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

PLATO. PLATO. 397
this, that the former had demonstrated the insuf- two dialogues, however. and their organization
ficiency of the usual moral definitions in reference as regarded from the point of view of this assunlpto the ideas of virtue as connected with tempe- tion, is not altogether intelligible. (Comp. Herrance (owappoer1'v), bravery, and holiness, to which mann, p. 525. 27.) But as little should we, with
the latter had called attention generally. The Ed. Zeller (I. c. p. 194, &c.), look for the missing
profound dialogue Parmenides, on the other hand, member of the trilogy, of which we have part in the
we cannot with Schleiermacher regard either as a Sophistes and Politicus,in the exclusively dialectical
mere dialectic exercise, or as one of the earlier Parmenides. (Comp. Hermann, p. 671, note 533.)
works of Plato (comp. Ed. Zeller's Platonisclhe But Plato might the sooner have given up the sepaStudien, p. 1 84, &c.), but rather see ourselves com- rate exhibition of the philosopher, partly inasmuch
pelled to assign it a place in the second series of as the description of him is already mixed up with
the dialogues of Plato. The foundation of this the representation of the sophist and the politician,
series is formed by the dialogues Theaetetus, So- partly as the picture is rendered complete by
phistes, and Politicus, which have clearly a mutual means of the Symposium and the Phaedon, as
connection. Before the Theaetetus Schleiermacher well as by the books on the state. Meantime the
places the Gorgias, and the connection of the two place which Schleiermacher assigns to those two
is indubitable, in so far as they both exhibit the dialogues between the Sophistes and Philebus may
constant and essential in opposition to the change- be regarded as amply justified, as even Hermann
able and contingent, the former in the domain of admits in opposition to Ast and Socher (pp. 398,
cognizance, the latter in that of moral action; and 469, 526). Only we must reserve room at this
as the Theaetetus is' to be placed before the So- same place for the Parmenides. In this most
phistes, Cratylus and other dialogues, so is the difficult of the Platonic dialogues, which has been
Gorgias to be placed at the head of the Politicus, treated of at length by Ed. Zeller (I. c.), Stallbaum
Philebus and the Politeia. Less certain is the (Platonis Parmenides, cuer IV. libris Prolegomeposition assigned by Schleiermacher to the Menon, norunm, Lips. 1 839), Brandis (Geschic/cte der Griecih.
Euthydemus and Cratylus, between the Theaetetus Rofn. Philosophie, ii. I, p. 234, &c., comp. p. 169,
and Sophistes. The Menon seems rather expressly note), and others, we find on the one hand the
designed to form a connecting link between the inves- outlines of the doctrine of ideas with the difficulties
tigations of the Gorgias and those of the Theaetetus, which oppose themselves to it briefly discussed,
and on the one hand to bring into view the dis- on the other hand a considerably more extended
tinction discussed in the latter between correct attempt made to point out in connection with the
notion and true apprehension, in its application to conceptions considered in themselves, and in partithe idea of virtue; on the other hand, by means of cular with the most universal of them, the One and
this distinction to bring nearer to its final decision Existence, the contradictions in which the isolated,
the question respecting the essence of the good, as abstract contemplation of those conceptions involves
of virtue and the possibility of teaching it. It us; manifestly in order to pave the way for the
might be more difficult to assign to the Euthydemus solution of those difficulties. In this the Parmeits definite place. Although with the ridicule of nides is closely connected with the Sophistes, and
the empty polemical artifices of sophists which is might be placed immediately after the Cratylus,
contained in it, there are connected intimations before the Symposium and Phaedon. But that
respecting wisdom as the art of those who are in a the Philebus is to be regarded as the immediate
condition at the same time to produce and to use transition from the second, dialectical, series of
what they produce, the dialogue nevertheless should dialogues to the third, Schleiermacher has inconprobably be regarded as an occasional piece. The trovertibly shown; and the smaller dialogues,
Cratylus opposes to the scoffing art of the sophist, which as regards their contents and form are related
dealing in grammatical niceties, the image of dia- to those of the second series, in so far as they are
lectic art which recognises and fashions language as not banished as spurious into the appendix, should
a necessary production of the human mind. It be ranked with them as occasional treatises. In
should, however, find its appropriate place not the third series the order for the books on the state
before the Sophistes (where Schleiermacher places (Politeia), the Timnaeus and the Critias, has been
it), but after it, as the application of dialectic to expressly marked by Plato himself, and with the
language could hardly become a matter of inquiry books on the state those on the laws connect themuntil the nature of dialectic had been discussed, as selves as a supplement.
is done in the Sophistes. The Eleatic stranger, Ast, though throughout polemically opposed to
when questioned by Socrates respecting the nature Schleiermacher, sees himself compelled in the main
and difference of the sophist, the statesman and to recognise the threefold division made by the
the philosopher (Soph. p. 217), answers only the latter, as he distinguishes Socratic dialogues, in
first two of these questions, in the dialogues that which the poetic and dramatic prevail (Protagoras,
bear those names, and if Plato had intended a Phaedrus, Gorgias and Phaedon), dialectic diathird and similar investigation respecting the nature logues (Theaetetuls, Sophistes, Politicus and Craof the philosopher, he has not undertaken the tylus), and purely scientific, or Socratico-Platonic
immediate fulfilment of his design. Schleiermacher dialogues (Philebus, Symposium, Politeia, Timaeus
therefore assumes that in the Banquet and Phaedon and Critias. (Platons Leben und Schriften, Leipzig,
taken together the model of the philosopher is 1816.) But through this new conception anld deexhibited in the person of Socrates, in the former signation of the first series, and by adding, in the
as he lived, glorified by the panegyric of Alci- separation of tile second and third series, an external
biades, and marked by the function, so especially ground of division to the internal one, he has been
peculiar to him, of love generating in the beautiful brought to unsteady and arbitrary assumptions
(p. 206); in the latter as he appears in death, which leave out of consideration the internal refelonging to become pure spirit. (Schleiermacher's rences. Socher's attempt to establish in place of
Platon, ii. 2. p. 358, &c.) The contents of the such arrangements depending upon internal con