No More Learning

iii. 9). But as cally), and practically (ethically or politically).
the latter accusation is refuted both by the contra- (Diog. Laërt. iii. 49; Albin. Isag. 128. ) With
diction which it carries in itself, and by comparison regard to the second point, attention was espe-
of the Pythagorean doctrine with that of Plato, 60 cially directed to the dramatic character of ihe
is the former, not only by the weakness of the dialogues, and, according to it, the Alexandrian
evidence brought forward in its favour, but still grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium arranged
more by the depth and purity of moral sentiment, a part of them together in trilogies_(Sophistes,
which, with all the marks of internal truth, is re- Politicus, Cratylus Theaetetus, Euthyphron,
flected in the writings of Plato.
Apology — Politeia, Timaeus, Critias- the Laws,
Minos, Epinomis — Criton, Phaedon, Letters),
II. THE WRITINGS OF PLATO.
the rest he left unarranged, though on what
These writings, by a happy destiny, have come grounds he was led to do so it is not easy to
down to us complete, so far as appears, in texts com- discover. Thrasylus, in the age of Tiberius, with
paratively well preserved, and have always been reference to the above-named division into inves-
admired as a model of the union of artistic perfection tigating and instructing dialogues, divided the
with philosophical acuteness and depth. Plato was whole number into tetralogies, probably because
by no means the first to attempt the form of dialogue. Plato had given intimation of his intention to add
Zeno the Eleatic had already written in the form a conclusion to the dialogues Theaetetus,
of question and answer (Diog. Laërt. iii. 48; comp. Sophistes, and Politicus, one called Philosophus,
Arist. Elench. Soph. 10). Alexamenus the Teian and to the trilogy of the Politeia, Timaeus, and
and Sophron in the mimes had treated ethical Critias, the Hermocrates (Plat. Politic. p. 257, a.
subjects in the form of dialogue (Diog. Laërt. Critias, p. 108, a. c. ). In place of the unwritten,
L c. ; Athen. xi. p. 505, b. ; Olympiod. p. 78 ; | if intended, Philosophus, Thrasylus adds to the
comp. Hermann on Arist. Poet. p. 93, &c. ); first of the two trilogies, and as the first member
Xenophon, Aeschines, Antisthenes, Eucleides, of it, the Cratylus ; to the second, in place of the
and other Socratics also had made use of the dia- Hermocrates, and again as the first member, the
logical form (Diog. Laërt. passim); but Plato has Clitophon. (Diog. Laërt
. iii. 56 ; comp. Albin. Isag.
handied this form not only with greater mastery &c. p. 129). Although this division appears to
than any one who preceded him, and, one may have been already usual in Varro's time (de Ling.
add, than any one who has come after him, but, Lat. vi. 80, Bip. ), and has been adopted in many
in all probability, with the distinct intention of manuscripts, as well as in the older editions, it is
keeping by this very means true to the admoni- not more satisfactory than the others which have
tion of Socrates, not to communicate instruction, been mentioned, partly because it combines ge-
but to lead to the spontaneous discovery of it. nuine and spurious dialogues, partly because, neg-
The dialogue with him is not merely a favourite lecting internal references, it not unfrequently
method of clothing ideas, handed down from unites according to merely external considerations.
