker), because it recurs c. 14 begin, unanimously attested. There are many things against Bockh's view (loc. cit. 76 sqq.) that the mention of the Timseus (&o"irep .... yeyp.) refers only to the ?\\e iVrs to. Aristotle, as is clearly shown by c. H, 296 a. 34 sq., 7, means a motion from west to east corresponding to the individual movement of the planets ; the Timseus, on the contrary, says nothing about a motion of the earth. Since, then, this word cannot be removed from the passage of Aristotle, we can only acknowledge that in this case Aristotle misunderstood the words of the Timseus, perhaps led to do so by some Platonists who took the passage in that way. This was quite possible from the words, and Plato is even thus credited with far less extravagance than we find in the Meteorology, ii. 2, 355 b. 32 sqq. The passage of the Timaeus, ap. Cic. Acad. ii. 39, 123 (perhaps from Heraolides; see Part i. p. 687, 4, 2nd edit.) refers to a daily revolution of the earth round its axis. Cf. Teich- muller, Stud. z. Gesch. d. Begritfe, 238 sqq., whose explanation agrees in its results with the above, which was written before the ap- pearance of his work. 382 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. which overtake the others in the direction of west to east, appear in the contrary direction, to be overtaken by them. 40 These motions of the heavenly bodies give rise to Time, which is nothing else than the duration of their periods. 41 A complete cosmical period, or perfect year, has elapsed, when all the planetary circles at the end of their revolution have arrived at the same point of the heaven of fixed stars, from which they set out. 42 The duration of this cosmical year Plato fixes, not according to astronomical calculation, but by arbitrary conjecture, at ten thousand years : 43 and he seems to 40 Tim. 36 B sqq., 39 B sqq. : cf. Rep. x. 617 A sq.; Laws, vii. 822 A sq. ; also Epinom. 986 E sq., and Bockh, Kosm. Syst. 16- 59; Martin, ii. 42 sq., 80 sq. As regards the time of the planets' re- volution, Plato supposes it the same for the sun, Venus, and Mer- cury (this is the order in which he puts them, reckoning outwards). The motion of the heaven of the fixed stars is denoted as tirl 5e&, Tim. 36 C, of the planets as eV dpurrepfc, plainly in order that the more complete motion may be as- cribed to the more complete ob- jects. In this Plato must have by an artifice contented himself with the ordinary usage which makes the east the right and the west the left side of the world. The motion from east to west is therefore towards the left, and vice versa. V. Bockh, p. 28 sqq. Laws, vi. 760 D ; on another occa- sion, Epin. 987 B, in an astrono- mical reference, the east is treated as the right side. 41 Tim. 37 D-38 C, 39 B sqq. Hence the tenet here that time was created with the world (see p. 669). Ibid, on the distinction be- tween endless time and eternity. Maguire's (PI. Id. 103, see chap, vii. 42) assertion, that Plato con- sidered time as something merely subjective is entirely without foundation. 42 39 D. 43 This duration of the year of the world (pre-supposed Rep. vii. 546 B, as will be shown later on) is expressed more definitely in the statement (Phsedr. 248 C, E, 249 B; Rep. x. 615 A C, 621 D), that the souls which have not fallen remain free from the body through- out one revolution of the universe, while the others enter into human life ten times, and after each period of life among men have to com- plete a period of 1000 years (strictly speaking, the period would be 11,000 years, but the inaccu- racy must be attributed to the myth). Hence the curious asser- tion, Tim. 23 D sq., that the oldest historical recollection does not THE WORLD-SYSTEM, 383 connect with it, periodical changes in the condition of the world. 44 The particular heavenly bodies are so inserted in their orbits that they never change their place in them : the forward motion around the universal centre is not to be ascribed to these bodies as such, but to their circles. 45 Plato, however, gives to each of them a movement around its own axis, 46 but this assumption reach beyond 9000 years. Other calculations of the great years are not to be taken as Platonic (cf. Martin, ii. 80 \ Plato is so evi- dently giving a round number with his usual mixture of dogmatism and symbolism, that to connect his great year, as Steinhart does, vi. 102, with observations on the ad- vance of the equinoxes, is beside the question. Cf. Susemihl, Phil. xv. 423 sq. ; Gen. Ent. ii. 360, 379. 41 Polit. 269 C sqq., where of course (cf. Tim. 36 E, and else- where) Plato is not in earnest in supposing that God from time to time withdraws from the govern- ment of the world : Tim. 22 B sqq., 23 D ; Laws, iii. 677 A sqq. 45 This is clear from Tim. 36 B sqq., 38 C, 40 A sq. But it is not quite clear how we are to conceive this circle itself. The description mentioned p. 358, depicts the circles of the planets as small bands bent into a circle, and the circle of the fixed stars as a band of the same kind, only much broader; doubt- less Plato imagined the latter (as it appears to the eye) as a sphere, and the circles of the planets only as linear or like a band. 46 Tim. 40 A : Kiv-fifffis 8e Suo auT(f Kara ravra irfplrcavavrcav ael TO. avra eoury Siaj/oov/xeVqu, r^]v 8e eis TO irp6a0v inrb rfjs TO.VTOV xai 6fJi.oiov irepupopas Kparov^evcf}. Plato says this of the fixed stars; whether he intended that it should hold good of the planets is ques- tionable. In favour of this view we might allege that the motion which Plato considers to be pecu- liar to reason (cf. p. 358 sq.) must also belong to the planets : for they are rational beings or visi- ble gods. And ace. to p. 40 B (where I cannot agree with Suse- mihl's explanation, Philol. xv. 426) they are fashioned according to the fixed stars (/car' e/ceti/a yeyovfv}. These reasons, however, are not decisive. The planets may be fashioned according to the fixed stars without at the same time re- sembling them in all points ; and Plato himself, loc. cit., distinctly indicates their difference, in that the one KO.TO. raura 4v 7avr$ ffrpe- $6/j.eva ael jueVe*, while the others are Tpeir6/j.eva Kal irXa.vi}v tTJ4\ ;>, efrrep ^ r6 ye plained previously (p. 346, sqq. TOV iravrbs (Tupa. e/mj/uxoi/ &i/ (rvy- 358 sq.). Xtn'f, ravrd ye exoi/ TOVTU> Ka\ - See p. 239, 39. CTI irdvrr) /coAAiWa. (Cf. supra, p. 3 See p. 172, 287. 266, 112). The human soul as 4 Phsedo, lOo C, 106D;cf. 102 well as the world-soul is said to D sqq. have the two circles of the ravrbv 5 ,See p. 345. ifn/xV e ?" rovov cit.: rb ^volvra.vra 8ii'<7Xt;pura(r0cu flB&v. Perhaps, however, he has ofaus exeu>, &s ey& 5ieXrjAu0a, ov in mind the more general view, on Trpeirei vovv fx VTl avSpi. on which cf. p. 287, 172. M6 Vroi ^ raCr' t yiyveo~Qai, ainrjv Se ,u7j8' tl- cvos " el yap e/c rov apx^ yiyvotro, OVK &/ e| apx^s yiyvoiro. CTretSrj 8e a.yhi]T6v fffri, Kal aSidtp- 6opov avrb avdjKrj elvai (cf. supra p. 344) .... aQavdrov 8e ires ravTirjs otjcrys ^| avdy- KTIS aysvqTov re KOI aBdvarov ^/vx^l TTO.V yap x. 608 D sqq. Cf. Phaedo, 92 E sq., and Steinhart, v. 262 sq. 32 See p. 288, 172. 18 The Phsedrus designates the soul itself as tho apxh Kivfjffe^s, without saying that it is indebted only to participation in the Idea of life and the Ideal Cause for its motive power (Phaedo, 105 C ; Phi- leb. 30 B sq. ; see p. 266, 112), and that it therefore belongs to the conditioned and derivative, or, as the Timseus puts it, that it was produced by God together with the rest of the world. This is of no importance to the present question, but still there is a difference : the exposition of the Phaedrus is less precise and developed than that of the later dialogues. I cannot agree with Ueberweg (Unters. plat. Schr. 282 sqq.) that the Timseus differs from the Phaedo in its view of the Being of the soul. Tim. 41 A, the creator of the world says to the created gods : rb /uei> ovv STJ SeBfv itav Aurbi/, r6 ye /j.r,v Ka\>s ap/jLoaQev Kal t%oj/ e5 Ai/eiy 46e\ew /ccwcoO Si' a Kal etrtiirep ye- yevi] &\\cp), and is repeated, Republic, 61 1 B. The Republic and Timseus, as well as the Phsedo, add that the soul is not a a-vvOerov, but a simple Being, and they prove its immortality im- mediately from this simplicity. The Phsedo (80 B: $vx$ Se av TO trapa.Tcu.v a.8ia.\vrca elj/ai T) eyyvs TI TOVTOV) does not omit to intimate that the in dissolubility of the soul is not so unconditioned and original as that of the Idea. Is this really different in the Timseus? u^y and eiriev/jiia are first (42 A, 69 C) associated with the soul on its entry into the body ; but they do not belong to its original Being, which outlasts death. If we want to know this Being we must, as Ee- public611 B sq. expressly remarks, leave them out of the question. By its transient connection with PRE-EXISTENCE AND IMMORTALITY. 401 this manifestation, is also necessary ; and as it is im- possible that the universe and its motion can ever them it does not become anything composite. This would only be the case according to Phsedrus, 246 A sq. Ueberweg believes that the Phsedrus agrees with the Timaeus as to the perishableness of every- thing conditioned. But the Ti- maeus does not speak of the con- ditioned anymore than the Phaedo or Republic : it speaks of the com- posite. Is the soul to be considered as composite, and therefore dis- soluble, in the Timasus, because, ac- cording to a mythical exposition, it is formed out of its elements ? (see p. 342 sq.) We might say in favour of this view that the prin- ciple irav 8e0ej/ \vrbi> is adduced not merely, 41 A, with reference to the composition of the stars out of the corporeal elements (40 A; cf. 42 E sq.), but also presupposed, 43 D. One of the soul's circles is there said to be utterly confined by the throng of sensible perceptions at the entry of the soul into the body. This is the circle of iden- tity (Thought), the ralrbv. The other circle (Opinion) is so confused, c&oTe rets TOV 5iir\a(riov Kal TpnrXa- oiov rpels 4/care'pas OTroarafreij Kal ras T<0>i> yu.ioX((i)V Ka eTroyotcv jtietroTTjTas Kal |uve- (fcis (the harmonic proportions of the soul, see p. 349 sq.), eVeiS^ iravT(\u>s Aural OVK T\GOLV irX^v inrb TOV IVJ/ST/O'CU/TOS, irdffas fj.ev ffTptyai ffTpotyds, &c. But, as we have seen, the Phaedo itself suggests a similar restriction. If then we are to press the words as Ueberweg does, we must assert not only of the Timseus but of the Phsedo that it does not assume a natural imperishability of the soul. And in the Timaeus natural immortality must be denied both to the human and to the World-soul. But this would be going beyond Plato's real meaning. The principle that every- thing composite is dissoluble is with Plato a fundamental meta- physical principle which occurs equally in the Phaedo, the Republic, and the Timaeus. The soul in spito of this has no dissolution to fear ; and this can be substantiated in two ways. We can either deny that the soul is composite, or wo can say that, so far as in a certain sense the soul is compo- site, it is in itself dissoluble, but this possibility for other reasons is never realised. We can derive its immortality either from a me- taphysical or a moral necessity. The former is the method pursued in the Republic and Phsedo; the latter is hinted at in the Timaeus, where the psychogony does not permit simplicity to be attributed to the soul in the same strict sense as in the other dialogues. Cf. the Republic, 611 B: ov pdSiov aiStov elz/at ffvvBcTov re e Tro\\>v Kal fj.rj as is the case with the soul in its present condition, though not ac- cording to its original Being. The possibility is suggested of the soul's being indeed a ffwBerov, but one so beautifully combined that it may last for ever. So far as there is any actual difference on this point between the Timaeus and the Phsedo, it proves the Timseus to be not the earlier, but the later work. The simplicity of the soul is modified in the Timseus (and not before) by the doctrines of its com- position out of its elements. The same holds good against Ueber- D D 402 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. cease, so it is impossible that the soul should either have had a beginning or be subject to destruction. 34 Plato cannot mean that this holds good only of the World-soul, and not of individual souls. In his view these are not emanations of the World-soul, coming forth from it for a certain time, and returning into it ; but as particular Ideas stand side by side with the highest Idea, so particular souls stand beside the universal soul in self-dependent individuality. Both are of like nature : both must be equally imperishable. The soul, as such, is the principle of motion, and is inseparably combined with the Idea of Life : therefore each particular soul must be so. This argument is not altogether valid. 35 It certainly follows from the pre- mises that there must always be souls, but not that these souls must be for ever the same. 36 It is question- weg's assertion (loc. cit. 292) that the Politicus also must be later than the Timaeus, because the higher part of the soul is called (309 C) ^b oeiyeves fcv rrjs ^V^TJS litpos. If any conclusion at all can bo drawn from these "words it is that the Politicus is earlier than the Timseus. It is not till -we come to the Timaeus that we find any mention of the origin of the soul : in all the preceding dialogues, Phsedrus, Meno(86 A), Phaedoand Republic (611 A, B), it is regarded as without beginning del ov. Considering the mythical character of the psychogony and cosmogony in the Timaeus, I should be inclined to attach little importance to these deviations. 31 Phaedr. 245 D: rovro $1 [ r b avro avrb KI*OVV\ ofrr' air6\\v 2 404 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. him on other grounds. We must remember the strong* moral interest attaching to a belief in future retribu- tion which is so prominent in his writings, 37 and the agreement of the doctrine of immortality with his high idea of the worth and destiny of the spirit ; 38 together with the support it gave to his theory of knowledge, by means of the principle of Kecollection. As far as the scientific establishment of this doctrine is concerned, Plato comprehends everything in the single demand that we should recognise the essential nature of the soul, which excludes the possibility of its destruction. This argument shows the close interconnection between the doctrine of immortality and that of pre-existence. If it be impossible to imagine the with the general suppositions of his system. But our next question must simply be whether he held this belief himself or not ; and to undertake to prove this expressly to a reader of Plato by single pas- sages, e.g. Phsedo, 63 E, 67 B sq., 72,' A 80 B, 107 B sq. ; Kep. x. 611 A where the constant num- ber of the souls is by no means to be set aside with Teichmuiler as a mere metaphor (Tim. 42B) is simply ' bringing owls to Athens.' With this belief stands and falls the theory of future retribution and of avdiLvrjais, which, as will be pre- sently shown. Plato seriously thought it impossible to renounce. Teichmuiler endeavours (p. 143) to extract from the words (Phsedo, 107 D, ircuSeias re Kal rpov ai/ v /col f v &v j.rj up' ovv T&I/ del xpovov fiC/ut0lfmMa !(TTcu /; ^i/xr/ avrov ; 877X0^ yap '6ri T-bv TrdvTO. -^povov tanv v) OVK fffnv avOpuTTos. It might be objected that this refers only to the time ^incetho soul existed at all. This, however, is clearly not Plato's meaning here, or he would have said so. The same holds good of the explanation in the Phsedo, 70 C-72 1) that every living thing springs from the dead, and vice versa, and that it must be so un- less life is to cease altogether. So too in the coricsponding passage, Eep. x. 611 A: the same souls must always exist : for that which is immortal cannot pass away ; but their number is not increased, otherwise the mortal element would in the end be consumed. Phsedo, 106 D, the soul is designated as aiSiof ov, Hep. loc. cit. as del Oi/, which of course refers to endless- duration. These expressions show how to Plato's mind the absence of a beginning and the absence of an end coincide. 1)0 It has been already shown, p. 369 sqq., in what contradictions Plato became involved by the sup- position of a beginning of the world. In the present case thero is the contradiction that the soul was fashioned in a determinate moment by the Demiurgus, whereas 40C PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. that in his later years he did not strictly abide by the- consequences of his system, nor definitely propound to- himself the question whether the soul had any historical beginning, or only sprang, to its essential nature, from some higher principle. If the two poles of this ideal circle, Pre-existence and Immortality, be once established, there is no evading the doctrine of Recollection which lies between them ; and the notions of Transmigration and of future rewards and punishments appear, the more we consider them, to be seriously meant. With regard to Kecollection, Plato speaks in the above-cited passages so dogmatically and definitely, and the theory is so bound up with his whole system, that we must unconditionally reckon it among the doctrinal constituents of that system. The doctrine is an inference which could not well be escaped if once the pre-existence of the soul were admitted; for an existence of infinite duration must have left in the soul some traces which, though temporarily obscured in our consciousness, could not be for ever obliterated. But it is also in Plato's opinion the only solution of a most important scientific question : the question as to the possibility of independent enquiry of thought trans- cending the sensuous perception. Our thought could not get beyond the Immediate and the Actual ; we could not seek for what is as yet unknown to us; nor recog- nise in what we find, the thing that we sought for; if we had not unconsciously possessed it before we recog- the Demiurgus himself could not Tim. 34 E sqq. certainly looks as l)c imagined without soul. It can- if it were the primal origin of the not be supposed that his soul is soul that is meant. eternal and all the rest created; RECOLLECTION. 407 uised and were conscious of it. 41 We could form no conception of Ideas, of the eternal essence of things which is hidden from our perception, if we had not attained to the intuition of these in a former exist- ence. 42 The attempt of a modern work to exclude the theory of Eecollection from the essential doctrines of the Platonic system, 43 is therefore entirely opposed to the teaching of Plato. The arguments for the truth and necessity of this doctrine are not, indeed, from our point of view, difficult to refute ; but it is obvious that from Plato's they are seriously meant. 44 As Eecollection commended itself to him on scientific grounds, the belief in retribution after death was necessitated by his moral and religious view of the world. However firm his conviction that the uneondi- 41 Meno, 80 D sqq. See p. 396, where the question : riva rpoirov {riT-iiffeis TOVTO, ft jur; t)78as TOirapd- irav OTI tan . .. v) i Kai '6tL /uaAioTa evTv^ois au-rw, -nus eftm '6ri TOUT 6 fiTTiv ft ffv ovKySriffQa; is answered by the doctrine of avAfjivriais : rJ> yap ^VjTeTi/ &pa Kal TO fj.av6d.veiv a.vdjj.vr]ffis o\ov tffr'iv. *- Phaedo, 73 C sqq., where special weight is attributed to the fact that things always remain be- hind the Ideas of which they re- mind us ; the Ideas, therefore, must have been known previously, be- cause otherwise we could not com- pare them with things and remark the deviations of things from them. Plato therefore pronounces the pre- existence of the soul to be the in- dispensable condition of the know- ledge and assumption of the Ideas; Phaedo, 76 D : el ^v tari a 6pv\- \ovfiev ad, Ka\6v TC Kal ayadbv teal Traffa 7; TOtauTTj ovffia, Kal err! TauTTjf ra e'/c TWV alffS'fjarewv irdvra ava- epofj.ev . . .Kal ravTa tKeivri airei- Kaofj.ev, avayKa'ioi', ovrus Sxrirep Kal ravra effriv, ovrus Kal T)]V ^erepof tyvxftv flvai Kal irpiv yt- yovfvai 71/j.as. Cf. supra, note 24. 