Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/407

Rh PLATO. Lacrt, iii. 37), Epicharmns(Alcimus ap. Diog. Laert. iii. 9, &c.), Philolaus (Diog. Laert. iii. 9). But as the latter accusation is refuted both by the contra- diction which it carries in itself, and by comparison of the Pythagorean doctrine with that of Plato, so is the former, not only by the weakness of the evidence brought forward in its favour, but still more by the depth and purity of moral sentiment, which, with all the marks of internal truth, is re- flected in the writings of Plato. IL The Writings of Plato. These writings, by a happy destiny, have come down to us complete, so far as appears, in texts com- paratively well preserved, and have always been admired as a model of the union of artistic perfection with philosophical acuteness and depth. Plato was by no means the first to attempt the form of dialogue. Zeno the Eleatic had already written in the form of question and answer (Diog. Laert. iii. 48 ; comp. Arist. Elencli. Soph. 10). Alexamenus the Teian and Sophron in the mimes had treated ethical subjects in the form of dialogue (Diog. Laert. /. c. ; Athen. xi. p. 505, b. ; Olympiod. p. 78 ; comp. Plermann on Arist. Poet. p. 93, &c.) ; .Xenophon, Aeschines, Antisthenes, Eucleides, and other Socratics also had made use of the dia- logical form (Diog. Laert. passim) ; but Plato has handled this form not only with greater mastery tlian any one who preceded him, and, one may add, than any one who has come after him, but, in all probability, with the distinct intention of keeping by this very means true to the admoni- tion of Socrates, not to communicate instruction, but to lead to the spontaneous discovery of it. The dialogue with him is not merely a favourite method of clothing ideas, handed down from othei-s, as has recently been maintained (Hermann, /. c. i. p. 354), but the mimetic- dramatic form of it is intended, while it excites and enchains the attention of the reader, at the same time to give him the opportunity and enable him to place him- self in the peculiar situations of the different in- terlocutors, and, not without success, with them to seek and find. But with all the admiration which from the first has been felt for the distinct- ness and liveliness of the representation, and the richness and depth of the thoughts, it is impos- sible not to feel the difficulty of rendering to oneself a distinct account of what is designed and accomplished in any particular dialogue, and of its connection with others. And yet again it can hardly be denied that each of the dialogues forms nn artistically self-contained whole, and at the. same time a link in a chain. That the dialogues of Plato were from first to last not intended to set before any one distinct assertions, but to place the objects in their opposite points of view (Cic. Acad. i. 12), could appear credible only to partisans of the more modern sceptical Academy. Men who took a deeper view endeavoured, by separating the ditferent kinds and classes of the dialogues, or by arranging together those which had a more imme- diate reference to each other, to arrive at a more correct understanding of them. With reference to the first, some distingtiished dramatic, narrative, and mixed dialogues (Diog. Laert. iii. 50), others investigating and instructing dialogues, and again Buch as investigated gymnastically (maieutically or psirasticivlJy,) and agonistically (cndeictically or PLATO. 395 anatreptically) ; as also dialogues which communi- cated instruction theoretically (physically or logi- cally), and practically (ethically or politically). (Diog. Laert. iii. 49 ■ Albin. Isag. 128.) With regard to the second point, attention was espe- cially directed to the dramatic character of the dialogues, and, according to it, the Alexandrian grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium arranged a part of them together in trilogies (Sophistes, Politicus, Cratylus — Theaetetus, Euthyphron, Apology — Politeia, Timaeus, Critias — the Laws, Minos, Epinorais — Criton, Phaedon, Letters), the rest he left unarranged, though on what grounds he was led to do so it is not easy to discover. Thrasylus, in the age of Tiberius, with reference to the above-named division into inves- tigating and instructing dialogues, divided the whole number into tetralogies, probably because Plato had given intimation of his intention to add as a conclusion to the dialogues Theaetetus, Sophistes, and Politicus, one called Philosophus, and to the trilogy of the Politeia, Timaeus, and Critias, the Hermocrates (Plat. Politic, p. 257, a. Critias, p. 108, a. c). In place of the unwritten, if intended, Philosophus, Thrasylus adds to the first of the two trilogies, and as the first member of it, the Cratylus ; to the second, in place of the Hermocrates, and again as the first member, the Clitophon. (Diog. Laert. iii. 56 ; comp. Albin. /sa^, &.C. p. 129). Although this division appears to have been already usual in Varro's time (de Ling. Led. vi. 80, Bip.), and has been adopted in many manuscripts, as well as in the older editions, it is not more satisfactory than the others which have been mentioned, partly because it combines ge- nuine and spurious dialogues, partly because, neg- lecting internal references, it not unfrequently unites according to merely external considerations. Nor have the more recent attempts of Samuel Petitus {Miscell.m.2), Sydenham {Synopsis, or General View of the Works of Plato, p. 9), and Serranus, which connect themselves more or less with those earlier attempts, led to any satisfactory arrangement. Yet at the basis of all these dif- ferent attempts there lies the correct assumption, that the insight into the purport and construction of the separate Platonic dialogues depends upon our ascertaining the internal references by which they are united with each other. As Schleier- macher, for the purpose of carrying out this sup- position, endeavoured to point out in Plato himself the leading ideas which lay at the foundation, and by means of them to penetrate to the understand- ing of each of the dialogues and of its connection with the rest, he has become the originator of a new era in this branch of investigation, and might with good reason be termed by L Bekker, who has done so much for the critical restoration of the text, Plat'inis resiitutor. Schleiermacher starts with Plato's declaration of the insufficiency of written communication. If he regarded this as the lifeless image of living colloquy, because, not being able to unfold its meaning, presenting itself to those who do understand as to those who do not, it produces the futile belief of being possessed of knowledge in those who do not know, being only adapted to remind the reader of convictions that have been produced and seized in a lively man- ner (Plat. Phaedr. p. 275), and nevertheless spent a considerable part of his long life in the composi- tion of written works, he must doubtless have con-
 * )omp. ap. Athen. xi. p. 508, c), Protafjoras (Dlog.