others, as has recently been maintained (Hermann, Nor have the more recent attempts of Samuel
I. c. i. p. 354), but the mimetic-dramatic form of Petitus (Miscell. iii. 2), Sydenham (Synopsis, or
it is intended, while it excites and enchains the General View of the Works of Plato, p. 9), and
attention of the reader, at the same time to give Serranus, which connect themselves more or less
bim the opportunity and enable him to place him with those earlier attempts, led to any satisfactory
self in the peculiar situations of the different in arrangement. Yet at the basis of all these dif-
terlocutors, and, not without success, with them ferent attempts there lies the correct assumption,
to seek and find. But with all the admiration that the insight into the purport and construction
which from the first has been felt for the distinct of the separate Platonic dialogues depends upon
ness and liveliness of the representation, and the our ascertaining the internal references by which
richness and depth of the thoughts, it is impos- they are united with each other. As Schleier-
sible not to feel the difficulty of rendering to macher, for the purpose of carrying out this sup-
oneself a distinct account of what is designed and position, endeavoured to point out in Plato himself
accomplished in any particular dialogue, and of its the leading ideas which lay at the foundation, and
connection with others. And yet again it can by means of them to penetrate to the understand-
hardly be denied that each of the dialogues forms ing of each of the dialogues and of its connection
an artistically self-contained whole, and at the with the rest, he has become the originator of a
same time a link in a chain. That the dialogues new era in this branch of investigation, and might
of Plato were from first to last not intended to set with good reason be termed by I. Bekker, who has
before any one distinct assertions, but to place the done so much for the critical restoration of the
objects in their opposite points of view (Cic. text, Platonis restitutor. Schleiermacher starts
Acad. i. 12), could appear credible only to partisans with Plato's declaration of the insufficiency of
of the more modem sceptical Academy. Men who written communication. If he regarded this as
took a deeper view endeavoured, by separating the the lifeless image of living colloquy, because, not
different kinds and classes of the dialogues, or by being able to unfold its meaning, presenting itself
arranging together those which had a more immé to those who do understand as to those who do
diate reference to each other, to arrive at a more not, it produces the futile belief of being possessed
correct understanding of them. With reference to of knowledge in those who do not know, being
the first, some distinguished dramatic
, narrative, only adapted to remind the reader of convictions
and mixed dialogues (Diog. Laërt. iii. 50), others that have been produced and seized in a lively man-
investigating and instructing dialogues, and again ner (Plat. Phaedr. p. 275), and nevertheless spent
such as investigated gymnastically (maieutically a considerable part of his long life in the composi-
or peirastically,) and agonistically (endeictically ortion of written works, he must doubtless have con-


## p. 396 (#412) ############################################

396
PLATO.
PLATO.
vinced himself that he was able to meet that defi- modern times, as Des Cartes, Spinoza, Fichte,
ciency up to a certain point, to communicate to the Schelling. Nay, we are not even compelled to
souls of the readers with science discourses which, assume (what indeed is very improbable) that the
being capable of representing their own meaning and succession of the dialogues according to their
of standing in the place of the person who thus im- internal references must coincide with the chrono-
planted them, should show themselves fruitful (ib. logical order in which they were composed. Why
p. 276, &c. ; comp. Protag. p. 329, a. 347, c. ). The should not Plato, while he had already commenced
understanding of many of the dialogues of Plato, works of the third class, have found occasion now
however, is rendered difficult by this circumstance, and then to return to the completion of the dia-
that a single dialogue often contains different in- logues of the second, or even of the first class ?
vestigations, side by side, which appear to be only As regards, however, the arrangements in detail,
loosely connected, and are even obscured by one we will not deny that Schleiermacher, in the en-
another; and these investigations, moreover, often deavour to assign its place to every dialogue ac-
seem to lead to no conclusion, or even to issue in cording to the presupposed connection with all the
contradictions. We cannot possibly look upon rest running through the series, has now and then
this peculiarity as destitute of purpose, or the suffered himself to be misled by insecure traces,
result of want of skill. If, however, it was in- and has been induced partly to regard some lead-
tended, the only purpose which can have been at ing dialogues from an incorrect or doubtful point
the bottom of it must have been to compel the of view, partly to supply references by means of
reader, through his spontaneous participation in artificial combinations. On the other hand, we
the investigations proposed, to discover their believe, after a careful examination of the objec-
central point, to supply intermediate members that tions against it that have been made good, that we
are wanting, and in that way himself to discover may adopt the principle of the arrangement and
the intended solution of the apparent contradic- the most important points of it
tions. If the reader did not succeed in quite under- The first series embraces, according to Schleier-
standing the individual dialogue by itself, it was macher, the larger dialogues, Phaedrus, Protagoras,
intended that he should seek the further carrying and Parmenides, to which the smaller ones, Lysis,
out of the investigations in other dialogues, and Laches, Charmides, and Euthyphron are to be added
notice how what appeared the end of one is at the as supplements. When others, on the contrary,
same time to be regarded as the beginning and declare themselves for a much later composition of
foundation of another. Nevertheless, according the Phaedrus, and Hermann in particular (l. 6.