43 Teichmiiller, loc. cit. 208 sq., whoso refutation of my view is here limited to the question : ' Is it meant that the souls saw the Ideas, before birth, with the eyes of sense?' No one has ever attributed such an absurdity to Plato, nor 'has Ph anywhere spoken of a sensible ap- pearance of the Ideas in the pre- vious life. In fact, he guards against such an assumption even in his myths (Phsedr. 247 C). 44 The apparent deviation of the Meno from the rest of the dialogues in its account of the doctrine of ava.iJivT}7jK rais fiovX-ficreo'ii' i/caV-raj' suited his exposition to treat the THL&V TOS OITIOS. OTTTJ yap ai> eVt- degradution of the souls as a matter Qv/iirj Kal 6irot6s ris &v T^V tyvxfy, of will. Cf. Deuschle, Plat. My then, ravrrj o-^eSbj/ eK-acTore Kal -roiovros p. 21 sq., with whose remarks, how- yiyverai OTTOS i)fj.wy is r6 TTO\V. ever, I cannot entirely agree. . Everything which possesses a soul 52 Tim. loc. cit.; cf. Phaedr. 248D. changes constantly, V eai/ro?y is Laws, x. 903 I), 904 B: God /re/cTT^eVa TT,V TTJS jLterajSoATjs aiVfov, willed that everything should take and according to the direction and such .a position in the universe degree of this change it moves this that the victory of virtue and the way or that, to the surface of the 410 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. and seek out a body that suits it. 54 The notion of the soul adopting for its dwelling an animal body, is not only very repugnant to ourselves, but even from the Platonic point of view is involved in so many difficulties, 55 and is treated by Plato with so much freedom, 56 that it is easy to see how ancient and modern commentators have come to regard it as a merely allegorical rendering of the thought that man when he loses himself in a life of sensua- lity is degraded into a brute. 57 Had the question been definitely proposed to Plato, it is probable that he would not have claimed for this notion the dignity of a scientific doctrine. 58 Nevertheless, we are clearly not justified in explaining a trait which so persistently earth, into Hades, into a higher and purer or into the opposite place. Theset. 177 A: the just are like the divine, the unjust like the non-divine; if the unjust do not amend, Kal TeA.euT^jcrai'Tas O.VTOVS tuetvos fj.(v 6 T>V KO.K&V Ka9apbs T6iros ov Several, eV0ci8e 5e TU>V ainols 6jiioi(5Ti7Ta TTJS Sic^coyfjs del tfcoVffl KaKOl KO.KOIS ffw6l/TfS. 54 Phsedo, 80 E sqq. (see p. 395) : if a soul leaves the body pure, els rb '6/J.oiov avrfj rb deiSes airepxerai otherwise, are T< (Tdafj-aTi del ^vvovaa. . . . Kal 7e < yo7]Tei; i ue / i/77 far' avrov, . . . Papvverai re /cal eAKerat ird.\iv els fbv opa-rlv T-6irov. Such souls wan- der about the earth, e'ws Uv rfj rov Sovs (Tri6v/j.ia ird\tv 55 The question is obvious, How- can man, to whose nature the capability of forming concepts, ac- cording to Phsedr. 249 B, essen- tially belongs, become a beast? How can the dull and purely sensual life of the beast serve to purify the soul ? Are the souls of the beasts (ace. to Tim. 90 E sq.) all descended from former human souls, and so all intelligent and immortal according to their original Being, or (Phsedr. loc. cit.) only some of them ? 56 Cf. p. 397. 57 E.g. among Greek Platonists, the Pseudo-Timseus, Plutarch ap- parently, Porphyry, Jambliehus, and ilierocles (see vol. iii. b. 121, 165, 590, 641, 684, 2nd edit.); among modern scholars, Susemihl, Genet. Entw. i. 243, ii. 392, 465 ; Philologus, xv. 430 sqq. &8 We cannot qxiote Eep. iv. 441 B here. It is said there that beast* have no reason (A<>7:o>bs); but the same was said immediately be- fore of children. Plato might deny the icse of reason to children, from his point of view, but not its pos- session. TRANSMIGRATION. 411 recurs in all Plato's eschatology, as the conscious allegorisation of a moral theorem not essentially belonging to the representation of the future life. Plato seems to have seen in this theory originally borrowed from the Pythagoreans one of those preg- nant myths which he was convinced contained a fundamental truth, though he did not trust himself fo determine (and being still a poet as well as a philosopher, perhaps felt no necessity for determining) exactly where this truth began and how far it ex- tended. The souls in their original state, and when sufficiently perfected to return to that state, are represented as entirely free from the body, 59 and this doctrine is too closely interwoven with his whole philo- sophy to justify our limiting it to mean G0 that perfect incorporeality is merely an unattainable ideal, and that in reality man even after this present life will possess a body a nobler body, however, and more obedient to the soul. A philosopher who in his whole procedure consciously and exclusively strives after a release from the body, who so long as the soul carries about with it this evil despairs of attaining his end ; who yearns to be free from corporeal bonds, and sees in that free- dom the highest reward of the philosophic life ; who recognises in the soul an invisible principle, which only in the invisible can reach its natural state ; 61 such a 59 Phaedr. 246 B sq., 250 C ; obvious that they all found this Phsedo, 66 E sq., 80 D sq., 114 C; view of theirs in Plato); likewise cf. 81 D, 83 D, 84 D; Tim. 42 Eitter, ii. 427 sqq.; Steinhart, iv. A, D. 51 ; Susemihl, Genet. Entw. i. 461 ; 80 With many of the earlier Philol. xr. 417 sqq. Neoplatonists, on whom compare 6I Phsedo, 64 A -68 IS, 79 C sq., rol. iii. b. 641, 684, 698, 736 (it is 80 D-81 D, 82 D-84 B; cf. also- 412 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. philosopher, if any one at all, must have been con- vinced that it was possible for the disciple of true wisdom to attain in the life to come full release from the material element. Since this is just what he does assert, without a word to the contrary, we have not the slightest reason for mistrusting such explanations. 62 In these main features, therefore, of the Platonic escha- tology, we have to do with Plato's own opinions. 63 Other points may have had in his eyes at any rate an approximate probability ; for example, the cosmic revolutions of ten thousand years, 64 the duration of future intermediate states, the distinction between curable and incurable transgressions. 65 But the further Tim. 81 D, 85 E, and subter, note 66. 62 The original appearance of the Ideas presupposes the non- corporeity of the soul ; it is at our entry into the body that we forget them ; Phsedo, 76 D ; Kep. x. 621 A; cf. supra, note 13. 88 Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 181, 184, 186, is therefore incorrect in pronouncing the conceptions of the pre-existence, the fall of the soul and ai/cfyifTjo-iy, to be doctrines not reckoned essential to his philo- sophy by Plato himself. * V. p. 383. The whole calcu- lation is of course purely dogmatic. The world-year is a century (the longest time of a man's life) multiplied by itself; its parts are ten periods of a thousand years, of which each one allows space for a single return to life and the possi- bility of retribution of tenfold dura- tion. 65 This distinction was the result of Plato's general view as to the object of punishment (see next chapter). The consideration that the equilibrium between the num- bers of the dying and of those returning into life (Phsedo, 72 A sq. ; Eep. x. 611 A) might be disturbed, and in the end quite destroyed, if in each period of the world even a small number only of incurable criminals with- drew from the ranks of those set apart to return to life, could be met by the supposition that the punishment (Gorg. 525 C ; Eep. 615 C sqq., denoted as endless) of such persons extended only to the end of each great year of the world. This of course would not be an eternity of punishment, but still such as would extend over the whole period of time comprehended by Plato's eschatologic myths. It is, however, open to question whether Plato himself rose to this con- sideration. I see, therefore, no sufficient reasons for the assertion (Susemihl, Philol. xv. 433 sqq.) TRANSMIGRATION. FUTURE EXISTENCE. 415 details concerning the other world and the. soul's migra- tions are so fanciful in themselves, and are sometimes so playfully treated by Plato, that his doctrine, in pro- portion as it descends into particulars, passes into the region of the Myth. In connection with these notions, by which alone it can be fully understood, we have now to consider the Platonic theory of the parts of the soul and its relation to the body. As the soul entered the body out of a purer life, as it stands related to the body in no original or essential manner, the sensuous side of the soul's life cannot belong to its specific essence. Plato therefore compares the soul 66 in its present condition to the sea-god Grlaucus, to whom so many shells and sea-weeds have attached themselves that he is disfigured past recognition. He says that when the soul is planted in the body, sensuality and passion 67 grow up with it ; and he accordingly distinguishes a mortal and an immortal, a rational and an irrational division of the soul. 68 Of these, only the rational part is simple ; the irrational is again divided into a noble and an t hat this point ' cannot be seriously under the immortal soul, and the meant' iu Plato. body only is designated as mortal. 66 Rep. x. 611 C sqq. Another This exposition must not, owing to similar image occurs, ix. 588 B its mythical character, prevent sqq. Cf. Phsedr. 250 C. us from seeking Plato's real opi- 67 Tim. 42 A sqq. ; 69 C. nions in the explicit theories of 68 Tim. 69 C sqq., 72 D: cf. 41 the- Timseus, propounded as they C, 42 D ; Pol it. 309 C, cf. Laws, are with ;ill dogmatic determina- xii. 961 D sq., Arist. De An. iii. tion, however much the views of 9 ; 433 a. 26 ; Magna Moral, i. 1, later Greek Platonists may be at 1182 a. 23 sqq. This theory is variance on this point (cf. Hermann, much less developed in the Phse- Do pan. an. immort. sec. Plat- drus, 246, where the Bv/jhs and p. 4 sq.). ^irtdvfj.ia (.see p. 393) are reckoned 414 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. ignoble half. 69 The former, the noble soul-steed of the Phsedrus, is Courage or vehement Will (6 Qvpos TO 6vfjLoet&es), in which anger, ambition, love of glory, and in general, the better and more powerful pas- sions have their seat. In itself without rational insight, it is disposed to be subordinate to Keason as its natural ally. It has an affinity with Eeason, an instinct for the great and good; 70 though when deterio- rated by evil habits it may often give Eeason trouble enough. 71 The ignoble part of the mortal soul includes the sum total of sensuous appetites and passions ; those faculties under the dominion of sensible likes and dislikes, which Plato usually calls the E7ri0vjj,r)Tifcbv, or so far as property is desired as a means of sensuous enjoyment, the ^i^o^p^/jLarov. 72 The reasonable part is Thought. 73 Thought has its dwelling in the head ; Courage in the breast, especially in the heart ; Desire in the lower regions. 74 The two inferior divisions are not possessed by man alone : the appetitive soul belongs to plants, 75 the soul of Courage to animals. 76 Even in man the three faculties are not equally distributed, neither in individuals nor in whole nations. Plato assigns Reason pre-eminently to the Greeks, Courage to the northern barbarians, love of 69 Rep. iv. 438 D sqq., ix. 580 Usually called \oyiov. QiXonaOfs, C sqq. ; Tim. 69 C sqq., 89 E. $ /xav0cvet foepavos. Phaedr. 247 C ; 79 Rep. loc. cit. ; Phaedr. 246 B, ef. Laws, loc. cit. and supra, p. 288, 253 D sqq. 172; also voSs. 71 Rep. iv. 441 A ; Tim. 69 D : * Tim. 69 D sqq., 90 A. Ov/jibv 8vo"irapa[j.vdTiTov. 7S Tim. 77 B. : - Rep. iv. 436 A, 439 D, ix. 78 Rep. ir. 441 B, Rep. ix. 588 580 D sqq.; Phacdo, 253 E sqq. ; C sqq., can prove nothing in favour Tim. 69 D. of this. PARTS OF THE SOUL. A'/ gain to the Phoenicians and Egyptians. 7 * v Hfer/e$ how- ever, the determination universally applies that wher&' } the higher part exists, the lower must be presupposed, but not conversely. 78 Plato then considers these three faculties not merely as separate forms of activity, but as separate parts of the soul ; 79 and he proves this from the experimental fact that not only is Keason in man in many ways at strife with Desire, but that Courage, on the one hand, acts blindly without rational intelligence, and on the other, when in the service of Keason, combats Desire. As the same principle in the same relation can only have the same effect, there must be a particular cause underlying each of the three activities of soul. The general ground of this theory is to be found in the whole Platonic system. As the Idea stands abruptly in opposition to the Phenomenon, the soul, as most nearly related to the Idea, cannot have the sensible principle originally in itself. Hence the discrimination of the mortal and immortal part of the soul. If, however, the soul has at any time received into itself this sensuality (as is certainly the case), a 77 Rep. iv. 435 E. D, 444 B, 504 A ; Tim. 69 C, E, 77 78 Rep. ix. 582 A sqq. B : cf. Wildauer, Philos. Monatschr. 79 He also uses the expression 1873, p. 241. fifpTj, Rep. iv. 442 C, 444 B ; and 80 Thus poets like Epicharmus, ibid. 436 A, he puts the question : Thcognis, and others oppose 6vfj.bs el TW O.VTxf? K&ff tKaaTOV avTuv irpd.T- re), and a v6os4v/j.ovKp((rffew (ibid. rofj.fv. But he more frequently 631). From this it is an easy step to speaks of t5rj or 761/77, Phaedr. 253 suppose that both are really distinct C ; Kep. 435 C, 439 E, 441 C, 443 parts of the soul. 416 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. mediatizing principle must for a similar reason be sought between the two. Hence, within the mortal soul, the second division of the noble part and the ignoble. In accordance with this theory, the three- fold partition should be still further carried out and extended not only to the faculty of Desire, but to Opinion and Knowledge; so that Sensation might belong to the Desiring soul, Opinion to Courage, Knowledge to Reason. These three forms of presentation are defi- nitely distinguished, 81 and even assigned to different parts of the soul. 82 Plato seems to have been deterred from this combination by the circumstance that he ascribes even to knowledge derived from the senses and from envisagement, as preparatory to reasoned know- ledge, a greater worth than to Courage and Desire. He attributes Perception, 83 indeed, to the appetitive part of the soul, excluding Eeason and Opinion. But he means by this, not so much sensuous perception as the feeling of pleasure and pain. He further contrasts Opinion, ' even right. Opinion, with Eeason, and says of the virtue that is entirely founded on Opinion, that it is without intelligence, a mere affair of custom. 84 So that Opinion bears the same analogy to Reason that Courage does. 81 See pp. 170, 174, 14. irforeis : cf. pp. 218, 358 sq. 82 Rep. x. 602 C sqq. ; vii. 524 83 Tim. 77 B, on the vegetative Asq. The cuo-dyo-is which leads us soul: TOV rpirov tyvxrjs efSovs . . . to form wrong judgments must be $ 86&S p.ev Xoyiffpov re Kal vov different from the Ao7t, aior6-fivva/j.is Kal (rwr-ripia head According to Tim. 45 A 5m irai-Tbs $6r)s op07js re Kal vofj.ifj.ov the organs of sense are also situated Suv&v irepl Kal fir). in the head, because they are the 87 Both belong (see rote 82) to instruments of this part of the the two circles of the soul (which soul ; the sensible is perceived by attach originally to the human reason : Tim. 64 B, 67 B. soul as well as to the World-soul, 88 Cf. Brandis, p. 401 sq. E E 418 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. them remains the ruling part. 89 But how the Eeason can become one with these powers when, according to its own essential nature, it cannot belong to them, it is hard to see. Plato does not show us how Eeason can be affected by the inferior parts of the soul and fall under their dominion: 90 nor does he explain why Courage is in its very nature subject to Keason : and when he tells us 91 that the covetous part is governed by Eeason, by means of the liver, through dreams and prophetic intimations, we are not much assisted by so fanciful an idea. We have here three essences com- bined with one another ; not one essence operating in different directions. This deficiency becomes most apparent in Plato's conceptions of the future life. How can the bodiless soul still cling to the things of sense how by its attachment to earth, and its false estimate of external advantages, can it be led into the most grievous mistakes 92 in the choice of its allotted life, how can it be punished in the other world for its conduct in this, if in laying aside the body it also lays aside its own mortal part, the seat of desire, of plea- sure, and of pain? Yet we cannot suppose that the mortal part of the soul survives death, and that that which first belonged to it at its union with the body and in consequence of this union remains when the union is dissolved. There is a manifest lacuna here, or rather series of contradictions : nor can we 89 rwepovovv, Tim. 41 C, 70 B; their counter-current is merely an cf. the Stoic TiyepoviKov. allegorical method of expression, 90 To say that the perceptions of not an explanation, sense hinder the revolution of the 91 Tim. 71. circle of the ravr^ in the soul by fl2 Eep. x. 618 B sqq. PARTS OF THE SOUL. 419 wonder at it ; it would have been much more re- markable had Plato succeeded in developing such strange notions quite consistently. The case is somewhat similar with regard to another question, which has given much trouble to modern Philosophy, the freedom of the will. There is no doubt that Plato presupposes this in the sense of freedom of choice. He often speaks of voluntariness and involuntariness in our actions, without a word to imply any other than the ordinary meaning 93 of the terms. He distinctly asserts that the will is free ; 94 and he makes even the external lot of man, the shape under which the soul enters upon earthly existence, the kind of life which each individual adopts, and the events which happened to him, expressly dependent on free choice in a previous state of being. 9 * Should this 93 E.g. Kep. vii. 535 E (enovinov the quotations, pp. 392, 394 : all and aicovffiov v|/e08o$, and Laws, v. souls at their first birth come into 730 C) ; Polit. 293 A ; Laws, ix. the world as men, 'iva ^rts e\aTToiro 861 E. far' avrov [rov 0eov]. This wouJd 94 Rep. x. 617 E : each chooses have no meaning in the mouth of a a life, (weVrai e avdyKi)s (i.e. necessitarian if the behaviour of men when once chosen). apery 8e d8e- is determined exclusively by divine (TTTOTOV. fyv rifjLuv Kal aTifj-dfav Tr^eov causality ; the same obviously holds KOI eXarroj/ auTTjs KO(TTos |et. good of their destiny, which is con- atria e \ojueVou 6ebs avairtos. 619 ditioned by their behaviour. Hence B : Kal Te^evraicf) ein6vTi, tyv v$ no necessitarian system has ever eXofievc?, j/ avainos, and with especial than in their corporeal qualities stress on the freedom of the will ; and their destinies ; because the Laws, x. 904 B sq. (supra, note completeness of the world requires 53). infinitely many different kinds and 9 * See p. 390 sqq., and specially grades of being. E E 2 420 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. seem to indicate the doctrine of so-called Predestina- tion, a closer examination of passages will contradict any such notion. It is only the outward destiny that is decided by the previous choice ; virtue is absolutely free, and no state of life is so evil that it does not lie in a man's own power to be happy or unhappy in it. 96 Plato indeed maintains with Socrates that no one is voluntarily bad. 97 But this maxim only asserts that no one does evil with the consciousness that it is evil for him : and in Plato's opinion, ignorance concerning what is truly good, is still the man's own fault and the result of cleaving to the things of sense. 98 And though 88 The difficulties which here arise are to some extent explained, but not removed ; the external cir- cumstances of life are not so inde- pendent of particular behaviour that the former could be deter- mined beforehand, and the latter free at each moment. How, for instance, could he who chose the life of Archelaus or of any great criminal be at the same time an honest man ? Plato himself admits, , 618.B: avayKalots %x*iv &\\ov *\o}i.4vt)v fiiov a\\oiav yiyveardai [r))i> \J/i>xV] ; but according to what has just been quoted, this cannot refer to virtue and vice. 97 Tim. 86 D : o^So./ fy irdvra, 6ir6ffa T$ovS>v aKpareia Kal [? KOT'] 6Vei8oj &s (K6vT(av \ey(Tcu TU>V KO.K&V OVK 6peS>s oveiSl&rai- Kctfcos jxev yap IKOJI/ ouSelj, Sicfc 8e irovrfpav ftv rwa TOV ffwfjLaros Kal airaiSevTov TpoQijv 6 KO.KOS yiyverai Kan6s. 87 A : Trpos 8e TOVTOIS, foai* OVTCD KaKias irayfVTcav iroAtreTat KO.KCU Kal \6yoi Kara ir6\cis I8ia Kal 8r)/j.o(ria >.6X0a>v KdKiav, TovvavTioit 5e e\eTv. Cf. Apol. 25 Esq.; Prot, 345 D, 358 B sq. ; Meno. 77 B sqq. ; Soph. 228 C, 230 A; Rep. ii. 382 A, iii. 413 A, ix. 589 C; Laws, v. 731 C, 734 B, ix. 860 D sqq. (where Plato rejects the distinction of eKovaia and aKovffia aSiKTJjUara, because all wrong is involuntary, and would substitute the terms aKovffioi and eKovffioi j8\t^ot), and the quota- tions, Pt. i. 123, 1, and supra, p. 179. 98 Cf. Phsedo, 80 E sqq. : it all amounts to whether the soul leaves the body pure, fire ouSeo noivwvovaa aurqi) ei/ T

