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