to the differences in the investigation and in the pp. 356, 373, &c. ) regards it as the entrance-pro-
susceptibility and maturity for it to be presup- gramme (p. 544) written by Plato for the opening
posed in the reader, the mode of conducting it and of his school, we will indeed admit that the account
the composition of the dialogue devoted to it would / which makes that dialogue Plato's first youthful
require to be different. Schleiermacher distin- composition (Diog. L. iii. 38 ; Olympiod. Vita Plat.
guishes three series and classes of dialogues. In p. 78) can pass for nothing more than a conclusion
the first he considers that the germs of dialectic come to by learned philosophers or grammarians
and of the doctrine of ideas begin to unfold them (though the judgments of Euphorion, Panaetius,
selves in all the freshness of the first youthful and Dicaearchus brought forward in favour of the
inspiration, with the fulness of an imaginative, opinion deserve regard); but that the compass of
dramatically mimetic representation ; in the se- knowledge said to be found in the dialogue, and
cond those germs develop themselves further by the fulness and maturity of the thoughts, its simi-
means of dialectic investigations respecting the larity to the Symposium and Menexenus, the ac-
difference between common and philosophical quaintance with Egyptian mythology and Pytha-
acquaintance with things, respecting notion and gorean philosophy, bear indubitable testimony to a
knowledge (86ţa and ¢ TITThun); in the third later composition, we cannot admit; but we must
they receive their completion by means of an ob- rather appeal to the fact that the youthful Plato,
jectively scientific working out, with the separa- even before he had visited Egypt and Magna
tion of ethics and physics (Schleiermacher's Plato, Graecia, might easily have acquired such an amount
i. 1, Einleitung, p. 45, &c. ; comp. ii. 2, p. 142). of knowledge in Athens, the centre of all the
To suppose that Plato, when he composed the first philosophical life of that age ; and further, that
of his dialogues, already had clearly before his eyes what is brought forward as evidence of the com-
in distinct outlines the whole series of the rest, pass and maturity of the thoughts is rather the
with all their internal references and connecting youthful, lively expression of the first conception
links; and farther, that from the beginning to the of great ideas (comp. Van Heusde, Initia Doctr.
end he never varied, but needed only to keep on Plat. i. p. 197). With the Phaedrus the Lysis
spinning the thread he had once begun, without stands connected as a dialectic essay upon love.
any where taking it up afresh, - such a supposi- But as the Phaedrus contains the outlines of the
tion would indeed be preposterous, as Hermann peculiar leading doctrines of Plato partly still as
remarks against Schleiermacher (1. c. p. 354. 56). forebodings expressed in a mythical form, so the
But the assumption above referred to respecting the Protagoras is distinctly to be regarded as the
composition and succession of the dialogues of Plato Socratic method in opposition to the sophistic, in
by no means depends upon any such supposition. discussions which we might term the Propylaea of
It is enough to believe that the fundamental germs the doctrine of morals. The early composition of
of his system early made their appearance in the this dialogue is assumed even by the antagonists
mind of Plato in a definite form, and attained to of Schleiermacher, they only dispute on insufficient
their development in a natural manner through the grounds either the genuineness of the smaller dia-
power that resided in them. We need suppose in logues Charmides, Laches and Euthyphron (see on
the case of Plato only what may be demonstrated this point Hermann, p. 443, &c. ), or their connec-
in the case of other great thinkers of more tion with the Protagoras, which manifests itself in
a


## p. 397 (#413) ############################################

as
ܪ
PLATO.
PLATO.