(.Kovffa eivai, &C. Eep. vi. 485 C : the primary re- quirement in the philosophic dis- position is, TO eKovras fivai ^1780^77 TrpotrSexeo'flai TO tJ/eGSos. Laws, x. 904 D : /te/Cw Se 8rj FREE WILL. 421 he says that in most cases of moral degeneracy a sickly constitution or a bad education should chiefly bear the blame, yet we are clearly given to understand that those in such a situation are by no means to be entirely excused, or shut out from the possibility of virtue. Whether these theories are throughout con- sistent with each other, whether it is logical to declare all ignorance and wickedness involuntary, and yet to assert that man's will is free and to make him respon- sible for his moral condition, may be doubtful; but this does not justify us in disregarding the distinct enunciations on free-will that we find in Plato." He was probably unconscious of the dilemma in which he was involved. The more general question, whether we can conceive a free self-determination, and whether such a determination is compatible with the Divine government of the world, and the whole scheme of nature, appears never to have been raised by him. The relation of the soul to the body is likewise beset with considerable difficulties. On the one hand, the soul is in its essence so entirely distinct, and in its existence so independent, that it has even existed, and is destined again to exist, without the body ; and will only attain a perfect life, corresponding with 6ir6rav jueTaflcU?? 5ia rV of the means of moral education. fiov\t\ffiv. Tim. 44 C: if The Platonic schools always re- man arrives at reason and secures garded the freedom of the will as a right education for his reason, he their characteristic doctrine. becomes mature and sound, Kara- " E.g. Martin, ii. 361 sqq.jSteger, (UeAT/o-as 8K . . jareA^s Ka\ CU^TJTOS Plat. Stud. ii. 21, 47 ; "i. 38 sq. ; fls "AiSov Trd\tv fpxerai. The blame Teichmiiller, Stud. z. Gesch. d. therefore lies with his own neglect Begr. 146 sq., 369 sq. 422 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. its true nature, when it is freed from corporeal fetters. 100 On the other hand, this alien body exerts on the soul so disturbing an influence, that the soul is dragged down into the stream of Becoming, overwhelmed in error, filled with unrest and confusion, intoxicated by passions and desires, by imaginations, cares and fears. 101 The stormy waves of corporeal life disturb and hinder its eternal courses. 102 At its entrance into the body it drinks the draught of forgetfulness, 103 the visions of its past existence are blotted out beyond recognition. From its union with the body arises that entire dis- figurement of its nature which Plato paints in such strong colours. 104 Moral faults and spiritual sick- nesses are caused by a bodily constitution disordered or diseased ; rational care of the body and judicious exer- cise are most important as a means of spiritual health, and indispensable as preliminary moral training for individuals and for the commonwealth at large. 105 Descent and parentage are of the greatest moment ; the dispositions and qualities of parents are, in the natural course of things, entailed upon their children. The better the former, the nobler the latter, as a general rule. 106 From fiery ancestors spring fiery descendants ; from calm ones, calm. Both qualities, if exclusively transmitted in a race, develop themselves unduly: 107 100 See p. 412 sq., and Phsedo, los Tim. 86 B-90 D ; Eep. iii. 79 A sq. 410 B sqq. Details on this subject J Phsedo, 79 C sq., 66 B sqq., will be given later on. and elsewhere. ><>6 j iep> v 459 A sq . cf ^ 415 12 Tim. 43 B sqq. A; Crat. 394 A. It is remarked, 1 Eep. x. 621 A; Phaedo, 76 Rep. 415 A sq., cf. Tim. 19 A, C sq. that the rule admits of exceptions. 14 See p. 414. Further in the 10? Polit. 310 D sq. ; cf. Laws, Ethics. vi. 773 A sq. SOUL AND BODY. 423 whole nations are often essentially distinguished from one another by some natural characteristic. 108 The circumstances under which marriage takes place are therefore an important matter of consideration; not only the bodily and spiritual condition of the indi- viduals, 109 but also the general state of the worid must be taken into account. As the universe changes in great periods of time, so for plants, beasts, and men there are varying seasons of fruitfulness and unfruit- fulneps for soul and body ; consequently, if marriages are consummated at unfavourable times, the race deteriorates. 110 Thus we see that corporeal life in thagoreans-. 08 See note 77. 109 Laws, vi. 775 B sqq. : mar- ried people, so long as they con- tinue to have offspring, must keep themselves from everything un- healthy, from all wrong-doing, and all passion, but particularly from drunkenness, because all such things transfer their results to the bodies and souls of the children. 110 Eep. viii. 546. Plato says that for all living beings as for plants, after the times of their bo- dily and spiritual fruitfulness, there come periods of unfruitfulness, if they are caused to return to their former path owing to some revo- lution of the spheres, &c. This is further developed by a comparison between the periods of the universe and those of the human race. But instead of saying generally : ' even the universe is subjected to a change, only in longer periods of times, while mankind changes in shorter periods,' Plato marks the duration of the two periods in de- finite numbers. These he states indirectly, giving us a numerical enigma, in the manner of the Py- fj.ev lori 8e, he says, irepioSos. $)j/ Tf'Aetos, avOpcaireiq) 8e [sc. TrepioSo's eVrij/, V apid/j-bs irepi- Aa,uacei] fi> $ irpu>TCf av-fi. This ru' die, the key to which was evidently possessed by Aristotle (Polit. v. 12, 131 b. a. 4 sqq.), had by Cicero's 424 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. its commencement and throughout its course has an important bearing upon the spirit. How this is time become proverbially unintel- ligible (ad. Att. 7, 13), and in our own day has variously exercised the ingenuity of scholars ; see the references ap. Schneider, Plat. Opp. iii. Prsef. 1-92 ; Susemihl, Genet. Entw. ii. 216 sqq. ; Weber, De nu- meroPlatonis(Cassel,1862; Gymn. progr. added to the second edition). Hermann, Susemihl, and Weber seem to have come nearest to the truth. Meanwhile, availing my- self of their work, and referring to them for paiticulars (the dis- cussion of which in the present place is as impossible as a detailed account including all differences of view), I may give the following as my own view. God's product, i.e. the world, Plato says, moves in longer periods, and undergoes a slighter change, than the races of mankind, who change more quickly and decidedly. In Pythagorean language : the former has for its circuit a larger number, the latter a smaller ; the former a complete, the latter an incomplete ; the former a square, the latter an ob- long number. (Oblong numbers are those composed of two unequal factors; the rectangle, however, compared with the square, stands on the side of the incomplete ; see vol. i. 3rd edit., p. 341, 3, 4; 302, 3.) These numbers are now to be described more in detail. The circuit of the world is contained by a complete number, for the du- ration of the year of the world, at the expiration of which everything returns to the position which it had at the beginning, consists of 10.000 years (see p. 344). The number 10,000 is a complete num- ber as being a square, but even more so as arising from the number ten, the reAetos aptd/jibs (see vol. i. 342). The number ten raised to the fourth power, is multiplied by itself four times (according to the scheme of the potential decad, the sacred tetractys). To this number of the world's circuit is opposed the number which contains the revolution of human kind, i.e. which gives the numbers of years, at the expiration of which a change to worse or better comes about in the production of new races of mankind a change to evyovia or acpopia (cf. 546 A C). We are told firstly, that it is the first num- ber in which av^ffeis 8vva.iJ.fj/ai, &c., occur, pure rational propor- tions which can be expressed in whole numbers (iravra irpoffrj'yopa Kal pTjrct .... oTre^rji/ai'). Secondly, the eVtT/NTos Trv8/j.T)]/ of the series so obtained (for this must be the meaning, whether the wz/before eVtr. be referred to av^aeis, or, as seems preferable, to TTOI/TO), joined with the number five, and three times increased, gives two ap/j.oviai, which are described at length. We learn further that the whole com- bination of numbers here described is ' geometric,' i.e. all the numbers out of which it is composed can be exhibited in a geometrical construc- tion. In the first part of this de- scription, the auTj(reis $vvd/j.fvai re Kal Swacrrev6/j.tvai refer to the fact that we are dealing with equations, the roots of which are the numbers of the Pythagorean triangle, 3, 4, 5. The Pythagoreans call three and four Suj/cwTeuojuej'ai, five Swa/j-evrj, because 5 2 = 3 2 + 4 2 (see details in SOUL AND BODY. 425 to be reconciled with other theories of Plato does not appear. vol. i. 344, 2, 3rd edit.). To start from these numbers was all the more suitable because the law of the combination of kind, the law of -yd/jujs, was to be here determined, and the number five, in which three and four are potentially con- tained, is called yd/jios by the Py- thagoreans, as the first combina- tion of a male and female number (vol. i. 343, 4 ; 335, 3). The old commentators recognise the Py- thagorean triangle in this passage ; ef. Plut. De Is. 56, g. 373, who says of this triangle : e Kal H\drQiv6vT(av are obscure. I do not think it probable that the former is equivalent to 6/uoiovi/, and the latter to ai/ofjLoiovv (Weber, p. 22, follow- ing Eettig). It seems unlikely that in a description otherwise so extraordinarily concise, Plato should have used such a pleonasm ; and the meaning in question cannot be extracted from the original sig- nification of ' increasing and di- minishing' without straining the words. The Kal, too, before av- IfivTuiv leads us to expect some- thing new, and not a mere repe- tition of what we have already been told by 6/j.oiovvruv and avop-oiovv- TOJV. Weber believes that the pro- portion intended by Plato (and the only one as he thinks) in the words eV < irpwrtf . . . airf(pT)vai' must have been formed out of certain powers of five, four, and three, in such a way that the first and third term are square numbers, the second and fourth oblong numbers, and that the terms (an account of the eVi- rpiros -nvOp^v to be mentioned im- mediately) stand in the proportion of 4 : 3. Hence he gets the follow- ing proportion : 5* x 4 2 x 4 2 : 4 s x 5 2 x 3 2 : 5 2 x 4 2 x 3 2 I 3 3 x 5 2 x 4 = 6400 : 4800 : 3600 : 2700. Here the sum of the first and third term give the complete number 10,000 ; that of the second and fourth term the incomplete number 7500. But, in the first place, the suppositions from which he starts are very un- certain. The tone of the passage itself leaves it undecided whether 426 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Plato connects his doctrine of the soul with his physiological theories by means of a teleology, which, we have to do with one or several proportions of four terms. It is not said that in this or these pro- portion or proportions the first and third term must be square, and the second and fourth oblong ; but merely that, generally speaking, square and oblong numbers do oc- cur in those places. And we can- not infer from the ivlrptroi irvdfjLT]v that the proportion (if it is only one) advances in the ratio of 4 : 3, because in every equation proceed- ing from the elements 3, 4, 5, there is an tirfrpiros irvQp^v together with the number five. Secondly (and this is the main point), Weber gets two numbers by his proportion; these occur in what follows as the sums of the two ap/j.oi>iai : the number of the year of the world, 10,000, and the number 7500. But in the words eV < irpwrqi . . . aire- ^rjvav Plato means to describe only one number, that of the period of the avQpcaireiov yevveTov. What this is, and how it is to be found, is not sufficiently stated in these words, so long as their meaning is not more clearly explained. From the three elements, 3, 4, 5, which Plato makes the basis of his cal- culation, we could derive propor- tions of four terms in such a way that, raised to the third power, they could be connected, by proportional means (on the system described p. 671, 3), two and two. Then we get the three equations: 1) 3 3 : 3 2 x 4 : 3 x 4 2 : 4* = 27 : 36 : 48 : 64 ; 2) 3 s I 3 2 x 5 : 3 x 5 2 I 5 3 = 27 : 45 : 75 : 125; 3) 4 s : 4 2 x 5 : 4 x o 2 : 5 S = 64 : so : 100 : 125. From these the number required, the apiQpbs frfptos ytvt- , can be obtained by forming a series of their collective terms (27, 36, 45, 48, 64, 75, 80, 100. 125), and summing the numbers of this series (just as the numbers of the harmonic series are summed in Tim. Locr. 96 B). This would give 600 as the result, and the notion would then be that evyovicu and oQopia of mankind change in periods of 600 years. We might further observe that 600 is ten times 60, and 60 =3x4x5; and if at the same time we could assume that Plato determined the yev^S, in the pre- sent case at 60 years (say, as the longest period of procreative power in man) we should get this result : As a new circuit begins for the in- dividual souls after 10 hundred years, and for the universe after 10 thousand years (see above), so the race undergoes a revolution after 10 generations. Hitherto, how- ever, we have too little ground to explain Plato's meaning with any certainty. In the second part of the description, the numbers meant by the words &v eirirpiros TTifytTji/ . . . eKarbv 8e KV&VI' rpidSos can be more definitely specified. Of the two appoviai here mentioned, one must give the number 100 x 100 = 10,000. The other (as Hermann rightly explains) must give a num- ber consisting of 100 cubes of the number 3, and a hundred numbers obtained from the rational diago- nals of the number 5 after the deduction of 1, and from its irra- tional diagonals after the deduc- tion of 2. This number is 7500 ; obtained from 100 v 3 3 = 2700 and 100 x 48. 48 is one less t. an the square of the rational diagonals, SOUL AND BODY. 427 though sometimes graceful and ingenious, is poor in scientific results. The details of his physiology are and two less than that of the irra- tional diagonals of 5 ; the diagonal of 5 = V(2 x 6^) = ^50, its rational diagonal = ^49 = 7; the square of the former is therefore 50 ; of the latter 49. Any fvuther steps are uncertain. The two immbers men- tioned are to proceed from two harmonies, i.e. two series of num- bers progressing in a definite arithmetical ratio (ap/j.ovia is to be taken in a mathematic.il, and not in a musical or metaphysico-ethical sense), by multiplying the eVtTpiTos Trv6/j.T)v of the series previously ar- rived at (see p. 421) in combina- tion with the number 5 three times (rpls au|rj0efs). The tmrpiros trvd- ju.?;j' can only be the numbers 3 and 4 themselves, for TrufyieVes means (Thi o. Math. 125 sq., Bull.) for any arithmetical relation ol eV fXaxiffris Kal Trpcarois Trpos oAA.^- Aous \6jois (We? (apiOpol') . . . eiri- rplruv Se 6 r&v S' irpbs 7'. The rpls avri6els means, as Aristotle ex- plains, Polit. v. 12, 1316 a. 7: OTO.V 6 rov ^laypd/jL/jLaros apid/mbs rov- rou(the number of the Pythagorean triangle : 3, 4, 5) ffrepeos yfvijrai. Those two series of numbers are to be obtained by a combination of the three, four, and five cubes, which give the above sums. We- ber's proposal (p. 27 sq.) is worth consideration. He combines 3 and 4 singly at first by multiplica- tion with 5, and then again multi- plies both multiples 3x5 and 4 x 5 with the numbers of the Py- thagorean triangle. He thus gets two series of three terms progress- ing in the ratio of 3. 