Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/206

Rh military and political events, and scarcely interrupted by them. Athens appears as the centre of the excitable Hellenic mind, profoundly stirred by the arrival of great sophists, 1 and keenly alive to the questions of Socrates, although in the pages of Plato, even more than in reality, he only u whispers with a few striplings in a corner. &quot; For, in the Platonic grouping, the agora, which was the chief scene of action for the real Socrates, retires into the background, and he is principally seen consorting with his chosen companions, who are also friends of Plato, and with the acquaintances whom he makes through them. The scene is narrowed (for the Academy was remote from the bustle of resort, and Plato judged the Hellenic world securely from the vantage-ground of partial retirement) but the figures are distinct and full of life. In reading the dialogues, we not only breathe the most refined intellectual atmosphere, but are also present witnesses of the urbanity, the freedom, the playfulness, the generous warmth of the &quot; best society &quot; in Athens. For Plato has a numerous repertory of dramatis persons?, who stand in various relations to his chief character -the impetuous Chaerephon, Apolloclorus the inseparable weak brother, old Crito the true-hearted, Phsedo the beloved disciple, Simmias and Cebes, who have been with Philolaus, the graceful and ingenuous Phsedrus, the petulant Philebus, Thesetetus of the philosophic nature, who is cut off in his prime, and the incorrigible Alcibiades ; then Plato s own kinsmen Glaucon the irrepressible in politics, in quarrel, and in love, Adimantus, solid and grave, Critias in his phase of amateur philosopher, and not as what he after wards became, Charmides, not in fiery manhood, but in his first bloom of diffident youth ; and many others who appear as mere acquaintances, but have an interest of their own the accomplished Agathon, the gay Aristophanes, Eryximachus the all-worthy physician, Meno, light of spirit; Callias, entertainer of sophists, Callicles the wilful man of the world, Cephalus the aged father of Lysias, and Nicias the honoured soldier. All these appear, not as some of them do on the page of history, in sanguinary contention or fierce rivalry, but as peaceful Athenians, in momentary contact with Socrates, whose electric touch now benumbs and now exhilarates, and sometimes goads to frenzy of love or anger. Still more distantly related to him, as it were standing in an outer circle, are the imposing forms of Gorgias and Protagoras, surrounded with the lesser lights of Hippias, Prodicus, and Polus. Thrasyinachus, Euthydemus, Dionysodorus hang round like comic masks, adding piquancy to the design. The adversaries Anytus and Meletus are allowed to appear for a moment, but soon vanish. The older philosophers, though Socrates turned away from them, also make their entrance on the Platonic stage. Parmenides with his magnificent depth is made to converse with the imaginary Socrates, who is still quite young. A stranger from Elea plays an important part in some later dialogues, and Timanis the Pythagorean is introduced discoursing of the creation of the world. In these dialogues Socrates is mostly silent ; in the Philebus he has lost himself in Plato ; and in the twelve books of the Laws, where an unnamed Athenian is the chief speaker, even the Platonic Socrates finally disappears. Now, in evolving his philosophy from the Socratic basis, Plato works along three main lines, the ethical and political, the metaphysical or scientific, and the mystical. All three are often intimately blended, as in the close of Rep., bk. vi., and even where one element is uppermost the others are not wholly suppressed. But this distinction, like that sometimes made in modern philo- 1 It had been part of the policy of Pericles to draw distinguished foreigners to Athens. sophy between the good, the true, and the beautiful, is one which, if not unduly pressed, may be usefully borne in mind. Having noted this once for all, we pass to the more detailed consideration of the several dialogues. I. Laches, Charmides, Lysis. In this first group Socrates is dealing tentatively with single ethical notions. The result in each case is a confession of ignorance, but the subject has been so handled as to point the way to more fruitful discussions in the future. And suggestions are casually thrown out which anticipate some of the most far-reaching of Plato s subsequent contemplations. The Laches is a vigorous sketch, in which the characters Laches of the soldier, the aged citizen, and the prudent general are w r ell preserved ; and Socrates is seen conversing with his elders, although with reference to the treatment of the young. The question raised is the definition of courage ; and the humour of the piece consists in showing that three men, all of whom are unquestionably brave, arc unable to give an account of bravery, or to decide whether courage is an animal instinct or a mental accomplishment. Similarly, in the dialogue which bears his name, the Char- temperate Charmides, of whom all testify that (as Aristo- mides. phanes has it 2 ) he &quot; fills up the gracious mould of modesty,&quot; is hopelessly embarrassed when challenged by the Socratic method to put in words his conception of the modesty or temperance which he possesses, and which, as Socrates assures him, is a priceless gift. The Charmides contains some hints of Platonic notions, such as that of knowledge as self -consciousness, and of virtue as &quot; doing one s own business.&quot; The graceful little dialogue which bears the name of Lysis. Lysis ends, like the two former, with a confession of failure. Socrates, Lysis, and Menexenus are all friends, and think highly of friendship, yet after many efforts they are unable to tell &quot; what friendship is.&quot; Yet some of the suggestions which are here laid aside are afterwards allowed to reappear. The notion that &quot; what is neither good nor evil loves the good because of the presence of evil &quot; is expanded and emphasized in the Symposium. And the conception of an ideal object of friendship, an O.VTO &amp;lt;f&amp;gt;iov (though rejected as in the criticism of Aristotle by the characteristic rednctio ad infinitum], is destined to have a wider scope in the history of Platonism. II. Protagoras, lo, Meno. The previous dialogues have marked the distinction between unconscious and conscious morality, and have also brought out the Socratic tendency to identify virtue with the knowledge of good. Now, the more strongly it is felt that knowledge is inseparable from virtue the more strange and doubtful appears such unconscious excellence as that of Laches, Charmides, or Lysis. Hence arises the further paradox of Socrates, &quot;Virtue is not taught, and that which is com monly regarded as virtue springs up spontaneously or is received unconsciously by a kind of inspiration.&quot; Protagoras, in the dialogue named after him, is the Prota- professor of popular, unscientific, self-complacent excel- S oras - lence ; while Socrates appears in his life-long search after the ideal knowledge of the best. The two men are naturally at cross purposes. Protagoras contends that virtue is taught by himself and others more or less success fully, and is not one but many. Socrates disputes the possibility of teaching virtue (since all men equally pro fess it, and even statesmen fail to give it to their sons), but affirms that, if it can be taught, virtue is not many, but one. The discussion, as in the former dialogues, ends inconclusively. But in the course of it Plato vividly sets forth the natural opposition between the empiric and scientific points of view, between a conventional and an Nub., 995, TTJJ alSovs fj.f(is r&yafj. avair