397
this, that the former had demonstrated the insuf- | two dialogues, however, and their organization
ficiency of the usual moral definitions in reference as regarded from the point of view of this assump-
to the ideas of virtue as connected with tempe- tion, is not altogether intelligible. (Comp. ller-
rance (ow posúvn), bravery, and holiness, to which mann, p. 525. 27. ) But as little should we, with
the latter had called attention generally. The Ed. Zeller (1. c. p. 194, &c. ), look for the missing
profound dialogue Parmenides, on the other hand, member of the trilogy, of which we have part in the
we cannot with Schleiermacher regard either as a Sophistes and Politicus, in the exclusively dialectical
mere dialectic exercise, or as one of the earlier Parmenides. (Comp. Hermann, p. 671, note 533. )
works of Plato (comp. Ed. Zeller's Platonische But Plato might the sooner have given up the sepa-
Studien, p. 184, &c. ), but rather see ourselves com- rate exhibition of the philosopher, partly inasmuch
pelled to assign it a place in the second series of as the description of him is already mixed up with
the dialogues of Plato. The foundation of this the representation of the sophist and the politician,
series is formed by the dialogues Thenetetus, So- partly as the picture is rendered complete by
phistes, and Politicus, which have clearly a mutual means of the Symposium and the Phaedon,
connection. Before the Theaetetus Schleiermacher well as by the books on the state. Meantime the
places the Gorgias, and the connection of the two place which Schleiermacher assigns to those two
is indubitable, in so far as they both exhibit the dialogues between the Sophistes and Philebus may
constant and essential in opposition to the change be regarded as amply justified, as even Hermann
able and contingent, the former in the domain of admits in opposition to Ast and Socher (pp. 398,
cognizance, the latter in that of moral action ; and 469, 526). Only we must reserve room at this
as the Theaetetus is to be placed before the So same place for the Parmenides. In this most
phistes, Cratylus and other dialogues, so is the difficult of the Platonic dialogues, which has been
Gorgias to be placed at the head of the Politicus, treated of at length by Ed. Zeller (1. c. ), Stallbaum
Philebus and the Politeia. Less certain is the (Platonis Parmenides, cum IV. libris Prolegome-
position assigned by Schleiermacher to the Menon, norm, Lips. 1839), Brandis (Geschichte der Griech.
Euthydemus and Cratylus, between the Theaetetus Röm. Philosophie, ii. 1, p. 234, &c. , comp. p. 169,
and Sophistes. The Menon seems rather expressly note), and others, we find on the one hand the
designed to form a connecting link between the inves- outlines of the doctrine of ideas with the difficulties
tigations of the Gorgias and those of the Theaetetus, which oppose themselves to it briefly discussed,
and on the one hand to bring in to view the dis- on the other hand a considerably more extended
tinction discussed in the latter between correct attempt made to point out in connection with the
notion and true apprehension, in its application to conceptions considered in themselves, and in parti-
the idea of virtue ; on the other hand, by means of cular with the most universal of them, the One and
this distinction to bring nearer to its final decision Existence, the contradictions in which the isolated,
the questiou respecting the essence of the good, as abstract contemplation of those conceptions involves
of virtue and the possibility of teaching it. It us; manifestly in order to pave the way for the
might be more difficult to assign to the Euthydemus solution of those difficulties. In this the Parme-
its definite place. Although with the ridicule of nides is closely connected with the Sophistes, and
the empty polemical artifices of sophists which is might be placed immediately after the Cratylus,
contained in it, there are connected intimations before the Symposium and Phaedon. But that
respecting wisdom as the art of those who are in a the Philebus is to be regarded as the immediate
condition at the same time to produce and to use transition from the second, dialectical, series of
what they produce, the dialogue nevertheless should dialogues to the third, Schleiermacher has incon-
probably be regarded as an occasional piece. The trovertibly shown ; and the smaller dialogues,
Cratylus opposes to the scoffing art of the sophist, which as regards their contents and form are related
dealing in grammatical niceties, the image of dia- to those of the second series, in so far as they are
lectic art which recognises and fashions language as not banished as spurious into the appendix, should
a necessary production of the human mind. It be ranked with them as occasional treatises. In
should, however, find its appropriate place not the third series the order for the books on the state
before the Sophistes (where Schleiermacher places (Politeia), the Timaeus and the Critias, has been
it), but after it, as the application of dialectic to expressly marked by Plato himself, and with the
language could hardly become a matter of inquiry books on the state those on the laws connect them-
until the nature of dialectic had been discussed, as selves as a supplement.
is done in the Sophistes. The Eleatic stranger, Ast, though throughout polemically opposed to
when questioned by Socrates respecting the nature Schleiermacher, sees himself compelled in the main
and difference of the sophist, the statesman and to recognise the threefold division made by the
the philosopher (Soph. p.