4, 5 (and at the same time in arithmetical pro- portion), which can also be exhibit- ed in a geometrical construction, as he shows: 1) 3x3x5 = 45; 4 x 3 x 5 = 60 ; 5x3x5 = 75; 2) 3x4x5 = 60; 4x4x5 = 80;' 5 x 4 x 5 = 100. Multiply the first term of the first series with the first term of the second, &c., and we arrive at the oblong numbers 45x60=2700; 60x80 = 4800; 75 x 100 = 7500. Multiply each of the three terms of the second series into itself, and we get the square numbers: 60 x 60 = 3600; 80 x 80 = 6400 ; and as a third the sum of both: 100x100 = 10,000. Symmetry would pei-haps require that the three terms of the first series should also be multiplied into themselves, which does not fit into the Platonic construction. But, however we are to understand Plato's exposition, and however we are to fill up its deficiencies, we must not expect from the present passage any serious information as to the law governing the change of the races of mankind. Plato him- self indicates as much when he says, 546 A sq. : however wise the rulers of the state may be, it is impossible for them to know the times of evyovia and atyopia for our race, and to avoid fatal mistakes in managing the union of parents. Plato's object is rather to show the mysterious importance of that law by giving an interpretation of it in enigmatical formulae ; but the law itself becomes no clearer (as Ari- stotle, loc. cit. objects), even if we could interpret the formulae mathe- matically. Tlie mystic element here, as the mythical elsewhere, \s 428 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. interesting, as showing the then state of that science and his acuteness in explaining the complicated phe- nomena of life from such inadequate experimental data ; but in reference to his philosophic system their importance is very small. That the three parts of the soul may be undisturbed in their specific nature and proper relation, a separate dwelling, says Plato, is allotted to each. 111 The two circles of the rational soul are placed in the head, which is round, that thence as from a citadel, the whole may be ruled. 112 The senses are appointed to be its organs. 113 Sensible perception, however, does not belong exclusively to the rational soul, but extends to the intended to conceal a deficiency of scientific knowledge under apparent explanations. 111 tyvxys irtpioSoi, p. 43 D sqq., 44 B D, 47 D, 85 A, 90 D ; cf. supra, p. 358; p. 359, 166. The sutures of the skull are (76 A) derived from the revolution of this circle of the soul, and its interruption by the afflux of nourishment (cf. 43 Dsqq.). 112 44 D sq. 113 Tim. 45 A. Of the parti- cular senses Plato explains sight by the supposition that there is an interior fire (or light) in the eye, which passing out from the eye unites with the kindred fire which comes out of luminous bodies, and trans- mits the motion through the whole body to the soul. (Tim. 45B-D ; cf. Soph. 266 C; Theat. 156 D; Eep. vi. 508 A.) This light dwelling in the eye Plato calls ityis. The phe- nomena of reflected light, and reflec- tions in mirrors, are discussed, Tim. 46 A-C ; the colours of lights, 67 C sqq. Cf. Martin, ii. 157-171, 291-294 ad h. loc. Sleep also is derived from the interior fire of the eyes : if the eyelids close, the inner movements of the body must be re- laxed and at rest, Tim. 45 D sq. The sensations of hearing are caused by the tones moving the air in the inside of the ear, and this motion is transmitted through the blood into the brain, and to the soul. The soul is thus induced to a mo- tion extending from the head to the region of the liver, to the seat of desire, and this motion pro- ceeding from the soul is a/cor? (Tim. 67 A sq.). Taste consists in a contraction or dilatation of the vessels (0A.e#es) of the tongue (Tim. 65 C sq.). Smell depends on the penetration of vapours (ttcurvhs and 6/ij'xA.T/, see p. 378) into the vessels between the head and the navel, and the roughness or smoothness of their contact (66 D sqq.). PHYSIOLOGY. 429 inferior parts. 114 With it is connected the feeling of pleasure and pain, 115 of which the mortal soul only is 114 Of supra, note 81, and what has just been quoted as to hearing and smell ; p. 65 C we are told that the blood-vessels of the tongue, the organs of taste, run into the heart. 115 A?v ^(Tp.Sjv ras irteiaras, Kal ras r&v . airr. tiriffr-fiiMus (as one MS. reads), ras 8' ahB. eir. 4W PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. capable. 116 This soul inhabits the trunk of the body, but being itself divided into a noble and ignoble part, its dwelling has likewise two divisions, as the chambers of women in houses are partitioned from those of men". Courage has its place in the breast, nearest the sove- reign Reason ; Desire in the lower parts. 117 In the breast is the heart, the chief organ of Courage ; thence, throughout the whole body spread the channels of the blood, which is quick to proclaim in every direction the mandates and threatenings of Courage. 118 These chan- nels further serve to convey in the blood continual restitution of decaying particles; 119 in them the air circulates, 120 entering and leaving the body partly through the breathing passages, 121 partly through the flesh and the skin. 122 The lungs are placed about the 116 Cf. supra, note 82. This, how- human body; but, according to the ever, can only hold good of sen- same principle, these are eontinu- sible pleasure and its opposite, ally repaired out of the blood, into Plato recognises a spiritual plea- which the nourishment spread by sure besides, Hep. ix. 582 B, 583 means of the fire (the inner warmth) B, 586 E sqq., vi. 485 D ; Phileb. in the body, is brought by the air 52 A ; see p. 187. which enters in the act of breath- 117 Tim. 69 E sq., 70 D, 77 B. ing (cf. note 122). In youth, so 118 70 A sq. It has already been long as the elements of the body noticed, note 115, that the blood is are fresh, they hold together faster the transmitting medium of sensa- and digest nourishment more easily, tion. Tim. 77 C sqq. (cf. Martin, more goes into than out of the ii. 301 sqq., 323 sqq.) is an attempt body it grows ; in age, after it is to describe the system of the blood- worn out, it diminishes, and finally vessels ; there is no mention here breaks up altogether. of the distinction between veins m 78 E sq., 80 D. Plato here and arteries, still less of the circu- follows Diogenes ; see vol. i. 227, 7, lation of the blood, which was en- 3rd edit, tirely unknown to the ancients. m The obscure description, 77 119 Plato's theory in detail is as E sqq., is elucidated by Martin, ii. follows (Tim. 80 C sqq., 78 E sq.) : 334 sqq. ; Susemihl, ii, 453 sqq. Every element tends towards what m Plato supposes with Empe- is homogeneous to it: parts are docles (see vol. i. 647), not only a constantly disappearing from the respiration but a perspiration. The PHYSIOLOGY. 431 heart to cool it, and to make a soft Cushion for its violent beating. 123 The connection of Desire with Reason is accomplished by means of the liver ; as Desire, pursuant to its nature, neither understands nor inclines to follow rational arguments, it must be ruled by imaginations ; and this is the purpose of the liver The Reason causes to appear on its smooth surface, as on a mirror, pleasant or terrible images : it changes the natural sweetness and colour of the liver by the infusion of bile, or else restores it : thus alarming or quieting the part of the soul which has its dwelling- there. The liver is, in a word, the organ of presenti- ments and of prophetic dreams; 124 in the same way, divination in general belongs only to the irrational man. 125 Plato ascribes no great importance to the air, he thinks (78 D-79 E), enters into the body alternately through the windpipe and throat, and through the skin ; here it becomes warmed by the inner fire, and then Keeks its kindred element outside the body by one or the other of the ways just mentioned. There is no void space ; and, accordingly, other air is pressed into the body by the air passing out; through the skin if the one current is coming out through the mouth and nose, through the mouth and nose if the current is passing out through the skin. 123 70 C sqq. ; not only air but drink is supposed to pass into the lungs. 124 Tim. 71 A-72 D. Even after death traces of prophetic pictures remain in the liver. Plato, how- ever, observes that they are too dull and obscure for any definite conclusions to be drawn from them. He also rejects vaticination from victims. The spleen is intended to keep the liver pure. 125 71 E: (j-avTiKfyv cuppoffvvri 0e5? avBpwjrit/r) 5e'8u>/cei> ouSels fvvovs yap f(pdiTTTai /j.avTiKrjs evBeov Kal ciATj- Govs aAA' ^ Ka0' VTTVOV r^v TT}? (ppovf]- (recas TTfSriBels 5uva.fj.iv fy Sia v6aov T) Sid TIVO. edovtriaff/jibv irapaAAa|as. Only the interpretation of prophecy is matter of reason and reflection. Cf. Laws, 719 C, and supra, p. 176 sq., and, on the other side, p. 191. Prophetic and significant dreams occur, as is well known, in the Phsedr. 60 I) sq., and Crito, 44 A, and in the Eudemus (Cic. Dio. 1, 25, 53) composed by Aristotle as Plato's scholar ; and the belief in presentiments, expressing them- selves sometimes in sleep, some- times in waking, may have been seriously held by Plato, on the 432 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. other organs : those of digestion he especially regards as a place of reserve for food, the decomposition of which he derives from the natural warmth of the body. 126 Some other physiological theories of his can in this place be only shortly indicated. 127 Plants 128 and animals, 129 he says, are formed for the sake of man ; plants to be his food, animals to serve as an abode for those human souls which have rendered themselves unworthy of a higher life. Plants too are living beings, but their soul is of the lowest kind, capable neither of reason nor opinion, but only of desire and sensation ; a soul only moved from without, to which has been denied the motion that proceeds from and returns into itself 130 self-consciousness ; therefore, plants can never change their place. The Timseus represents animals as having been all originally precedent of the Socratic Daemon, further cf. the quotation on 392 sqq. On the other hand, he certainly re- 13 77 B : ira tavry rect consequence from his point of irepi eaurb TT\V [i.\v e|w06i/ aircaaa- view) that the animal desires as- /ueVp Kivr)a 90 E, 91 D sqq., with which NOSOLOGY. 433 men ; the Phsedrus, 131 on the contrary, discriminates between animal souls proper, and souls which have descended out of human into animal forms ; at the same time intimating that the soul of man as such can never become that of a beast. According to the mea- sure and the nature of the soul's unfaithfulness to its human vocation is regulated the animal body it is to occupy. 132 So that in this theory the generic differ- ences in the animal world are a consequence of human conduct. Elsewhere, however, these are more truly regarded as necessary for the general completeness of the universe. 133 Even the distinctions of sex and the propagation of mankind are made to result from the misdeeds through which some human souls were degraded into lower forms : 134 though this is hardly consistent either with the^ unconditional necessity of propagation, 135 or with the essential equality of the two sexes, 136 which Plato elsewhere asserts. The Timgeus, in its last section, treats at con- siderable length of diseases ; not only diseases of the body, 137 but such maladies of mind as result from bodily 131 249 B; seep. 411, 55. quotations from Hippo and Em- 132 Tim. 91 Dsqq. ; Phaedo, 82 A, pedocles, vol. i. 216, 1 ; 645, 4, 3rd cf. supra, pp. 178, 394, 411, 499 sq. edit. 183 See p. 388. 135 Symp. 206 B sqq. ; Laws, iv. 184 Tim. 90 E sqq., 41 E sqq. 721 B sq., vi. 773 E : see p. 193. (see p. 392). In the first of these 136 Kep. v. 452 E sqq. I shall passages sexual impulse is thus return to this point later on. explained. The male semen (an 1S7 81 E-86 A. Three causes of efflux of the spinal marrow) is like disease are mentioned : 1. The con- the corresponding matter in the fe- dition of the elementary materials, male, a foov tptyvxov. In the one Some may be too abundant or too there dwells a desire for titpo)), in scanty, or not rightly apportioned, the other for ircuSorroifo ; cf. the or some one organ may bo acted F F 434 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. causes. 138 These are all placed in two classes : madness and ignorance. In comprehending under these two classes every species of immorality ; in making State neglect and defective education, as well as bodily con- stitution, answerable for their existence; in laying greater stress, for the cure of even bodily diseases, 139 on rational care of the body than on medicine ; 14 and above all, in insisting on the harmonious training at the whole man, the even balance of physical and mental education, and the perfecting of reason by means of science in all this Plato points out the boundary of Physics, and leads us on to Ethics, which from the outset has been the proper goal of his physical investi- gations. 141 upon by other kinds of fire, water, &c., than are proper for it (82 A sq., 86 A). 2. A second source of disease consists in the same defi- ciencies with respect to the organic elements (marrow, bones, flesh, sinews, blood). The perversion of the natural order in the production of these organic materials out of one another is especially danger- ous. Naturally, the flesh together with the sinews is formed out of the blood, the bones out of flesh and sinews, the marrow out of the bones. If instead of this a counter- formation in the opposite way sets in, the most grievous sufferings re- sult (82 B sqq.). 3. A third class of diseases spring from irregularity in the apportionment and the condi- tion of the ni/fv/j-ara, the mucus, and the bile (84 C sqq.). Further details are given in Martin, ii. 347- 359 ; Susemihl, ii. 460 sqq. 138 86 B-87 B. 139 87 C-90 D. 140 Of. Eep. iii. 405 C sqq., and Schleiermacher, Werke z. Philoso- phie, iii. 273 sqq. 141 27 A. It is proposed that Timseus should begin with the origin of the world and end with mankind, whose education Socrates had described the day before in the dialogue on the State. ETHICS. 435 "> It A if y CHAPTER X. BTHICS. 1 THE philosophy of Plato is primarily Ethical. He starts from the Socratic enquiries on virtue, which furnished the material for the earliest development of his dialectic method, and for those conceptual determinations from which the doctrine of Ideas eventually sprang. His own procedure is essentially directed not only to theoretic science, but to moral training * and the Socratic kuowledge-of-self. 1 He would have been untrue to himself and to the spirit of the Socratic teaching had he not constantly paid special attention to such questions. But the later development of his system required that the ethical views acquired during his intercourse with Socrates should be essentially enlarged, more precisely denned, recast, and applied to actual conditions. Therefore, although his own speculation was from the commence- ment under the influence of the Socratic Ethics, the form which he gave to ethical theories was conditioned by his Metaphysics and Anthropology, and also more remotely by his Physics; and apart from these it cannot be fully explained. That which is the starting- 1 See p. 216 sq., and Phsedr. 229 E sq. F v 2 436 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. point in the historical beginning of his system appears in the perfected system at the end also. The purity, fervour, and decisiveness of his moral endeavour, his conviction of the necessity of moral knowledge, the fundamental conceptions of his Ethics, Plato brought with him from the Socratic school. But the lofty Idealism by which his Ethics so greatly transcended those of Socrates the accurate determination which they received in the concept of the virtues and of the State would never have been attained but for the doctrine of Ideas and the Anthropological part of the system. As to their particular contents, the Platonic Ethics fall under three divisions of enquiry : I. The ultimate aim of moral activity, or the highest Good. II. The realisation of the Good in individuals ; or Virtue. III. Its realisation in the Commonwealth ; or the State. 2 I. The Highest Good. Socrates had designated the Good as the supreme and ultimate object of all human endeavour ; and the concept of the Good was the primary ethical idea of all the minor Socratic schools. 3 By the Good, however, Socrates had only understood that which is a good for man and conduces to hap- piness. This, indeed, naturally resulted from the Greek view of Ethics, and so far Plato and Socrates are agreed. The question of the highest moral problem 2 Cf. Eitter, ii. 445. 8 See Ft. i. 124 sqq., 221, 257, 297 sq., 304. THE HIGHEST GOOD. 437 coincides with that of the highest (rood, and this with the enquiry for happiness. Happiness is the possession of the Good, and the Good is that which all desire. 4 But wherein does the Good or happiness consist ? A twofold answer to this question may be deduced from the presuppositions of the Platonic system. The Idea is that which alone is real ; Matter is not merely Non-being, but the opposite of the Idea, hindering its pure manifestation. 5 The soul, in its true essence, is declared to be an incorporeal spirit destined for the intuition of the Idea. Hence mo- rality might be regarded negatively ; the highest end and Good might be sought in withdrawing from the life of sense and retiring into pure contem- plation. But the Idea is the underlying ground of all 4 Symp. 201 E sqq. : KT-fiffei yap tion of morality on pleasure and aya6uv ol ewSai'/xoves eu8ai/j.oves external advantage (see pp. 182, 185, teal ovKfn Trpoo-Sei fofffGai, Iva rl 186 sq.), proves nothing against 8e &ov\f-rai evSai/j.(uv ftvai 6 /Sou- this, for happiness is not identical \6fj.f j/o?, &c. All strive after an with pleasure or advantage; nor is enduring possession of the good: thereanyrealcontradictiouinvolved eo-Tif apa uA\V?57jj' 6 epus TOV TO when, in Eep. iv. beginn. vii. 519 ayaBbv ainf rfvai aei. Euthyd. 288 E, he explains that the enquiry into E sqq. : no knowledge is valuable the State must be conducted with- unless it is useful to us, i.e. (289 C out regard to the happiness of the sq., 290 B, D, 291 B, 292 B, E) un- individual members, for this only less it makes us happy. Phileb. refers to the good of the whole 11 B sq. : see p. 280, 148; cf. being prior to that of the indivi- Gorg. 470 D sq., 492D sqq. ; Eep. duals. Indeed '(loc. cit. 420 B), i. 354 A, et alibi ; Arist. Eth. Ni- happiness is pronounced to be the com. i. 2, beginn. bv6^art plv olv highest aim for the State, just as ax&bv vnb TWV irXfiaruv 6(j.o\oyti- afterwards, 444 E, ix. 576 C-592 B. rat (rf rb a.yaQ6v}. r^v yap evSai- the advantage of justice, the hap- noviav Kal ol TroXXol Kal ol gqpfaprtt piness or unhappiness involved \eyovffiv, TO 8' eS f/i/ Kal TO e5 in every constitution, whether of TtodTTfiv ravrbv \jTro\a^avovai T$ state or soul, is made the basis of euSaiMOj/ea/. The fact that Plato their different values, censures the confusion of the good 5 Cf. pp. 315, 340 sq. with the pleasant, or the founda- 438 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. form, and the cause of all that is good in the world of Sense. This aspect might be more prominently brought forward for its representation in human life ; and thus among the constituents of the highest Good might be reckoned, side by side with the knowledge of the pure I(}ea, the harmonious introduction of the Mea into sensible existence, and the satisfaction of wurich this is the source. Both of these enunciations are to be found in Plato, though they are not so entirely separated as to be mutually exclusive. The first occurs in passages where the highest problem of life is sought in flight from sensuality ; the second, in places where even sensuous beauty is described as worthy of love ; and external activity, sensible pleasure, is included among the component parts of the highest Good. We meet with the former view as early as the Thesetetus. 6 As earthly existence, says Plato in that dialogue, can never be free from evil, we must flee away as quickly as possible from this world to God, by making ourselves like to Him through virtue and wisdom. This thought is still further expanded in the Phsedo, 7 where the deliverance of the soul from the 8 176 A: oAA' OUT' cbroAe'(r0at that he who contemplates God ra KO.KCI 8uj>aTdV inrfvavriov yap and His eternal ordinance does TI TW ayaQif ael tlvai ai'dynt] OUT' himself become -well ordered in *v Bfols auTa iSpvvOcu, T}JJ/ 8e OVTJT^V soul. tyvffiv Kal ToVSe T\JV r6-Kov Kept-no- 7 E.g. 64 sqq., 64 E: OVKOVV Ac? t| avdyKT)s ' 8tb Kal veipaffdat e>Aa>s SOKC? aoi rj rov TOIUVTOV (TOV Xp)} tvOfvde Ke?(re $tyfiv on TO- <$>iXo6ai ; 67 A : eV $ i.v vfffQai. On the latter principle cf. C^M 6 " OUTWS, &s eoj/cer, fyyvrdrca Rep. vi. 500 B ; Tim. 47 B, where eV^efla TOU elSeVai, eav on i^d- it is found as a natural consequence Atcrra ^.TjSei/ bjj.iXwp.fv rep au Opcairot, in the latter the yjjias. Cf. 83. Orphic comparison of the o-oj/ua to 8 vii. 514 sqq. a o"7?yu.a and a prison, are quoted ; 9 Rep. vii. 519 C sqq.; cf. i. 345 but only in the first passage with E sqq., 347 Esq.; Theset. 1720 an expression of assent. Cf. vol. i. sqq., especially 173 E. It is not 388 sq. correct to say that the discussion " Phsedo, 66 B : 8-n, (us &v in these passages is throughout rb (rapa fx w ^ V Kc " vprriJ.fni only concerned with the immoral ^ r)fj.ci>v f) ^v^ /JLCTO, TOV roiovrov and incomplete states (Brandis, KO.KOV, ov n^nore /cn7

