A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

PLATO. PLATO. 395
pomp. ap. Athen. xi. p. 508, c), Protagoras (Diog. anatreptically); as also dialogues which communiLatrt. iii. 37), Epicharmus (Alcimus ap. Diog. Laert. cated instruction theoretically (physically or logiiii. 9, &c.), Philolaus (Diog. Laert. iii. 9). But as cally), and practically (ethically or politically),
the latter accusation is refuted both by the contra- (Diog. Lafirt. iii. 49; Albin. Isac. 128.) With
diction which it carries in itself, and by comparison regard to the second point, attention was espeof the Pythagorean doctrine with that of Plato, so cially directed to the dramatic character of the
is the former, not only by the weakness of the dialogues, and, according to it, the Alexandrian
evidence brought forlward 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,
II. THE WNV-RITING;S OF PLATO. Minos, Epinomis Criton, Phaedon, Letters),
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-nanied division into invesadmired 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 as a conclusion to the dialogues Theaetetus,
of question and answer (Diog. Lairt. iii. 48; comp. Sophistes, and Politicus, one called Philosophus,
Arist. Elench. Sop/s. 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. LaUfrt. GCritias, p. 1 08, a. c.). In place of the unwritten,
1. 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 (Dicg. Lagrt. passim); but Plato has Clitophon. (Diog. Laert. iii. 56; comp. Albin. Islg#,
handled 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 gebut to lead to the spontaneous discovery of it. nuine and spurious dialogues, partly because, negThe 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 Saluel
1. 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 Viewo of thle Works of Pltto, p. 9), and
attention of the reader, at the same time to give Serranus, which connect themselves more or less
him 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 difterlocutors, 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 Schleiersible not to feel the difficulty of rendering to macher, for the purpose of carrying out this suponeself 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 understandhardly 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 nas
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. 1 2), could appear credible only to partisans with Plato's declaration of the insufficiency of
of the more modern 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 imme- 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, sonle distinguished dramatic, narrative, only adapted to remind the reader of convictions
and mixed dialogues (Diog. Lai'rt. iii. 50), others that have been produced and seized in a lively maninvestigating 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 composior peirastically,) alld agonistically (endeictically or tion of written works, he must doubtless have con