217), answers only the latter, as he distinguishes Socratic dialogues, in
first two of these questions, in the dialogues that which the poetic and dramatic prevail (Protagoras,
bear those names, and if Plato had intended a Phaedrus, Gorgias and Phaedon), dialectic dia-
third and similar investigation respecting the nature logues (Theaetetus, Sophistes, Politicus and Cra-
of the philosopher, he has not undertaken the tylus), and purely scientific, or Socratico-Platonic
immediate fulfilment of his design. Schleiermacher dialogues (Philebus, Symposium, Politeia, Timaeus
therefore assumes that in the Banquet and Phaedon and Critias. (Platons Leben und Schriften, Leipzig,
taken together the model of the philosopher is 1816. ) But through this new conception and de
exhibited in the person of Socrates, in the former signation of the first series, and by adding, in the
as he lived, glorified by the panegyric of Alci- separation of the second and third series, an external
biades, and marked by the function, so especially ground of division to the internal one, he has been
peculiar to him, of love generating in the beautiful brought to unsteady and arbitrary assumptions
(p. 206); in the latter as he appears in death, which leave out of consideration the internal refe-
longing to become pure spirit. (Schleiermacher's rences. Socher's attempt to establish in place of
Platon, ii. 2. p. 358, &c. )" The contents of the such arrangements depending upon internal con-
P


## p. 398 (#414) ############################################

398
PLATO.
PLATO.
1
;
nection a purely chronological arrangement, de- | the Symposium and the Philebus are separated
pending on the time of their composition (Ueber from the Sophistes and Politicus, with which they
Platons Schriften, München, 1820), has been are much more closely connected than with the
followed by no results that can in any degree be delineative works, the Politeia, Timaeus, &c.
depended on, as the date of the composition can be (Comp. Brandis, Geschichte der Griechisch-Rö
approximately determined by means of the ana- 1 mischen Philosophie, ii. 1, p. 164, &c. )
chronisms (offences against the time in which they Lastly, as regards the genuineness of the writings
are supposed to take place) contained in them in of Plato, we cannot, indeed, regard the investiga-
but a few dialogues as compared with the greatly tions on the subject as brought to a definitive con-
preponderating number of those in which he has clusion, though we may consider ourselves con-
assigned it from mere opinion. K. F. Hermann's vinced that only a few occasional pieces, or delinea-
undertaking, in the absence of definite external tions of Socratic conversations, are open to doubts
statements, to restore a chronological arrangement of any importance, not those dialogues which are to
of the dialogues according to traces and marks be regarded as the larger, essential members of the
founded in facts, with historical circumspection and system. Even if these in part were first published
criticism, and in doing so at the same time to by disciples of Plato, as by Hermodorus (who has
sketch a faithful picture of the progress of the been accused of smuggling in spurious works only
mental life and development of the writer of them, through a misunderstanding of a passage in Cicero,
is considerably more worth notice. (Geschichte und ad Att. xiii. 21), and by Philippus the Opuntian ;
System der Platonischen Philosophie. loter Theil, and though, further, little can be built upon the
Heidelberg, 1839, p. 368, &c. ) In the first period, confirmation afforded by their having been received
according to him, Plato's Socrates betrays no other into the trilogies of the grammarian Aristophanes,
view of life, or scientific conception, than such as the authenticity of the most important of them is de-
we become acquainted with in the historical Somonstrated by the testimonies of Aristotle and some
crates out of Xenophon and other unsuspicious other incontrovertible authorities (the former will
witnesses (Hippias, Ion, Alcibiades I. , Charmides, be found carefully collected in Zeller's Platonische
Lysis, Laches, Protagoras, and Euthydemus). Studien, p. 201, &c. Respecting the latter comp.