s &J/ 606X7? St/ccuos yiyeaQai Kal Seixav dper^i/ eh fiaov Svvarbv av- Qp&ircp 6fj.oiova6ai 6e. ~E.iK.6s y, e

e'/c rr\s rov aviffov SvdSos rov fj.eyd\ov ttal fj.iKpov, rep 8' fK rov 7rAT]0ous, inrb TTJS rov 4vbs 8 e ova-las o.^o'iv. It is clear from what follows that he is con- cerned with the Platonists, for he expressly says that this determina- tion was chosen because Plato's Great-and-Small relates too exclu- sively to that which is in Space. Cf. also Metaph. xiii. 9, 1085 -a. 31 (vide infra, note 42), 6, 4 sqq.; xii. 10, 1075 b. 32, and prob- ably the beginning of x. ; xiv. 1, 1087 b. 30 sqq. According to Damascius, De Princip. p. 3 (ov yap v cbs tXaxiffrov, KaQdirep 27reu- twnros e8oe Ae^ej*/), we might sup- pose that Speusippus had also denoted the One as the Least. But from Aristotle, Metaph. xiv. 1, 1087 b. 30 sqq., we find that this cannot have been the case. Damascius, most likely, made a false deduction from that passage. 41 Metaph. vii. 2 ; vide supra, note 37. Followi ng this precedent, and in agreement with Bavaisson (p. 37), Brandis (p. 10), Schwegler, and Bonitz (see their comments on i'the passage), we may consider Metaph. xii. 10, 1075 b. 37, as FIRST PRINCIPLES. NUMBERS. form interdependence of the whole universe', which Plato- and Aristotle so strongly maintained, was, as Aristotle says, broken up by Speusippus. The highest sphere in this series is that of numbers.. These, with Speusippus, occupy the place of Ideas, which- he entirely abandons. Numbers are, according to him,, the First of all that exists ; and though he denies the distinction between mathematical and Ideal numbers, yet he separates them, in their existence, from sensible ob- jects, as Plato separates his Ideas ; 43 and he gives the same reason for this procedure that Plato gave for his : namely, that no knowledge would be possible if there were not a nature exalted above the sensible. 44 But 43 Vide note 37. 44 Aristotle often mentions the theory that mathematical numbers and magnitudes alone, with the ex- ception of Ideas, exist apart from the Sensible. In Metaph. xiii. 1, he specifies three opinions on this point: 1) The philosophers who discriminated the Ideas from ma- thematical numbers ; 2) those who declared them to be the same ; and 3) those who only allowed the ex- istence of mathematical numbers (erepot Se rives ras fj,aQtiiJ.aTiKas fj,6vov ovffias elvai aOTpovs tyaalv tJvai rovt apiG- Hovs, . . . Kal x&pwrovs a/j,(porfpovs TUV alffdtjruv. ol Se rov fj.adrifj.a- TiKbv fj.6vov apiQ^v tlvai rbvirpuToy TUV ovruv Kexwpiayie'voj' rSiv alffOi)- ruv (of. Z 25 sqq.) Kal ol HvQa- ySpfiot 5' eVa rbv fj.a0i)fj.aTiKby, TT\T)V ov Kexwpurufvoi', and so forth ; &\\os Se rts rbv irptHrov apidubv rbv rcav flSuv eVa elvat, eVzot Se Kal rbv /ia07jjuoTmJ)f rt)^ avrbv TOVTOV eTvaj. (I-'urthor details presently.) Tho doctrine mentioned in tho second passage is referred to in xiv. 2, at the end, where Aristotle opposes two theories : TW tSe'os TiQtp.4vtf and S74 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the relation of the One to numbers involved him in a r> rOvrOV fJL^V T^)V TpSlTOV OVK OtO/ie'- v Sia rb ras evovvas 8y STI ou Ke^wpitrTai TO. fj.a6-rj- jtiariKa, and he repeats, in regard to its basis, ol Se x&piffrbv iroi- OVVTCS (that is to say, T^V /j.adr]u.a- Tiiibv apiQ^bv), on eTTi TCOZ/ aladr]T(av OVK eVrat Ta a|tc6,aara, a\r)Q?] Se TO, Kal ffaivei TTJV /vv elvai elr/at. 6/jLoius Se Kal ra jueye'Orj ra fM87ifjLa.TiKd. Cf. xiii. 9, 1086 a. 2 : o: fjikv yap ra p.adrnj.ariKa ^bvov troiovi-'res irapy. ra alcrd^ra, opwvres rcV irepl ra api6/ji.ov Kal rlv fj.adi)fj.ariKbi' eWrjirai'. From these he afterwards discrimi- nates, of ra e^STj jSouAo.uej/Oi a/xa Kat api6fj.ovs iroieiv and 6 rrputros 6jj.evos rd re eft)?) el^at KOI apidfj.ovs ra etSrj at Ta }j.aQ't]p.a.riKO. ilvai. As to the philosophers who are to be credited with this doctrine, commentators are so undecided and contradictory (cf. Ravaisson, p. 29 ; Schwegler loc. cit. ; Bonitz, Arist. Metaph. ii. 544 sq.), that it is easy to see they are theorising on the basis of the passages in Aristotle, without any real knowledge of the matter. But we may, at any rate, gather from what has been quoted, that Aris- totle is here concerned not with Pythagoreans (as Pseudo-Alex- ander believes, p. 1076 b. 19), but with Platonists. He describes the adherents of the doctrine in ques- tion clearly as such ; for he says they were led to it by the difficulties of Plato's doctrine of Ideas. He observes that they differ from the Pythagoreans in assuming numbers and magnitudes to exist apart from things (as Plato did with regard to his Ideas) ; and they make use of the same argument that Plato brought forward for the separation of Ideas from things (supra, p. 225 sq., p. 231 sq.), namely, that there could be no knowledge if the object of knowledge were not exalted above the Sensible (on OVK effovrai avrwv al eiriarr)[Ji.ai eAe'yero, Metaph. xiv. 3 ; vide supra). What Pla- tonist it was who thus departed from the Ideas, and assumed trans- cendental and hypostasized num- bers in their place we may infer from Metaph. xii. 10, 1075 b. 37; xiv. 3, 1090 b. 13. We found that (on account of the parallel passage quoted in note 41)this passage could only relate to Speusippus ; so that the words ol Se Xtyovres r})v apid- fjJbj/ irpSiTov rbv ^.aQi]ij.o.riKbv, and rols ra. fj.adfjfji.aTiKa fj.6vov zivat s, must also point to him. NUMBERS. r>76 difficulty ; for in order to separate the One, as first cause, from the Derived, he found himself obliged to distin- guish it by the name of the c First One' from the unities contained in numbers ; so that, as Aristotle observes, at this point, at any rate, he reverted to the separation of Ideal and mathematical number. 45 In the same way he assumed magnitudes to exist as specific substances, above and beyond sensible things ; but the Platonic distinction of mathematical and Ideal magnitudes 46 was of course not allowed by Speusippus. Mathematical numbers are the First, mathematical magnitudes the Second. 47 Like the Pythagoreans, he attempted to prove various analogies between them ; 48 and in the same Pythagorean strain, vii. 2, 1028 b. 21, 24, to show that Speusippus did not identify num- bers with Ideas. Susemihl, loc. cit., agrees in this view of Speu- sippus' doctrine; but thinks that the reference to him in xiii. 5, 1076 b. 11 sq. extends to Plato and Xenocrates as well. From c. 1 , 1076 a. 22, compared with Z 32, it is, however, clear that Aristotle is only dealing with those who ras fj.a6ijfj.aT i KO.S fj.6vov ovfflas clvai (paaiv. 45 Vide the quotations from Metaph. xiv. 3, in the preceding note. Another argument, seemingly employed by Speusippus, is to be found in Metaph. xiv. 3, 1090 b. 5sqq. : cf. vii. 2, 1028 b. 15; iii.5. ** Metaph. xiii. 8, 1083 a. 20 sqq. 47 Vide p. 518. 48 Metaph. xiii. 6, 1080 b. 23 (according to the quotation on p. 573): 6/ju>tws 5e Kal irepl TO fj.r)Krj Trepl TO. tiriireSa Kal irepl TO. xiv. 3, 1090 a. 35: ol 5 irotovvTfs (r We are reminded of him too in Metaph. xiii. 8, 1083 a. 21, where a distinction is drawn between those who held Ideas to bo num- bers and offoi iSeas (jikv OUK otovrai elvai o#0' air\ws ovre &s apiO/j-ovs Tivas ofrras, ra Se jua0e,uaTiKO e?j/ai Kal TOUS apiQ/j-obs irpcbrovs ruv OVTUV, Kal apxb v O-VTUV tlvat avrb fi yap TroAA^ 5u % ayaQbv Trpopi(TTa quadratic, cubic, oblong, gnomonic, tlvcu - bjjLoiws 8e Kal TO. ^eyedr) ra circular numbers, and so on. In jua0Tj^uaTiK(. the same treatise Speusippus (loc. 49 In his work on the Pythago- cit. p. 63) attempts to prove that rean numbers according to lam- the number ten is contained iri blichus, Theol. Arith. p. 62, he geometrical entities and figures : treats minutely nepl T>V tv avro'is he finds, for example, one in the -ypafji[j.LKcav (the numbers resulting point ; two in the line ; three in from geometric proportions) TTO/VU- the triangle, as the. simplest plane ; ytav'uav re /ecu iravToiuv T&V ev apiO- four in the pyramid, as the sim- fMo?s eTTtWSwi' aua /cal ffrepeu>f. We plest cube : cf. vol. i. 349 sq. and must here bear in mind that in the supra, p. 331, 103, and p. 519, 8. Greek mathematics of the Pytha- 50 Vide the fragment in the goreans, arithmetic was wont to be Theol. Arithm. loc. cit. and the ex- expressed geometrically ; we hear tracts from it in the preceding note, of plane and solid numbers, of Further details presently. MAGNITUDES. PHYSICS. 577 from their titles 51 ) consist, in addition to those already mentioned, of descriptive rather than investigatory works : 52 they include books on Metaphysics, Theology, Mathematics, Ethics, Politics, and Rhetoric. 53 Of the Physics of Speusippus tradition has preserved very little. Aristotle may perhaps be alluding to him when he accuses the Platonists of making Space, as the sphere of mathematical and corporeal magnitudes, be- gin simultaneously with these. 54 We are told that he 81 Metaph. p. 312 (Fr. 12, 11 Wimm.) : vvv 8' o'i ye iro\\ol (of the Pythagoreans) jue'xpi rivbs i\- Qovres Karairavovrai KaQdirep Kal ol rb ev Kal r^v aopurrov SuaSa troi- ovvres the Platonists (and more particularly Plato, p. 519, 10). rovs yap opifytous yevvf]o'ai'Ts /cat TO. eTTirreSa Kal ra aujj.ara, ffxetibv raXXa irapa\eiirovcri, TT\T]V offov ttya.iTT6iJ.svoi, Kal roffavro p.avov ST;- Xovvrts, on TO. /xei> airb TTJS aopiarov SuaSo?, ulov r6iros Kal Kfvbv Kal airetpot', ra 8' curb rwi> apiO/j.u>y Kal rov fv6s, oiov i^ux^? Ka ^ a ^ ^ TTCt . %p6vov 8' a/j.a Kal rbv ovpav^v Kal erepa Svj irXeica' rov 8' ovpavov irfpi Kal ri\oi\6v Trevre oxt]p.aruiv, a rois Koa'fj.iKo'is airoSiSorai ffroixeiois, lSi6rr)ros av- rwv (this avr&v should be omit- ted, or tSidrrjTos re avrcav substi- tuted) Trpbs fiAATjAa Kal Koiv6rt)- ros avaXoyias re Kal avaKoXovBlas (a/coAouflfasor avraKo\ov6ias'). Even were it possible, it is certainly not probable, that the words a v "OLevoKparris Kal ^irevcwnros, ruv Se vewrepcav 'la/j.- P\iXos Kal H\ovrapxos. ol Se fJ-expt. jUOVTJS T7)S \OyLKTJS, &S Hp6K\OS Kal Tlop6eipovo~i yap rfyv S6av, &s Tro\\ol ruv nepiiraryriKcav. ol Se fjLexpi rrjs SA.TJS ^UXTJS, t)(rlv treatises irtpl TT\OVTOV, irtpl ^Sorf/s, fiv flvat reXe/of eV rots Kara fyvtriv irepl8tKaioi\ias,Tro\iTr)s, X OU(TIV ' % *"' o-yo.Suv TJS Ov) Kara- TTfpl vo/jLoOfffias, the ApiffTiinros, araffeus anavras fjikv avBp&irovs and probably other dialogues, relate vp^iv ex flv - u a 'jyypa.nij.t3.ruv. - The importance he attached to this science is shown by his nu- merous and apparently comprehen- sive treatises on Mathematics and Astronomy. Cf. the titles ap. Diog. iv. 13 sq. : Xoyiffruca (9 books), ret irf pi TO, fj.a.6'f)f.i.ara (6 books), TTfpl yeu/j.frpuv, irtpl api&- /.LUV dtupla, irepl 5ia.ffrrjfjLO.rwi', ra jrfpl affrpohoyiav, irtpi ytufjifrpias. The TlvOayApfta may havecontaiiuxl some mathematical elements. lie is said to have dismissed a pupil, ignorant of mathematics, as wholly unprepared for philosophy (AajSas OVK %x fts t'as) : Pint. Virt. Mor. C 12 end, p. 542; Diog. 10, alibi; Krische, Forsch. p. 317. 3 V. Diog. iv. 11 sqq., andWyn- persso ad loc. 190 sq., 197 sqq. The life of Plato is not mentioned (cf. on it p. 337, l),nor thotrcati-o TTtpl rris dirS ruv v rpoev Trepl rr]v ia.voiav (twice), TrepL Bwcp.) may be identical with that rov evavriov, \ixns r&v Trepl rovs Trepl TToXtreias in Diogenes, \6yovs, Xtiaeis Trepl /j.adrjfj.druv, Whether the work Trepl ra.ya.6ov (v. rcav Trepl r^v \eiv, TT)S Trepl TO p. 26, 53) is the Platonic discourse Sia\eyecr6cu Trpayuaretas, and Trepl edited by Xenophon (Simpl. Phys. fj.a6r)Tcav, unless this is a mistake 32 b. m.) cannot be decided. arising out of j ua0rjfiaTi'. 4 So in Simplicius loc. cit. he is 7 Trepl y&cov /cat elSwv, Trepl called 5 yvrjaLuraros TWV IIAaTa>z/os ttSwy (unless this title is equivalent aKpoaruv. to that of Trepl i8ei/) eVui/TiW a'. 5 V. supr. 165, 33. 8 Writings Trepl rov aopiffrov, Trepl. 8 Cf. Cicero, Acad. ii. 46, 143 ; TOV UVTOS, Trepl rov evJ>s, Trepl and the titles Trepl ffofyias, Trepl Ta7a0oi!, Trepl ISeSiv, Trepl apid/nav. i\o(rolas, Trepl fTriff'TTjfj.rjs, Trepl 9 If (which is not certain) he Trepl rov &ev5ovs, carried out the division so strictly. THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE. 583 mathematical cognition ; 10 and the latter' into notion or envisagement (Vorstellung) and perception (Wahr- nehmung). Xenocrates reckoned only three stages: Thought, Perception, and Envisagement. Thought, he said, is concerned with all that is beyond the heavens ; Perception with the things in the heavens ; Envisagement with the heavens themselves ; for though they are beheld with the bodily eye in astronomy, they become the object of thought. The thinking cognition guarantees knowledge ; the sensible cognition is also true, but not to the same extent ; in envisage- ment truth and falsehood are equally to be found. 11 Accordingly, while Plato separated philosophic from mathematical thought, even that of pure mathematics, Xenocrates included both in his notion of knowledge, He may have enunciated it gene- firiffrr^oviKov Xoyov, rb Se crvvderov rally, without having assigned its Koivbv a\r,6ovs TS Kal ^e place to each single investigation virapxeiv. T?IS "yap S<$TJS TTJ in one of the three parts. nva d\T}07) elvai, T^V 10 Cf. p. 218 sq. odev Kal Tpe?s Not pas irap 11 Sext. Math. vii. 147; s-fvoitpd.- "Arpoirov p.tv TTJJ/ TUV v OT]T&I>, rrjs Se Tpets (pycriy oixrias elvai, T}\V Oerov ovffav, KAwflco Se T^ p.fv otV0rjT?jj/, T^JV Se voTjTr/i/, r^v 8e alffBtjTuy, Aax""'*' Se TUV 5o| avvQerov Kal So^aaT-fiu. &v atV07jT7jf This division of the Actual seems /Ltej/ e?j/oi T^V evrbs ovpavov, vorjr^v to be referred to by Theophrastus 8s Ttavruv rwv e'/crbs ovpavt>v, 8o|o- (Metaph. p. 313 ; Fr.12, 12,Wimm.; (Try? Se Kal abvQrrov T^V avrov TOV after tJie words quoted p. 858, 2) : ovpavov ' dparr] juty yap eVn rfj OUTOS yap airavra TTOJS irfpiTiQrjffi ahdria-ei, yoTjrrj Se Si' affrpoXoyias. irepl riv K6ap.ov, ojuoiws oiV0TjTa Kal rovruv fjLfvroi TOVTOV *x6vTuv rbv VOTITO. /cat /j.a6r]fj.aTiKa, Kal ert 8? x ; ra TOOTTOV TTJS /j.fv tKT^s ovpavov KOI dfia. Ma07j par IKO. here must mean Tfjs ouuios KpiT-hpiov airttyaiveTo the ovpavia or the object of e'Tnc'TTJju.T].", TTJS Se tvrbs ovpavov astronomy : the 0e?a, only added cuV07]T7js aiffQi}ffiv, rf;s Se P.IKTTJS incidentally by Theophra&tus, form o6av, iial Toinuv KOIVUS rb no separate class, but, as w ^liall ota TOI) firio-Tf)iJ.oviKou \6yov see presently, are found in the v 0e'|8aij/ /, rf/s UTTO TOf ovpavbv A.T7|ea>s TOV Traj/To's. (The latter, if correct, shows great confusion ; Xenocrates, as we shall find later on, con- sidered the soul to be a number ; and duality is the one element of every number and also of the soul- number; see below). It is pos- sible that Xenocrates, like the Pythagoreans in their mimerical analogies, did riot avoid this con- fusion, at least in expression. Philolaus had already designated duality as Rhea, mother of the gods; the Pythagoreans gave the same name to the central fire : see vol. i. 337, 1 ; 356, 4. This evidence justifies us in ascribing to Xenocrates. out of the different determinations of the Platonists as to the first principles (see 322, 83), those which placed unity and the indefinite dyad at the head. Theophrastus says (see p. 576, 51 and 583, 11) that he went further than all others in the derivation of the individual from these two prin- ciples ; and Pint. an. procr. 2, 1 (see note 26), says that IIP represented numbers and the soul, so far as it is a number, as springing from them. The opposite of unity and the indefinite dyad was under-tond in two -ways. Some understood the principle opposed to unity as the Unlike or the Grt-at-aml- Small, interpreting in this way tho Svas a6piffTos (Metaph. xiv. 1, 1088 a. 15: ol 8e TO &VKTOV o>s 'OS (TTOLXe'lOV, TO 8' O.VKTOV SvG'Xfpaivovo'iv ev\6y(as Sia TO crv/j-fiaivovTa a.Svva.Ta.'). Perhaps this was the doctrine of Xonocrates. He may have put the a6pio-Tov for duality ; a treatise of his trepl TOV aopiffTov is mentioned (Diog. 11): according to Plutarch loc. cit. he called it still more indefinitely plurality, if Plutarch gives his own words. In order to denote the flux of all corporeal things, he made use of the expression T& atvvaov, perhaps with reference to the well-known Pythagorean verse (see vol. i. 342 b.). Cf. Stob. Eel. i. 294 : EtJ'oKpciTvjs avvtre fj.eye6os irav fls 1 oiroiaffovv /xoraSas 8uaSa *!vai (not all unities, when taken two together, produce dualities). In denying that all magnitudes can be resolved into other mag- nitudes, Xenocrates' doctrine of indivisible lines can scarcely be mistaken. This assertion is at- tributed to those who do not wish either to put aside Ideal magnitudes with Speusippus, or to distinguish them from mathematical magni- tudes with Plato. These are clearly the persons who treat Ideal num- ber in relation to mathematical in a similar way ; and we have therefore every reason to refer both these views to Xenocrates. This supposition is substantiated by the quotation from Sextus, p. 538, 11. According to the fundamental principle that the degrees and forms of knowledge depend upon the object (see p. 225 ; p. 331, 103V Plato distinguished mathematical, knowledge from philosophic know- ledge, just as he distinguished mathematical numbers and magni- tudes from Ideal. If Xenocrates yielded the first distinction he must be supposed to have done so with the second, making Ideas and mathematical things equal. Both in their coincidence form the super- sensuous world, ra e'/crbs ovpavov ; they comprehend that super-celes- tial place, in which Plato placed the Ideas only. The coinci- dence of the mathematical ele- ment with the Ideas is men- tioned by Aristotle, Metaph. xiii. 8, 1083 b. 1 ; ibid. c. 9, 1086 a. 5 ; xiv. 3, 1090 b. 27; and vii. 2, 1028 b. 24, where Asclep. Schol. in Ar. 741 a. 5. sees a reference to Xenocrates. He remarks, xiii. 9, that this form of the doctrine virtually does away with mathe- matical numbers, even if they are recognised nominally. Ps.