Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 15.djvu/430

 416 CRITICAL NOTICES: author tells us that he did not aim in the first place at new and independent results, but rather at bringing out what seemed to be of lasting value in the mass of existing Platonic literature, and he has performed this part of his task admirably. I know of no other book from which the student can get so clear and accurate an idea of the history and present state of the " Platonic question," and it would be well if we could be sure that every one who ventures to write about Plato, or Greek philosophy generally, knew first at least what is contained in this volume. Not that Raeder has solved the Platonic question or anything like it. He has simply taken stock of all that has been done (and undone) for its solution from Schleiermacher to the present day, 1 and made a few sugges- tions of his own. That, however, is a very useful piece of work. In the account which is given of the Platonic question nothing comes out in a more striking way than the fundamental import- ance of Campbell's edition of the Sophist and Politicus (1867). Though neglected for almost a quarter of a century after its publication, it is now seen to be the true starting-point of all fruitful Platonic study. It is so with regard to the question of authenticity. The higher criticism of Plato has had an instructive history, which may be commended to theologians as a salutary warning. Raeder shows us how, starting from some more or less arbitrary conception of what was or was not Platonic, critics were led to reject dialogue after dialogue, till in 1866 Schaarschmidt left only nine, and those nine included the Laws, which Ast, and at one time Zeller, condemned as spurious. It was Campbell who made an end of all this by his treatment of the Sophist. It was seen that the higher criticism was worthless without the lower, and that it must be based on a sound exegesis. The authenticity of one dialogue after another was triumphantly vindicated, and now no one doubts the genuineness of any really important work.- It was also Campbell who first made possible a real " genetic " treatment of Plato's philosophy by proving, what all subsequent investigations have only confirmed, that the " dialectical dialogues " were later than the Eepicblic, and closely related to the Tim&us, Critias and Laws. The best chapters in Raeder's book are certainly those in which he discusses the linguistic and stylistic evidence for the date of the dialogues and the variations in the form of the dialogue itself. What he has to say about the evidence of historical and other allusions is marked by sound 1 It must, however, be observed that, though the work only appears now in a German dress, the Danish original dates from October, 1903, and there is therefore no reference to any later literature. In particular. Natorp's Ideenlehre (1903) is not dealt with. 2 Raeder rejects only the Hipparchut, Minos, Alcibiades II., Thraiif* and, more doubtfully, the Clitopho and Alcibiades I. He defends even the Epinomis, and I am pleased to see that he accepts the Epistles. Paul Wendland has, however, promised to prove these spurious in the course of the year, so it will be well to wait for what he has to say.