Then, immediately after the death of Socrates, the Hermann, Lc. i. p. 410, &c. ). Notwithstanding
Apology, Criton, Gorgias, Euthyphron, Menon, and these testimonies, the Parmenides, Sophistes, and
Hippias Major belong to a transition step. In the Politicus (by Socher, l. c. p. 280, &c. ; see on the
second, or Megaric period of development dialectic other hand Hermann, loc. p. 506, &c. 575, note
makes its appearance as the true technic of phi- 131), and the Menon (by Ast, p. 398, &c. ; see in
losophy, and the ideas as its proper objects (Cra- reply Hermann, p. 482, &c. ), have been assailed on
tylus, Theaetetus, Sophistes, Politicus, Parmenides). exceedingly insufficient grounds ; the books on the
Lastly in the third period the system itself is Laws in a manner much more deserving of attention
exhibited (Phaedri Menexenus, Symposium, (especially by Zeller, l. c. 1–115 ; but comp. Her-
Phaedo, Philebus, Politeia, Timaeus, Critias, and mann, p. 547); but yet even the latter are with
the Laws). But although Hermann has laboured preponderating probability to be regarded as ge-
to establish his assumptions with a great expendi- nuine. On the other hand the Epinomis is pra
ture of acuteness and learning, he has not attained bably to be assigned to a disciple of Plato (comp.
to results that can in any degree stand the test of Hermann, p. 410. 22), the Minos and Hipparchus
examination. For the assumptions that Plato in the to a Socratic (A. Böckh, in Platonis Minoën qui
first period confined himself to an analytic treat- vulgo fertur, p. 9, undertakes to make good the
ment of ideas, in a strictly Socratic manner, and claim of Simon to them). The second Alcibiades
did not attain to a scientific independence till was attributed by ancient critics to Xenophon
he did so through his removal to Megara, nor to an (Athen. xi. p. 506, c. ). The Anterastae and Cli-
acquaintance with the Pythagorean philosophy, and tophon are probably of much later origin (see Her-
80 to the complete development of his dialectic and mann, p. 420, &c. 425, &c. ). The Platonic letters
doctrine of as, till he did so through his travels, were compose at different periods ; the oldest of
--for these assumptions all that can be made out is, them, the seventh and eighth, probably by disciples
that in a number of the dialogues the peculiar fea- of Plato (Hermann, p. 420, &c. ). The dialogues
tures of the Platonic dialectic and doctrine of ideas Demodocus, Sisyphus, Eryxias, Axiochus, and those
do not as yet make their appearance in a decided on justice and virtue, were with good reason re-
form. But on the one hand Hermann ranks in garded by ancient critics as spurious, and with
that class dialogues such as the Euthydemus, Menon, them may be associated the Hipparchus, Theages,
and Gorgias, in which references to dialectic and and the Definitions. The genuineness of the first
the doctrine of ideas can scarcely fail to be recog- Alcibiades seems doubtful, though Hermann defends
nised; on the other it is not easy to see why Plato, it (p. 439, &c. ). The smaller Hippias, the lon, and
even after he had laid down in his own mind the the Menexenus, on the other hand, which are
outlines of his dialectic and doctrine of ideas, should allowed by Aristotle, but assailed by Schleiermacher
not now and then, according to the separate re- i. 2, p. 295, ii. 3, p. 367, &c. ) and Ast (p. 303,
quirements of the subject in hand, as in the Pro- &c. 448), might very well maintain their ground
tagoras and the smaller dialogues which connect as occasional compositions of Plato. As regards the
themselves with it, have looked away from them, thorough criticism of these dialogues in more recent
and transported himself back again completely to times, Stallbaum in particular, in the prefaces to
the Socratic point of view. Then again, in Her- his editions, and Hermann (p. 366, &c. 400, &c. ),
mann's mode of treating the subject, dialogues have rendered important services.
which stand in the closest relation to each other, as However groundless may be the Neo-platonic
the Gorgias and Theaetetus, the Euthydemus and assumption of a secret doctrine, of which not even
Theaetetus, are severed from each other, and the passages brought forward out of the insititious
assigned to different periods ; while the Phaedon, Platonic letters (vii
. p. 341, e. ii. p. 314, c. ) contain


## p. 399 (#415) ############################################

PLATO.