- Alex. ad Metaph. 1080 b. 11 ; 1083 b. 1 ; 1086 a. 2, connects the view of Xenocrates about num- bers with that of Speusippus, and attributes to the former the denial of Ideal numbers, and to the latter the identification of Ideal with mathematical numbers. Con- tradictory as this statement is, it cannot demand consideration as- opposed to the statements of Aris- INDIVISIBLE MAGNITUDES. 587" to magnitudes, he desired to do away with the distinc- tion of Ideal and mathematical without really abolish- ing either the one or the other. 19 In the derivation of magnitudes he seems to have followed Plato : 20 while endeavouring to reduce them to their primary elements, he arrived at the theory which Plato had already approached, 21 that all figures ultimately originate out of the smallest, and consequently indivisible, lines. 22 Thus he appears to have assumed in each totle. What were the views of the genuine Alexander it is hard to say. According to Syrianus ad Metaph. 1080 b. 14 (Schol. in Arist. Sup- plem. 902 a. 4), he had the follow- ing words relating to Spcusippus (supra, p. 573) : ol 8e T^V iJ.a6f)iJ.a- TiKbv ^p.6vov apid/j.bv fivai, K.T.A., referring to TOVS Trepl "EevoKparriv, o? xwpifrvffi [JLfv TOV /j.a.d-r]/j.aTiKbv (sc. opjfyu&j/) TUV alaQiYTuv, ov jjLfvroi fjL^vov tTvai vofjii^ovcri. This, however, stands in such absolute contradiction witli the statement of Aristotle which it is intended to explain, that it cannot be at- tributed to Alexander; it seems more likely that Syrianus made the addition, ot x u p' l ovfft , K.T.\., in his own name, to correct Alexander. 19 See previous note. 20 Metaph. xiv. 3. Aristotle, in the words quoted (p. 519, 8), seems to mean Xenocrates ; in any case, the words must partly hold good of him, for (/ 31) he continues: ovroi fifv oiiv -ravrp irpr\vhriv makes to Xenocrates, see previous note) ol $f irptaroi Svo rovs dpifyioi/s iroff)- V irepl (pvcreoos s.voKpdrovs. 21 See p. 519, 8. 22 This striking assertion is fre- quently ascribed to Xenocrates ; see Procl. in Tim. 215 F; Alex, ad Metaph. 992 a. 19: 10S3 b. 8; Themist. Phys. f. 18; i. 122, 13 sqq. Sp.; Simpl. Phys. 30 a. o. u. b. u. 114 b.; De Coelo, 252 a. 42 K (Schol. in Ar. 510 a. 35); ibid. 294 a. 22; Philop. Phys. B 16 u.; C 1 o.; M 8m. (Schol. in Ar. 366 b. 1 7), who disputes that this was actually the doctrine of Xenocrates. Sohol. in Arist. 323 b. 41 : 334 a.: 36 b. 2; 469 b. 16; 25,515 a. 13. Syrian Schol. in Ar. Suppl. 902 b. 21 sq. According to some of these evidences, the Aristotelian treatise (see vol. ii. b. 64, 1, 2nd edit.), at- tributed by others lo Theophrastus, on the indivisible lines was directed against him, and to him it is con- jectured belong the grounds for the supposition set forth in the bi'-innii.^ (968 b. 21). One of these (968 a. 9, see following nt.) expressly depciu'.s on the .i of Ideas ; a second (/. 14 V perhaps, o88 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. species of magnitudes an indivisible element ; other- wise, he thought, the Ideas of the line, the triangle, &c., would not be the first in their kind : their parts would precede themselves. 23 is connected with the Platonic doc- trine of the elements. However, it was not merely this doctrine of ^the elements which led Xenocrates to his theory ; according to Arist. ^lotaph. i. 9, 992 a. 10-22 ; xiii. 6 (see p. 086, 18), it seems, like "the corresponding- Platonic state- ments previously, to have been laid down first in the metaphysical construction of spatial magnitudes. In Phys. vi. 2, 223 b. 15 sqq. Aris- totle probably had Xenocrates in his mind, although he does not mention him ; Themist. Philop. and Simpl. loc. cit. ad Phys. i. 3, 187 a. 1, according to Alex, and Porphyry, refer partly to him and partly to Plato. These passages, however, seem to relate equally to the Atomists. From 'the passage De an. i. 4 end where it is remarked against Xeno- crates that if the soul were sup- posed to be a number, and the units contained in this number were identical with the points in the body, no separation of the soul from the body would be imaginable, e'i 76 JUT; SmipowTcu ui ypa/jL/Aal els (TTiyfjids no conclusion can be arrived at with regard to the pecu- liar doctrines of Xenocrates: the subject here under discussion is merely the generally acknowledged principle, that lines are not com- posed of points and are not to be resolved into points. Of course it is in itself possible, although Aris- 'totle loc. cit. 409 a. 3 rather seems to contradict it, that Xenocrates held the same views as Plato on this point (see p. o!9, 8). - J Cf. t\vo passages of Aristotle : De insec. lin. 968 a. 9, where one of the first reasons for the supposition of indivisible lines is : el taTiv Idea 7pa ( u/x,fj9, T] 8' (Sea TT^COTTJ T&V (Tvvonvv- /xcoi', TO. 8e fitpfj irpoTfpa TOV o\ov Tr)v (pvffiv. Stopper?? Uv fty adrvj 7'; ypa/j./j.r], vTO KCU (ru/j-a. . THE Xenocrates derived the soul also from / *l : /// : V 8 ' Xenocrates, on the other hand, who identified the ideal and the mathe- matical, was debarred from this expedient. It is, however, expressly (Syrianus, Schol. in Ar. Suppl. 902 b. 22 sq.) said of him : r^v avro- ypa/j./j.rii' (cf. the avr}] rj ypa/jL/j-r] of the treatise IT. &,r6fugv ypa/j./j..) OVK Touy jueVous A6yovs TV)S $VXT]S (see p. 348 sq.) 6pu!fj.evas ypa,u/j.ds. Now, the treatise on the indivisible lines supposes a special discussion on this subject ; we can only ascribe it to Xenocrates and not to Plato ; it therefore seems most probable that Xenocrates was the first to express and maintain the supposi- tion of indivisible magnitudes. Cf. Porphyr. ap. Simpl. Phys. 30 a. U. : 01 5e -rrepl "~,fvoKpaTT}v T^V fjikv irpurriv anoXovQiav (of the people of JElea) u7TiVai ffuvex t ' ; P ovv > tovrftTtf 8n el fv tari rb *ov ical aSiaiperov fffrat. ov fjLTjv aSiaiperov f^vai rb uv. Sib ira.\iv /UTjSe tv p6vov rb %>v dA\o eTvat, a\\' is arofj.d riva ravra fj.tvroi /u?j aro/j.a flvac ws a^fpri Kal \dxio~ra, d/\\a Kara fjitv rb iroabv Kal ri;v v\T]v aro/j.a Kal TTpura, irptaras rivas vTrortdf/j.fvos flvai ypa/j.(j.as Kal ra tx rovr - :;ly a >.l-.oyt step, from Plato's doctrine of the ele~ ments to Atomistic. 590 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. causes. 24 In his appendix to the Timaeus he calls it a self-moved number: 25 for the combination of unity with indefinite duality gives rise in the first place to number : when to this is added, in the Same and the Other, the first cause of permanence and of change, 24 "What follows, and the quota- tion pp. 348, 355 ; p. 365, 5 seem to have occurred in the treatise on the soul (Diog. iv. 13). Xeno- crates did not write a regular com- mentary on the Timseus, as might be supposed from the quotations in Plutarch and Proclus; Procl. in Tim. 24 A expressly calls Grantor 6 TrpwTOS TOV H\UTcavos f^fjyfjT'fis. In the fifth book of his Physics, however, as Themist. De an. i. 4, 5, p. 56, 10 sqq.,59, 19sqq., Speng. remarks, Xenocrates thoroughly explained his views on the soul. 25 De an. i. 2, 404 b. 27 : some lay stress upon the moving power in the concept of the soul ; others, e.g. Plato, upon the capacity of knowledge, while they compose it out of the elements of things in order that it may be able to know everything: eVel 5e KOI v eSo/ce: eli/cu nal yvcopi- ovTcas tvioi TIOVV TU>V OVTUV, TO airovirai, olov e? TIS a^iwff thai TO auro avr Se Sid TTJS 777$ (pvToo~ir6pov A^/u.Tjrpaj'. ravra Se (adds the narrator) xf"1- yi]ffas To7s SrcuHKoTs TO, irpoTepa irapa TOV TlXdravos fj.TaTre(ppa.Kei>. Cic. N.D. i. 13, 34 (following Philo- demus) : Xenocratcs . . . in ciijus libris, gui sunt de natura Dcorum (TT. 6e>v a' ff Diog. 13), nulla species divina describitur : Dcos cnim octo esse dicit ; qulnque cos, qiti in stcllis vac/is nominantur ; unum (jui ex omnibus sideribus, quce infixa ccelo sunt, ex disperses quasi mcmbris simples sit putandus Deus (perhaps a reference to the Orphic mytlms of Zagreus); septi- 'nmm solem adjungit, octavu/nque lunam. Clemens, Protrept. 44 A: Eej/o/cp. CTTTO fj.fv deovs rovs TO.S, oyfioov Se rbv eK iravTuiy (read TT. iiiul in the universe. 83 Pint. Do Is. c. 25, p. 360: ) ovs KOI H\druv Kal TlvOay6pas Kal Eevo/cpaTTjs Kal Xpvanriros, eVJ/xej/oi TO?S ird\ai 8eo\6yois, e'p/ta/iej/eo'Tepous /J.GV av- ytyovfvai Xiyovffl Kal iro\\fj vfd/jLfi TV a.iretKa.a'as rb lav\ovs Sai/AOvas . . a.Trt\nr(v . . . Kal H\aTuv Kal zevoKpar-ns Kal Xpucrnnros. De Is. c. 26: 6 Si KOI TUV ri^fpuv TOS Kal TWV loprvv Inrai ir\riyds Tivas T) KoireTous Q Q 594 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. philosophers 40 in describing the soul of man as his daemon. 41 How far he combined the rest of the Greek divinities with his system we do not know. 42 In regard to the material constituents of the uni- verse Xenocrates carried out the same theory of a graduated scale of perfection. This appears in his view of the elements, in the derivation of which he seems to have resembled Plato, except that he made them originate, not immediately from planes, but, primarily from atoms, 43 and, like Philolaus, reckoned afire dewy TI/J.CUS eyre $air/j.6vwi> oterat Trpotr-fiKeiv xp^r^y, aAAa, eli/cu (pvcreis zv rep 7repie'%oi/Tt (the atmosphere around the earth) ^ya- Xas iJ.tv Kal ur^upas, Svffrpoirovs 5e Kal Tvyxdvova'ai Trpbs ovSev &\\o %e?pov rpiirovrai. 40 E.g. Heraclitus and Demo- eritus ; see vol. i. 590, 5 ; 748, 1 : Plato, see p. 501. 41 Arist. Top. ii. 6, 112 a. 37: He^o/cp. $Ti(T\v eu5cu/ioj/a elyat rbu T V ^vx)]v f-^oyra a"novt>aiav ' ravrrjv yap e/catrrou elvai Sai/JLova, which Alex. Top. 94 m. repeats. Cf. Stob. Serm. 104, 24: He^o/cp. us rb KaKOTTp6ffcoTrov aiV^ OVTti) Sa.ljJ.OV05 KOiKLO, TOVS Zrisehe,p.321,I think too artificially, brings these tenets into connection with the supposition that the souls freed from bodies are Sai^oi/es. 43 From Iambi. V._ Pyth. 7 we might conclude that in all points he followed the usual opinion. The passage runs thus : TrapairTj- re'oi yap 'Eiri/j.vi5ris Kal EvSo^os Kal Heyo/cpaTTjs, UTroi'ooDi'Tes, T?7 riap- (the mother of Pythagoras) r6re fjuyrjvai rbv 'AiroXXw /cat Kvovffav avr^v e/c ^ OUTOOS e%ou, and the quotation in note 23. Stobseus expressly distin- guishes his view from the Platonic view; the distinction, however, cannot have been very important, since Aristotle nowhere mentions it specially. Xenocrates must have enunciated it only after the com- pletion of Aristotle's writings on. natural science. THE ELEMENTS. ORIGIN OF THE WORLD. 59o sether as a fifth primary Element. 44 He included the higher elements (which Plato had also con- nected 45 ) under the name of the Rare or Subtle, as opposed to the lowest element, which he denomi- nated the Dense. This latter, he said, is some- times in greater proportion, sometimes in less, and unites itself variously with the other elements. The stars and the sun consist of fire and the first density ; the moon of her own atmosphere and the second density ; the earth, of fire, water, and the third density. 46 He .guarded himself, however, against the assertion of a beginning of the world in time; and he viewed the Timseus, and its account of the creation of the soul and of the universe, not as giving a chronological statement, but as showing the different constituents of the universe and of the soul in their reciprocal relations. 47 A definition of Time which inclines to 44 8ee note 23. OVK fanv a\f)6-f]s ' 6/j.oix us yevofj.evov wore, a\\a SiSa- precedent of Plato (Epin. 981 c. yvupifyv- sq.), recognised that the stars TUV fca-irep rb Sidypa/j.fj.a yiyv6fj.evov must be composed out of call the 9pav I]\LOV ex irvpus 9770-1 crates is hero meant, Schol. 488 Kal rov irpJiTov TTVKVOV ffvyKitffQai, 1). 15 (he is followed by two TT\V 8e fff\-i\vnv IK Sfvrtpov TTVKVUV further scholia, ibid. 489 a. 4, 9 ; Kal TOV 5iou af'pos, T7> Se y^v t one of them extends tho statement vSaros Kal irvpbs xal rov rpirov rutv to Speusippus, apparently quite TTVKVWV o\tas Se fiTJre rb irvKvbv arbitrarily); and to put the fact avrb Kaff avrb JUTJTC TI) pavov tlvai beyond all doubt, Pint. an. procr. tyvxris SeKriK6v. 3, p. 1013, says, after quoting th^ 47 Ari.-t. Do Ccelo, i. 10, 2"9 b. explanations of Xonocrates and 32: V Se fives &o-i]9tiav ^irxpoD(Tt Crantor: <5juoAo>y Se wdmes ovrot T\>V n\d.Twv vwoTiOeffQai Ka\ ffv~yKfpa.vvofj.ei/riV ' TO. 8' avra KOI Trspt rov K6fffj.ov iavoovfj.fvov f-riffTajQai fj.lv aiSiov OVTO. Kai a.yivi]Toy ' TO Se u> Tp&ir& crvvTeraKTai KCU 5ioie?Tai Ka.rafj.aQ el v ov paSjoj/ opivra TO?S /.tf|Te yeveo'iv TrpouTroQe/j-evois 6Sbz/ TpaTTfcr6ai (cf. note 17, on a similar expedient, ma'le use of by Xenocrates on a like occasion). Hence Censorinus, cli. nat. 4, 3, reckons Xenocrates and all the old Academy, together with Plato, amongst those who seem to have supposed that mankind was always in existence. 48 Stob. Eel. i. 250 : Ee TUV Kai K.iv(}Tai, OV fTW/id T] T|/l%7/. 51 Arist. De An. i. 4, end (in the- criticism of the Xenocratic defini- tion): eri Se TTWS olov re ^.lapi^yQsLL ras ^ux s Ka ^ airoXveffdai TU>V (rw/jidTuv, K.T.\. This definition is clear in reference to the disciple of Plato, but Philoponus, ad loc. e. 14, is not to be regarded as an authentic source. 52 Stob. Eel. i. 790 : Pythagoras, Plato, Xenocrates, and others teach 6vpa6fv i(TKpive(rdai -rbi/ vovv, where- the Aristotelian expression is to be reduced to Platonic notions as. above. 53 See note 38. ETHICS. 597 souls of animals is not mentioned, but, as> he ascribed to them a consciousness of God, 54 this is at least probable. He forbade the eating of flesh, not be- cause he saw in beasts something akin to man, but, for the opposite reason, lest the irrationality of -animal souls might thereby gain an influence over us. 56 He seems to have considered the head to be the seat of reason, and the irrational part of the soul to be diffused throughout the whole body. 56 Xenocrates, as may be imagined, bestowed special attention on ethics ; 57 the importance of his personal in- struction lay principally in this direction, and out of the whole number of his works more than half is devoted to ethical enquiries. We hear of writings on the Grood, the Useful, the Pleasant, on Happi- ness, Wealth, Death, Freewill, the Affections, the nature and teachableness of Virtue, Justice, Equity, Wisdom, Truth, Holiness, Temperance, Courage, Liber- ality, Concord, Friendship, Domestic Economy, the 54 See note 36. tho principaic has its seat, accord- 55 Clemens, Strom, vii. 717 D: ing to Xenocrates, in the crown of SoKtl 5e Eet'OK/xiTTjs I5ia TrpaypaTev- the head, the latter, Opif. D 16: c/j-evos Trepl TT)S airb TUV Ca-Wrpo^Tjs sire cfia.ni ,n< ,itis locus mdhis cat, Ko.1 Ho\efjLtav eV TO?J irepl TOV Kara scd per totum corpus sparsa dis- fyvffiv )8iou awrayuLaai ffat et a us affvptyopov fffriv T) 5io TUV Xenucratc, Platan is disclpnlo, dia- .ffapKwv rpocpi], (lpya.fffj.fVT) ^8rj Kal putaia,ii cat. Only in this caso foftoiov/j.4vri rats TUV aXtiyuv ^/v^ais. Lactantius must have put mcns, In the treatise of Xenoerates hero whore Xenocrates had spoken not mentioned the discussions on tho of tovs Lut of tlio tyvx-ij. three laws of Triptolemus were i7 Ho would found the origin of found, and on the prohibition philosophy in its moral influence ; against killing animals, which is (.Jalen, hist. phil. c. 3, end: curta Attributed to him, and noticed by 5e ias fupfartus ton KCLTO. Porphyr. Do Abstin. iv. '-'J. HCVOKOOTTJ, rb rapn^uoes tV T<# 40 Cf. 'I'crtulliau and L;u-tnntius; aT07rai5o' iho former .says (De an. 1 j) that 598 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. State, Law, Kingship. 53 Thus there is scarcely any de- partment of ethics of which he has not treated ; yet, de- spite this extensive authorship, our knowledge even of his ethical doctrines is very small. We cannot, however, mis- take the tendency of his morality, which, in all essential points, was in harmony with that of Plato and the rest of the Academy. All things, according to Xenocrates, are either goods or evils, or neither of the two. 59 Goods he divided, like the other Platonists, into those of the soul, the body, and the outer life ; 60 but the highest and most important of goods he declared to be Virtue. Though, in agreement with the whole Academy, 61 he denied virtue to be the only good, he so distinctly gave it the preference 62 that Cicero says he despised 58 Diog. mentions writings TT. (Tofyias, TT. TT\OVTOV, IT. TOV TraiSiov (? perhaps IT. iraiSicav or IT. iraiScov a-yta- 7r)y, or something of the sort, ought to be read ; TT. atSous is also a pos- sible suggestion), IT. tyKpareias, IT. TOV c^(j)f\ifj.ov, TOV \fvQepov, 6avd- TOV, eKovffiov, (on the value of the different way of life, e.g. the theoretic, the political, and the life of pleasure), IT. 6fj.ovoias , 8iKaioarvj/r)s, operas, r/Soi/TJy, fiiov, avdpfias, TTO\ITIK^>S, Tayadov, /SacriAeicts. (Cf. Pint. adr. Col. 32, 9, p. 1126.) Also the treatise on animal food ; see supra, notes 3 and 5o. 59 Xenocr. apud Sext. Math. xi. 4 : irav Tb fa T) ayadov eaTiv T) KO.K.6V f(TTlV, '^ OVT GjaOoV IffTlV OVT KO.KOV effTL, \vhich is followed by an awkward argument in a circle. 60 Cic. Acad. i. 5, 19 sq., on the authority of Antiochus, attributes- this distinction to the Academy generally ; and this statement, in. itself not absolutely certain, is substantiated by the citation p. 520, 11. 61 Cf. Cic. Legg. i. 21, 55 ; Tusc. v. 10, 30; Plut. com. not. 13, 1, p. 1065, and following note. 62 Cic. Fin. iv. 18, 49 : Aristotelcs* Xcnocratcs, tota ilia familia non dabit (the principle that only the Laudable is a good); quippe qiii valetudinem, vires, divUias,yloriam, mult a alia bona esse dicant, lauda- bilia non dicant. Et hi quidem ita> non sola virtute fnem bonorum contineri putant, ut rebus tamcn omnibus virtutem anteponant. Cf^ Legg. i. 13, 37 (supra, p. 579, 62). ETHICS. 599 everything else in comparison. 63 External and material goods, health, honour, prosperity, and the like, were placed by him in the second rank. He would have them, indeed, regarded as advantageous things, or goods, and their opposites as evils ; 64 the Stoical view, which reckoned both as alike indifferent, being entirely alien to him. 65 It was only as compared with the higher goods and ills that these lesser seemed to him un- worthy of consideration. In his conception of the highest good, Xenocrates was therefore forced to in- clude all other goods together with Virtue. Happiness, according to his theory, consists in the perfection of all 63 Tusc. v. 18, 51 : quid ergo aut hunc \Critolaum\ prohibet, aut ctiam Xenocratem ilium gravissi- mum philosopkorum, cxaggerantem tantopcre virtutem, extenuantcm cetera ct abjicicntem, in virtutc non beatam modo vitam sed etiam beatissimam ponere? On account of the strictness of his morality Plut., Comp. Cim. c. Luc. c. 1, opposes the doctrines of Xenocrates to the Epicurean doctrines, just as he elsewhere opposes the Stoic to the Epicurean. 64 Cic. Fin. iv. 1 8 ; see supra, note 62. Legg. i. 21, 35 : if Zeno with Aristo explained virtue alone to be a good, and everything else quite indifferent, valde a Xcnocratc ft Aristottle et ab ilia Platonis fainil ia discrcparct. . . . Kunc vcro cum dccus . . . solum bonitm dk-at ; item dedcciis . . . malum . . . solum : dii'ifids, valetudincm, pulchritii- dincm commodas res oppellcf, non bonitx ; paupertatem, lUbilitatem, dolorem in commodas, non malas : sentit idem quod Xcnocratcs, quod Aristotcles, loquitur olio modo. Plut. c. notit. 13, see p. 579, 62. Ibid. 22, 3, p. 1069 : Aristotle and Xenocrates did not, like the Stoics, deny, ue\f?cr6ai /j.v avdpunrovs tnrb QfS>v, a(f>f\e'i(T6ai Se virb yovfwv, u$>\e'iff6cu 8e inrb KaQ-nyijTcai'. Also, Tusc. v. 10, 30, Cic. reckons Xeno- crates amongst those who consider poverty, disgrace, loss of goods or fatherland, severe bodily pains, sickness, banishment, slavery, as indeed evils, but at the same time maintain semper bcafum csse sapi- cntem. From these passages it follows that Wynpersso is wrong (166 sq.) in believing that Xeno- crates divided the things which are neither good nor bad into things useful (health, &c.) and things prejudicial (sickness, &c.). Good and useful, evil and prejudicial, are with him, as with Socrates and Plato, equivalent conceptions, but not all goods have the sumo value, nor are all evils equally bad. 64 As Cicero says ; see previous note. 600 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. natural activities and conditions ; 6G in the possession of human virtue proper, and all the means conducing to it. Virtue alone produces happiness ; noble activities and qualities alone constitute the essential nature of happiness, yet happiness cannot be complete without material and external goods, 07 which are thus, to use a Platonic expression, 68 to be considered not indeed as primary, but as concomitant causes of happiness. For this very reason, however, virtue stands alone as the proper and positive condition of happiness ; the virtuous life must be identified with the happy life ; 69 the wise man must under any circumstances be counted happy. 70 That he should not be perfectly happy, 71 in the absence 66 Cicero attributes this tenet to the Academy generally, and refers to Polemo in support of it; Acad, ii. 42, 131 : honeste autem vivere fruentem rebus Us, quas primas homini natura conciliet, et vetus Academia censuit (sc. fincm bo- norum}, ut indicant scripta Pole- monis. Of. Fin. ii. 11, 34. He explains this determination with more detail, Fin. iv. 6 sq. (cf. v. 9 sqq.), with the remark that the Stoics themselves acknowledge in it the doctrines of Xenocrates and Aristotle ; that it belongs not only to Polemo is clear from Plut. comm. not. c. 23, p. 1069: Tivas Se Sero/cparrjs Kal Kal rb Kara (^vcrif ; 67 Clemens, Strom, ii. 419 A: re 6 Xa\Kr)$6vios TTJV viav aTroSiSctxri KTrjffiv rrjr olKeias aperfjs Kal TTJS virrjpeTiKrjs aurp 8uvd/j.fcas. elra &s ju.cz/ iv q ytverai, (paiverai Xz-yeiv T^ cos 8' u(' >v, ras aperds us fj.fpuv, Tas Ka\as irpd^eis Kal ras airovSaias e|ejs re /cot SiafleVets Kal Kivr) Kal rov airovSauov aTroSei/cvvcri r~bv avrbv, e?ret5?; irdvTooi' TUV fiiw alperdaTaros 6 (nrovSa'ios Kal 6 vdai/j.wi> tv yap rb alpeTdoTarov Kal /j-eyicrrov. Cf. p. 875, 2. 70 Cic. Tusc. v. 10; see notes 41 and 71. 71 Cic. Tusc. v. 13, 39 sq. (cf. 31, 87) : omncs virtutis compotes beati sunt : on that point he agrees with Xenocrates, Speusippus, Polemo : sed mild videntur etiam beatissimi : which is immediately supported by the remark that who- ever (as they do) supposes three kinds of different goods can never attain to certainty as regards true ETHICS. 601 of goods of the second order, would be' incompre- hensible from the Stoic point of view ; but it entirely accords with the moderation of the Academy, and with the Xenocratic notion of Happiness. For if the pos- session of happiness is linked to the convergence of several conditions, it will be more or less perfect, ac- cording as these conditions are more or less completely present : happiness will be capable of increase and diminution ; a distinction is at once allowed between the happy and the happiest life. How strong was the conviction of Xenocrates that virtue alone could make men happy, may be seen from the stainlessness and austerity of his character, 72 and from the few further particulars that we possess with regard to his theory of morals. To free ourselves from the bondage of sensuous life, to conquer the Titanic element in human nature by means of the Divine, is our problem. 73 Purity not only in actions, but also in happiness. Ibid. c. 18; see supra, Olympics ct Titanios qiti de Caelo note 62. Seneca, epist. 85, 18 sq. : et Terra. If this division of the Xenocrates ct Sptusippus putant divinities in Xenocrates is intended beatum vcl sola virtutc fieri posse, for anything more than a historical non tamcn unum bonum essc, qiiod notice, with reference to the old honcstum cst . . illud autcm ab- theogonies, it can only be under- turduni cst, quod dicitur, beatum stood by supposing that ho inter- quidem futurum vel sola virtute, preted the myth of the 1 non futurum autcm perfect e beatum. the Olympians and the Titans with Ep. 71, 18: Acadcmici vetcres bea- a moral purpose, and explained turn quidem csse (sdl. viruin bonum} these two kinds of existences as itimn iiiur Itos crucial us fafnu'in; being in mankind. In scd non ad perfectum ncc ad crates' own theology we 1 plenum. vain for any point of connection ; 7a Cf. p. 559. the daemons perhaps, on I 78 This appears to me the most of their intermediate position be- probablo meaning of two obscure tween heaven and earth, may passages. Tortull. ad nat. ii. 2 be denoted as the sons of these says: Xmocratcs Acad'ini<-u* ?>i- two kinds of deities; but they J'uriam facit (for mam i!ii'iniuit;#), could M-nivi-ly be ca'.le-. 602 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the wishes of the heart, is our duty. 74 To this end Philosophy is our best help, for the philosopher has this advantage, 75 that he does voluntarily what others must be compelled to do by law. 76 Plato, however, had admitted an unphilosophical virtue, side by side with Philosophy, and Xenocrates still more distinctly emphasized the difference between the theoretic and practical spheres. Like Aristotle, he restricted Wisdom or Science to intellectual activity, and left practical conduct to prudence or discernment. 77 Of his numerous ethical treatises scarcely any fragments have been preserved ; 78 but we cannot doubt his general in opposition to the Olympians. Further, according to the Scholiast ap. Finckh, Olympiod. in Phsedon. p. 66, nt. 2, he spoke of the Titanic prison in which we are banished ; the scholiast remarks ad Phsed. 62 B : f) tppovpa. . . . &is s,evoKpdr7}S, TiTovi/crj ffffi /ecu fls Aiovvcrov aTTOKopvpovrai, where, however, it is not clear whether he compared men to the Dionysus of the Orphic hymns, in the power of the Titans, or to the imprisoned Titans whom Dionysus is to set free. 74 JElian, V. II. xiv. 42: Eej/o- KpaT-ns . . . eA.e7e, /X7j5cj/ Statpepeiv v) TOVS Tr68as T) TOVS 6(p6a\iJ.ovs els aXXoTpiav oiKiav TifleVcu et> Tavref yap afiaprdreLt' r6v re fis & p? Se? ^copfa jSAeVorra /cal ets ovs ^ SeT TOTOUS TrapiovTa. One cannot help thinking of Matth. 5, 28. 76 Of." supra, note 57. 76 Pint. virt. mor. c. 7, p. 446, adv. Col. c. 30, 2, p. 1124; Cic. Rep. i. 2, 3 ; Serv. in ^En. vii. 204. The same statement is also attri- buted to Aristotle, who, indeed, Eth. N. iv. 14, 1128 a. 31, says of the x a p' Lls Ka ^ fafvOeptos : olov v6jji.os &i> IOUT^. The saying may have had several authors, and it may also have been wrongly trans- ferred from one to another. 77 Clemens, Strom, ii. 369 C: eVel /cat HevoKpcmys *v T$ irepl (ppovrjffews T^V ffotyiav eiriffT'fifj.Tiir TUV vpctiTwv alrtuv ital TTJS J/OTJTTJS ovaias elj/af tyycnv, r^v fyp6vi}(nv fiyov/j-fvos Sirrriv, r^v /j-evirpaKriK^t^ TT]V Se fleapTjTjKJj; 1 , fy Sv? ffop6vr]]v Tracra fyp6vr\ffis (roip'ta. Arist. Top. vi. 3, 141 a. 6: olov us ztvoKpaTys TT]I> typovr\aw flvcu, which Aristotle cen- sures as superfluous ; 6pi TWV irtp} rrjf (31 books), IT, 81 Pint. ap. Prochim in Hes. "E. /c. 'Hyu. v. 374 (Plut. Fragm. ii. 20 Diibn.) remarks that he advises that only one heir should be ap- pointed. Sext. Math. ii. 6 quotes from him the definition of Ehetoric as e7na\oyiav, rb irepirrbv, b. 10; xiii. 8, 1084 a. 14; xiv. 5, vb &\\a TO. roiavra IVTOS TTJS Seicd- 1092 b. 8 sqq., we cannot iiifer- Sos TO IJL( v yap rals apx&is arroSt- that many Platonists actually ex- $6a-. Theophr. supra, 576, 61. * Theophrast. after the quotation^ 6 See p. 619, 8, cf. 571, 40, and p. 576, 51 : iruparai St Kal 'Earia'ios Met a ph. xiv. 2, 1089 b. 11 ; vii. p^xpt nvbs (to derive everything 11, 1036 b. 12: avdyovcri -ndrra eis beside spatial magnitude) ovx wcnrep TOVS apiOpovs, Kal 7pojujuf;s rbv t'ipijrai irepl TUV irpwruv fi6vov. XAyov rbv TUV Svo elvai Qaatv. Kal Besides the editing of the 606 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Some noteworthy divergences from the doctrine of Plato were made by Heraclides of Pontus. With re- ference to his general point of view, he may certainly be considered a Platonist. The Epicurean in Cicero charges him with . having sometimes treated spirit, sometimes the universe, as a Deity, and with having raised the stars, the earth, and the planets to the dignity of gods. 10 In this it is easy to recognise the Platonic view of the Divine Reason, the divine and animate nature of the world and of the heavenly bodies; for Heraclides would only have called these latter gods in the sense that Plato did, when he discriminated between the invisible (rod and the visible gods. His cosmology, however, differed from that of his master in several theories, chiefly the result of Pythagorean influences n to which he was very sus- ceptible. 12 We learn that he assumed as the primary Platonic discourses on the Good, 1J Besides the doctrines to be we have (from Stob. Eel. i. 250) quoted immediately, and the state- the definition of time ($opa frffTpoav ment of Diog. v. 86, that he had rrpbs &\\f)\a) as his, which does been a pupil of the Pythagoreans, not deviate from the Platonic defi- this is clear from his treatise nition. on the Pythagoreans (ibid. 88), 10 N. De. i. 13,34: Heraclides from his fictitious account of Abaris .... inodo inundum turn mentcm (see the two fragments which divinam csse putat ; errantibus Muller, Fragm. Hist. gr. ii. 197, etiam stellis divinitatem tribuit, quotes out of Bekker's Anec. 145, sensuque Deum privat et ejus 178, and Plut. Aud. po. c. i. p. 14) for mam mutabilem esse milt, and from the accounts, probably eodemque in libro rursus terrain borrowed from the former treatise, et caelum (i.e. the cnr\av^s ; the of the wonderful vanishing of Em- planets are already mentioned) pedocles after the reanimation of an refert in Deos. The words sen- apparently dead man (Diog. viii. suqiie . . vult contain (as Krische, 67), and of the change of a bean into Forsch. p. 335 sq., correctly re- the form of a man after it has marks) simply the conclusions of been buried in dung forty dnys the Epicurean, and not historical (Joh. Lyd. de mens. iv. 29, p. 181). statements as to Heraclides' views. 12 On account of these peculiar HERACLIDES. <;07 constituents of all corporeal things minute bodies, not compounded of any ulterior parts. But, unlike the atoms of Democritus, these bodies are capable of affect- ing one another, and are therefore combined not by a merely mechanical union, but by actual interdepend- ence. 13 What gave rise to this theory, which is carried out through various analogies 14 in his works, we do not know; but we can scarcely be wrong in doctrines, Plut. adv. Col. 14, 2, p. 1115, reckons Heraclides amongst the number of those who irpbs ra Kvpturara Kal ntyiffra TUV (pvffiK&v virfva.VTtovfj.fVoi rcf nActT&w Kal 13 Dionys. ap. Euseb. praep. ev. xiv. 23, 3, alter mentioning the Atomist theory: ol Se, TOS OT^OUS u.fv ovo/j-daravrts [read ou/c ov.], fyafftv elvai ff^fj-ara, rov /xeprj, e{ uv aSiaiptTtav uvrwv TO, iravra Kal els a Sia- \verai. Kal TOVTCDV out of Atoms, as discrete mag- nitudes, he imagined in notes discrete magnitudes as element > of the apparently continuous. In the same fragment he also expresses the view, which we found in Plato, p. 428, 113, that tho sight perceives ol>jects by contact with them (l*ifrd\\ov TTfpl rb KfVTOOl/ [(TTOlt'lTO T^V Klvnaiv T) 77)], ws 'Hpa*\. 6 OOI/T. inreTidfro. Geminus ap. Simpl. Phys. 65, loc. cit. : Sib Kal irape\- Q 'HpaKAsi'STjs 6 HOJ/T. f\ejfV, 3Tt KCtl KlVOV/JLfVr)S TTOJS T7)S 77)5, TOU 5' 7}\iov fJLfvovrds TTWS, tivvarai r) Tepl rbv ^\toi> tyaivonfirr) ctfwMaA/a Jl. li ; \os [T7? TepfXM^7' The coincts. lcci'if I' idi. Maorol). Sunn. i. 11: he designated the soul as a liizht. Philip. De An. A 4 u. : Ii. s dered the soul to be an ovpdviov ffS>na, which is equivalent to aietptov. In a tnatis,- attributed to him, *tpi v5>v iv $5ov, the R 610 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. the Milky Way, 25 the bright points in which were themselves such souls. There is no record to show how he brought his dsemonology 26 and belief in divination 27 into combination with this, or whether he even at- tempted to do so. Although, however, there were many points on which Heraclides differed from Plato, he agreed with him at least in his moral principles. From his treatise on Justice we find instances quoted to show that wrong-doing is overtaken by punishment ; 28 and in his work on Pleasure he cites, as against a Hedonic panegyric, 29 numerous cases in which want of temper- ance has led to ruin, arguing the question of the acutest pleasure being found in a madman. 30 This is quite as much Pythagorean as Platonic ; 31 the two genuineness of which might rea- His interest in oracles is proved sonably be doubted, the activities by his treatise if. xpW"np' l i\ias] 1 i. 23, 46; Tertull. De an. c. 46; clvai rbv fpiara Kal OVK a\\ov nvbs, \ Plut. Alex. 26, from Heraclides. Kara ffufj.p&r)Kbs 5e (this Aristo- EUDOXUS. 611 schools coincide even more in their moral doctrines than in their philosophic theories. 32 Eudoxus widely departed from Platonic prece- dents in Ethics as well as in his Physics. In the sphere of Physics, the theory of Ideas seems to have been too ideal for him, and the participation of things in Ideas too shadowy. In order to connect material things more closely with his philosophy of Nature, he assumed that they receive their qualities by means of the admixture of the substances to which these qualities originally belong ; and he accordingly set in the place of the Ideas Anaxagorean homceomeries. 33 It is there- fore of little consequence whether or not he retained the Ideas in name. 34 In his Ethics, he agreed with Aristippus in pronouncing Pleasure the highest good, appealing to the fact that all men desire pleasure and avoid pain ; that all strive for pleasure for its telian expression must belong to first passage, Alexander remarks, the narrator of the account) rivas subsequently appealing (Schol. 573 tKiriirTftv ds d^poSiVm. a. 12) to the second book of the 82 This holds good only of the Aristotelian treatise T. iStwr : practical results, for the scien- Eff8ooy TU>V UXaruvos yvtapifiuv tific substantiation and develop- /tf|e TUV ititwv tv rots irpbs auras ment of the Platonic Ethics were rb clvai %x ovfflv yyerro (Katrrov wanting in the Pythagoreans. flvai, KO.\ a\\oi Se r.vts, us t\cyt 83 Arist. Metaph. i. 9, 991 a. 14 : .... nici ru>v ISewv ra fiAAo. The the Ideas contribute nothing to the editor of Alexander ad Metaph. stability of things, fj^i twxdpxovrd 1079 b. 15 classes Eudoxus with ye rdis fj.(rfx ovffl1 ' ' wfr /*" 7P &" Anaxagoras : OVTOI 8* ov trvyrdr- t(T Xeuifbv TOUCH ras ISeas. (the white colour) /nc/a-y^eVoi/ r$ S4 This point cannot be made XfvKf (the white object). d\A' out, because Aristotle says nothing ovros M<" * A($7os X/cu' euK^MTTos, about it; as regards Alexander, t>v 'Avatay6pas /uev irpuros ECSo^os again, we cannot be sure whether 8' Sffrtpov KOI a\\ot TII^J l\(yot>. he kept strictly to the exposition Ibid. xiii. 5, 1079 b. 18, almost of the Aristotelian treatiee on the the same, word for word. On the Ideas. 612 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. own sake, and that there is absolutely nothing to which Pleasure does not give additional value. 35 These ; divergences from Plato are so important that Eudoxus can scarcely be called a follower of his, however greatly the Academy may otherwise be indebted to him. In the author of the Epinomis, 36 on the contrary, we recognise a true Platonist ; but a Platonist who, . like the Pythagoreans, made all science to consist in the knowledge of numbers and quantities, and the] stars, and in a theology bound up with this. The Epinomis, intended as a supplement to the Laws, is an enquiry into the nature of that knowledge which! we distinguish by the name of wisdom ; the knowledge which alone can make happy men and good citizens, and give capacity for the administration of the highest offices ; which is the final goal of the actions ] of the best educated, and insures a blessed existence i after death. 37 This knowledge, we are told, does not I lie in those mechanical skills which supply our common necessities, nor in the imitative arts, which have no serious purpose beyond mere amusement, nor in either of those activities which are without true intelligent discernment, and are regulated by uncertain opinion, such as the art of the physician, the pilot, or the; lawyer ; nor does it consist in merely natural docility 35 Arist. Eth. N. i. 12, 1101 b. even apart from the unplatonL; 27 ; x. 2 beginn. (cf. Diog. viii. 88) nature of the contents, and othe with the addition : eiriarfvovro 8' ol proofs (see p. 561, 15), would be a; \6yoiSia TT}vrov?iQovs aper^v /j.a\\ov once refuted by the dry and weari- 3) 8i' avr6us. 5ia<|>epcu, &c. Alex. Top. 119 37 . 973 A sq.; 976 D; 978 B; m. following Arist. 979 B sq. ; 992 A sqq.. 35 The Platonic origin of which, THE EPINOM IS. cl.j and acuteness. 38 The indispensable condition of true wisdom is the knowledge of number, and all connected with it, that great science which has been given us by Uranos, highest of the gods, and author of all good things. He who is ignorant of number, 39 and cannot distinguish the straight from the crooked, may indeed possess courage and temperance, and every other virtue, but is destitute of wisdom, the greatest virtue of all. 40 It is number which not only is required by all arts, but always produces what is good and never what is evil ; it follows that where number is lacking, and there alone, evil and disorder are present. Only the man conversant with number is capable of understanding and teaching what is right and beautiful and good. 41 Dialectic 42 is to be regarded as a help to this scientific education ; but the culminating point is Astronomy, which is concerned with the fairest and divinest of all visible things; 43 and the chief reason of this pre- eminence is that Astronomy makes possible to us a true piety, which is the best virtue. Only by means of Astronomy are we delivered from that baneful ignor- ance which keeps us from the real knowledge and 88 974 D-976 C. lv (the individual; r$ KOT' eft?? 89 Together with the pure doc- irpoffaxrtov 4v (Kdarats TCUS j/7rA.ei(TTv Kal/J-fjiffruv. (Cf. Cic. Fin. iv. 6 ; v. preAaous note.) Soyfj.aTi^i yovv, %capls /uej/ apfTijs jiajSe'woTe &z/ ev5ai/j.oi>iuv virapx^iv, 5i^a Se Kal T&V ff(a/j.aTiK Kal TMV fKrbs T^V aper^j/ avrdpicr) Trpbs ev8ai/j.oviav eivai. Cic. Tusc. v. 13; v. supr. 600, 71. 66 E. g. ap. Plut. Ad princ. inerud. iii. 3, p. 488 : rbv "Epona /j.e\eiav; and the quotation from Clemens on p. 597, 55. CRATES. GRANTOR. 