399
PLATO.
any evidence (comp. Hermann, i. pp. 544, 744, note to become like the Etemal. This impulse is the
755), the verbal lectures of Plato certainly did love which generates in Truth, and the develop
contain an extension and partial alteration of the ment of it is termed Dialectics. The hints re.
doctrines discussed in the dialogues, with an ap- specting the constitution of the soul, as independent
proach to the number-theory of the Pythagoreans ; of the body ; respecting its higher and lower na-
for to this we should probably refer the “ unwritten ture ; respecting the mode of apprehension of the
assumptions" (áypapa Góyuara), and perhaps also former, and its objects, the eternal and the self-
the divisions (daupérels), which Aristotle mentions existent ; respecting its corporisation, and its
(Phys. ir. 2, ib. Simpl. f. 127, de Generat. et Cor- longing by purification to raise itself again to
rupt
. ii
. 3 ; ib. Joh. Philop. f. 50 ; Diog. Laërt. its higher existence : these hints, clothed in the
ii. 80). His lectures on the doctrine of the good, form of mythus (Phuodr. p. 245, c. ), are followed
Aristotle, Heracleides Ponticus, and Hestiaeus, up in the Phaedrus by panegyrics on the love of
had noted down, and from the notes of Aristotle beauty, and discussions on dialectics (pp. 251–
some valuable fragments have come down to us 255), here understood more immediately as the
(Arist. de Anima, i. 2 ; ib. Simpl. et Joh. Philop. ; art of discoursing (pp. 265, d. 266, b. 269, c. ).
Aristox. Harmonica, ii. p. 30 ; comp. Brandis, de Out of the philosophical impulse which is developed
Perditis Aristotelis Libris, p. 3, &c. ; and Trende- by Dialectics not only correct knowledge, but also
lenburg, Platonis de Ideis et Numeris Doctrina). correct action springs forth. Socrates' doctrine re-
The Aristotelic monography on ideas was also at specting the unity of virtue, and that it consists in
least in part drawn from lectures of Plato, or con. true, vigorous, and practical knowledge ; that this
versations with him. (Aristot. Metaph. i. 9. p. knowledge, however, lying beyond sensuous per-
990, b. 11, &c. ; ib. Alex. Aphrod. in Schol. in ception and experience, is rooted in self-conscious-
Arist. p. 564, b. 14, &c. ; Brandis, l. C. p. 14, &c. ) ness and has perfect happiness (as the inward har-
mony of the soul) for its inevitable consequence :
III. The PHILOSOPHY OF Plato.
this doctrine is intended to be set forth in a pre-
The attempt to combine poetry and philosophy liminary manner in the Protagoras and the smaller
(the two fundamental tendencies of the Greek dialogues attached to it. They are designed, there-
mind), gives to the Platonic dialogues a charm, fore, to introduce a foundation for ethics, by the
which irresistibly attracts us, though we may have refutation of the common views that were enter-
but a deficient comprehension of their subject tained of morals and of virtue. For although not
matter. Even the greatest of the Grecian poets even the words ethics and physics occur in Plato
are censured by Plato, not without some degree of (to say nothing of any independent delineation of
passion and partiality, for their want of clear ideas, the one or the other of these sciences), and even dia-
and of true insight (de Rep. iii. p. 387, 8, ii. p. 377, lectics are not treated of as a distinct and separate
x pp. 597, c. , 605, a. , 608, a. , v. p. 476, b. , 479, province, yet he must rightly be regarded as the
472, d. , vi. p. 507, a. , de Leg. iv. p. 719, c. , Gorg. originator of the threefold division of philosophy
p. 501, b. ). “ Art is to be regarded as the capacity (Aristocles, ap. Euseb. Praep.