019 his name is invariably associated with the Academy,* 7 and from his personal relations with Polemo and Grantor, we may conclude that he was a loyal ad- herent of the School. We possess a few more ex- plicit details concerning Grantor, partly from his exposition of the Timseus, 68 partly from his Ethical writings, but chiefly from his book on Grief. From the first of these sources we learn that he disputed, like Xenocrates. the beginning of the soul in time; and regarded the account in the Timseus merely as an expository form : 69 that with a true comprehension of his author, he conceived of the soul as compounded out of the primary constituents of all things, and more particularly out of these four elements the Sensible, the Intelligible, the Same, and the Other ; so that it is in a position to know all things : 70 that he explained the harmonious numbers in the Timaeus in a manner that modern writers have recognised as the true one : 71 and that he (certainly erroneously) held the my thus of Atlantis to be a real history. 72 If his views of Plato correspond, as can hardly be doubted, with his own views, his comments sufficiently prove that he held the Platonic doctrine of the soul in its original sense. How far such was the case with other part- <>t" Metaphysics, we cannot be sure; but in his Ethics, Grantor appears as a true representative of the 67 E.g. ap. Cic. Acad. i. 9, 34, an. procr. iii. 1, p. 1013. where Crates is expressly classed ' Plut. i. 5; ii. 4 sq. ; v. supr. with the true keepers of Platonic 7I Plut. xvi. S. 20; iii. dui trine. Cf. supr. and Kayaer, DeCruulore, ^ The first commentary on that pp. 22-33. v. supr. .V.H>, 24. . n Procl. in Tim. 24 A. Prurl. in Tim. S3 A ; Plut. 620 PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Academy. We find, from a fragment 73 of considerable length, and full of oratorical grace, that he accorded the first place among goods to virtue ; the second to health ; the third to pleasure ; the fourth to riches ; which can only be understood as agreeing with the generally received doctrine of the Academy. We further read that he denounced the Stoical indifference to pain as the murder of natural human feelings, and advocated moderation in grief, 74 which is also truly Platonic. 75 He was opposed, like the rest of the School, to the entire suppression of the affections, and required only their due limitation, appealing in defence of this view to the uses which Nature designed for these emotions. 76 We may judge of the reputation which he 73 Ap. Sext. Math. xi. 51-58. 74 Pint. Consol. ad Apoll. i. 3, p. 102: p.T] yap voffoi^v, v/j.vovffi Kal aK\ripav airddeiav eo> Kal TOV Swarov KOI ToO ffviMpepovros ovffav are also from Grantor. Of what follows, we can only conjecture that it be- longs to him in substance, and that, accordingly, he regarded apathy as doing away with bene- volence and friendship, and sought for ' metriopathy ' instead (cf. note 76). Kayser rightly recognises traces of this passage in Seneca, Cons, ad Helv. 16, 1 ; Cons, ad Polyb. 17, 2; cf. ibid. 18, 5 sq. 75 Kayser (p. 6 sq.; 39 sq.) sees an innovation of Grantor's here, and seeks its explanation in the ill-health of the philosopher. Brandis, however (ii. b. 1, 40), rightly refers to Cic. Acad. i. 9 ; ii. 44 (v. following note), and the agreement of his doctrine with the tenets of the other Academics on happiness. It has been pointed out, 444, 1, that Plato declared himself against apathy, and with special reference to the case con- templated by Plut. loc. cit. c. 3 beginning. 76 Cic. Acad. ii. 44, 135. Sed qu&ro, quando ista fuerint ab Academic, vetere decreta ut animum sapientis commovcri et conturbari negarent ? Mcdiocritatcs illi proba- bant, et in omni permotione natu- ralcm volebant ccsc qticndam modum (which almost presupposes the term /j-fTpioirddfia}. Lcgimus GRANTOR. <;:M enjoyed, and of the purity of his principles, from the fact that he was associated with Chrysippus as teacher of Ethics. 77 His various fragments contain evidence that he believed, like Plato, in souls being placed upon earth for their punishment and purifica- tion ; and that, sensible of the evil inseparable from human life, he saw in death the transition to a better existence. 78 All this is in thorough accord with the thought of the Older Academy. When, therefore, Cicero mentions Grantor among those who remained faithful 79 to the doctrine of Plato, it is at least so far true, that he made no deviations from that form of it which prevailed after Speusippus and Xenocrates. Its original spirit and contents, however, were but very imperfectly reproduced in the Platonic School. Though the Ethics there taught may be the Ethics of Plato, even the earliest representatives of his philosophy had already departed from the speculative groundwork of pure Platonism. The next generation seems to have omnes Crantoris, veteris Academici, ytvfffOai HvOpwirov ffvptyopav r^v de luctu: et>t enim non magma ntyicr-rriv, repeated, according to verum aureolus et, ut Tuberoni Lactantius, Inst. ii. 18 fin., by Paneetius precipit, ad verbum edit- Cicero in his work on Consolation cendus libellus. Atque illi quidem (Kayser, p. 48). Grantor expresses etiam utiliter a natura dicebant himself on the miseries of life ap. permotioneg istas animis nostris Plut.loc. cite. 6, 14 ; Kayser points data* ; metum cavendi causa: out (p. 45) from Tusc. i. 48, that in niisericordiam cegritudinemque de- the latter place the story about mentite : iptam iracundiam for- Euthynous comes from Grantor tit iul in is quasi cotem esse dice- (we get similar complaints of the bant. evils of life in the Eptnoiuis). In 77 Horace, Epp. i. 2, 4. c. 25 Grantor observes how preat a 78 Plut. loc. cit. c. 27: iroAAoTs consolation it is not to su: yap Kal aoQdis avtipaaiv, us tfnjtri one's own fault. On Cicero's use Kpdrrwp. ov vvv iAA* ireUcu Kf'/cAau- of Grantor, cf. Heine, Do f onto Tav6pEAUTlFUL,\he, 192, 193, 506 Being and Non-being, 226 sq., 241, 304; and Becoming, 228 sq. Body, the human, 388 sqq. ; rela- tion of the Soul to the, 219, 421 Bryso of Heraclea, 553, 1 ; the mathematician, ,V>:;, 1 S1ALIPPUS, murderer of Dion, J 30, 64 Chabrias, a Platonist, 31, 64 Chemical theories, Plato's, 377 624 INDEX. Children, community of, pp. 477, 481 ; weakly, exposed, 485 ; education of, 478 Chio, a Platonist, loc. cit. Christianity, relation of Platonism to, 505, 47 Classes, separation and relation of, in the State, 471 Classification, Plato's principle of, 204 Clearchus of Heraclea, 30, 64 Colours, theory of, 378, 35 Concepts, formation and determi- nation of, 199 ; see Ideas Consciousness, ordinary, pp. 170- 175 Coriscus, a Platonist, 554, 1 Courage, as a division of the Soul, 413, 430; its depreciation in the Laws. 530 Grantor, 349, 150; 364, 5; 618 sq. Crates, 618 Creator of the World, pp. 284, 363, 390 T)MMONOLOGYof Plato, 501 ; of Xenocrates, 593 ; of the Epinomis, 615 Death, pp. 389, 399 ; Preferable to sickly life, 482 Decad, perfection of the, 576 Delian problem solved by Plato, 22, 42; Bryso failed to solve, 554, 1 Delius of Ephesus, disciple of Plato, 554, 1 Demetrius of Amphipolis, 554, 1 Democritus, on verbal expression, 211 Desire in the irrational Soul, 414 sq., 430 Dialectic, 150; Platonic contrasted with the Socratic, 151 ; consti- tuents of, 196-204; Zeno's, 203; narrower sense of, 225 Dialogue, philosophic, why adopted by Plato, 153-159 Dialogues, Socratic, 119 ; Phsedrus, 129 ; Lysis, Lesser Hippias, Charmides, Laches, Protagoras, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, 120 ; Dialectical ; Gorgias, Meno, Theaetetus, Euthydemus, 125- 127; Sophist, Politicus, Par- menides, Philebus, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Symposium, Phsedo, 136-140; Eepublic, Timseus, Critias, Laws, 140-143; Spu- riousness of lost, 46 Siavoia and vovs, 218, 147 Dion, Plato's intimacy with, 24 ; hostile aggression on Dionysius, 34 Dionysius the Elder, 24 ; the younger, 32 Diseases, 433 Divination, 431 Duality, indefinite, 322, 89 ; Xeno- crates' doctrine of, 590 J^CPHANTUS, held the Pytha- gorean theory of atoms and the diurnal rotation of the Earth, 608 Education in the Eepublic, 215, 478 ; in the Laws, 541 Elements, Plato's theory of the, 368-378 ; Xenocrates', 594 Enemies, Love of, pp. 182, 454 Epinomis, the, 612 ; probably written by Philippus of Opus, 561; its point of view, 312; Number, 613; Astronomy, 614; Daemons, 615; Future Existence, 616 Erastiis, a Platonist, 554, 1 Eros, 191 sqq., 455, 618, 66 Ethics, of Plato, 435 sqq., 529 ; of Speusippus, 579 ; of Xenocrates, 597; of Heraclides, 610; of Polemo, 617; of Grantor, 619 Euclides of Megara, 14 Eudemus of Cyprus, a Platonist, 554, I Eudoxus of Cnidos, pp. 562, 611 INDEX. Euphceus, a Platonist, 30, 64 Evil, Cause of, 340; evil-doing proceeds from ignorance, 420 T^OOD, animal, forbidden by ' Xenocrates, 597 Freewill, 419, 503 Friendship, 196, 69, 455 HOD, Plato's concept of, 281 sqq.; 438, 495 sqq.; Speusippus', 569; Xenocrates', 584; Hera- elides', 606 Gods of Polytheism, 500, 591, 606 Good, highest, Plato's, 436 sqq.; Speusippus', 479; Xenocrates', 599; Polemo's, 618; Grantor's, 620 ; The, 280 sqq. Goods, Community of, in the Ee- public, 481 ; abandoned in the Laws, 540 Grammatical discussions in Plato, 214, 130 Great and Small, 299 sqq., 322 Guardians or warriors, in the Eepublic, 470 sqq. ; in the Laws, 531 Gymnastic and music in Educa- tion, 479, 542 TJAPPINESS and Virtue, 445 ; <* see The Good Harmony in the Universe, 347 sqq. Heaviness and lightness, 376 l.clicon of Cyzicus, the astronomer, 554, 1 Heraclidcs of Pontus, 606; His theory of atoms, 607; of the Universe, the Soul, Ethics, 608- 610 Heraclides the Thracian, 30, 64 Heraclitus of Kphesus, refutation of his doctrine, 184; on names and things, 211 ; Plato's relation to, 233 Herbart on the gradual transfor- mation of the Doctrine of Ideas in the Dialogues, 102 Hermann's arrangement of the Dialogues, 102 Hermodarus, the Platonist, 554, 1 Hestiaus of Perinthus, disciple of Plato, pp. 561, 605 TDEAS, doctrine of, founded on " that of Knowledge and Being, 225, 228; proofs as given by Aristotle, 232 ; historic origin of, 233 ; concept of, 237 ; as uni- versals, 238 ; as substances, 240 ; as concrete entities, 240 ; as numbers, 254 ; as living powers, 261 ; world of, 271 ; highest, 276 ; relation of sensi- ble objects to, 315 ; immanence of things in, 317; participation of things in, 335; theories of, in the Academy, 604 Imitation, distinctive of art, 509 Immortality, 379 eq., 404, 616, of the irrational part of the soul, held by Speusippus and Xeno- crates, pp. 578, 596 Induction, Socratic and Platonic, 199 sqq. JUSTICE, 1S&OS1* 452, relation to happiness, 445 sq. ; in the State, 465 ; iujtlu laws, 530 TTNOWLEDGE, Plato's theory of, pp. 470 sqq., 183, 218 sq., 395 sq. ; Speusippus, 566 ; Xeno- crates, 582 T ANG UA GE, relation to Philo- ^ sophy, 210 Last hen ia, a woman who attended Plato's lectures, 5.11. 1 Law, martial, 482 ; based on Phi- 626 INDEX. losophy, 466 ; substituted for the ruler, 532 Laws, the, Latin form of Platon- ism in, 517 ; point of view, 522 ; philosophy less prominent in, 523 ; religious character of, 525 ; mathematics in, 527 ; ethics of, 529 ; particular legislation of, 531 ; politics and social regula- tions of, 523, 540 ; divergences from Plato's original point of view in, 543 ; authenticity of, 548 Lev, of Byzantium, the elder, a Platonist, 554, 1 Leonides, a Platonist, 30, 64 Letters, Plato's, spuriousness of, 87 Limited and unlimited, pp. 264, 352 Logic, no Platonic theory of, 208 Lycurgus, the orator, a Platonist, 30, 64 Lying, when permissible, 454 , the, 378, 35 Magnitudes, Plato's derivation of, 331, 103, p. 579 ; Speusippus', 575; Xenocrates', 587; various theories about, 605 Man, 388 sqq. Marriage, Platonic view of, 456, 541 Mathematical principle, 352 Mathematics, relation to Philoso- phy, 216 sq. ; in the Laws, 526 ; in the Academy, pp. 555, 556 Matter, Platonic, 293 sqq. ; diffi- culties of this theory, 312 ; the cause of Evil, 323 sq. 340 Meqara, Plato's sojourn at, 14 Mencdemus, 30, 60 Meno, 125 Metaphysics of the Academy, 604 Meteorological theories of Plato, 378, 35 Method, scientific, 150 sqq., 196 sqq. Miltas, Platonist and soothsayer, 554, 1 Morality, 454 sqq. Munk, his arrangement of Plato's Works, 106 Music, in education, pp. 214, 479, 542 ; art of, 572 sq.; in the uni- verse, 348, 140 Myths, 160-163 ; 194, note 66 ; 396, 502 ffATURE, explanation of, 338 life according to, 600 (Xeno- crates'), 617 (Polemo) Necessity and Keason both causes of the world, pp. 295, 337 Notion, ordinary, or envisagement, 170, 583 vovs, pp. 262, 337 sq. ; and Sidvoia, 218, 147 Numbers, Platonic theory of, 254, sqq., 517 ; Speusippus', 572 ; Xenocrates', 586; TheEpinomis, 613 f)NE, The, and The Good, pp. 285, ^ 569 ; and The Many, 231, 252 oi/0/j.a and ^/xa, 214, 130 Opinion, and Knowledge, 171 sqq., 416 Oral teaching compared with written, 26 Order of Plato's writings, 93 sqq. Other, The, and The Same, 278, 342, 347, 357 , 554. 1 Parentage, influence of, 422 ; supervision of, pp. 477, 541 Perception, relation of, to know- ledge, pp. 170, 171, 218, 428, 583 Pcrictione, Plato's mother, 4, 3 Personality, seat of, 417; of G-od, pp. 286, 289 ; of the created, gods, 385 INDEX. 627 Phenomena, relation of, to ideas, 314sqq. Philip of Macedon, relation to Plato, 35, 76 PJi'dlppus of Opus, 50, 13 ; 552, 561. See Epinomis Philolaus, the Pythagorean, works purchased by Plato in Italy, 20, 34 Philosophy, Platonic, relation to the Socratic, 144 ; to the Pre- Soeratic, 147; method, 150; dialogic form, 153; myths, 160; division of the system, 164 ; Propaedeutic, 170-214; dialectic, or doctrine of ideas, 225-277 ; physics, 293, 386; Man, 388- 433 ; ethics, 435-492 ; relation to religion, 494-503 ; to art, 505-514 ; later form of, 517- 548 ; of the Academy, 565-622 Phocion, a Platonist, 30, 64 Phormio, ibid. Physics, Plato's, 293-433 ; Speu- sippus', 576; Xeuocrates', 594 Physiological theories of Plato, 421 sqq. Plants, soul of, 416, 83, 432 Plato, authorities for his biogra- phy, 1, 1 ; birth, 2, 2 ; family, 3 ; wealth, 4 ; childhood and youth, 5-9 ; relation to Socrates, 9; sojourn at Megara, 14; tra- vels, 15 ; first visit to Sicily, 23 ; teaching in the Academy, 25 ; attitude to politics, 29; second and third Si lician journeys, 32 ; death, 35 ; character, 36 ; rela- tions with other Socratics, 36, 85 ; alleged plagiarism, 38 ; Apolline myths, 44 Plutarch of Chaeronea, 348, 140 : 364. .-, Poetry, cultivated by Plato in his Y<>uth, 8 ; his estimation of, pp. 572, 573 . 617 Position in* of Apamea, rohition to Plato, 355, 154 Prayer, pp. 497, 499 . Pre-existence, 389 sq., 404, 407 Priests, in the Laws, 502 Providence, Divine, 498 Prudence, meaning of, in the Laws, 524, 529 Punishment, end of, 447, 36 Pythagoreans, Plato's first ac- quaintance with, 20 ; relation of Plato's philosophy to, pp. 233, 527, 555, 556 Pytho, a Platonist, 30, 64 QUANTITY, Plato's category of, ^ 277 ; in Motion, Speusippus' definition of Time, 578 REASON, see vovs; connected with sphere of fixed stars, 359 ; and Necessity, see Neces- sity; Eelation to Courage and Desire, 414 Recollection, 406-410 Religion, Plato's views on, 494 sq. ; in the Laws, 525 ; popular, 500, 591, 613 Republic, see State; when com- posed, 141 Retribution, future, 391 sq., 407 sq. Rhetoric, 190, 514 ; Plato's opinion of Rulers in the Republic must be Philosophers, 466 ; class of, omitted in the Laws, 531 CjCHLEIERMACHER'S classi- fication of the Dialogues, 99 Sense, relation to Reason, 436 sqq. Sensuous Perception, pp. 170, 428, 609, 23 Sex, Difference of, 433 Sicily, Plato's journeys to, pp. 15, 29 628 INDEX. . Plato's theory of, 428, 113 Socher and Stallbaum, their chronological arrangement of Plato's works, 101 Socrates, Plato's relation to, 9 ', manner of life different from Plato's, 41 ; personality in the Dialogues, 159; connection of his philosophy with Plato's, see Platonic Philosophy Sophistic, 183-189 Sophron, writer of Mimes before Plato's time, 155, 12 Soul, of the Universe, see World- soul ; human, 389 sqq. ; rela- tion to the body, 421 ; in the Laws, 527; Theory of Xe- nocrates, 591; of Heraclides, 609; of the Epinomis, 614; Plato's tripartite division of the, 413 Space, 305, 312 Speech, see Language Speusippiis, 553-578 ; theory of knowledge, 566; first princi- ples, the Good and the Soul, 568 ; Numbers and Magnitudes, 572-575; Physics, 576; Ethics, 578 Spheres, heavenly, 379 sqq. Stars, Theories of Plato on the, 357, 379-382, 499 ; Xenocrates, 591; Heraclides, 608-610; The Epinomis, 614 State, end and problem of, 461 ; Philosophy the condition of the true, 466 ; Aristocratic character of Plato's, 869 ; based on his whole system, 473 ; Social regu- lations of the, 477 181 ; whence Plato derived his ideal, 482; affinity with modern, 490 ; de- fective States, 492; of the Kepublic and the Laws com- pared, 533 Steeds of the soul, in the Phaedrus, 392, 12 Suicide disallowed by Plato, 459 rpELEOLOGICAL view of Na- ture, 338 Temperance, 452, 529 0eta fj.otpa, 176, 20 Theetetus of] ' Hatonists, 554,1 Timonides, ) Timotheus, ibid. 30, 64 Theodorus instructed Plato in Mathematics, 21 Thought, all stages of, included in Philosophy, 220 sq. Thrasyllus 1 arrangement of the Dialogues, 98, 15; 99 Time, Plato's theory of, 366, 382 ; Speusippus', 578 ; Xenocrates', 595 Tones, musical, in the Timseus, 348, 140; Heraclides' theory of, 607, 14 Transmigration, 391, 406 sqq. TTNITY and Duality, how re- garded by Plato, 279, 146, 518; by Xenocrates, 584; by the Platonic Schools, 322, 83 Universal, Nature of, and re- lation to the Particular, 240, 337 sq.; Law as a, 468 Universe, see World Unlimited, not identified with Matter by Plato, 521 VIRTUE, 444; Socratic and Platonic doctrine of, 448; Natural disposition to, 449 ; Customary and philosophic, 450 ; Plurality of, 451 ; Primary, 451 ; consists in harmony, 474 Void, the, Space, 305 WEISSE*S arrangement of the Dialogues, 107 Wisdom, Plato's definition of, in INDEX. the Republic, 452 ; in the Laws, 529 Wives, Community of, 481, 485 Women, Plato's opinions about, 456, 487, 542 World, Origin of the, 363 sqq. ; according to Plato, 363 sqq. ; Xenocrates, 595 ; Grantor, 619; periodical changes in the, 382, 383 ; shape of the, 376 ; per- fection of the, 387 ; system, 379 sqq., 608, 609 World-soid, Plato's theory of the, 341 sqq. ; Speusippus', 570 ; Xenocrates', 592 ; Grantor's, 619 ; Evil, in the Laws, 543 VENOCRATES, 581 ; his ex- planation of the Timseus, 355, 154; 364,5; character, 588; Triple division of Philosophy, 582 ; the theory of Knowledge, 583 ; of Unity and Duality, 584 ; of Numbers, 584 sq.; Magnitudes, indivisible lines, 587 ; the Soul, 589 ; Cosmology, 591 ; Daemons, 593 ; Elements, formation of the world, 595; Psychology, 596; Ethics, 597 Xenophon, his alleged enmity with Plato, 37, 85; conjectured authorship of the Second Alci- biades, 50, 13 , the Cosmical, 382 his writings, 155, 12; relation of Plato's method to that of, 203 Zeus, 287, 172; 387, 500; 592 * # * This Index has been compiled (with some additions) from Dr. Zeller's Register to the ' Philosophic der Griechen.' I.MMIM.N : l'lt!NTi:i> in SPOtTISWOODK AND CO., M. \Y-.-Ii AND I'AKUAilK.NT .STKKKT RETURN TO the circulation desk ot any University ot California Library or to the NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station University ot California Richmond, CA 94804-4698 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 2-month loans may be renewed by calling (510)642-6753 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books to NRLF Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW MAY 15 1996 12,000(11/95) YB 23688 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY